Countdown: John Edwards Was Right On The Economy
By Logan Murphy Tuesday Jan 22, 2008 11:48am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
On Tuesday's Countdown, Keith looks at the market meltdown and how the failed policies of President Bush and the Republicans made it possible by deregulating the institutions that led us to where the economy is today, and by borrowing money from other countries to pay for massive tax cuts here at home.
Rachel Maddow joined Keith and talked about John Edwards, who was the first presidential candidate who talked about the impending crisis and suggested an economic stimulus package to head it off -- and as long as the topic is the economy, he has the upper hand.
Maddow:"...Not only was he the first on talking about the stimulus package, as you mentioned, but he's also been the populist guy on economics. He's the guy whose been most willing from the very beginning to actually identify bad guys in the economy. To say, let's be patriotic about something other than war, let's be moralistic about something other than sex, let's talk about corporate irresponsibility and corporations that don't serve the people who work for them, or the consumers. Let's actually identify un-American bad behavior in the economy and that kind of, I think, real forceful approach to the issue, is going to place him in good stead right now."
Login or Register to post comments.
Reason #1 why the corporatistas act as if Edwards is not even in the race!
Damn straight.
EDWARDS!!!
*
Well, it would put him in good stead, if anyone in the Mainstream media was covering him. Sadly, he is relegated to the inside pages of the newspapers ( with Iraq) and not even mentioned on the teevee.
2 person race my @#$%%^.
super tuesday: "Edwards comes out of nowhere with a sweep!"
Thank god they decided to talk about this BEFORE super Tuesday.
Yes, but it apparently doesn't matter what John Edwards said because media are ignoring him in favor of the oh-so-much-more important Hillary/Obama pissing contest.
Bush and Cheney are TRYING to SET the Democrats hearings agenda.
The timing of everything that is happening, every crisis -- is NO coincidence.
They have a year left.... and we WILL expose all the crimes.
ATTN DC Bloggers/Media:
--> Marc Grossman to Testify in House on Wednesday
That Marc Grossman, who has been named in the Sibel Edmonds case
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5594
Reich-wingers are gearing up to blame Democrats for the problems with the economy.
Didn't he vote for the much-maligned Bankruptcy Bill that is viewed as pro-industry and anti-consumer? Can someone explain the disconnect?
um, yeah, edwards--although NOT my first choice--would be a much better candidate than either obama or billary.
i am beyond sick of the MSM-manufactured race btwn obama and clinton. especially when it is edwards that, head to head, beats all the GOP neofascists.
and i am even more sick of bill friggin clinton. bill, i quit you. you wore out your welcome a loooooong time ago. now, please, g'way.
edwards has the corporatocracy in a huff. for me, that is a good sign.
Another win for the "Grown-up Wing".
Go, Johnny Go!!!
But the preznit said this is an "ownership society". He didn't say that his job ain't done until every one of is pwned by corporatists.
Dr. Matt @ 8:
well, that just shot my blood pressure up to dangerous levels.
and, of course, the msm will just repeat the reichwing lies without clarification or refutation.
they will not mention that since the 1980s our econ policy, from reagan to bush to clinton to bush, has been a reichwing econ policy. no, none of this will be mentioned.
However, even though most people thought Edwards won the last debate, many were going to vote for Obama anyway. What principle is keeping the dems from nominating the most likely to be elected in the general?
gene214 @ 6:
All together now: Fuck the corporate media.
We are the media. Olbermann is the media.
Reports of Edwards being finished are greatly exaggerated. Like I said yesterday, I hope the lawyers in the USA keep pumping funds into his campaign. It's about his message.
If the Democrats were smart, they would realize that they are inheriting a no-win economy, for which they're going to be blamed. Edwards is the only President who could convincingly point to the corporate military-industrial complex and say, "THAT is your enemy which caused this."
And the people would look back, and believe him.
No such scenario can exist with Hillary and Obama, bought and paid for by corporate interests.
What is it with us that we vote against our own interests?
Edwards has articulated the most progressive policies..he is the most pro-minority, the most pro-feminist, pro-poor, pro-middle class, pro-labor, pro-people!
but instead anti everything except herself Hillary leads ...
and she will lose to McCain and so will Obama who is more progressive than Hillary but too concilatory
No stimulus package would fix this solvency problem, we need to attack the root of the problem, and Ron Paul has been right on these issues for 30 years. Edwards barely understands how to tie his own shoes, let alone how to "fix" this massive economic crises, the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1930's.
AP - 5 minutes ago
NEW YORK - Wall Street plunged yet again Wednesday, sending the Dow Jones industrials down as much as 323 points.
Actually it was Ron Paul who warned about this economic crash and reason behind it a while ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_Qt8EyydcE
It's a shame that he's not going to get the nomination. He'd rock.
I'd say Edwards has no chance of being in a Hillary or Obama cabinet.
Can't be biting the hand that feeds you.
American Consumers have run into a brick wall going 80 MPH over the speed limit.
Please Democrats wake up!
I really think that Edwards has the ability to bring this country together for all the right reasons. Not by playing to the middle but by tapping into our best instincts - about wanting to live in a society that gives a fair shake to everyone.
And my brother, the life-long, ditto-head Republican actually likes the guy and said he would vote for him over Huckabee or Romney.
Please people - don't blow this.
Josh @ 19:
Uh, *I* warned about this economic crash years ago.
That doesn't make me presidential material.
Lets see what stocks to buy.
Good Times or Bad times American will,
Drink Brew
Smoke
Gamble
Obama bothers me. He's my age exactly and should understand the dynamics of progressives more than he seems to. He has "misspoken" or been "misinterpreted" too many times. What is is Obama really saying when he speaks. I can't figure it out.
bill clinton is why the press missed this. you know who to blame.
biglib @ 17:
it is funny that you mention ron paul, the great depression and "fix" in the same post...
it seems to me that ron paul, had he been prez at that time, would have made things worse. and, instead of "hoovervilles", there would be "paulvilles"
and it would be the same today, ron paul, in his libertarian quest would empower the already powerful.
ron paul is the last person to look to to solve our problems today.
pufferfish @ 23:
Wake up to what? Massive social spending (exascerbating the problems we have), ridiculous economic "stimulus" packages that do nothing to solve any financial crisis, have i got that right?
YOU NEED TO WAKE UP my friend, and take a long hard look at how we've gotten to where we are, and quit just scratching the surface. Eventually you'll come to the realization that there are really only about 5 people in the halls of the Congress that give a flying shit about you or me and that the rest of these bafoons whether Democrat or Republican are the same wolves in sheeps clothing and have no problems screwing you and your family to the wall with the rest of their rich buddies.
Lollimom @ 24:
Except there is proof of RP warning about this.
He has been proved correct on many issues thus far. The economy, the war, inflation, the dollar sinking, the NAU.......
But, you are right, having an economic scholar in the white house is not very historic or 'Presidential'. We need another slimy lawyer like edwards to run the country.
I believe - sincerely - that they all should listen to me.
I have posted my take on what is wrong at http://www.foxnews-follies.com
I am certain that most of you, except trolls, will agree.
Josh @ 30:
PaulBot alert. Warning! Warning!
Edwards has a PhD. in pandering. you have thousands of corporations in this country that give people jobs, goods and service but Americans want to blame them. A stimulus package is only going to help in the short run. We should cut the capital gains tax or the corporation tax so there can be reinvestment which will bring on new jobs, that will help the economy!
Its not for the benevolence of the butcher the baker or the brewer you have your meals!!!!!
Utterly amazing how gullible you guys are....
Ya'll better start putting a plan together. Because as the nation’s stock and bond markets continues to crash, confidence continues to erode, credit shrivels up, consumption continues to shrink, and inflation continues to skyrocket.
Not good at all.
chris @ 33:
Please direct me to any indications that Hillary and Obama are going to do anything more for the working classes. Also, please point out which companies are just giving away jobs willy nilly.
Sister says
Isn't John Edwards worth 54 million dollars?
Is he trying to free the poor or help the middle class?
Children,
Rich, good-looking, rich, southern, Christian male is getting ready to do Moses!
who's Zooming who? Aretha Franklin
Edwards 08
Best for middle class, economy, environment, beats ALL GOP candidates (we can not afford to lose supreme court or another 4 years of Reaganomics/Bushonomics/Corporatism plummeting our economy into a neverending abyss)...
Presidential Forum on Climate Change - All candidates from all parties invited (Edwards, Clinton & Kucinich were the only ones that gave a crap enough to show up - including Richardson)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/23/16949/082
Edwards Campaign (Carbon neutral since March 07)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/14/164646/292
Its the Green Economy Stupid...
http://www.grist.org/news/2008/01/21/index.html
They must be kidding, at least the admit they don't understand economics, but they obviously miss CSPAN. Someone has been right for decades, check some recent clips, then check out decades of testimony, speeches, and HR's submitted at his Congressional page.
February 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2493019993443374205&q=bernanke+s...
November 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4031795252856609357&q=bernanke+...
Samson- @ 28:
This country is lost, and you're to blame. We'll get along just fine with "stimulus" packages and much more federal spending. Nothing to see here folks.
No no, eliminating income taxes, reducing federal government and its spending and borrowing to its constitutional size, and putting us back on the path to having a sound currency without the massive economic "cycles" we currently have is crazy talk.
By the way, your take on the depression, yeah, FDR saved us (yeah sure he did), i get it...talk to someone who might not read because i'm not buying any of the bullshit you're selling.
Lollimom @ 32:
Idiot sheep bot alert! Idiot sheep bot alert! WARNING WARNING!!
You're a danger to our republic.
chris @ 33:
Utterly amazing how absurd your post is. The capital gains tax has already been cut. The corporate tax rate might officially be 35%, but do you honestly think that is what they pay?
chris @ 33:
you and your neoliberal, ignorant, policy formulations are what got us into the trouble we are in now.
we have bent over backwards for corporations. and they ship jobs overseas. as a whole we are making less today than we did in the decades past, yet the corporations are becoming phenom wealthy. corporations write favorable legislation for themselves, they ARE our government, and you want to further their power.
you go on and continue to be an ignorant sheep, but if you peddle your inaccuracies around here expect to be shot down.
Good thing Edwards is running so other politicians can rip off his good ideas. He really is the most charitable and community-spirited candidate.
Travis @ 35:
I never said they were, its not there job. Corporations don't "give" away jobs, they grow and create them, if we stop taxing them to death that is...
Edwards is the only one to turn this country around. Hillary is hoping for the Mexicans in Florida to vote for her. The sad part is, they will.
The Bush "rescue package" by the way contains increased incentives for business and industry, under the U.S. jobs export program, to export more U.S. jobs.
O'Reilly's commentary on the economy was based on a bogus study by Heritage Foundation fellow, Robert Rector, has been peddling for years the notion that America’s poor are living large on the taxpayer’s dime. O’Reilly and Rector are using faulty analysis and outright falsehoods to attempt to reincarnate Ronald Reagan’s fictional welfare queens.
There's more details, and evidence of Rector sponging off of his own article from 3 years prior, here:
Dishonesty In Politics And In Media by Bill O’Reilly
BTW, that 's actually the title of O'Reilly's column. Nice of him to admit it.
checkers or chess @ 36:
He earned every penny. He's no Trust Fund baby or Corporate despot.
checkers or chess @ 36:
He didn't start with $54 million. He did a lot to earn it, which is far more than the current president has done. If I'm looking for someone who can help end poverty, I want someone who has shown he/she can be successful. Unlike W, who has failed at everything.
We need a new president or a new house of representatives and fast. The house failed to override the president's veto on the SCHIP bill today. At this point I'm just hoping the next president is a dem. Not one of those running could be half as heartless as the bastard in the oval office now.
Dr. Acula @ 42:
None of these "tax cuts" will do ANYTHING to solve any problems we're having. Quit bickering over these scraps that your government throws you. Nobody here is arguing for "corporatism" or "fascism", we're arguing for a stable and sound economy, and there are very few people who actually unerstand what that means or how to achieve it.
I think direct cash rebates are a great idea, that way everyone can pay off their credit cards and over-due bills, contributing absoultely nothing to the economy!
Sadly, there is really nothing any candidate can do about this problem, except mitigate it.
World energy production is flat lining as oil fields all across the globe are going into decline.
Oil production has been flat for a few years now after a dip in 2001 and a lackluster rise in 2003-2004.
Energy drives the generation of goods and services. As a result it drives our economy.
So long as energy grows at the same rate as the money supply, the new money printed, can chase after a growing market in goods and services. When energy is flat, goods and services are flat and an increasing money supply chases after a fixed supply of goods and services.
Our fiat money system can only function so long as energy supplies increase. It requires a world in which production and consumption can rise to infinity.
A debt based monetary system must periodically crash when goods and services are flat or declining. This is why some earlier civilizations outlawed loans with interest.
We aren't going to change our monetary system, so as energy supplies go into decline, we must live with periodic crashes in the markets, as inflated dollars seek new lows in value.
I am absolutely disgusted with Politics in General, especially Bill and Hillary and I used to be a strong supporter of the ex-President. To me - Edwards is looking good.
There are no differences between the Republicans and Democrats we elect to serve us. They are there to either feather their own nests or to further their careers and the little guy who puts them there is simply forgotten. Reid's stimulus to enact the Economic Stimulus Package in three weeks is only to skip the flak that he would see from his constituents if Congress recessed without enacting some kind of relief for those of us who are bearing the brunt of this recession. The might as well take a permanent recess for the job they are doing.
checkers or chess @ 36:
Good God, what exactly is your point? To spout rhetoric?
I wish I had the smarts to earn $54 million. Are you equating ability to earn income with failure? That makes you sound rather stupid. Have you ever taken the time to research who he represented in trials, and who he defeated (hint: Corporations don't like him)?
And all the other points you mentioned: Are you really that shallow? Answer: Apparently, yes indeed.
PS: PaulBots: Be gone with you; this be an Edwards thread, not a PaulBot thread.
Samson- @ 43:
I'm still waiting for someone to shoot them down, because it was not you. Anyway, your the guy that shops at Wal-Mart and saved alot of money for it, ever wonder how that was? If we would have been following true capitalism this would not be happening. Government is to big, we need to cut spending, cut government handout, to people and business. go back and read my Adam Smith quote..
Corporations don't "grow" jobs. They grow business. If they need people to capture that business, it isn't seen as a positive thing at all. They look to see how few people are needed to do the job and then halve the number. People are seen as "cost centers", you know, overhead??? duh.
biglib @ 39:
i am to blame... wow, you give me a lot of credit.
face it, you argue for the complete empowerment of corporations over the people.
Dale @ 50:
And i want someone who can bring about world peace, and I want marshmellows to fall out of the sky like rain! yeah!
The job of the federal government is not to end poverty. The job of the federal government is to protect you and your ability to get into or out of poverty at your choosing. Or to help those who are in poverty if you so choose. It's purpose is to protect your freedom to do these things without forcing your idealistic goals on others like me.
JEN @ 14:
Stopping the Clinton Twins?
I'm in the same boat, I would be perfectly happy with Edwards
on the ticket, I think Edwards/Richardson, with Bill bringing the
foreign policy AND shoring up the Hispanic vote would CRUSH
the Republics, even McCain, who will TOAST Hillary in the general.
But, WTF?
Keith mentions Edwards ONCE, but otherwise, it's a total news
black-out?
And, coming out of the Obama win in SC, it's going to be all
about SuperTuesday showdown, and the Billary attack squad
will be doing their usual push polling ugly to trash Obama.
We ALL know, if Edwards was in second place, they would be
nailing him the same way.....
But how DO you stop her?
IF half the Obama folks switch to Edwards, she will STILL
win.....
Sadly, he is going to come in a distant third in SC, and, do
you think THAT is going to encourage the media to mention
anything but "how soon does Edwards step aside?"
And, since neither John or Obama will step aside, I'm pretty
much resigned to Hillary cleaning house on Super Tuesday,
and then getting annihilated in the fall against McCain....
Actually, the ONLY hope I have is the Republics are stupid
enough to nominate Willard..
Even Hillary can beat him....
No one knows what their doing. From Joe Six Pack who at this moment is engorging himself with pepperoni pockets and cheese doodles to Fed Chief Ben Greenspend who at this moment is tearing out what ever remaining hair he has left on his head.
Samson-Says
Must you feed the trolls? Tsk, tsk..
Lollimom @ 56:
At times like this, this country needs more discussion and debate about ideas- not that kind of attitutde.
biglib @ 60:
Shame on me for having an idealistic goal like wanting someone to end poverty. What a pushy, selfish bastard I am.
Mollie @ 46:
MEXICANS in Florida? I don't think so.
once again! Thank you Keith Olberman.
Lollimom @ 24:
Err Dr. Paul has said for over 30 years this was going to happen. Yeah I said it
Uhhh Yed it does, It shows that he knows what he's talking about... But go ahead and vote for the guy with the best haircut.
JEN @ 14:
According to CNNN, dems are voting their race and/or gender.
"Rachel Maddow joined Keith and talked about John Edwards, who was the first presidential candidate who talked about the impending crisis..."
Are you people HIGH on something?
Ron Paul has been talking about this for DECADES!
OK. Let's establish some thing right now. The LENDING CRISIS that we are now experiencing is because of LENDING!
The solution that we CONTINUE to get from the Keynesians is to CONTINUE BORROWING!?!
A "stimulus package"? Giving back money that the US government DOESN'T HAVE?
How are they going to give back money that they don't have?
By borrowing money, or creating it out of thin air, further reducing the buying power of the money that's already out there!
WAKE UP!!! These bullshit artists DON'T CARE about YOUR children, because THEIR CHILDREN will get to go to the best schools, and have the BEST advantages.
We've given the Federal Reserve a license to print money AT WILL. Why should we be surprised that they are doing exactly that?
Ron Paul 2008.
John Rawls @ 53:
Speaking of it when is Bushes State of the Hallucination address?
Samson- @ 59:
No, that is corporatism, or "fascism" which i am wholly against. I am just as forcefully against "socialism", "collectivism" and "communism" with government controlled, centrally controlled economy. Get a clue, just because I would fight to the death against socialism doesn't mean i'm advocating some sort of hitleresque corporate controlled megastate. You can be against both centrally controlled economies and corporate controlled governments, they're not mutually exclusive.
Short term stimulus is great...but it won't sustain our trade deficit.....
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
Many neoconservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defense budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. Unfortunately, that statement is no longer true. The world's richest political entity, according to the CIA's "World Factbook," is the European Union. The EU's 2006 GDP (gross domestic product -- all goods and services produced domestically) was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the U.S. However, China's 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the U.S., and Japan was the world's fourth richest nation.
A more telling comparison that reveals just how much worse we're doing can be found among the "current accounts" of various nations. The current account measures the net trade surplus or deficit of a country plus cross-border payments of interest, royalties, dividends, capital gains, foreign aid, and other income. For example, in order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88 billion per year trade surplus with the United States and enjoys the world's second highest current account balance. (China is number one.) The United States, by contrast, is number 163 -- dead last on the list, worse than countries like Australia and the United Kingdom that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5 billion; second worst was Spain at $106.4 billion. This is what is unsustainable.
It's not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On November 7, 2007, the U.S. Treasury announced that the national debt had breached $9 trillion for the first time ever. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the so-called debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defense expenditures in comparison with the rest of the world.
The world's top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each country currently budgets for its military establishment are:
1. United States (FY08 budget), $623 billion
2. China (2004), $65 billion
3. Russia, $50 billion
4. France (2005), $45 billion
5. Japan (2007), $41.75 billion
6. Germany (2003), $35.1 billion
7. Italy (2003), $28.2 billion
8. South Korea (2003), $21.1 billion
9. India (2005 est.), $19 billion
10. Saudi Arabia (2005 est.), $18 billion
World total military expenditures (2004 est.), $1,100 billion
World total (minus the United States), $500 billion
A DEFENSE BUDGET THAT IS MORE THAN TWICE THE COMBINED WORLD EXPENDITURE OF DEFENSE SPENDING - WTFU
Unless we change course, our obscenely large military expenditures won't allow our economy to combat this situation.
An Apollo program for alternative/sustainable energy will bring manufacturing jobs back to U.S. - Calfornia is where the headquarters are, they can use existing mills, plants, etc throughout the country, we just need the political will & investment.
You can cut taxes all day long, but you can't make 'the investment class'/captains of industry put their money/holdings back into our economy...(they're buying gold, silver, putting their money into the Euro or Sterling Pound standard, real estate).
You're going to need a major explosion of opportunity & advancement, so like Al Gore (whom people riduculed for explaining the tennants of moving to a green economy) stated...we need another industrial revolution, sans pollution, etc.
Samson- @ 13:
I heard the first glimpses of it on faux radio this morning. The economy started falling apart after the Democratic Party took control of the House and Senate, etc., etc., etc.,
pissed off patricia @ 51:
And how. This is the same guy who went over to beg the Saudis to consider how oil prices are hurting their customers.
Teh Crazy. It burns.
It totally amazes me how liberals and progressives so easily forget that Kucinich was talking about the economy [ie: connections with China, etc] long before Edwards. How you all will turn your backs on a true Democrat and progressive. Edwards is so not a progressive, he is still very much corporate-backed and owned. Kucinich isn't "owned" by any corporation and continues to speak the truth for us Americans. He's still in the race and will be there until the end, despite what the MSM says. Kucinich is viable and electable ... vote your interests, not against them on "Super Tuesday". A vote for Kucinich is a choice towards real change, peace, truth and justice. If not, then voting for one of those three Corporate Imperialists will never ever bring change for poor or middle class Americans. It'll only bring about more misery, loss of democracy and endless war. Vote your conscious and heart. Be peace...............
biglib @ 52:
see, you just are too dense to understand it. you might not WANT to establish an all-powerful corporatocracy, but that is EXACTLY what your opinions you spew would do.
or do you not want complete deregulation?
or do you not think that corporations are being unfairly criticized?
Dale @ 65:
You are selfish, you're advocating stealing my money (through debt, taxes) to pay for your lofty idealistic absurd social programs. If you want to end poverty, it's not going to be through some stupid social program anyhow.
Samson- @ 59:
Come on guy, you don't really think Paul is for empowerment of corporations do you? Its corporatism that he's completely against, and that especially happens when government is in cahoots with big business- which is why we see the military industrial complex. Paul is for empowerment of individuals and regulation by way of courts for criminal activities corporations may engage in.
Right now the danger is more that the government is having more and more complete power over the people while they steal our money, and some big business is profiting along the way.
Shoaib Qadri @ 64:
the country does not need more debate, it needs informed debate.
When someone points out the facts of ron paul's position and refutes it on fact and merit, then YOU should pay attention rather than cloud the facts with extended pretentious debate. The light has already been shone on Ron Paul's bigoted, myopic ignorance.
My pick for the most Orwellian comment of the day.
Blue Lensman @ 63:
*sigh*
perhaps you are right...
i will try
Samson- @ 77:
That's "exactly" what my spewing opions would do, create a corporatocracy... as opposed to what we have now? Wrong. What we have now is a "corporatocracy" so to speak, where corporations control government. This is not what i'm advocating.
Somehow a lot of people got confused along the way and assumed that if you didn't support massive govenrment spending and absurd social policies that you must be in favor of a corporate controlled government. I'm not sure where this idea came from, except from poor education and lack of critical thinking skills.
Deregulation is not what caused this mess. It is time people stopped saying it, because it goes against the principles of freedom.
Where the system failed is a failure of Congress and government and the Fed. Congress is on the take, the government ignores the Constitution and the Fed is causing the bubbles and busts.
Deregulation is such a misrepresented word. Has anyone even defined the word? It's like all you have to say is "deregulation" and all of a sudden everyone is supposed to know exactly what is meant by it.
But what if one particular "deregulation" saw that a certain regulated and protected industry no longer gets subsidies at tax payer expense, and where they are forced to compete with other people? Is this a BAD deregulation?
The word deregulation has come to mean something akin to "capitalism", where the mere mention of the word incites a felling of unease and/or hatred.
Extreme neo-libs take deregulation to simply mean "less rules", resulting in a sort of "anarchy" of fraud and deceit. I think any educated person should see that this is a cop-out and a lazy definition. Deregulation is absolutely capable of making things BETTER, just as long as the deregulation makes the playing field more fair. If a certain industry or firm is unfairly held down by unfair laws that are there just to make sure other companies succeed, then deregulation will make things better.
Where the system is failing is when firms get subsidies at the average wage earner's expense. THIS is where the system is unfair. Bill Clinton during his tenure as President lowered taxes of the super rich from 30 cents to 22 cents to the dollar (an 8 cent decrease). George Bush jr during his tenure then further decreased corporate taxes by another 5 cents to the dollar, down to 17 cents to the dollar. Look it up, this is true, so money and corruption are not solely Republican things.
We all have to realize that Washington is not comprised of dems and republicans, it is comprised of those who are on the take and those who are not.
If you are going to vote for someone, make sure you vote for someone who you think is not going to be on the take. This is one way the big corporations get wealthier. They get subsidies at tax-payer expense.
CoIntelPro @ 80:
Well why don't you bring these points up because I sure never heard them. How is it informed debate to just say "You're wrong and I'm right". And how are Paul's ideas bigoted in at all when its based on individualism?
Shoaib Qadri @ 79:
he is against corporatism?
he might be, but his formula for america would empower them. s
i have nothing against ron paul as a person. he is smart, credible, honest and very thoughtful. i just happen to think he is dangerously wrong.
you deregulate, and reduce the power of the govt to protect the people, and you have created a huge power vacuum that will immediately be filled by corporate power.
the solution is to get corporations out of government, and reduce the pentagon's obscene budget. the solution is not to castrate government and give more power to corporate interests.
do-si-do @ 81:
So, this is Orwellian, the desire to keep govenrment the hell out of my pocket and off my back? Which book of his did you read? I'm pretty sure it's more orwellian to think that government can barge into my life and home, steal my money by force of arms, to use it for absurd programs that I don't neccessarily support.
My desire is for liberty and freedom, not sure how it's orwellian to think that way, I must not have read the same books of his that you did.
biglib @ 78:
Actually, if you go back, my comment was to address why the original poster would have a problem with someone wanting to end poverty just because he is worth millions. It makes no sense to take issue with someone just because they are successful. Especially considering, which was my point, Edwards wasn't handed millions: He earned it.
I would agree that the government probably has no business taking money (raising/adding taxes) to end poverty. However, I have no problem paying additional or higher taxes if it means more people have health care.
I really don't mind you calling me selfish, either. When I vote, I am being selfish. I am voting for the person who I want to be in charge of the country.
Taken from White House Press Briefing yesterday:
Q Thank you. Dana, how can the President give a great financial boost to help the ailing economy when it's being held down by $9 billion a month to pay for the Iraq war? How is he going to really bring that together?
MS. PERINO: You know, we've been at war, as you know, since September 11th -- the day after September 11th, when the President decided we were going to take the fight to the enemy.
Wait the President decided to go to war? Gee, I thought it was the White House line that Congress voted to go to war, you mean the President decided? WOW. And thanks Dana for not answering the question.
9 BILLION A MONTH!!!
Dale @ 88:
Great, you vote your way, I'll vote my way. I DON'T want to pay higher or additional taxes than i already do, i would much rather take that money and give it to a charity I trust than to give it to some wasteful pathetic government agency full of rude, lazy sloths on pension plans who are only there because it's a "government job".
Kucinich is my first choice, and will be my write in if it's hill or bama. Edwards I would vote for.
The tax cuts are working!!!!!
Dale,
If more people were selfish in the sense of accurately weighing the issues and voting in their own self-interest, this country would be a far better place.
Samson- @ 86:
De-regulation does not equate to corporatism, which assumes massive corporate influence in government operation, which is what we already have.
Give me an example of something that would cause corporatism, were it de-regulated?
Blue Lensman @ 69:
CNN = :lol:
biglib @ 83:
i love the insults--poor education, lack of critical thinking skills, thanks!!
anyhoo...
tell me, when you deregulate industry who does that benefit?
and who does privatization benefit?
Many posts that are in effect asking for more government regulation of corporations is ridiculous and transparently partisan. Not a single comment (until now) even contains the word savings, rather than spending. Both parties have consistently supported policies by the Fed to flood the market with money and credit. That excessive money supply is directly responsible for the financial sector making cheap and ill-conceived loans to people who should never have been given loans.
There absolutely should be no bail out for the financial sector. They should eat the losses.
There absolutely should be no bail out for people who can't make home payments either. A contract is a contract. It's not fair to ask the homeowner who has saved money, and has not gone on a spending binge, and can just barely afford to keep their home but continues to make payments, to then have their children's debt burden increase as a result of a bailout for people who couldn't or wouldn't control their spending.
There must be consequences to breaking a contract. Otherwise what you're asking for is to make it OK for some people to piss in the pool. And if there's an exception, a bailout, either on the corporate end, or the consumer end, those people do not learn that there are consequences and they will turn around and make the same bad decisions they did before, if not worse.
NO corporate bailout.
NO consumer bailout.
END the Fed's incessant manipulation of monetary policy, which is only postponing the inevitable and necessary correction.
The Fed responds to the collapse of underlying fictitious capital with a rate cut of 75 basis points and seemed to stem the panic for about half a day.
fwacbar @ 91:
Kucinish is spot on with regard to foreign policy, I'm completely against his domestic plans but not totally disgusted by him like the other big D candidates. Given the choice, I would still most certainly vote for him over the likes of Obama, Hillary or Edwards. You'd have to be insane to vote for those three over Kucinich.
L.A. Confidential @ 71:
What's really sad is the Democratic side isn't much better. I really like Olberman in general, but the constant Hoover/FDR comparison here doesn't really work. Most scholars will point to the shift from a peacetime to a wartime economy as the primary stimulus for economic growth and ending the depression. Certainly, looking at growth trends from the period, one can conclude that the depression would have ended eventually under FDR's New Deal, though it is impossible to say if that approach would have brought about change any faster or slower than Hoover's do-nothing approach. Speculative history is fun that way.
At any rate, the democratic plan, with specific emphasis on the Edwards plan since this is an Edwards thread, seems to be two pronged. The first is a Keynesian infrastructure spending plan. This ought to be fairly discredited by now - if government spending was going to get us out of this, the Iraq war would be doing a great job. One can argue that the war won't create as many jobs at home, it's the Halliburtons and the Boeings and the Blackwaters that benefit not the average joe - but all of these firms (except Blackwater of course) employ domestically as well. So at least to me, it seems as though you would be choosing between giving money to one group of corporations (military industrial complex) and another group of corporations (construction firms) to roughly the same effect. Quite the wash, in my opinion.
As an aside, fuck Keynes for giving politicians exactly the economic theory they have always wanted - spending money is good, do it more!
Anyway, the second component of the Edwards plan is to expand benefits, and it is this part of the plan, I think, that the Countdown segment should have focused on. Direct-cash rebates would just vanish into bills and more federal spending is just more croney capitalism at it's worst with a dash of trickle-down reaganomics, but taking over some of the costs that workers currently pay in effect increases the budgets of those workers to do with as they see fit. There is a certain psychological element to this as well that I think is important to set it apart from the cash rebates. From the data I have seen, when a person gets a rebate it is treated as a surprise bonus, and pissed away. But by internalizing some costs on workers and increasing their paychecks, the worker can reasonably expect to have more money every paycheck, not just one time, and can thus afford to increase his spending, which I guess is what we want to do.
Oh, and as one final aside, everyone in this thread should stop confusing free markets with corporatism. It's a straw man and I think you all know it.
Samson- @ 95:
I believe i was called "dense" by the original poster, be fair.
L.A. Confidential @ 97:
The explanation is simple: The problem is not liquidity, it's solvency.
John Rawls @ 99:
Edwards is the one that comes out with the issues, then Obama and Hillary STEAL his stuff and get all the MSM attention. That's BS. I have already voted for Edwards via absantee balot in California. I have also joined a group and we are doing major campaigning out here. WE will get Edwards to win the nomination.
MountainMan23 @ 103:
I'm not exactly sure what institutions he deregulated , but those institutions certainly did not open the spigots to the money supply that caused the chaos that we're experiencing right now. We can thank government spending and the Fed for that.
Bullshit. Ron Paul has been saying this for 30 fucking years.
You people and your partisan politics, its really cute.
Crooks and Liars, like that only applies to republicans. Grow the fuck up. Our nation is at stake, and you keep playing harping on the fake ass left-right paradigm.
biglib @ 90:
Why not get rid of the tax cuts to the rich and corporations so that you aren't paying such high taxes? Fiscal Responsibility does not equal tax cuts, it's spending the money you have, and spending it wisely
I think direct cash rebates are a great idea, that way everyone can pay off their credit cards and over-due bills, contributing absoultely nothing to the economy!
Actually, I'm going to have my '94 Honda painted. It runs great - we can't afford a new car as we're on a fixed income, but I'm a bit embarassed by the way it looks.
Sany @ 104:
No, you wont. Besides, he's not the right man for the job, and we're broke as a nation with NO way to pay for his lofty socialist plans.
Dr. Acula @ 1:
Cry me a river. After the media blackout on Ron Paul, your statement is a joke. And your candidate is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group whose goal is to end american sovereignty and establish a global government.
look up Carrol Quigley and search for his quotes on the CFR, if you dont believe it.
Have a nice day.
John who?? Is he that guy that interrupts Billary and Obama every once in awhile on those debates? I thought he was one of the moderators.
xxx @ 107:
I really can't argue tax issues with you, due to the complexities, the legalities, history, and the contitutionality of income taxes in the US. It would take us days. Just know that I'm against these redistributions, and instead want to eliminate income taxes, period. The world and the govenrment would not collapse if this were so.
" Just know that I’m against these redistributions, and instead want to eliminate income taxes, period. The world and the govenrment would not collapse if this were so." -- BigLib
Wow. And you think ending poverty is like asking for marshmallows to rain from the sky?
chris @ 33:
chris, why don't you take a shower and get dressed ? You still didn't take your MEDS !
this is chris
compliments of Johnny2Bad on another thread
chris is a recent resident Shillary's TROLL delegated to C&L in order to annoy all and each one. You will NOT find a single informative/positive post from chris on ANY thread.
BS gallllorre from chris. Do NOT feed this TROLL !!!
Site Monitor: Do NOT attack other posters. Keep your posts limited to the actual topic and not other commenters.
Dale @ 113:
I did write to my Rep, Pete Sessions (R) asking why he needed my tax dollars when he is willing to conjure and spend and infinite quantity of money from nothing at all.
Dale @ 113:
I think the old truism should be about death and poverty, because eliminating taxes is an achievable goal.
biglib @ 109:
biglib: plse rush to your shrink before you try to commit suicide. Do not call us any more here, we'll call you.
Weaseldog @ 115:
How else are you going to pay the Money Fairy?
Dale @ 118:
I don't think Pete Sessions is smart enough to understand your snark.
But I think it is funny. :)
CappuccettoRosso @ 117:
I'm not sure if you were trying to insult me or what, you just didn't make any sense, but, whatever.
Hank @ 106:
I agree, when I read that Edwards was allegedly the FIRST person to say anything about the crisis, I was like WTF??? Have we been living under a rock or something?
WOW....just......WOW
biglib @ 87:
What charities DO you support? just wondering. I'm saying it's a little backwards to call someone who wants to help others selfish. That's my point. Of course, you don't want to hand over your money. That's quite clear. But we are still a community as well as a bunch of individuals. If the community was taking care of their social problems without govt intervention that would be great!
JEN @ 14:
I think it's alemmings principle they wil follow whatever the MSM says or maybe it's the He can't win because well he just can't, look he hasn't won a poll or causus,
What it is is really stupid everything is framed as hilary or obama which is really stupid and if either one of them is the nominee I'm writing in Edwards because I would rather vote with my conscience and lose than vote for a winner and still lose more in the long run
Look- as far as the Ron Paul guys go, let em be- they are helping the Progressive cause - every repub vote and dollar they keep out of McCain's hands is fine by me. LET THEM DO THEIR THING.
As far as "Chris" - Anyone who is championing the corporations at THIS POINT is not even sane. Let him rant.
And as far as Edwards goes: Put All your support behind him. Real Progressives that want a real end to the occupation of Iraq - give your vocal, blog, wallet support to Edwards. He is the real deal- it is apparent, over and over. Watch what the two "leaders" in the race do concerning FISA= they won't do a goddamn thing. They WILL NOT do their jobs as Senators. Their political hirelings have polled - and they've decided that doing anything concerning these important factors might be give a little gain, but COULD be a big detriment. So, they say Damn the American people right now, full speed ahead to the elections!
Edwards 08
do-si-do @ 122:
Holy canoli, are you serious? How can you say that taking from some and giving to others as anything "charitable"? Charity is a VOLUNTARY action you fool, so it requires the absence of Orwellian coercion just like biglib said. Selfishness has nothing to do with it. If you want to give to others, GO RIGHT AHEAD. It is totally a non-sequitor to say that helping others implies HARMING certain people.
See, the problem with some people is that they have tunnel-vision, and assume that any social program is going to be funded by one class of "the rich", and given to "the poor". NO NO NO NO NO!!! The poor are the ones directly affected by the higher costs of social programs.
PS Charity is a voluntary action m'kay? You can't take from some and give to others by force and call it charity. THAT's Orwellian because it gives the impression that there is only charity when there is also theft. Geez....
do-si-do @ 122:
What charities I support is irrelevant, but I have donated substantial sums to the childrens hospital, among others.
It's not backwards to call someone who wants to help other selfish, when that person wants to take money from one group of people by force and give it to other people. It is not the role of the federal government to end all poverty, its role is to provide the security and freedom in which these types of charitable things can flourish.
When federal government gets involved you end up with something that costs too much, cares too little and fails to live up to the goals for which it was created. Let me give my money to people who care about these issues deeply, who will make the most of the money we donate, and don't force me to pay taxes to pay for something that's less than people in poverty actually need and deserve.
biglib @ 126:
Hey di-si-do...how much have YOU given to charity, hmm?
Did you know that Wal-Mart gave over $200 million IN CASH to charity last year?
biglib:
"It is not the role of the federal government to end all poverty, its role is to provide the security and freedom in which these types of charitable things can flourish."
Smartest friggin thing I read all day, thanks...
JEN @ 14:
It's the DLC, an AIPAC tool. Rahm Emanuel is Shillary's enabler. He moves into Rove's WH office in case they succeed. DLC screwed Gore (2000) and Kerry(2004), to keep the gate opened for Shillary in 2008. Now they do work (diebolds included) on the 2008 Edwards and Obama.
Sany @ 104:
You are right. The most important thing:
VOTE for EDWARDS in the PRIMARIES ! Don't chicken out !
Contribute via secure link
https://www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form/
EDUCATE other Voters:
If you have any doubts who owns the Dem candidates, check here:
Who Owns Your Candidate? Clinton, Obama & Edwards
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/2/134545/8905
Excellent graphs are self explanatory. If you think all this money is contributed by the corpos just because, w/out anything expected back, have your brain MRI done right away.. You might be in for a surprise !
and, keep checking the RollCall
http://www.rollcall.com/politics/kstendorsements.html
White House Endorsement Watch
K Street Endorsements - lobbyists
Clinton 63 lobbyists, incl Carlyle Group of Booosh crime family
Obama 18
Edwards 0 ==> ZERO !!
Top Reps of the Funerary Association
Mittens 24
McInsane 19
Captain 911 17
Frauderick of Hillywood 12
John is the ONLY one with comprehensive PLAN for ONE America
you can download it from http://www.johnedwards.com
He consistently wins all the debates, and is blacked-out by the corpo-media precisely b/c they are scared of him.
Remember, 76 % of Americans were convinced that Iraq was involved in the 911 attacks despite there never being any evidence of that. We're preaching to the choir here. So, keep educating your friends, relatives, whoever..
Email them with these links !
They are pushing Hillary and Obama because they are UNELECTABLE - any repuglican beats them in the GE (general election). John Edwards beats ALL the repug candidates, in every NATIONAL poll.
Vote EDWARDS in the primaries, don't chicken out !!
EDWARDS 2008 !!!
biglib @ 120:
But we have money to pay for IRAQ'd disaster, CORPOwhore WELFARE, unregulated subprimes ($$ 150 billion, as we speak, funny money that will not do much, b/c the MESS is apocalyptic), and the piggybacking DERIVATIVES @ 450 TRILLION ($2.1 TRILLION is ante portas already). The world GDP = $50 T, the NYSE value: $27 T.
Get your head examined if you don't get THIS !!! Or, be quiet.
Ya'll are a bunch of frickin' morons. You (collective of voters) nod your head and say, "Yeah!" when Edwards makes his points but when you go to the voting booth, you vote Hillary or Obama.
WTF!? You consistently vote by substituting what you think OTHER people will want for your own best interests. You think OTHER people will prefer Hillary or Obama so you ignore the fact that most of what Edwards says rings your bells the loudest and vote for them instead. You seek status quo rather than actually changing the system. You cannot change the system by voting FOR DLC candidates. You CAN'T.
So when will Blitzer announce that there are 2 candidates running?
CappuccettoRosso @ 129:
lol, biglib and you are not on opposite sides of the spectrum in regards to those problems, man. No libertarian supports any of what you just said.
al-Queda is destroying us from within....the U.S.Al-Queda, led by Dubya been Stealin. No need for planes into towers, he'll just wreck the economy for everyone but the super-rich.
CappuccettoRosso @ 129:
No CappucettoRosso, we DON'T have the money to pay for the Iraq war or corpo-whor-welfare-tunnel-syndrome...whatever the heck you were saying...just because it is occurring now, it doesn't mean things are all a-ok. There is NO money left for anything, we are now just going further in the red. You could legitimately argue that going into the red by having social programs is better, but that still won't solve anything. Going into the red fast like it is today versus going into the red slowly, there is little difference in the long run.
You know what I find strangely ironic?
This "economic stimulus" package is being touted by some liberals as the best solution. You know, Edwards is the FIRST person who thought of "economic stimulus", and so "economic stimulus" must be a good thing, right? Well, if you take that load of dung to be true, then how does this look if we are having a conversation with another liberal who hates consumerism, and thinks that Americans are too obsessed with SUVs, and too much food, and too much spending?
Have these people no clue that "economic stimulus" means EXACTLY to encourage consumer spending EVEN MORE???
I can barely contain my laughter on this, can anyone else see the irony here?
"Oh you people always want more than you have, you spend too much, you have too much debt. You know what this country needs? To have an "economic stimulus" package that encourages the very thing we denounce!!!!"
CONTRADICTION.
Any economist worth his ass will say that SAVINGS is the most important thing. This country has to find ways of SAVING. You cannot get out of debt by SPENDING more, which is what "economic stimulus" packages are designed to do.
That's why the world's markets plunged after the announcement of our "stimulus" package. The whole world KNOWS that spending more is not the answer, and now we have to listen to partisan BSers like Maddow who say that more spending is the answer? PAHLEASE...
Shoaib Qadri @ 132:
Actually what biglib said is EXACTLY what a libertarian would say.
Drew @ 135:
Thats what I meant. What I was saying is that Cappucetto Rosso is making it out as if a lbertarian would be for paying for the Iraq disaster and everything else he listed.
Shoaib Qadri @ 136:
sorry dude, my bad...
What does Bush, and his family care? Seriously, this is a President who doesn't give a damn.
It would be interesting to see how the Bush family's wealth has increased with GWB at the helm. The Bush family legacy has always been to increase their wealth at the expense of the average American pays for it. How much do we pay to protect that old bastard Bush and his family...like they need it. What a coup.
There are three types of people you don't ever engage in discussion/debate:
1) Objectivists
2) Libertarians
3) Scientologists
It just never ends.
Shlomo @ 139:
I would add super religious people to that list...that hasn't ended since oh, forever...
CappuccettoRosso @ 114:
Will try to behave ..
Shlomo @ 139:
Ditto !!!
well, i suppose there needs to be someone biased pro-Edwards on the media somewhere.
i'm just getting sick of media figures trying to claim they're 'undecided' when their proclivities are known and they are obviously biased. i like rachel maddow, but she's an obviously biased commentator. also, it was difficult to watch keith olbermann, of all people, further distorting Barack Obama's comments last night. he was full-on putting words in his mouth! not up to the level i have come to expect from 'Countdown'...
blaah, blaam bleeet, bleeeet - the stimulus package didn't get appreciated anywhere b/c it's a drop in the foul bucket: the DERIVATIVES blew up as well. The problem is too big: TRILLIONS !! Any math comprehension? And, all the world is riding this mad carousel. Get it.
Eradicating poverty is giving liberty to others. That's what Edwards is about - the ONLY candidate. Get it.
This is the EDWARDS thread - go to your own candidate and keep on TRIANGULATING, impressing one another, whining w/out solutions.
blaah, blaam bleeet, bleeeet ..
Drew @ 134:
CappuccettoRosso @ 142:
typical responses from someone who just got their ass kicked! (wimpout)
CappuccettoRosso @ 142:
You forgot Ron Paul supporters.
ysbaddaden @ 146:
Ditto !!!
CappuccettoRosso @ 147:
And people that say ditto.
Thank you, Ms. Maddows and KO for finally spewing out the positive rhetoric from Edwards.
ECONOMY! The war is simply a fear factor.
Vote Edwards!
How about MSNBC engage in another debate?
We need an honest poll!
Edwards was also at the forefront of allowing those corporations to pillage and loot our country in 2004...
Forgiveth thy banks, for they have sinned.
Do not forgiveth the meek. The chosen ones shall reposesseth the meek.
Yes Edwards, unike the other candidates, has worked his way up and knows how the economy works. Edwards is the laor unions candidate.
Public works jobs would be the best use of humanpower and government money, maddow is right on on that one!
Login or Register to post comments.