My man Jack Jodell has a great article on Occupy wall Street at his Saturday Afternoon Post. (Linked at side)
But being the goofy guy who looks deeper at everything and the consequences. I am left to wonder why in God's name the Democratic Party, yes, the Democratic Party, made this movement necessary.
One party of corporate whores was enough since the republicans embraced corporate whorism generations ago. Regualr working people had a friend in the Democratic Party. Then for whatever reason, corporate money and propaganda maybe, the Democrtatic Party became the other party of big business. Since Reagan the assault on unions and workers, workplace safety and American job security has been damn near ignored by the Democtratic Party. Being a union man or woman is now something far too many union men and women are afraid or ashamed to tell the world they are now. Nobody is willing to stand up and tell the right wing parrots to piss off when they attack people who only want security and decent benefits so they can take care of their families. We get called socialists and commies and America haters. While the Koch brothers and their propagandists work to convince America we are evil and they are the ones that care about them. All the while donating huge sums of money to right wing candidates that will make sure government works for the most wealthy and powerful while turning a blind eye to the misery heaped upon Working Americans by banks allowed to become too big to fail. By pension funds being raided by companies that then go bankrupt or sell out, screwing workers out of the retirement security they were promised.
Thousands, soon to be tens of thousands, and hopefully millions soon, will be joining Occupy Wall Street rallies all over the world. I hope to be attending one or more soon. And we all have something to say. Our kids are graduating from high school and college with zero job prospects. Congress is talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare. Two government programs that work for Christ's sake. programs that we all paid into on the promise they would be there when we need them. Our leaders say on one hand they won't cut them. Then say they must be cut on the other. Two faced bastards.
As of now the OWS movement has no leadership that I know of. I'm not sure I want it to either. Look how the Tea Party has been hijacked by kooks. Of course it was created by kooks so that's no surprise. The leadership should have come from the Democratic Party by Democrats willing to stand up to the Wall Street crowd and say i don't want your donations and ad men putting out propaganda. I want you to pay your fair share of the tax burden and not fight sensible laws and regulations that protect the millions of Americans who rely on a market with integrity for their financial security.
Howard Dean was the Democratic Party chairman. He was a damn good one. I don;t even know who the current one is. But I see our Democratic elected officials abandoning the party and it's principles all over. They care only about themselves. Then wonder where all the party members and unions are at election time. I'll tell them where they'll be. At an Occupy Wall Street rally looking for somebody who listen and act like a Democrat.
My name is Joe Hagstrom. I'm a Democrat. I just hope I'm not the only one anymore.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
Joe - If you are a Democrat, then I will stand up and be a Democrat too.
It has to start somewhere.
But I promise you won't stand alone.
Well that's two of us Sue. Now if the guys in Springfield and Washington DC will join us maybe good things will happen.
Joe - I was ready to quit the Democratic Party.
But after your post - I thought why should I quit being a Democrat.
Let's get them out.
Let's get our Party back.
Good Evening Truth ... to me what you say here is accurate, plain and simple, and I have commented and posted plenty about this myself. This country unfortunately is in one political mess, and frankly there are very few standing strong in Washington, being that it seem's that too many are on the payroll's of special interest's, and like I said before, once you take the money ... well ... you owe. It just seem's to be a constant merry- go- round Joe, and now you see the same pressure that any voting democrat has to endure, being that they have created a side so openly corupt in the right wing, that you are forced almost to choose the other party who they have waiting with also an agenda and price many of them owe to the same crowd who pay's it all ... it's just a mess basically.
Enough said
Joe - I left the republican party, and the powers that be in the party today are indeed oh hell, whats it matter...
The democratic party, well you said it pretty good, so I'll leave it at that.
Hell, with Bachmann, Gingrich, et all I don't know what a conservative is anymore. Maybe they have conservatism confused with reactionarism. Well, I guess I just made a new word anyway.
Did a let it all hang out over at my sight tonight. Probably gonna lose a few conservative readers. What the hell, they might have been following reactionarism anyway.
Damn it's tough not having a home. Oh well, better than compromising your core beliefs and principles.
Wonder i anyone has thought about a new party... maybe "The Classical Liberal Party of America"
Hell, it doesn't hurt to dream now does it.
Rational - A new party.
I think about that all the time.
For me - that's the only way.
This is difficult to write because I know it will more than likely misunderstood but while I am a liberal bordering damn near on the commie status when I listened to SOME tea baggers I understand some of what they are mad about.
Essentially it boils down to the bailout of the banks and the fact about how they feel both political parties are owned by Wall Street, or some other entity that gives less than a shit about common people.
While I realize some sort of alliance is damn near impossible it would personally curl my toes if some sort of understanding could allow what is usually opposing forces to join together.
There is no party of the people, by the people and for the people. They're too busy representing corporate persons.
If the Democratic Party were to actually promote and defend democracy, I'd join. If they promoted an end to corporate personhood and money as free speech they would have the people out voting for them in record numbers. Instead they "me too" along with the Republicans... and lose.
By opposing Republicans they could grow stronger. By appeasing them they will only suffer defeat after defeat.
I'm probably more aof a centrist than most of the folks in these parts myself BB. But I still think the party abandoned me for corporate whorism.
The going price for government influence is so high that grass roots guys can't afford it. the auction went to the highest bidder and that was corporate America.
I'm a Democrat. I'll be damned if I can think of any elected officials who are despite the D next to their names on the ballot.
I just hope OWS isn't hijacked.
And you're absolutely correct Dave. Why vote democrat when a republican is the same thing. Keeps loads of people from bothering to vote as they think, and rightly so, their's only one choice despite the two names on the ballot.
Maybe the first step will come when bloggers are willing to step out from behind the anonymity of these blog names.
Two people have already done so:
Sue Hanes
Joe Hagstrom
Anyone want to join us?
Hey Truth, long time no comment. I've been busy where I live on other matters and like you let my blog go without an update for awhile.
Imagine my surprise, and pleasure, to find you blogging about just the same thing I posted about; OWS.
You and I will disagree on a lot, but perhaps we can agree that both the Tea party and OWS movements came about because it was perceived that both the Republicans and Democrats had become less representative of their supporters than in the past.
On your side I'd say it started even sooner. Moveon.org may have been formed in 1998 in response to the impeachment of President Clinton, but it really too off when liberals believed that their representatives in Congress were not sufficiently anti-war.
On the right we see somewhat of a struggle between Tea Party and "establishment" types. The line between the two is not as clear as some (think radio talk show hosts) would have you believe, but it is there. You see it in the presidential candidates; with Mitt Romney squarely on the side of the establishment, and Cain and Bachmann more Tea Party types.
Will we see the same thing on the left, with a split between OWS sympathizers and the Democrat establishment? Maybe, but it's too early to tell. Let's give it a few months before we draw any conclusions.
One key test will simply be whether the OWS folks can make it through the winter. If they do them my hat is off to them (don't take that lightly, folks, I'm a raging right-winger).
There is no one single Tea Party, but rather several and none are top heavy in governance, which is to say they're really loose affiliations of thousands of small, autonomous Tea Parties usually organized by county or region. But each group does have an elected leader and somewhat of a hierarchy, thought this varies.
I think this makes the Tea Party movement somewhat resilient. There are leaders, but it's not top heavy. Local groups choose their own leaders and which national Tea Party organization they want to tie themselves too. They can change their affiliation, too, which keeps the national organizations on their toes.
Although the lack of any discernible hierarchy within the OWS movement much less leadership, strikes a romantic chord that I understand, I think this is a weakness. Having been deeply involved in grass-roots campaign and party organization, I can tell you that organization beats romanticism any time.
Truth, you are a union guy, so you know what I'm talking about. You know that unless you're organized you will not prevail.
It'll be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Take care and I look forward to your thoughts on my comment.
I hadn't thought about it that way but your correct about the Tea Party Hierarchy and why it's still a viable movement.
Here's where I have my problems with the Democrats and Libs as a group though Tom; We all want to rule the world.
I get twenty emails a day from different left leaning organizations asking for money for this or to be outraged at that. Some love Obama. Some hate him. I like him but still have differences with him on how he chooses to operate. Either way, there is no coherent message that is hammered home as the right has mastered.
I like reading your Redhunter blog and Les' rational Nation because you both aren't slaves to the the day's talking point. maybe that's why Les has 167 followers and not 167,000. Loyalty is important to the republicans. if the Dems are to survive they need more loyalty and discipline. We can't wait, and our nation can't afford, another Bush type presidency which leaves us in such bad shape the Republicans can do nothing but lose.
I see here that when I have a tongue in cheek post that just says republicans are dirty words, it gets loads of traffic. I put my heart into one and it gets the usual 200 hits. The next day it really falls off.
Democrats need to pick their leaders. Not the media. I like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman in small doses. they're not my leaders. From what I see locally and nationally, we don't have any. We don't have a whole helluva lot of followers either.
Tom - I thought you comment was very well written and thought out -
with many good ideas.
It was refreshing to hear from a
Conservative who is not hysterical and over the top.
and not running scared
Truth wrote "..you both aren't slaves to the the day's talking point. maybe that's why Les has 167 followers and not 167,000."
Bingo!
"I see here that when I have a tongue in cheek post that just says republicans are dirty words, it gets loads of traffic. I put my heart into one and it gets the usual 200 hits. The next day it really falls off. "
Me too. I write an analytical piece that takes me hours and it gets no comments. I do an "outrage of the day" post and the comments fly. Discouraging, but that's human nature.
Sue - thank you for your kind words. I have found I can have intelligent conversations with liberals when I come across as calm and reasonable. By the same token, I tell my liberal commenters on Redhunter that if they want to have a conversation with me they need to be calm and reasonable. I've found that appealing to people's good side usually works.
Tom - 'I feel that appealing to peoples' good side usually works.'
It has taken me three years of blogging to figure this out - and I'm still working on it. :-)
But that has to be combined with 'being true to oneself' and showing others that you are sincere.
To pull this off can be tricky at times but it is the right way.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-guy-that-co-wrote-dodd-frank-is-having-a-wall-street-fundraiser-tonight-2011-10......You CANNOT make this stuff up.
Truth, if you're an unmarried teenage mother who drops out of high school, there's a 64% chance that you're going to live in poverty. If, however, you're a married mother over 20 and a high school graduate, that percentage drops to 7 (an 89% reduction). I would be very interested to hear what the OWS movement has to say about this.
Everyone has an opinion on everything Will. I'm drawn to the OWS because of that. A right wing tea party response would be some moralist crap about eliminating sex education because it promotes sexual activity.
I think there should be more sex education. And take the gloves off. Genitals ravaged by venereal disease are not pretty. Living in squalor cause you have a baby with one parent and no job and nobody to help isn't pretty.
A hard dick has no conscience. The owner can be made to pay for it though. Scrubbing public toilets to help pay your child support isn't pretty.
I know it's tough though. Women are pretty. Damn.
Joe - I have a stance on abortion that involves hunting down the man involved(after all it takes two doesn't it) and forcing him to stand by the woman not only financially but supportively - until it is all worked out.
I believe that this could encourage adoption rather than abortion and even perhaps the original parents for the baby - if they stick together.
What do you think, Joe.
Are your spirits a bit higher today - now that are President has taken action.
For me this is a dream come true.
The troops are coming home from Iraq - all of them.
I'm overjoyed to say the least.
Sue - I say leave the law on abortion alone. Do I like it? No.
IMHO the law should read that abortion is illegal at the point in time that the fetus can survive with or without life support. But I've been told by some that science cannot determine this. Which of course is BS.
And as for Cain and his abortion question evasions, clarifications, and posturing... the hope I ONCE HAD had for this conservative black business man has since evaporated.
As for the decision to finally bring our brave troops home... Good decision and the Prez gets the credit for pulling the trigger on it. In case anyone {Truth and yourself excluded} doubts my conservative bona-fides the preceding statement should help drive it home.
Keep smiling... ;)
i only have questions to ask.
what is a democrat that acts like a democrat?
what are the principles of government for this democrat?
are these principles the same as when the democratic party was first founded or have these principles evolved?
if evolved, what makes the principles you adhere to the principles of those who act like democrats as opposed to the principles of those who do not act like democrats?
Rational - I say that you have the right to have your opinion.
I respect your right to have and to state your opinion.
I stand by my comment here on truth 101 about abortion.
That is my opinion and I have the right to state it and stand by it.
It is an opinion that I have come to over time - and I have given it much thought.
And I stand by it.
Sue - Wouldn't have it any other way.
The great thing about considering others opinions is at the end of the day you are free to stand by your opinion and principles.
As to the question of hunting the guy down in the case the women wants to give birth I am in full agreement with you.
Would a democrat that acts like a democrat be a "classical liberal?"
Or would it be a true republican that would be the "classical liberal?"
Or is it that terms and concepts change with the times and evolving social conditions.
Or is reality as it is because it exists, or is reality as each individual perceives reality to be.
Its been a long week...
Rational - All I can say at this point that I am happy to exchange comments with a very rational person in a time when things do not seem so rational.
Griper - I intend to give your most deep, thoughtful questions - perhaps to no one in particular - some time for research and thought.
It may take a while - but I intend to do that.
I think a lot of the protesters are uncertain about what they are protesting or what it is they want. They can tell you the "big picture," but specific action needed would be impossible for them. How do we prevent what is happening from recurring? Where did we go wrong? How do you stop a capitalist society from evolving into a Plutocracy? The signs they carry are simply missing that information.
If you ask them these questions, they would say yes to all of them:
1. Do we need to do something about the corporatocracy we live in?
2. Do we need to do something about the Plutocracy that has replaced our democracy?
3. Do we need to do something about the shrinking portion of the pie the general population can enjoy?
They would say yes. If we asked them this:
What should we do?
Most over them would turn their sign around, read it, and shrug.
They know they are discontented, but there is not enough data in the talking points to tell them what their specific complaints are.
That is OK, really. It is the nature of all protest. It is just an observation.
John Myste - A technical point but we have never lived in a democracy. We have always, and by design of our great thinking founding fathers always lived in a Democratic Republic.
And I agree with your observations generally. All would nod yes to those questions without having a modicum of an idea of what they were agreeing with.
An example of "group think", and it is becoming ever more prevalent. Both in the liberal and conservative sides of the winding road.
Nobody today sems to understand what capitalism is and ought to be.........................
John,
I would have to think most of the OWS folks would tell us the basics that need to be done. Revoke corporate personhood, take Big Money out of elections, stop voter suppression, restore Glass/Steagal and tax the rich and their Wall Street trading.
The corporate media does not want these issues aired, so we hear only about "vague" demands.
Les,
We USED to have a democratic republic. Now we have a Republican corporatocracy intent on obstructing the public functions of our government. Democracy has been eredicated down to choices betweeen corporate guy 1 and corporate guy 2.
The interests of the majority always take a back seat to the interests of Big Money. This is not democratic, not republican and not a democratic republic.
Rational,
A technical point but we have never lived in a democracy. We have always, and by design of our great thinking founding fathers always lived in a Democratic Republic.
Rational, just a technical point, we live in a representative democracy.
Nobody today sems to understand what capitalism is and ought to be
I agree with this, Rational. I think those with the least understanding is the current GOP. However, “ought” is very subjective. The idea that entitlements is inconsistent with capitalism is mistaken. You can argue that we “ought” not have entitlements, or should have fewer and I can counter that we “ought” to have more, coupled with more regulation. What “ought” to be, is the area of big dispute, and no reality backs “ought” up. It is all opinion and preference. I consider the GOP’s version of “ought” to be somewhat sick. They consider mine to be unjust. It is all opinion and what we want from a government.
Dave,
I would have to think most of the OWS folks would tell us the basics that need to be done. Revoke corporate personhood, take Big Money out of elections, stop voter suppression, restore Glass/Steagal and tax the rich and their Wall Street trading.
I am sorry to inform you that with the exception of Glass-Steagal, something I am ambivalent about, each of those are talking points, nothing more. I agree that this is what they would say, and oddly enough, I mostly agree with the theoretical talking points. However, they are vague ideas. If you were to ask most them to define a “corporate person,” and to describe the effect of revoking the laws that apply to a corporate entity, probably not one of them could do it, though I know you could. Also, if you were to ask them a simple question: should we then tax this non person? What is the problem with not taxing this corporate person? What is the problem with taxing it? They would stutter.
They realize there are problems, but they don’t understand them. That it what I think. Some fo their signs aren’t even pretty.
The corporate media does not want these issues aired, so we hear only about "vague" demands.
Of course not. The world changes over vague talking points. The reality under the talking points is always enshrouded in complication and obfuscation. No major change takes effect under the auspices of understanding. You must appeal to the emotions of those in need: hence, the talking points.
I support what the movement is basically trying to do. I just think a lot of those carrying signs are automatons, that’s all. We could just as easily get a post hole digger, plant points, and attach their signs to them.
We USED to have a democratic republic. Now we have a Republican corporatocracy intent on obstructing the public functions of our government. Democracy has been eradicated down to choices between corporate guy 1 and corporate guy 2.
I agree with this, at least the second part. It is still a form of democracy, at least in some sense, though. It is now a corporate democracy, which is more of a plutocracy than a democracy, but there are still democratic aspects. We kind of get to influence which corporations will rule us.
The interests of the majority always take a back seat to the interests of Big Money. This is not democratic, not republican and not a democratic republic.
Dave, I come back to my original question: how is this not the natural evolution of capitalism in a representative democracy? I see this problem very clearly, but I don’t see a non-extreme solution. We could institute very strong voting regulations to try to stop it, but in effect, it probably would not. We could go back to a strict “Fairness Doctrine,” but at this point, I don’t think that would make a significant difference either. We could stop all corporate campaign contributions, but that opens up a whole can of worms about what other types of groups could not contribute. We could stop all contributions, period, and then only the wealthy could run. We could replace the concept of contributions with government funding where each candidate has an equal budget. If we did this, FOX News would work overtime to tilt the scales, and they would succeed.
The problem we are in is evolutionary. How do you rollback evolution and prevent us from evolving again? I don’t carrying signs will work.
John,
Since we can't easily fit economic policies on signs, talking points are required. I'm sure there are some people there who could elabotate clearly and extensively. And I'm sure there are others who cannot. One thing for certain, their mere placement and OWS designation indicates they know where the problems originate, if not the solutions.
It's a start, and that, I think, is what they had in mind.
Dave,
Touche.
THINK THINGS THROUGH, PEOPLE. if you take person-hood away from corporations then it is only right to take person-hood away from every other fictitious entity, including unions and any other business or organization. and when that happens you also deny the government the right to place a "tax" on them. then how do you replace the government revenues that would be lost?
Griper,
I believe I just pointed out these same concerns:
However, they are vague ideas. If you were to ask most them to define a “corporate person,” and to describe the effect of revoking the laws that apply to a corporate entity, probably not one of them could do it, though I know you could. Also, if you were to ask them a simple question: should we then tax this non person? What is the problem with not taxing this corporate person? What is the problem with taxing it? They would stutter.
I am one of “people.”
Also, the problem of the corporate entity is not solved by the objections you (and I) raise. It is still a problem. Taxing corporations gathers tax from the wealthy and prevents them from sheltering tax. We should tax the wealthy directly as a solution to this, as I am sure you will agree. If we did this, then we could get rid of the corporate tax, which is an obfuscation we do not need.
There's no reason artificial entities cannot be taxed, especially if they earn income, benefit from legal protection and property rights, enjoy fire and police protection, and use public infrastructure.
Our elections would be a lot cleaner without corporate or union money. What's wrong with limiting donations to individual citzens, human beings, on a level playing field, say up to a hundred dollars? Why should Big Money have more representation than people?
The system is rigged in favor of Big Money. It needs to be unrigged.
Dave,
There's no reason artificial entities cannot be taxed, especially if they earn income, benefit from legal protection and property rights, enjoy fire and police protection, and use public infrastructure.
Dave, to the degree that make an entity a person, you cause it to obtain a person’s rights. I do think the earnings of corporations should be taxed, but when they are realized, meaning the person who receives them should be taxed. This causes a problem of tax sheltering. People can indefinitely hold earnings in a corporation, and it will never get taxed. I don’t have a solution for this, so I do support abolishing the corporate tax until I do. However, I disagree that corporations benefit from the tax services you mentioned. Corporations are not people and they cannot experience things. The people owning the corporations do benefit. It is this exact personification that is the problem. Either corporations are people or they are not, but they are not people only when it is convenient. I would be OK with this definition if it was a workable one. Describe to me how this could work?
Our elections would be a lot cleaner without corporate or union money. What's wrong with limiting donations to individual citzens, human beings, on a level playing field, say up to a hundred dollars? Why should Big Money have more representation than people?
I agree with this as a much better solution than what we have. I don’t think any election should be won or lost based on who can afford to contribute 100.00. Campaign contributions should be equal or not allowed at all. I actually think we should collect taxes to support campaign contributions and no campaign should have any more money than any other campaign. Anything else is a plutocracy if we have a representative government. Those living under the poverty level cannot contribute 100.00 to campaigns and they need their voice heard most of all.
The system is rigged in favor of Big Money. It needs to be unrigged.
I completely agree with this.
I don't necessarily agree that it is rigged by design, though. It is the natural evolution of a capitalist society with a representative democracy.
I think we spend way too much time blaming each other instead of blaming the process. It is true that some people don't want to unrig it. However, many do, and I don't think most people who vote wanted it to come to this. It came to this through evolution.
We have to admit the problem exists and accept that our experiment is democracy failed because of a design flaw. If we do both of those things, we can, perhaps, fix it.
Just remember, though, in all the movies once the more intelligent robots start to serve themselves, it is very difficult to remove them from power.
John,
Maybe the robots have taken over. Corporations and their elite owners certainly have taken over.
Corporations benefit from government and public projects from roads and sewers, to standards and measures. They are protected by our legal system against theft, fraud and vandalism. They avail themselves of the fire department if needed. They should contribute for such services by paying property and income taxes. They may have benefits of income and taxation without being endowed with personhood or super-personhood.
The right of corporations, and small businesses alike, to do business and pay taxes in exchange for government services and protection does not quality them for legal personhood in elections.
These rights and obligations may be reasonably definied short of personhood.
john,
corporate taxes not only the rich it also taxes those who are not rich at the same rate.
corporate taxes is a tax on a collective which is distributed evenly among the individuals of that collective. thus it creates a hidden "double taxation" situation for the taxpayer of that collective.
sue,
i'd appreciate being informed when you come up with the answers.
one observation though. until you do come up with the answers i find it kinda hard to define you and joe as being persons who act like democrats.
Dave,
When you say you want to deny a corporation of its person-hood, what exactly do you mean? Is it nothing more than the ability to contribute to a campaign?
Griper,
How much do you suppose my indigent mother pays in corporate taxes?
The rich own stuff, and more of it, and a higher percentage of it than the average person. As one grows more poor he owns less, and the poorest own virtually nothing.
Your argument is not sincere.
John,
Corporate personhood was birthed by a process through the courts, not by legislation. Santa Clara Co. v. Southern Pacific, Buckley v. Valeo etc. It would require a Constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's creation.
Yeah, I know the chances of that happening...
A good suammary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/corporate-citizenship-corporate-personhood-paris-commune_n_1005244.html
I'd gladly pay more taxes. My share of the Bush tax cut was app. the cost of going to Taco Bell with my wife and daughter. I'm not going to stop doing that if the government asks for my $9 a week back.
It will make no difference in my life. No individual tax cut will ever make a difference in anyone's life.
You know Les and Sue and anyone else that may be interested? I don;t think I've ever presented an opinion on abortion since I started blogging in 2006.
The answer is Griper, and this will be difficult if not impossible, to find a way to remove the corporate whoremongers that hijacked both parties.
The only hope so far is for the OWS movement to organize itself and b ring the Democratic party back to the working people. it's too late for the Tea party as it was created as a puppet for the corporate republican elite. They don;t know what they want. Only they want less because that's what they were told they want.
here ya go again Truth, more sweeping generalities.
But come to think of it, that is what political partisans do. Make sweeping generalities. And so do bloggers....
Such is life.
There is nothing you can refute about my last comment RN.
The Truth is my sword. it penetrates the shield of lies wielded by the right every time.
joe,
you must really believe in the philosophy of "determinism" rather than in the philosophy of "free will" in order to make such a charge as that. that ok, tho. your whole political philosophy abides by the principles of determinism.
so, that is how you see acting like a democrat is, acting like a man whose behavior and life is determined.
you can count me out as a democrat on this basis alone.
joe,
might also add from past posts you also believe that a person who acts like a democrat is one who abides by the moral principle of "the end justifies the means."
don't count me in on this either.
You confuse my political ideology with the realities I've discovered as apolitical hack and observer Griper.
You are correct that politically I do think the ends justify the means. It was the right that started it.
However, it was my damned moral code that limited how far I would go in this regard and led to the downfall of my former blog which enjoyed a far wider readership than T101 as well as beginning my fall from the grace of the democratic party. Locally anyway.
I was probably going to get screwed either way. I managed to keep some self respect and the respect of others who knew the story.
That and $4 will get me some good Starbucks coffee.
Joe - I have been talking to a couple of people around town-
Walmart greeters,cashiers, etc.
I consider it a sampling of the working people - if only in small numbers.
The consensus seems to be that they are not blaming President Obama alone - but they are fed up with all of the politicians of both parties.
They want something done that will impact their lives.
And that is what I want too and I'm willing to do what I can in my one way.
I want to help also but the Walmart associates and those in their position have to realize it's up to them more than us to do something.
They have to vote. That's a start. And it can be done without being under somebody's watchful eyes at work.
joe,
"You are correct that politically I do think the ends justify the means."
yeah joe, but only as long as it is your desired ends. let someone else use that principle for their desired ends and you are quick to demean them as the lowest of scum.
that's a "do as i say, not as i do" principle. and that, i believe, is the definition of hypocrisy. and hypocrisy is never truthful.
john,
don't accuse me of insincerity based on a false assumption of what i said.
you're not a good enough debater to so openly try to mislead me down your path of an argument.
try another tactic.
You have to fight fire with fire Griper. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you when I simply stated the right started it.
What good is the good fight if you lose and the winners stack the supreme court with right wing extremists like Scalia or Thomas. or guts regulations that protect workers and the public?
Your naivity is by choice Griper.
Griper,
Your ad hominem is also not sincere.
"You have to fight fire with fire Griper. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you when I simply stated the right started it.
What good is the good fight if you lose and the winners stack the supreme court with right wing extremists like Scalia or Thomas. or guts regulations that protect workers and the public?"
Joe, I think we should all be able to agree that "opinions" can be, and often are subjective.
That which you said above is subjective and it could be said of the liberals as well.
At any rate continuing to "freeze" the waters will yield more of the same.
Just an observation. Take it for whatever it may be worth.
joe,
blaming someone else for what you admit you do and are does not justify what you do.
and citing examples of persons who hold to a different belief in regards to the Constitution then you do is just trying to excuse yourself from your own beliefs and actions. it is not a good reason. you are no less of an extremist than the persons you cite.
no one forced you to believe as you do thus seek to act from those beliefs no more than anyone force me to the beliefs i have. they are beliefs of personal choice.
you want a society where success is determined without risks.
i want a society where each of us is given the choice of risks we are willing to take.
you want a society where you believe the reality of happiness is guaranteed.
i just want a society where each of us is only guaranteed the opportunity of it. the reality of it must be earned.
as for being naive, it is not me that is being naive. i've lived the reality of my beliefs. i know the benefits of it as well as the consequences of it.
can you say the same? the answer is no. that is because a society of your beliefs has never existed by your standards. its a dream of the impossible.
its the impossible because a society as you envision it can only come about by the "means" of force. and history has shown that people have a nasty habit of rebelling against the "means" of force as a way to an end.
Ah Griper. It is you who are being naive. Naive to think positive and uplifting will defeat the onslaught of negative and attack.
Republicans win by portraying their opponents as the villain. the stimulus was a Bush/ Paulson idea. Obama was left to make it work. yet Obama is portrayed as the villain for what had to be done to keep ours, and the world's, economies from crashing.
Look at the republican field. Especially the last debate. they all called each other liar. They criticised Cain's 999 plan as unfair to the poor. How's that for right wing hypocrisy.
I support regulation because I'm not naive. I know big business will take every advantage. They will lie like hell with the promise of jobs they either eliminate, send or keep overseas whether they get their tax breaks and goodies or not.
it is those that follow the right, and act as their mouthpieces that are naieve. That includes you for trusting that they will put the good of America before profit.
I'm heavy in dividend producing stock now. I would gladly take a percent or two less if it meant my companies would do more to create jobs and products that create the demand that lead to jobs. They won't. To think they will create jobs or do what's right without the threat of regulation and enforcement is naieve on your part and all those who think like you Griper.
Truth 101: realist.
john,
all i stated were facts and facts do not lead to an ad hominem so my statement is just reenforced by your response.
joe,
a man is responsible for his own actions. Bush is responsible for his actions and history will judge him on it.
Obama is responsible for his own actions and just because he is following in the steps of Bush in regards to government stimulus does not mean he no longer is responsible for doing so. in fact, by following in the steps of Bush, Obama is justifying the approach that Bush took in regards to the economy. no one prevented Obama from using a different approach. and the fact that Obama is seeking even more stimulus money is doing nothing but declaring that he feels that Bush was right, not wrong in his approach.
Obama was elected because the people believed he would correct the mistakes that bush made not continue to make the same mistakes.
by continuing to blame Bush you are implicitly acknowleginging that Obama is not doing the job that you elected him to do.
this coming election will determine what the people think. if Obama is reelected the people will, themselves, justify the use of the stimulus thus acknowledge the actions of both Bush and Obama in their approach to the recession.
if he is not reelected it will be the people's judgment on both men on their approach to the economy.
so, my good friend , when you go to the polls you will be passing judgment on both men not just on Obama by your own reasoning.
I blame Bush for what is Bush's fault. I blame Obama for what is Obama's fault. That's a big difference between the right and myself. I call out the mistakes of those on my side. The right doesn't until after it's people leave office.
The fact is the stimulus had to happen. Depression was not an option.
joe,
as for your accusation of placing profit before the good of the people, apparently you forget something. in a free enterprise economic system a profit making business is for the good of the people.
people lose jobs when companies are not making a profit. governments lose the benefit of taxes when companies is not making a profit. and a nation cannot grow financially when companies are not making a profit.
these are facts.
joe,
another thing too. you may be rich enough to be willing to take a few cents less on your dividends but what about those who depend on those dividends and cannot afford it?
joe,
it was you that brought up the stimulus and blaming Bush for it, not me in an attempt to make your argument stronger.
and it is you that is trying to justify his stance by using the words of others instead of rebutting my words.
that is the difference between us. i use your own words against you while you try to use the words of others against me.
i don't try to force you to defend the words or stance of others that can be declared as associated with you politically while you try to force me to defend the acts of others that you associate with me. i'm not responsible for what others say or do.
i don't need to use that type of argument. your own words trip you up.
Have no idea what you're talking about now Griper. I respond to your comments and others kind enough to visit.
I do have to give you kudos for your use of deniable innuendo. Well done. It probably fools many. But it doesn't fool me.
The few cents would be well worth it seeing as how stock prices wouldn't have these wild fluctuations.
Bankrupt and going broke companies don't pay dividends.
And thise dependent on dividends need to stay with large utilities that are legal and regulated monopolies like Ameren or Duke or Con Ed.
Consider that my tip of the day.
Man you have lots of questions Griper.
A solid foundation and plan for growth makes a company a good long term investment. Investors knowing that the company is acting with integrity and the interests of it's shareholders and not just those who reap the big bonuses are good for business.
The protesters must also be anti Obama, since Obama's decisions have helped the corporate cause.
Who do these protesters intend to put their support behind come election day?
innuendos? it is not me that has taken a stance then blaming others for the stance i take. that is you.
it was you that acknowledged adhering to the morality of "the end justifies the means" then blaming the right for that stance. it was you that declared "the right started it" as justification for your stance.
if you felt that it was a good moral principle you would have explained it on moral grounds instead of using the excuse you did for it.
if it isn't a good moral then the concept of "two wrongs do not make a right" comes into play.
it was you that brought up Bush and his use of the government stimulus. it was you that brought up the fact of Scalia and Thomas being on the Supreme court in order to bolster your argument. and by doing so implicitly admitted to having a weak argument on its own merits.
------
as for bonuses, the last time i heard bonuses were given for doing exactly what you said, making a company more profitable than it was.
and if it was done in a manner that doesn't benefit the shareholder then a change of management is in order not some regulation. and the last time i heard that was done in a democratic manner not by government mandate. a government mandate under these circumstances would only result a minority rule over the majority.
might also add, joe, that there are plenty of people whose retirement income is dependent on stock dividends. you may be rich enough not to be dependent upon them but you have no right to speak for others without first ascertaining their status and getting their permission.
Here's what I would do to try and fix the economy. a) Pay kids to stay in school and graduate. b) Pay them to not have children until they're married. c) Pay them to not have children until they're 20. d) Pass this Kerry-Hutchinson infrastructure-bank legislation. e) Allow for inner-city parents to send their kids to Catholic and/or private schools via the use of a voucher program. f) Lower the corporate tax on manufacturing companies to ZERO (we can make up for any lost revenue by raising individual rates). If you make "it" in America, you pay no tax (this, combined with the increased cost of transportation and the higher corporate tax rates in countries like Sri Lanka, should help spur investment here dramatically). g) Regulatory reform. Strengthen the good stuff and eliminate all of the bullshit that is making it harder and harder for new businesses to get started (we have to realize that big businesses generally benefit from regulations in that they frequently solidify the status quo). h) Improve the health care bill. I would personally scrap it and replace it with Ezekial Emanuel's Healthcare Guarantee model. But short of that, I would get rid of all of these ridiculous (and, yes, I'll say it here, suspicious) exemptions and make the penalty for noncompliance stiffer (right now the penalty is such that people will simply wait until they get sick and THEN buy the insurance - to which it has to be sold to them because of the no preexisting condition clause). i) Fix Lindsay Lohan's teeth (talk about an infrastructure project).
Have you ever tried to replace a board member or CEO Griper? Companies are not democracies. They are good ol boy networks. They manage for the benefit of the board and CEO. The best small timers can do is try and read the signs and make our moves from there.
And why do you use your special brand of obsfucation to defend Bush? Would you rather we all laid down and let the extreme corporate right wing control our lives because we're too nice to fight back?
joe,
nice try but no ring.
if my words was used to defend Bush then i'd also be in the act of defending Obama too. maybe you cannot see that but it is very clearly stated in my earlier comment. as i clearly stated,
to applaud one for his actions is to applaud the other. to condemn one man is to condemn the other on the same grounds. and as i said we'll see how the voters see it come election time.
and no i do not think you should not fight the extreme right wing any more than you's expect me to stop fighting you and your left wing extremists.
if your philosophy is the philosophy of determinism then fine, fight with that in mind. i'll continue my fight on the philosophy that you and i have a free will.
if you believe in the moral principle of "the end justifies the means" then fine, fight with that in mind. i'll continue my fight with the principle that "the end does not justify the means."
if you believe that two wrongs make a right then fine continue on that premise. i'll continue my fight on the ptemise that two wrongs do not make a right.
you may end up winning this fight but if you do, joe, it won't be because i compromised my principles in order for you to win.
by making the accusation you did is another attempt to confuse and hide the weakness of your argument.
in the above statements, joe, is the revelation of what your ideology demands of you and anyone who accepts that ideology.
and it reveals what my philosophy demands of me and anyone who might accept it as their own.
i have no further thoughts for this thread.
My Gripes:
you want a society where success is determined without risks.
i want a society where each of us is given the choice of risks we are willing to take.
you want a society where you believe the reality of happiness is guaranteed.
i just want a society where each of us is only guaranteed the opportunity of it. the reality of it must be earned.
My first gripe is the arrogance we see from rightists in their presumption of knowing what we think. Rightists seem to actually believe they know more about what we think than we do. This is often flavored with what we call projection. We are accused of the faults of their own ideology.
I’ve yet to see any liberal say we want a society where success is determined without risk, or one where happiness is guaranteed.
I have seen numerous apologists for Wall Street and corporate America on the Right declare the “Job Creators” cannot create jobs due to risk, “uncertainty” in their language, which they lavishly blame on Obama. Was there no risk or uncertainty before Obama? Was there no risk or uncertainty with the mortgage backed derivatives scam? Apparently not. It worked for them and cost the rest of us dearly. What gratitude have they shown for the bailouts? Hoarding. Now they insist loans cannot be made to people who are willing to take on the risk of growing a business. Sorry we got ours, you’re on your own.
Since when is business not a risk? Since corporations bought government, and deregulated their scams to the point where they had no rules to follow, or consequences to pay for their failure.
Which takes me to my second gripe:
as for your accusation of placing profit before the good of the people, apparently you forget something. in a free enterprise economic system a profit making business is for the good of the people.
people lose jobs when companies are not making a profit. governments lose the benefit of taxes when companies is not making a profit. and a nation cannot grow financially when companies are not making a profit.
these are facts.
Wall Street has now scooped up astounding profits to sit on, thanks to bailouts from the rest of us, “for the good of the people”. What good would that be? They care little for the good of anyone but themselves. People lose jobs because corporations want more profit. The “job creators” off-shored our jobs. They only create jobs in Asia. My wife had to train her Indian replacement so the company could make more money. The new rule has become people lose their jobs so companies can make more profit. There is no concern “for the good of the people” in a corporate agenda, or a corporatist government.
I could present more gripes. But I have no time to go around and around on this nonsense.
Dave - Indeed we must end the crony capitalism and corporatism, and return to a honest capitalism w/out government bailouts and the interests of corporations represented by lobbyists in Washington.
Corporations have been in bed with politicians and elected officials for far too long. And that includes both sides of the aisle.
Les, might you be referring to, say, Chuck Schumer? President Obama?
Awesome thread, btw, Truth. Kind of like it used to be, man.
Joe - Did I ever mention that those little pictures you post to the right side of your blog are a work of genius?
Where do you come up with that stuff.
Or is it Dudley's idea.
Now Will, would I refer to Chuck Schumer and or President Obama? ;)
Post a Comment