190 replies to this topic

[niner]

The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

Hey Navigator, check out the article on Obama at www.HumanEvents.com
(advertized on ImmInst).

Human Events.com? With Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan? They advertise here? Something is amiss here. Obama was seen wearing a flag lapel pin the other day, so does that mean he's gone Republican?

[EmbraceUnity]

There was some deregulation under Clinton, but the truly damaging deregulation occurred under Republican control.
In 2000, Phill Gramm (R TX), tacked a rider onto a huge appropriations bill in 2000 that deregulated Credit Default Swaps and other derivative instruments. This was known as the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This act prevented regulation of the very derivatives that entail securitization of mortgages and other debt, and effectively removed financial discipline from the lending market. In addition to this, it was a key to Enron's abuse of the California energy market and ultimate demise. When competent State Attorneys General tried to take steps to reign in subprime lenders, Bush actively stopped them!
...
The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

Let's hear what Greenspan himself has to say:

http://www.democracy..._naomi_klein_on

(after joking that Bill Clinton was a Republican president)...

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, I stated that I’m a libertarian Republican, which means I believe in a series of issues, such as smaller government, constraint on budget deficits, free markets, globalization, and a whole series of other things, including welfare reform. And as you may remember, Bill Clinton was pretty much in the same—was doing much that same agenda. And so, I got to consider him as someone—as he described it, we were both an odd couple, because he is a centrist Democrat. And that’s not all that far from libertarian Republicanism.

AMY GOODMAN: About how much would you say you agreed with him?

ALAN GREENSPAN: On economic issues, I would say probably 80%.

...Yea... you lose that one

As for Iraq....

http://edition.cnn.c...iraq/index.html

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for."

Here is what he said in 2002, before the war.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain521789.shtml

Letterman asked, “Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I'd like to go in. I'd like to get the guy. I don't like the way the guy looks.”

“He is a threat. He's a murderer and a thug,” said Mr. Clinton. “There's no doubt we can do this. We're stronger; he's weaker. You're looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I'd be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished.”

I mean no disrespect, but we have two wings of a single party.. stop lying to yourself and the rest of us.

Edited by progressive, 15 May 2008 - 06:57 AM.

[niner]

There was some deregulation under Clinton, but the truly damaging deregulation occurred under Republican control.
In 2000, Phill Gramm (R TX), tacked a rider onto a huge appropriations bill in 2000 that deregulated Credit Default Swaps and other derivative instruments. This was known as the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. This act prevented regulation of the very derivatives that entail securitization of mortgages and other debt, and effectively removed financial discipline from the lending market. In addition to this, it was a key to Enron's abuse of the California energy market and ultimate demise. When competent State Attorneys General tried to take steps to reign in subprime lenders, Bush actively stopped them!
...
The facts simply do not support the contention that the two parties are the same.

Let's hear what Greenspan himself has to say:

http://www.democracy..._naomi_klein_on

(after joking that Bill Clinton was a Republican president)...

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, I stated that I’m a libertarian Republican, which means I believe in a series of issues, such as smaller government, constraint on budget deficits, free markets, globalization, and a whole series of other things, including welfare reform. And as you may remember, Bill Clinton was pretty much in the same—was doing much that same agenda. And so, I got to consider him as someone—as he described it, we were both an odd couple, because he is a centrist Democrat. And that’s not all that far from libertarian Republicanism.

AMY GOODMAN: About how much would you say you agreed with him?

ALAN GREENSPAN: On economic issues, I would say probably 80%.

...Yea... you lose that one

And Greenspan didn't agree with Bush or the Republican Congress! Speaking about Bush, he said:

GREENSPAN: But, as I say in the book, he did not clamp down, as I thought was necessary, on what was a wayward Republican-controlled Congress, which I thought lost its way and started to spend and create all sorts of fiscal imbalances. And, essentially, what I hold—where I thought the administration could have done far better is if the veto were employed. And as you may remember, he did not use the veto at all. And that, what I thought, would have created a much more balanced procedure in the Congress. So it’s a mixed case in this regard.

... So no, I don't think I "lose" anything on the blatherings of Alan Greenspan, Mr. liquidity solves everything, Mr. Destroyer of the currency. He considers himself a "libertarian", and is supposed to be independent of party. He's not a spokesman for the GOP.

As for Iraq....

http://edition.cnn.c...iraq/index.html

Yeah, let's look at what Clinton would have done, from the same source:

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

Remember, Hillary was gearing up for a run at the presidency at this time, and could not afford to appear "weak on terrorism" in a country that had been lied into a frenzy.

Here is what he said in 2002, before the war.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain521789.shtml

And from the same source:

Mr. Clinton told Letterman that - for now - the next step should probably be more weapons inspections.

Again, the difference is apparent.

I mean no disrespect, but we have two wings of a single party.. stop lying to yourself and the rest of us.

Accusing a person of lying is pretty disrespectful, even if you "don't mean it". Since you were in kindergarten during the Clinton administration, I'll ignore that. What I would ask you to do, however, is address the points that I made, rather than dredging up quotes taken out of context from two individuals, one who was a pretty damn bad central banker who had the good fortune of being appointed at the beginning of a historic secular bull market after Paul Volker had done the hard work; and the other being the husband of a soon to be presidential candidate who was speaking carefully for political purposes.

You can't prove anything by looking only at what politicians say, like "uniter, not a divider", or "humble foreign policy"; you have to look at what they do. You need to be looking at the legislation they pass, the people they choose to run federal agencies, the Justices they put up, the way they actually govern, as a whole.

[EmbraceUnity]

Accusing a person of lying is pretty disrespectful, even if you "don't mean it". Since you were in kindergarten during the Clinton administration, I'll ignore that. What I would ask you to do, however, is address the points that I made, rather than dredging up quotes taken out of context from two individuals, one who was a pretty damn bad central banker who had the good fortune of being appointed at the beginning of a historic secular bull market after Paul Volker had done the hard work; and the other being the husband of a soon to be presidential candidate who was speaking carefully for political purposes.

You can't prove anything by looking only at what politicians say, like "uniter, not a divider", or "humble foreign policy"; you have to look at what they do. You need to be looking at the legislation they pass, the people they choose to run federal agencies, the Justices they put up, the way they actually govern, as a whole.

I am sorry for calling you a liar. Since I agree with you that the republicans bear more blame for the current subprime mortgage crisis than the dems, I wasn't entirely interested in debating that point. The one thing I will note that if you look at the person Bill Clinton appointed to run the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, you will have to at least admit he is hardly blameless.

I suppose what I was trying to get at with claiming we have two wings of a single party is that they share the same underlying assumptions about american power, economics, and so forth. How they choose to act on those shared and flawed assumptions is up in the air. Bush is far more corporatist and militarist than Clinton ever was, for sure. Yet, that is more like a tactical difference than a significant difference in worldview. Both Bush and Clinton's words and deeds reveal the same assumption that Noam Chomsky documents in his scholarship, which is that "We Own the World."

Thus, my main points are a) the two-party system is responsible for producing politicians without differing worldviews b) When the election ends it is almost as if grassroots politics ceases. Simply swapping politicians every few years is not the solution to any of our fundamental problems. We can't just rely on politicians to change things, since they are all cut from the same cloth and poorly responsive to the numerous urgent issues. Instead, we must build a progressive movement that transcends the election cycle. These politicians must be constantly pushed and prodded towards issues of social justice.

Edited by progressive, 16 May 2008 - 07:05 AM.

[niner]

Accusing a person of lying is pretty disrespectful, even if you "don't mean it". Since you were in kindergarten during the Clinton administration, I'll ignore that. What I would ask you to do, however, is address the points that I made, rather than dredging up quotes taken out of context from two individuals, one who was a pretty damn bad central banker who had the good fortune of being appointed at the beginning of a historic secular bull market after Paul Volker had done the hard work; and the other being the husband of a soon to be presidential candidate who was speaking carefully for political purposes.

You can't prove anything by looking only at what politicians say, like "uniter, not a divider", or "humble foreign policy"; you have to look at what they do. You need to be looking at the legislation they pass, the people they choose to run federal agencies, the Justices they put up, the way they actually govern, as a whole.

I am sorry for calling you a liar. Since I agree with you that the republicans bear more blame for the current subprime mortgage crisis than the dems, I wasn't entirely interested in debating that point. The one thing I will note that if you look at the person Bill Clinton appointed to run the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, you will have to at least admit he is hardly blameless.

I suppose what I was trying to get at with claiming we have two wings of a single party is that they share the same underlying assumptions about american power, economics, and so forth. How they choose to act on those shared and flawed assumptions is up in the air. Bush is far more corporatist and militarist than Clinton ever was, for sure. Yet, that is more like a tactical difference than a significant difference in worldview. Both Bush and Clinton's words and deeds reveal the same assumption that Noam Chomsky documents in his scholarship, which is that "We Own the World."

Thus, my main points are a) the two-party system is responsible for producing politicians without differing worldviews b) When the election ends it is almost as if grassroots politics ceases. Simply swapping politicians every few years is not the solution to any of our fundamental problems. We can't just rely on politicians to change things, since they are all cut from the same cloth and poorly responsive to the numerous urgent issues. Instead, we must build a progressive movement that transcends the election cycle. These politicians must be constantly pushed and prodded towards issues of social justice.

I accept and appreciate your apology. I think that if you view the Democrats and the Republicans from the perspective of idealism, then, yeah, they both kind of suck. They are both corporatist and militarist. To some extent, though, I think that might just be a reflection of our society. If you had a true multiparty system where no one was shut out of the political process, I still think that a non corporatist, non militarist social justice candidate would not get very far. Military strength is very important to a huge number of people. They may be insecure bedwetters who are scared of every bogeyman that comes down the pike, but they are there, and they are very easy to manipulate. The militarist candidates would tell people that your candidate was going to let the terrorists get their children, and that would be that. If a candidate tried to stand up for social justice, they would run into a mess because no one can agree what social justice is. Some people think that affirmative action is social justice, while low income Whites think, perhaps justifiably, that it is unjust. Some people think that progressive taxation is social justice, while others think that all taxation is unjust. Some people think that corporations are evil, while other people are relying on the health of corporations to fund their healthcare and retirement. I really think that for a third, fourth, or nth party candidate to get elected, they would end up sounding and acting a lot like the major parties.

What we need is a different kind of public discourse, based on facts and reason instead of the emotionalism, jingoism, and lies that dominate much of today's political culture. I don't know exactly how to get there from here, but a good start would be for political parties and politicians to stop cozying up to fundamentalist extremists like John Hagee, or hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the like. Since my underlying premise is that there are significant differences between the two parties in the US, I will point out that the cozying up to fundies and hatemongers is almost exclusively a Republican phenomenon. The left has their ranters as well, although they don't seem to get the audience that the rightwing ranters get, and certainly don't get the close support of the party as seen on the right.

ps: Greenspan was a Reagan appointee. For the first three presidents that he worked under, he was not that bad. His greatest errors were relatively recent.

[EmbraceUnity]

I accept and appreciate your apology. I think that if you view the Democrats and the Republicans from the perspective of idealism, then, yeah, they both kind of suck. They are both corporatist and militarist. To some extent, though, I think that might just be a reflection of our society. If you had a true multiparty system where no one was shut out of the political process, I still think that a non corporatist, non militarist social justice candidate would not get very far. Military strength is very important to a huge number of people. They may be insecure bedwetters who are scared of every bogeyman that comes down the pike, but they are there, and they are very easy to manipulate. The militarist candidates would tell people that your candidate was going to let the terrorists get their children, and that would be that. If a candidate tried to stand up for social justice, they would run into a mess because no one can agree what social justice is. Some people think that affirmative action is social justice, while low income Whites think, perhaps justifiably, that it is unjust. Some people think that progressive taxation is social justice, while others think that all taxation is unjust. Some people think that corporations are evil, while other people are relying on the health of corporations to fund their healthcare and retirement. I really think that for a third, fourth, or nth party candidate to get elected, they would end up sounding and acting a lot like the major parties.

What we need is a different kind of public discourse, based on facts and reason instead of the emotionalism, jingoism, and lies that dominate much of today's political culture. I don't know exactly how to get there from here, but a good start would be for political parties and politicians to stop cozying up to fundamentalist extremists like John Hagee, or hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the like. Since my underlying premise is that there are significant differences between the two parties in the US, I will point out that the cozying up to fundies and hatemongers is almost exclusively a Republican phenomenon. The left has their ranters as well, although they don't seem to get the audience that the rightwing ranters get, and certainly don't get the close support of the party as seen on the right.

Surely the fact that demagogues get high ratings aids their political influence, since our media prizes ratings above all else, including truth. Just because someone attracts attention doesn't mean it is a good idea to then give them a primetime show. Yet, that is how corporate media works. I think more funding for NPR would be nice, as long as it maintains their same quality of programming or better. Public radio in the US doesn't hold a candle to the BBC, and with the pitiful funding of public radio that makes sense. I'm very open to other ideas on improving the level of discourse and critical thinking.

You are right that it isn't just the centralized powers, because the ideologies that have been constructed in service of those centralized powers have been filtered out to many in the general public. This didn't happen by accident, but because those that own the knowledge-disseminating institutions (books, newspaper, TV, advertising, etc) typically have certain political biases. Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary are prime examples. We literally have corporations defining what accepted truth is.

Decentralization of the media through the internet is a mixed bag so far. It has created a lot of intelligent debate and a lot of demagoguery. Wikipedia is replacing Encyclopedia Britannica, and this has probably been a good thing on par. Yet, at the same time we have blogs who seem just as desperate for ratings as any news network, if not moreso. Progressive education would seem to be an excellent way of instilling critical thinking from a young age, so that they won't just be pumped full of dogmatic truisms by the time they do grow up and become participants in public discourse.

ps: Greenspan was a Reagan appointee. For the first three presidents that he worked under, he was not that bad. His greatest errors were relatively recent.

I tend to think that he was making similar errors the whole time, but under the Bush Administration the consequences of those policies became magnified. Much of the 90's boom was built on irrationality, enron-style creative accounting, and deregulation stretching back to Reagan and the fallout from that was responded to by easy credit, tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, and a militaristic version of keynesianism. The war probably revved up things a bit, but the military-industrial complex is now multinational so that limited the economic boost from the war. All of those policies that the neocons salivate over were aided by the dot-com bust. Even the war. I can't tell you how many people seemed excited for the economy when news of war hit the headlines.

Basically, there is no defense for Bill Clinton's re-appointment of Greenspan. In addition to his complicity in the subprime mess that you pointed out, he did nothing to slow down the dot-com bubble, and actually set up some of the conditions that made it possible. He was also an economic consultant for the felon Charles Keating and his gang, and did his best to convince the regulatory agencies to exempt Keating's Lincoln Savings from pesky regulations. He was therefore complicit in the Savings and Loan crisis. He is a slimeball, and always was a slimeball.

Edited by progressive, 19 May 2008 - 03:38 AM.

[niner]

You are right that it isn't just the centralized powers, because the ideologies that have been constructed in service of those centralized powers have been filtered out to many in the general public. This didn't happen by accident, but because those that own the knowledge-disseminating institutions (books, newspaper, TV, advertising, etc) typically have certain political biases. Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's Dictionary are prime examples. We literally have corporations defining what accepted truth is.

No, it didn't happen by accident, but I tend to place more blame on the well funded (Richard Mellon Scaife etc.) effort on the right to run a very long term effort to counteract what some saw as frightening Marxism and anti-capitalism afoot on college campuses in the 60's. There were a number of foundations created to advance conservative memes. They built quite a machine and it was pretty effective at reframing issues and steering our political culture to the right. People like Limbaugh et al. came along later, just riding a wave, but the ultimate result is that there is a lot of deep-seated mythology out there now.

Decentralization of the media through the internet is a mixed bag so far. It has created a lot of intelligent debate and a lot of demagoguery. Wikipedia is replacing Encyclopedia Britannica, and this has probably been a good thing on par. Yet, at the same time we have blogs who seem just as desperate for ratings as any news network, if not moreso. Progressive education would seem to be an excellent way of instilling critical thinking from a young age, so that they won't just be pumped full of dogmatic truisms by the time they do grow up and become participants in public discourse.

Yeah, to a great extent the Internet = echo chamber, with people gravitating to sources that confirm their biases. Still, I think it's our best hope. And yes, we could certainly be teaching high school or younger kids about logical falacies. For godsake, that should be mandatory. I think there might be some of this going on; my kids (6 and 8) seem to be learning about advertising and what it's up to, even beyond what I've told them.

ps: Greenspan was a Reagan appointee. For the first three presidents that he worked under, he was not that bad. His greatest errors were relatively recent.

I tend to think that he was making similar errors the whole time, but under the Bush Administration the consequences of those policies became magnified. Much of the 90's boom was built on irrationality, enron-style creative accounting, and deregulation stretching back to Reagan and the fallout from that was responded to by easy credit, tax cuts for the rich, more deregulation, and a militaristic version of keynesianism. The war probably revved up things a bit, but the military-industrial complex is now multinational so that limited the economic boost from the war. All of those policies that the neocons salivate over were aided by the dot-com bust. Even the war. I can't tell you how many people seemed excited for the economy when news of war hit the headlines.

Basically, there is no defense for Bill Clinton's re-appointment of Greenspan. In addition to his complicity in the subprime mess that you pointed out, he did nothing to slow down the dot-com bubble, and actually set up some of the conditions that made it possible. He was also an economic consultant for the felon Charles Keating and his gang, and did his best to convince the regulatory agencies to exempt Keating's Lincoln Savings from pesky regulations. He was therefore complicit in the Savings and Loan crisis. He is a slimeball, and always was a slimeball.

You're right, he was making similar errors the entire time. I tend to cut him some slack in the early years, although I probably shouldn't. I felt like his contribution to the S&L crisis was kind of tenuous, and the crash of 87, as scary as it was, didn't turn out that bad long term. The Long Term Capital Mgmt blowup could be laid at his feet as well, and although that turned out ok in the end, it could have been a disaster. But that and the really bubblicious part of the tech boom came late in Clinton's term. It would have been really hard for him to dump Greenspan early on. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see it would have been the best possible move for the country, but at the time there would have been hell to pay for such a decision and not all that much to base it on. The amount of Greenspan worship that went on in the 90's and even beyond was unreal. Some people are starting to clue in to the truth, though. I don't think history will be all that kind to him.

[missminni]

Some tasty koolaid being served up by Obama's communications director in an interview with George Stephanopoulos:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: In Philadelphia, just in April, Senator Obama said of Reverend Wright "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." Now he's cut all ties to Reverend Wright, and left his church. What is it a mistake to wait this long?

ROBERT GIBBS: No, George. I think obviously what Barack Obama made in the past few days is a deeply personal, not a political decision. And as you heard the reasoning, he made that decision for two reasons. One, even guest speakers that were at Trinity, their views were ascribed to him even though he didn't hold those views, and secondly, the members of Trinity couldn't do what members of a church do, and that is, sit in quiet reflection and worship God.

...sitting in quiet reflection and worshiping God? Is that what all that whopping, hollering and fist pumping was about? This guy is too funny. I grew up in a predominantly black area and we had plenty of black churches, but none of them were like this. There is something very, very wrong about Trinity UCC, and I can't help but wonder why Obama thought it was o.k. to attend that church for 20+ years? I doubt he is a racist, but from his 20+ year membership there it sure seems he has an awful lot of tolerance towards people who have a whole heck of a lot of issues about Whitey.

I think the 8000 members was the reason for his attendance. It was a political decision to join and a political decision to
quit. That's how I see it. He's a politician.

Edited by missminni, 02 June 2008 - 02:00 AM.

[mentatpsi]

I think the 8000 members was the reason for his attendance. It was a political decision to join and a political decision to
quit. That's how I see it. He's a politician.

Finally some wisdom . Let's talk alternative energy... noooo i wanna know what Angelina Jolie is doiiiing.

I understand where you guys are coming from, but politics is about public appeal, not right or wrong. Hence why nothing gets done -.-". Besides does anyone know the costs of marketing to get your "voice" heard? seriously now, i kinda wanna know...

Edited by mysticpsi, 03 June 2008 - 03:02 PM.