dippin

I still want to know what, exactly, are Obama's "far left" policies.

Baraka_Guru

We really need to get on the same page as to what, exactly, we mean by "far left." We seem to have different ideas of what that entails. Most of those I consider on the "far left" I would image look at everything Obama stands for and does as too far to the right...by quite a bit.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

i've thought for a long time that a universal minimum wage a good idea because it would erase the incentives that underpin the present arrangement (subcontractors located in places with lowest wages, usually most repressive conditions in terms of organizing etc have a competitive advantage assuming technology as neutral...the buyer of course has no responsibility for anything, mere pursues enlightened self-interest in that grand selfblinding american way)---and it would make distance/transport a different kind of problem than it now is...so what i think would result is a fragmentation of the present arrangement---which would create "redundant" production systems because it would make production/distribution more regionally oriented. so i think a universal minimum wage would be a good thing for job creation. i would imagine that the state can and should play an active role in making sure that this is the outcome too.

but of course this would be greeted as some Communist initiative by the right....but the curious thing is that a re-regionalizing of capitalist production would bring the beast closer to the People, which you'd think a main conservative concern/issue. so i would think conservatives--libertarian types in particular---might be persuaded to support the end if not the means.

but nothing would get anywhere so long as this "obama is a left extremist" nonsense persists. this is about shutting down dialogue. it's funny that it so often comes accompanied by accusations that the rejection of this absurd claim that obama is a leftist is a shutting down of dialogue. go figure.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dippin

But the thing is that even in an American context his proposals are to the right of what was considered "moderate" not too long ago. The current HCR proposal is significantly less sweeping than what Clinton proposed 16 years ago, and it is very close to what republicans were advocating at that time.

ratbastid

Obama is a rorschach blot for those who dislike him. Whatever they dislike, he is that. So people say "he's an ineffective placater", or "he's a left-wing puppet", or "he's a nazi facist". Some people are saying more than one of these things despite the utter incoherence of that.

Baraka_Guru

An interesting aspect of this whole idea is that it might not need to come to that, this idea of a universal minimum wage to reorganize production. It might simply happen due to peak oil and when demand finally picks up again, forcing prices to spiral out of control to the point where companies can only make production and distribution work on a localized scale. Then we will see the disappearance of burgeoning trade shipments from Asia. We've already seen a shift to local food production and consumption, based mainly on environmental concerns. Peak oil may force it for most of commerce one day for entirely different reasons.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

What did Limbaugh say, I don't listen to his show? I wish I could say I was the first to raise the question regarding an Obama comparison to Hoover, but I am not. Given the conditions of the economy and the potential for it to turn positive or negative based on Obama's actions makes the comparison worth while. In addition it has been Obama who has consistently brought up this recession as being the worst since the Depression.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

I don't.

First, I have always said Presidents get too much blame and too much credit...
Second, our economy goes through cycles...
Third, the costs to employ have been on the rise for some time due to many factors...
Fourth, credit markets are frozen...
Etc., Etc., Etc.

If you want to discuss what I actually wrote regarding Obama and employment let me know. On the margins, Obama's negativity, his attacks against business, his nuturing an environment of uncertainty, is hindering "job creation". In a nut shell, how do we go from my actual position to "why do you think Obama is to blame for zero net job growth between 2000-2009..."?

---------- Post added at 04:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

He is not. Nor is 2000-2009 a lost decade.

The issue I am interested in is related to the future, not the past.

You may want another opportunity to discuss Bush, but it is no longer important.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

Hoover did act. His actions hurt rather than helped. The Depression was manufactured based on the acts of government. Do you disagree with that premise?

---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Again, you miss the point. Will Obama's actions lead us into a double dip recession or a depression, if so why or why not? I have my view on the question, what is yours?

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

It is relative.

Also, there is a difference between what he says and how he governs.

---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

I recall giving a list of politicians and ranking them from right to left to illustrate how I would define "far left", I don't recall reading a response from anyone.

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

From a practical point of view this would be totally un-workable. At some point you will always regress to relative value of labor compared to real purchasing power.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dippin

The attempt to rewrite history is so obvious... If one really feels that Obama is a major interventionist, and that the government is meddling "too much" in the economy, the obvious comparison would be FDR, not Hoover. But FDR is still a popular president, so that would be a bad political move for the republicans. So what do you do? Reinvent history in order to force a parallel with an unpopular president instead of a popular one.

There are certain things that there is near consensus about regarding the great depression: the failures of government include raising taxes, taking too long to come off the gold standard to avoid deflation, and too modest regulations regarding the banking industry. Obama, unlike Hoover, cannot be blamed for any of this. If you take the classic libertarian explanation for the great depression, it was caused by expansionist monetary policies earlier that decade. If that was the case, then the parallel in the current situation would be Bush and Greenspan's aggressive interest rate reduction early in the 2000s.

Oh, and Im still waiting to hear what, specifically, are Obama's far left policies.

Baraka_Guru

How long ago was that? I think I may have missed it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

aceventura3

Post #30 from "Obama at House Republican retreat" thread.



---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

I am not trying to and I can not rewrite history.

I recall discussions on FDR, the New Deal and its impact on the Depression. As usual ther was disagreement. I do not believe New Deal policies lead to the end of the Depression. FDR's New Deal would fall under my general view that our economy can not be micro-managed and that government often does more harm than good due to the unintended consequences and the fact that government is less efficient at allocating capital and resources than the "free market."

I am interested in understanding what you think the future impact of Obama's policies will be. I fear there will be similarities with Hoover, I actually hope I am wrong. I also, understand that the psychological impact of Obama can have a bigger impact than his actual policies. I think to a degree Reagan benefited from that.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dippin

If Obama's policies have a similar impact to Hoover's it will be precisely because he did too little, not too much.

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

Oh, and please name Obama's policies that are significantly more leftist than Clinton's.

Obama so far has raised taxes less than Clinton, has proposed a HCR that is less sweeping than Clinton's, and has been less likely to spend on social programs than Clinton.

aceventura3

What do you think he needs to do more of, if anything at this point?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

james t kirk

Really, and who did the "Free Market" coming running to 2 years ago for a trillion dollars?

You had assholes making 100 million dollars a year on their knees begging to guys making 100 grand a year.

I don't think you realize just how close we came to a complete economic melt down with AIG. If the gov't had not stepped in to save their asses, it quite literally would have been - put your money in the ATM and nothing comes out because there is no money.

Just as the stock market crash of 29 proved that there needed to be regulations put in palce governing the speculating on equities and buying equities on credit in order to prevent a future crash, the recent melt down proved that there needs to be regulations as to just how stupid of a risk banks can take on real estate speculation and buying real estate without actual cash.

It is my humble opininion that NO-ONE should be given a mortgage without at least 10% down. There has to be some risk to the buyer.

Vabeachdude

Well, I know a bunch of out of work people that could turn their pants pockets out and call them "Obama ears" ... (in direct comparison to the Hoover Ears of the Great Depression).. but I don't think it's all Obama's fault of course. Nor do I think it's all Bush's fault either. Clinton had his fair share of responsibility for the real estate crisis. But I think, Obama needs to LEAD from the front.. enuff of the blame game, we need clear direction and FDR like vision, FDR like investments in infrastructure and jobs, BUT, more importantly, imo.. we need FDR like leadership and confidence restored... We need programs that get people back to work NOW and we need someone to turn things around. I think that's what people voted for when they voted for "Change". Sure, it isn't gonna happen over night, but Obama's timing and priorities have been out of sync with the people imo... specific to the economy, people are hurting now and his waiting til his second year to address the Jobs piece was a mis-step. Tasking a do nothing congress to come up with watered down healthcare reform... that was tied up in congress for a large part of his first year in office, while there's a Democratic majority (and still no HCR accomplishment)... bleh, Cap and Trade/climate change.. seriously? Additionally, the much needed bailouts end up pitting Wallstreet against Mainstreet, and he feeds this animosity in how he's treating the banks.. during a credit crisis! I mean, we're all in this together at this point, just lead us out. Don't point fingers just lead us out, give us your vision and direction and LEAD. I think people are seriously losing faith and looked to Obama to change it up. It isn't too late for Obama, and I pray for him often, and don't want to get in a serious debate, because it's obvious to me that many of you are much more well read than I am; however, if Obama don't act fast and get people back to work AND fix the credit crisis, things may not turn around enough for him to be re-elected, which imo, will seriously hurt his legacy and draw even more comparisons to Hoover in that he'll only serve one term in office.

pan6467

Quoted for serious truth and a huge HEAR HEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 02:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

You have the biggest problem in there, but it's not 10% down.

When you have people making 10's and 100's of millions while their companies go bankrupt, begging for government to help them and when our tax money goes to them to bail them out, they cut jobs, cut pay and still give millions upon millions in bonuses to their top people......

THERE IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! It's not the hard worker, it's not the people who have given up hope and are unable to ever achieve the "American Dream" because these assholes making all the money and getting government to pay their bonuses won't pay people honest wages or even take a pay cut until they turn their companies around.

I love how people want to blame even a small part on the little guy who works 40 hour weeks and is trying to live the American dream by buying a house and raising his kids in a home they own and don't have to rent.

IF THE COMPANIES PAID DECENT WAGES, IF THERE WAS MANUFACTURING JOBS, IF COMPANIES PAID EMPLOYEES $15-20 AN HOUR INSTEAD OF $8-9 WHILE UPPER MANAGEMENT MAKES MILLIONS.... WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE.

IT IS NOT THE LITTLE GUY'S FAULT AND TO IMPLY IT IS BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT HOUSES THEY "COULDN'T AFFORD" OR "THEY SHOULD WORK MORE JOBS" OR WHATEVER IS GIVING THOSE GREDY MOTHER FUCKING ASSES WHO MAKE THE MILLIONS A BLANK CHECK TO CONTINUE SLAVE FUCKING LABOR.... WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS ALL THE FUCKING RENTAL PROPERTIES, OR THOSE MORTGAGES?????

Sorry for the caps and to yell but the economy and the fucked up government INCLUDING OBAMA who continues to allow these "bonuses and salaries" in companies WE FUCKING BAILED OUT just pisses me off.

It's not the fucking companies that need bailed out it's the American worker who works making wages that even 30 years ago were low.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

I think this is misleading. I myself don't earn in the $15-20 range, but I can guarantee you my boss (owner of the company) isn't making anywhere near a million dollars for what he does. He's lucky to be a thousandaire.

I think you are speaking to the most sensational aspects of the labour market. You are overlooking the lion's share of the market with this statement. Small business makes up a large proportion of jobs in America. You are also overlooking how disruptive it would be to somehow raise employee wages across the board by 100% or so. I'm sure there are many companies whose owners draw under six figures from the company---and certainly less than seven.

I also happen to believe the American Dream is bullshit. It's not for everyone. It's only for those who are disciplined enough, and perhaps a little bit lucky. Situations are different, and results may vary.

Companies and their executives shouldn't take all the blame, and certainly not across the board at that. There were many borrowers who took on too much risk (and too much house) and are getting burned for it. What about them?

These are businesses being run; they aren't charities. A majority of job growth comes from small business. Artificially high wages would choke that out.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Derwood

Besides, Obama doesn't have the executive power to set executive pay. I doubt it's even constitutional for Congress to pass any laws on the matter.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

rahl

The only way that I could see a way around that is if they are receiving any govn't money. If they are then congress should have the right to set executive salaries.

Pan: There's only handful of executives in coroporate america. And yes the may have a 7 figure salary. But the vast majority of business owners don't draw that big a salary from the company.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

pan6467

I'm not talking about the little guys either. I'm talking about the banks, the finance companies like Bear Stearns. The little guys still shaft the employees though, they just don't own companies making that kind of money, but most still pay labor wages that are below what they should be while they drive Hummers, live in mansions and take vacations whenever they want.

My point is, if WE the taxpayers give AIG, banks, etc bailouts and they take them... then we have EVERY right to demand how they structure their pays, their bonuses and where the money goes.

There comes a time like with pro sports, entertainment and with these clowns when you have to ask how much is enough, especially when the average American is living paycheck to paycheck, barely able to live.

I also love the argument from those who say, "well, cut back on what you spend on, you can do it."

Everyone I know has cut back, but that's not supposed to be America. America always prided itself on building a better standard of living for the next generation. To tell people to lower their standard of living and shut up and accept that those who own the companies and those who exploit the workers for wages that are not livable.... is a kick in the teeth to all that America once stood for.

There are no opportunities out there now. The money is not available and people don't make enough.

We are in a fucking depression, maybe not the whole country but where I live and in other parts where I have friends telling me how they are having to work 2 40 hour jobs just to live.... it's a depression to me.... Government, the finance people and press can all say how great things are but when you see people losing everything because those who employ them want a bigger house or a new vacation house... you should get pissed.

We are in this all together and when you have people losing everything while the employers are working on 3rd and 4th vacation homes, or the next new expensive car, or talking about how labor costs too much and they may have to layoff while they give themselves huge paychecks and don't take a hit.... something is wrong and you should get pissed.

To be in this together means when one end of the economic scale is tilted way down the other end needs to shift some of that weight back to even out the scales. Otherwise, you eventually have no one that can afford your product and you company closes and you are struggling. Unless, of course you are extremely wealthy, then you can buy everything up and we become truly a slave labor nation.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

rahl

You seem to not understand that it's a very small minority of people making millions of dollars as company ceo's. I deal with hundreds of companies in my profession. Business owners salaries that I deal with range from 75k to 200k. I even have a professional baseball team for a client. The max salary(non-athlete) there was 260k. (excluding the team owner) EVERY company I do business with treats it's employees fairly, and pay's them a wage that reflects their level of education and production value. You can't just raise wages artificially across the board, that would create a situation much much worse that the one we are presently in.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

Baraka_Guru

Arbitrarily raising wages in the U.S. would make unemployment worse than it is now. Our economies are globalized. Think about it, pan. Relatively high wages are partially to blame for the current recession/unemployment. When alternative labour markets have lower wages, American jobs suffer. And now you want to boost wages even higher.

Keep in mind that America still enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The outcome of one's financial status cannot be blamed entirely on "other forces." The average savings rate in America has been pitiful for decades now, and has even been negative. But, hey, keep on that American Dream. It's yours for the taking. You better keep up with those Joneses, even though they're going broke as well.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dippin

You know is the country where the CEO-to-worker pay relationship is the smallest? Sweden, Belgium, and so on. Of course, that happens there because they adopt a set of policies that are a lot to the left of anything Obama has ever proposed.

roachboy

actually it's more complicated than that. there's no "natural" hydraulics that determines wage levels. fact is that in the industrial sectors of the us economy after ww2--so during the height of fordism---wage levels were quite high and sustainably so in part because of strong unions, in part because of collective bargaining, in part because there was a de facto social compromise such that relatively high wages extension of consumer credit and the suburban model all worked together. and underpinning of all this was the assumption--which wasnt even an assumption, more like a way of thinking/life---that the nation-state formed a "natural" boundary for captialist activity in manufacturing (this was never true in at the level of materials procurement...).

this came apart across the 1970s. the idea that there is some deterritorialized hydraulics that "naturally" set wage rates low is a result of neoliberalism implemented and is a duplication of the ideology at the level of thinking.

there are any number of responses that could play out to raising wage levels. everything would depend on the regulatory frame that was set up. the obama people seem WAY too centrist for this kind of social-democratic move, however. silly accusations of being a pinko notwithstanding.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I remember writing that the Treasury Secretary was a form Goldman employee before the first TARP was passed, I did not support it because it was a targeted bailout that benefited a few at the expense of many. That was not a "free market" solution. In fact the effect has been to limit competition in the market place. Big business will often work with government to restrict competition and free trade, it solidifies their market share and ability to maximize profits. Government is often knowingly complicit and occasionally gullible. Obama supported TARP, which was he?

I would have said no. It was an error for Bush to support that, I think he simply wanted to placate the demands for government to do something. I think that was the folly of Hoover also, and the trap Obama could fall into.

I would love to see someone explain it in detail. AIG insurance operations would not have been impacted, just the investment banking arm. The insurance companies would have been spun off, and the other part would have gone bankrupt. Then the people that got paid as a result of the bailout would not have made record profits. Period, end of story.

This is not complicated and I am tired of hearing about some mythical "brink" without an explanation. I don't like being sold b.s.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace--i really don't know what version of the world you live in, but the tarp business was entirely a bush-period undertaking. one of the many things i did not like about obama's opening moves as president was that he kept on the same bush-period people who crafted that fine bit of legislation, you know the one that in the name of bailing out the american financial system encouraged unprecedented concentration within the financial sector.

and it's baffling to me that you persist in this pattern of displacing reality by attributing the claims that the financial system was on the brink of a catastrophic melt-down---which it was---to the obama administration---which was not fucking elected in august-september 08 which is the point at which the shit *really* started to hit the fan.

and i **really** dont know what planet george w bush could have been understood as a champion of free markets on, ace. nor his administration. remember haliburton, ace? remember all those no-bid contracts for iraq? probably not.

you are continually fast-and-loose with factual material, ace, particularly those pesky historical details like when things happened and who did what. i think it's ironic to see another example of this stuff in a thread you started that attempted to paint obama up as a new herbert hoover.

but whatever.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

Until this is addressed, we will continue to lose our standard of living and we will end up a country of haves and have nots and be a relatively 3rd world nation.

STANDARD OF LIVING WORLD STATS, the revealing measurement

I advocate that a person working 40 hours in the US SHOULD be able to have a standard of living that is comfortable and not have to live paycheck to paycheck worrying about his mortgage or car payments.

The above statistic is worsening and people on both sides (as evidenced here) keep arguing that "arbitrary wage increases are bad" .... yeah but for CEO's and executives it is ok.

Total CEO compensation up 7.5% - Dec. 9, 2008

Yet the average worker in the US (THE BOTTOM 80%) has continued to see their capital income decrease immensely in the past 20 years. Meanwhile the top 10, 5 and 1% have all seen theirs increase.

I advocate more distribution of wealth. Colleges are becoming unaffordable, aid is drying up (unless you take loans that you will never be able to pay back because you can't find a job that will pay enough).

WHY THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES ARGUING THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN NEEDS TO CUT BACK WHILE THE TOP 10-5-1 PERCENT CONTINUE TO GAIN MORE AND MORE????? WTF? ARE PEOPLE SO IGNORANT AND BLIND THAT THEY THINK THIS IS OK??????

And for those who talk about how EVIL the Right is yet will argue over wages with me.... take a look at the statistics on this link.... THIS IS FUCKING PATHETIC.... AND IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND MADE BETTER NOT WORSE.

A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE US AND OTHER RICH NATIONS

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dippin

Pan,
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the description of the situation. It's just that all these other nations that you are comparing the US to, where the middle class and the poor do better, are also nations that have policies in place that are far to the left of any of the two major US parties, including Obama.

So it strikes people as odd that at the same time that those issues are noted that Obama could be denounced as a far left politician.

There is no magic bullet here. Middle and lower classes in other nations do better than their American counterparts in many areas because of things like more progressive taxation, universal healthcare, more extensive welfare state and other things that would be considered ultra radical over here.

pan6467

Well, we are at a crossroads and things are going to get far worse if we do not do something. There is a huge crisis with student loan money... an extremely high rate of defaults that will affect us. Why are there defaults? The pay isn't there and college tuitions have skyrocketed.

There is a magic bullet. Instead of continuing to allow companies like AIG, the banks, and so on give extreme bonuses and salaries, you put a cap on them and give that money to shareholders, the taxpayers, etc.

You raise tariffs for a limited time, to start rebuilding the infrastructure and manufacturing sector. You go back to what worked in the 50's - 80's and rework what was good for the working class. You pass laws that companies doing business in the US must meet or surpass the same OSHA, WAGE and LABOR laws that are implemented in this country. If Nike wants to run sweatshops, then they can't sell product here.

People on here call me a righty.... and in some cases I am. The healthcare Obama offered was extremely wrong, I think for this country a sliding scale fee is far better. I am for states rights and believe in less government in PEOPLE's lives but more regulation and control over the distribution of capital.

I do speak out against the Dems because they seem to want more government in people's lives and where they once were for the working man and fought for worker's rights they sold out and are more worried about the power OVER the people.

The GOP is the GOP, they are controlled by the wealthy and don't give 2 shits about the poor or middle class, economically.

WE are all in this together and it helps NO ONE for the low pay and loss of standard of living we see. We need to make corporations more answerable to the stockholders. Used to be there were nice dividends and people could invest and make some money without having to sell, this also allowed those people getting the dividends more capital to invest and save. The money that went to those dividends now goes into executives wallets.

As wages decrease the workers are going to become more reliant on government in their retirement because we don't make enough to save and prepare. This is going to further burden the future work force and employers.

I am a huge believer in national sovereignty and independence. I believe that countries should only import the materials they need and be self reliant or helped to be made so. This would help EVERY country's economy.

For people to argue that raising wages arbitrarily, while CEO pay can continue to skyrocket and the top 10% continues to accrue all the wealth will make the economy worse are people too blind to see that with out American consumerism and the free spending companies end up hurting more financially. Of course, they just layoff workers, outsource and still give executives raises.

I think a company that lays off people should face a board and explain why the layoffs and that the CEO and executives should be forced to take pay cuts and not receive bonuses.

There are ways to correct this, very simple ways. Obama comes out with a plan that basically states the above and that government will start implementing tight regulations on any company that receives ANY government monies whether through contracts, bailouts or loans. Small businesses are to be somewhat exempt.

Stop worrying about where one can smoke, planned parenthood, lightbulbs made in China that are hazardous waste death traps if one breaks in your house.... and worry about fixing the economy.

Make threats and start bills for regulations.... see how fast things change.

We have been raped, bought and sold by our own people for their own profit and it's time we take back what is the workers.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Baraka_Guru

Pan, while I get your grievances, I don't get your solutions. Raising wages and tariffs, in addition to banning many imports will do nothing but spike inflation---and quite dramatically at that. This will be devastating on the lower classes, and will only create further disparity of wealth, as the wealthy will still have access to outside markets (both in consumption and investing), but the poor won't.

Your concern about distribution of wealth isn't an issue of purely wages and protectionism and regulating corporate executives; it's an issue of liberalism and socialism. As mentioned here and in other threads, American politics is decidedly not left wing. The Democratic party sometimes leans left of centre, and there are socialized aspects to your economy, such as unions, minimum wages, labour laws, social security, welfare, etc., but your politics has a huge void when it comes to the left. You have no social democratic voice as other countries do---a voice that strives for a more mixed economy brought by further subsidization of problematic areas, extended social security to the most in need, a reinforcing of the progressive tax system, programs to alleviate strife related to immigration/multiculturalism, etc.

America does not have a social democratic voice that I know of, and it certainly doesn't seem to have one in government.

I see a problem, though. In America, socialism of any form is viewed as an evil. This is why America remains a predominantly conservative nation, tempered with centrism.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

first off, like dippin said there's probably not alot of disagreement that the current distribution of wealth is not the indication of some aristotlean shangri-la in which people who are Better make more and people who are Deficient make less because well, dammit, that's just the way in which it ought to be in this the best of all possible worlds. and this wasn't even a caricature (though i place no weight on knowing aristotle as an entry fee).

there are alot of basic problems with capitalist organization itself that can follow from pushing at the distribution of wealth.
i'm not sure that it makes alot of sense here to go too far into it, though i suppose we could if it could take the form of a conversation. but folk come at things differently.

anyway, i think that a global minimum wage would be an interesting move. who would implement such a thing? well there we have one of the more interesting questions posed right away. the reorganization of capitalist production (capital and other commodity flows) has outstripped the control of any particular nation-state. this is obvious but politically we've not caught up with it at all. pan's suggestions above are reasonable if you assume the nation-state is still a viable center of control (it isn't) and appeal (it is, but the meaning of that democratic feedback loop is undercut by the loss of meaningful regulatory/political control).

so at one level, the problem seems to me either people advocate for a fracturing of commodity flows in order to make the system amenable to control by nation-states again--which ain't gonna happen, even though it seems to me the center of what more conservative populism is about (to the extent that it's coherently about a single thing)---or there has to be some other kind of trans-national institutional/regulator infrastructure put into place--which raises all kinds of problems about representation, responsiveness to public pressure, etc.

one way or another, this problem is going to have to be addressed. it seems to me that we're currently stuck in a kind of massive political problem, an indication of what can happen when the categories that order a sense of the world fall out of phase with the world and cant be adapted. which is kinda what collapse of empire looks like. but i digress.

the meaning of a universal minimum wage could be shaped by the institutions that implement it. you'd assume something like this could not happen in a political or policy vacuum, that it would have contexts and consent generated rooted in the control over context, yes? and i would think that a trade-off profit versus the continued stability of the social system that enables profit to be extracted would be a pretty strong argument, wouldn't you?



i don't see tarrifs as a viable alternative to a universal minimum wage. this follows in a more or less circular way from the premise above, the one that claims the nation-state is effectively cooked.

there's more, but i gots to do some other stuff.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

This is true, but Obama supported it. Obama made political points by saying he reviewed the plan enhanced by Congress and said it met the criteria he wanted.

Why did he do that? To me it was an endorsement of Bush's policy. To be clear, Congress complained about the 7 page plan submitted by the administration and crafted their own version.

Your point is mis-directed. Obama said he saved us from the "brink", not me. I just ask what "brink", and what saved us? I think it is b.s., and I look for a detailed explanation. An explanation you can not give nor can the Obama administration.

Playing games with false arguments again. Bush was not a champion of free markets. Who said he was? the Republican party has often been overly supportive of big business. That support has often restricted competition and discouraged free market activity. Like I wrote above some are complicit, and some are gullible.

It appears your pattern of responses is based on assumed ideology rather than what is actually written.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace i'm not going to waste my time on this "brink" nonsense.

on the other, just read your own posts to this thread as if you didn't write them. you'll see the positioning of cowboy george as some inward champion of free marketeer nonsense who was corralled and hogtied by the evil neocons. i don't have to paste them up. the moves i'm referring to are self-evident in your posts.

if you want to debate can we move on to something substantial?
i'm busy and don't really have time for this quibbling.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I am not obsessed with Bush, it seems you and others are. Bush did something I supported and some things I did not support. I have been honest about that, to the contrary I don't see the same level of honesty regarding Obama.

I will do what I do, the way I do it. The way you respond is your choice. Again, your issues with me have nothing to do with the issues put on the table, if you can not separate the two, perhaps you should ask yourself, why? Or, make your life easier and ignore my posts.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

roachboy

ace...

it's almost impossible to get to the individual points you try to make because the way you frame the arguments is frequently so much embedded in a very conservative economic viewpoint that much of what should be argument or claim is presented as though it were true. this thread is a good example. the historical comparison it's based upon is ridiculous except in the most superficial possible sense, which is:

do you think that the obama administration will suffer the same kind of fate that the hoover administration suffered

which is a loose parallel question and **not** what you tried to make of it.
you do this stuff all the time, ace.

if i have a seam in between stuff that i am doing and feel inclined to interact with one of your threads or posts, more often than not this is how things play out. i go after a framework question, you pretend you don't know what i'm talking about. then i'll get momentarily exasperated thinking for fucks sake this is **your** argument, you have to be just playing obtuse. but maybe you arent and you just repeat things on faith. it's hard to say.

you've never made any effort so far as i can tell to interact in anything remotely like an engaqed way with anything anyone who criticizes you from a left viewpoint has written in response to your actions.
you don't even pretend to engage.
but you try to demand from others that they engage with your arguments on their own terms
this even after repeated demonstrations of exactly how and exactly why those terms are at best problematic.

i dont get it ace.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

cementor

Aassumption Unions are a major part of the answer as postulated above.

Reformation of the unions is a must if we are to survive economically. The protection of workers is a wonderful idea, but in its current format, it stifles the ability to be productive and most seem much more interested in lining their own pockets than taking care of their bosses (also known as their workers. In my opinion Unions have forgotten who they work for.). Costs soar and the ability to be competitive on an economic, global basis is compromised. Unions (in their current form) are a major reason while we don't produce stuff in the USA anymore. The idea of "it's not my job" is rampant in America and unions endorse and enforce this idea. I can recount hundreds of stories that revolve around inefficiency and days, weeks and months of lost productivity because "it's not my job" or worse, "I could solve this but can't because the union will fine me or worse if I do so".

Assumption Regulation of Indudtries is a major part of the answer as postulated.

Over regulation is a slippery slope as well. There may be a way to do it, equitably, but in my industry Oil and Gas, we are seeing a piece of the puzzle right now related to our dependence on foreign sources. Any of these regulations or actions that result in additional process time and costs, additional tax, fees, fines, etc, trickles directly to the end users (Companies don't absorb these hits. It is passed directly thru to you and me. If you can't compete economically with the foreign options for whatever reason, you are doomed to be dependent upon those you can't compete with, for your supply. This example will likely start another discussion altogether and that was not the idea. It should however, provoke some thought on how poorly thought out ideas can lead to "unintended consequences".

Anyone in the WH would and will have their hands full.

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

Derwood

you're painting unions with an awfully broad brush, there

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

cementor

Perhaps , but they have earned a good bit of the critisism (sic, my speller is off tonight).

__________________
Cementor
If I was any better I'd have to be twins!

pan6467

The only ban I mentioned was on companies overseas that did not meet US laws on wage/labor/OSHA ETC. Never said ban ALL imports.

I find it funny that people who cry about sweatshops will argue that if we banned those goods inflation would skyrocket. You can't have it both ways.

What we have been learning is that by allowing goods shipped from sweatshops and pretty much slave labor, is that our own standard of living goes down. Wages here go down, quality of life here goes down.... while the rich continue to get richer.

Thjis has nothing to do with liberalism and socialism or any "ism". It has to do with what is right and what promotes the best life for ALL PEOPLE.

The rich will still be extremely wealthy... but how much is enough.

We have been so programmed to believe it is ok for executives to make MILLIONS for the top 1-5-10% to accumulate more and more wealth while the bottom 80% continue to lose at a severe pace. We have been programmed to believe that it would lead to hyperinflation and blah blah blah.

The truth is, it is only going to get worse if we do nothing and continue to go down the road we are on. Companies and the ultra rich may bitch about it at first but they will eventually fall into line and wealth will be distributed more fairly again.

If not, the only thing that will happen is an eventual breakdown in society and civil wars.

When the wealth is distributed as unequally as it is, society can not continue it will fall apart. Why do you think all these high paid executives, Actors, Athletes and so on buy private islands, live in fortified gated communities and hide from the public? Because they are not stupid, they know society at the rate it is going with wealth distribution will crumble and there will be high crime rates, violence and a breakdown in society.

So, we try a plan similar to mine.... it either works or it fails but it is in no way worse than what we have now.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Derwood

Pan, I thought the "American Dream" was to be as successful as one can be. Or is it only the dream as long as you never become an evil rich person?

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

Baraka_Guru

Pan, I don't disagree with your stated problems; I disagree with your plan, and despite what you say, promoting the well-being of all people is a focus of liberalism and various forms of socialism.

Your plan will eliminate many imports (i.e. some products would seek markets other than the U.S.), and raise the prices on many others (raised costs = raised prices). This will spike the CPI and inflation, as would arbitrarily raising wages domestically.

I'm a proponent of a balanced mixed economy. That means I value markets that are regulated and fair. I also value market values being set primarily by market forces: namely, supply and demand. Too much intervention in this is a bad thing, as it discourages/dampens competition, which hurts everyone.

I would like it very much for Third World countries to raise their standard of living. Unfortunately, this would come at the cost of the standard of living in developed nations. Put another way: a higher quality of life to the Third World will come at the cost of the developed world: average prices around the world would go up. America would see an end to cheap goods. And they would have tougher competition for labour pools as well. This would send shockwaves through world markets, and I think you would find an even greater disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S. Though the Third World would have more livable lives, which I guess isn't such a bad thing. Sacrifices would have to be made, I suppose. America (et al) has had to too good for too long.

Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

I'd sooner support a plan in the form of widespread subsidies, grants, and tax breaks.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot