A Shallow Campaign
February 20th, 2008 at 09:35am Mark Noonan
Rather biting commentary on Barack Obama from Robert Samuelson:
A favorite Obama line is that he will tell “the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know.” Well, he hasn’t so far.
Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: “Spending for retirees — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem.”
Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to “protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries.” This isn’t “change”; it’s sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees — shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama’s main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.
Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscurity. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it’s his standard and also his campaign’s central theme. He has run on the vague promise of “change,” but on issue after issue — immigration, the economy, global warming — he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates.
For all the glitz of Barack Obama, he is a very conventional ultra-liberal American politician. There isn’t any fundamental difference between him and Hillary - or between him and any one of a score of senior Democratic politicians. They all agree that only very modest and targeted tax cuts should be implemented; that very large increases in spending are necessary; that universal health care is a right; that abortion on demand must remain the law of the land; that America’s continued racism required continued racial quotas dressed up as affirmative action; that no restrictions must be placed on the ability of lawyers to sue, regardless of the merits of the case; that Iraq is a failure we must withdraw from…on and on and on: you don’t have to listen to a Barack Obama speech - all you need to know is the subjects to be covered, and you can already tell precisely what he will say about them (though his actual choice of rhetoric might far outpace yours).
After Obama’s recent string of ever-more-convincing primary victories, he’s got the very strong inside track to the Democratic nomination - more than likely, the people we will choose between in November are John McCain and Barack Obama. Obama owes it to the American people to actually state what he believes - leave off the soaring rhetoric for a moment and explain just how his ultra-liberalism is the cure for what ailes us. And if he doesn’t, then it is up to John McCain and we GOPers to ensure that the American people find out what Obama is hiding behind his high and mighty words.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
69 Comments
1. TiredofLibBullShit | February 20th, 2008 at 11:50 am
I think that we should give this election a theme. Now I know that politicians are all using the “change” word. That word was tested in front of focus groups around the country and really rang the bells. Hillary, Barack … change, change, change. How pathetically stupid. If someone tells you they’re going to “change” something, wouldn’t you be just the least bit curious as to what in the hell they are going to change from and to? But wait .. that would take a sense of inquisitiveness, wouldn’t it?
So .. we need another theme. May I propose that we call this the “What can my country do for me?” election?
Give me health care.
Give me prescription drugs.
Make them raise my salary.
Make them bring my job back.
Give me lifetime job security.
Pay my heating bill
Make my gasoline cheaper
Pay for my kid’s college education
Give me a comfortable retirement
Give me free transportation
Just listen to these candidates. They never talk about freedom. They never talk about self-reliance. They only talk about all of the great and wonderful things that they will do for you if you just give them the power of government to get those things done. And do you know why this is? It’s because that seems to be all we’re interested in; what the government can do for us.
“Land of the free and the home of the brave?” Well, OK .. there’s certainly some left. But more and more we’re becoming the “Land of the secure and the home of the dependent.” We’re turning America into a giant assisted living center.
I’m really sorry to say this, but this nation is in trouble … much like a beautiful home infested with mold. The mold just relentlessly spreads with no abatement in site. How long before we have to tear things down and rebuild? The mold? Government dependence. Mitt Romney referred to it as a sickness … Government dependence is a sickness. Well, the sickness is spreading.
Just listen to the election rhetoric. Here’s what I want the government to do for me. You’ll certainly hear much more of that then you will any call for freedom and independence.
Really sad.
2. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 11:55 am
yes - of course it is rhetoric. But PLEASE don’t tell me you think this is somehow limited to Obama. Christ - this stupid blog is called ‘blogs for victory’ Mark. Are you serious? Are you friggin serious that you have the audacity to claim other people are using empty rhetoric when your run a blog called BLOGS FOR VICTORY. Sigh.. i guess I should just get used to the idea that Matt and Mark don’t even understand what it means to be a hypocrite yet alone not be one.
I won’t even bother to mention all of the mindless calls for ‘family values’ from certain Republican candidates.
Get a friggen clue - all politicians suffer from the exact same problem
3. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Empty rhetoric?
Liberals are full of empty rhetoric. You constantly hear the mantra….”pay their fair share”.
Well………here’s some empty rhetoric for you.
The state of Virginia offers a way for residents to put their money where their mouths are. Their “Tax Me More Fund” was created in 2002. Since then, the state has raised a whopping $10,217.04. Many say the program allows lawmakers to highlight the hypocritical nature of higher-tax advocates.
Now that Virginia has a $1.4 billion budget shortfall, state lawmakers are not looking to the fund as a solution. The most the fund has ever pulled in one year was $6,602 back in 2003. In 2006, the people of Virginia donated just $19.36 to the fund.
Here’s an idea. Every single time a politician calls for a tax increase maybe their own tax rate should go up by about one percent. That should shut them up.
The real trouble here is that most Americans think that other people aren’t paying their fair share … but they are paying just the right amount.
Liberals are alway free with words and other people’s money. Now they call for people to contribute to a “retirement” system (something that it was never ment to be) all their lives only to be denied benefits because they were successful in life, while others who were not so fortunate or didn’t give a damn are going to reap the benefits? That is their solution?!? Typical socialist RHETORIC!
“i guess I should just get used to the idea that Matt and Mark don’t even understand what it means to be a hypocrite yet alone not be one.”
projecting again, eh, libt.
4. Retired Spook | February 20th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
How long before we have to tear things down and rebuild?
TLBS, the answer to that question is one of my biggest concerns. At no time in my adult life have I seen the political/sociological/ideological divide in this country so pronounced. We are so close to the tipping point where the “takers” will outnumber the “providers”, that it just scares the hell out of me. Once we reach that point it will be virtually irreversible by any means other than violence, and that scares me even more.
5. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
We don’t?
If a country is to have a democracy where The People have the power (not a king or dictator) then wouldn’t it be wise for The People to at least listen to their presidential candidates speak?
I’m afraid that you don’t want people to listen to Barack because he is so moving and inspirational and speaks to every day People in this country so well that you are afraid people will start thinking and listening to him. They might try to understand him, try to think outside their bubble, try to comprimise and open their minds.
How tragic that would be!
On the other hand, I am afraid that the “trust me” attitude you have in regards to our current leaders and the McCain candidacy is what can and will and has gotten us into trouble. We trusted Bush. He screwed up. Some of us listen to conservative talk radio and television hosts tell us what to think we listen and we trust them. They are wrong and we see that now.
Barack is asking us to listen to him. But not to trust him blindly. He has asked, openly, to help him by holding him accountable for his mistakes because he is willing to admit he is human and capable of making mistakes. He is open to comprimise, and ideas from others.
He is begging us to rise up and be The People that our founders counted on us to be.
That is very moving.
McCain? Pffft… only if you want another George W. Bush.
6. liberalT | February 20th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
tired - what you are certainly are is tired rhetoric. Oh my god - socialism - damn commies. Lets kill em.
The simple fact of the matter is that the US has many socialist elements: care for homeless veterans - socialist, the federal reserve - socialist, public education - socialist.
tired - go back into the 50s and buy a clue.
7. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Here’s what scares me the most. We have some new issues to deal with in this country. We have some problems that have been created by the poor leadership of Bush.
So we have two parts:
1. The stuff that Bush screwed up and we need to fix.
2. The new issues that we face as a country. The envronment, energy, retirement, health care, immigration, and social issues (abortion, creationism, gay marriage).
Here’s what scares me. We cannot fully comprimise on some of those issues. Therefore, logically speaking, we simply must chose one option over the other attempting to tweak it a bit for comprimise but in the end some people will not get things their way.
You cannot please all the people all the time.
We must do something though. We cannot go on decade after decade agrueing about certain points without ever making any progress.
Therefore someone has to be a winner and someone has to lose and let the winners have their day.
However, what I am scared of… is the losers will not let it die.
That we will see another Civil War in our own country.
Be it verbal. Be it physical.
Lincoln decided to end slavery and the south and north went to war.
It was not that long ago and it could happen again.
Are you willing to go to war within your own country over these issues?
8. Percy Beezer | February 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
ABSOLUTLY, steam!
An Obama speech is a shot of endorphs directly to the brain. I’ve never felt so happy to be an American as when listening to Barack’s inspiring rhetoric.
I was depressed, sad, and felt all alone until I heard The Man! Now I’m ready to tackle the problems of this country. As soon as I cast my vote (if I remember to register) I’m going to start change everywhere I go. It’s a blueprint for success; follow The Man and we can … uh … what was that middle thing again? Oh, yeah we can … wait; I know … it was something about … I’m going back to bed, my disability check won’t be here for another week.
9. hermie | February 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Obama’s speeches are in contrast to his actions.
Calls for bipartisanship and comity fell on deaf ears when he worked to filibuster Justice Alito and other judicial appountments…attempting to smear them with the ‘racism’ charge.
His ‘leadership’ as a legislator in Illinois was never apparent, especially when dealing with corruption in the Statehouse. He went along for the ride. In Harry Belafonte’s words, he was just another ‘House Slave’ to Ritchie Daley and the Chicago Democratic political machine.
He never had to defend his positions when running for the Senate, thanks to the MSM going out of their way to kneecap first Obama’s primary opponent, and then the GOP candidate. It was clear sailing once the GOP leadership imploded.
10. Ricorun | February 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Spook: We are so close to the tipping point where the “takers” will outnumber the “providers”, that it just scares the hell out of me. Once we reach that point it will be virtually irreversible by any means other than violence, and that scares me even more.
I don’t know about the violence part, but what you speak about is a concern. There is a growing income disparity in this country. I read somewhere recently that since 2003 the increase in net income of the top 1% was greater than the total income of the bottom 20%. I don’t know how true that is, and I didn’t save the citation. But it is not by any means the only statistic that indicates a growing divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Needless to say, as income disparity grows, the wealth disparity grows even more disproportionately.
I don’t know what to suggest as a remedy. Some recommend back-tracking on international trade deals, or requiring that international trading partners institute some of the same worker protections available in the US, or removing the incentives for off-shoring, or stimulating domestic manufacturing (which is one of the reasons I am in favor of incentivizing domestic green technologies). But whatever the recommended remedies are (and none of them are necessarily mutually exclusive), the fact remains that the growing income disparity really is a concern.
11. Sunny | February 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Obama owes it to the American people to actually state what he believes - Mark
Mark, I doubt that he will have a choice but to tell the American public exactly what what he will do about social security, medicare, medicade etc. if he ends up being the Democratic candidate. If the debates are properly conducted with questions to address these issues, he will have to answer them honestly. The debates will tell us what the candidates intend to do about all of the important issues to the American public. I hope that those asking the questions ask the right ones and do not permit either candidate to gloss over or side step them and more importantly, that voters will actually watch the debates. We have a poorly informed public when it comes to elections.
12. Percy Beezer | February 20th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Lincoln decided to end slavery and the south and north went to war.
You’re not really that stupid are you?
Are you willing to go to war within your own country over these issues?
I guess you are!
13. steveGA | February 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Point of order, didn’t John McCain make a “no new taxes” pledge? Given that we have huge budget deficits, an economy at or near recession, an aging infrastructure, increasing debt service payments, and two freaking expensive wars to wage, how exactly does McCain plan on paying for all of this without the necessary tax revenues?
You talk about empty rhetoric and empty promises, this “no new taxes” pledge takes the cake.
You talk about liberals alleged expectations of government to handle everything, you conservatives expect government to handle everything for nothing. This isn’t merely hypocritical, this is downright childish.
14. Sunny | February 20th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Liberals are alway free with words and other people’s money. tiredoflibullsh**
I would say that the conservatives have done their share spending other people’s money for the past 6 years. Until the Democrats became the majority a year ago November, the Republicans did a might fine job of spending our money and the president didn’t know he had a veto pen during that time. You can be critical, whiney and pissy about the Democrats spending habits, but until we get both parties to understand we are sick and tired of their lack of control with our money, nothing is going to change. The biggest “special interest” (ie, pork) contributor is Senator Stevens (R) from Alaska. We need more senators like mine - Senator Corburn. He takes a lot of heat for his stand on fiscal responsibility, but I think he is great!
15. Retired Spook | February 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
the fact remains that the growing income disparity really is a concern.
To whom, Rico?
16. Magnum Serpentine | February 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Give me health care.
Give me prescription drugs.
Make them raise my salary.
Make them bring my job back.
Give me lifetime job security.
Pay my heating bill
Make my gasoline cheaper
Pay for my kid’s college education
Give me a comfortable retirement
Give me free transportation
These are very good suggestions Tired. Very good indeed. let us hope that the next President will get laws passed that bring each and every one on your list into reality.
One suggestion on the Gas price… All the President would have to do is mention the word… Price Gouging. I saw it happen in the 1990’s one night, gas was 1.40 a gallon after the president mentioned Price Gouging wham the price was 90 cents a couple of weeks later.
17. Arctic Fox | February 20th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Steve: I can answer that. In the way Mr Bush has, by borrowing money from other countries, by relying on corporations to fund the government and by hoping that the illusion of that being able to make a country work will last until he leaves office.
That is the number one priority for Mr Bush right now - keep the economy appearing to be afloat (even though he’s having to go as far as admitting that it might possibly be on the brink of recession) until he leaves office.
Mr McCain, a devout believer in that, is set to continue to try and keep the soap bubble intact by proposing further tax cuts.
To consider whether taxes or tax cuts are a good idea, you have to consider what taxes are for. Taxes are for the maintenance of public services. I pay, to the local government, taxes. The local government spends that money on the infrastructure - roads, public hospitals, water purification, that kind of thing. The more money that is raised in taxes, the more money the local government has to spend on these things.
But the system has been corrupted. That money now is going to one of two places it shouldn’t go. The first is to central government, which is not concerned with local issues. While a percentage of this revenue should go to keeping central government running, it shouldn’t be a big percentage, since all the states paying a percentage should equal a large enough amount to maintain and run central government.
The second place it’s going is to the corporations. Rather than fix things themselves, local governments give that money to private corporate contractors. This will only work if there is accountability; right now there isn’t. Those companies, all of them, are run for profit, so their goal is to spend as little of the money they get actually doing the job they are being employed to do. The cheaper they can do it, the more of that money they can keep as profits.
What I’ve described here is the idea behind how taxes are supposed to work. The system is broken, possibly already beyond repair. But if it’s going to BE repaired, somebody has to actually start TRYING to repair it, and Mr McCain’s idea that the best thing we can do is give even more money to corporations because somehow “the government is automatically bad, because it’s the government” is only going to worsen the problem, because it never sets out to fix the problem, or even to see where the trouble lies within the system.
This is why people are wanting a change instead of two candidates - Clinton and McCain - who are already a part of the establishment. They’ve seen things aren’t working on a local level, and they accept that things need to change. And ANYONE promising to look at that is going to pick up those votes.
18. Darva Conger | February 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
What will doom the GOP is the transformation 2000’s McCain into today’s Bush clone.
Not a reference will go forth from Obama’s mouth that doesn’t say “Bush-McCain.”
Keep that up until election day. John is finished.
19. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You are right Arctic, the problem is most certainly accountably. But also to the ridiculous corruption of politician’s. Best way to get rid of this is do what is done for normal people. Make an example of a couple of them, throw them in jail, put them on ‘Cops’. That I would pay to see. Police men chasing a senator or congressman around Washington and putting them in handcuffs. Sadly I doubt it will happen after all one phone call the the chief of police and well you know the rest.
20. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Arctic Fox,
Nice analysis, now if you can just explain what a “corporation is. From your description I’m picturing a troll-like creature with bad breath and big pockets for holding people against their will. I used to think that acorporation is one type of business entity incorporated for a common goal; I also (stupidly) thought that corporations were actually people that supplied a service or a product to other people.
And, how crazy is this, I thought that my retirement fund and the economy in general was dependent upon corporations, partnerships and limited liability companies along with entrepreneurial individuals that took risks and reaped rewards succeeding and prospering. Now I see that the government is actually driving the wheels of industry. Where do I go to buy stock in government?
21. Retired Spook | February 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
These are very good suggestions Tired. Very good indeed. let us hope that the next President will get laws passed that bring each and every one on your list into reality.
Be careful what you wish for, Mag.
22. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
23. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Ricorun,
Please explain “the fact remains that the growing income disparity really is a concern“; because I don’t see that as a fact at all. Actually, as the incomes and standard of living has increased for the bottom 20% as well as the top 1% that first group is no worse off than before, unless you’re arguing that the economy is zero sum gain, you’re not are you?
24. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Oh and Percy…
My point doesn’t change simply because my knowledge of history regarding our own civil war kinda sucks.
Point is, the north and south went to war over an idea. Slavery.
25. Percy Beezer | February 20th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
steam,
Nice recovery, but slavery was only one issue in the greater States Rights issue; the War Between the States was the culmination of the Revolutionary War.
One of Lincoln’s Generals issued an emancipation proclamation at the beginning of the war and Lincoln rescinded it; he would have gladly kept slavery if it meant an end to secession.
Except for Blue State elitists no one is talking secession now so your point is moot.
26. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
When someone is afraid that their christian religous rights are going to be taken away by a “liberal” (which is purely fantasy) how far do you think some of these types would go to defend themselves?
27. Jeremiah | February 20th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Point is, the north and south went to war over an idea. Slavery
NO! They actually did have slavery, and the war was over if they wanted to continue slavery.
Obama will bring back slavery–thus, we will go to war. One all is said and done, we’ll rise from the dusty ruin, and be better people, and they will know better next time, not put a Demcrat in there.
–Jeremiah–
–Jeremiah–
28. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
“He is begging us to rise up and be The People that our founders counted on us to be.
That is very moving.”
Oh, so then we shouldn’t be a bunch of people with our hands out and becoming dependent on an all powerful federal government?? That is what out founding fathers did not want.
That is very moving.
How can we rise up to a citizenry of beggars and dependents? So, now we are beneath that level?
libt, how can you constantly embarASS yourself?
Socialism is such a blazing success, huh?. Just look at China, Cuba and North Korea. Again, where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authorization for socialist programs?? You can’t answer that because it is not there.
How many times have you fainted when Obama clears his throat?
Little Viper…….your ignorance is astounding. Now be a good little beggar and dependent and get your latest talking points to respond to posts in this thread.
Maybe you should chant your magical phrase of “Price gouging” to drop the price of gasoline 50 cents…..it “worked” before. Oh, yeah it was that simple.
The USEFUL IDIOTS are coming out in droves to regurgitate their empty rhetoric.
29. Retired Spook | February 20th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
unless you’re arguing that the economy is zero sum gain, you’re not are you?
I’ll let Rico answer your question, Herkimer, but you bring up a good point, a point that illustrates a profound degree of either ignorance or dishonesty by the Left. I got in a friendly discussion on a climate blog the other day where I drew an analogy between the Julian Simon - Paul Ehrlich wager in 1980 about the scarcity of natural resources and the current debate over global warming/climate change. One very astute commenter (someone I also consider a friend) noted that there was another wager that Simon refused to take, which among other things, specified that over a given period of time, the income disparity between the rich and poor would increase. My friend noted the following:
30. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
“Socialism is such a blazing success, huh?. Just look at China, Cuba and North Korea. ”
BS, They would be COMMUNIST countries! You make yourself look like a fool when you call them Socialist, like say Canada, or most of Europe and then put “USEFUL IDIOTS’ in your post.
31. Tractatus | February 20th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Obama will bring back slavery
Wow, really? How is he going to do that? And will it be whites enslaving blacks again, or is he gonna pull the ol’ switcheroo and have blacks enslave whites for a while?
32. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Retired Spook,
Your friend isn’t economist William L. Anderson is it? If not he has made a very astute observation; one I couldn’t have made any better.
33. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Huh, I feel like a “slave” at my job sometimes.
Working hard for just enough money to live. Assuming nothing happens where I would encure medical bills. Then I’d have to foreclose on my my house.
34. Obama2008 | February 20th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Gee how easily we can spend 1,000,000,000,000 (that’s a trillion) dollars on Bush’s messianic fantasies in the Middle East and on Cheney’s addiction to oil.
But when it comes to sending qualified students to get a college education, forget it.
Conservatism is the problem and has far too long injured our nation.
35. Percy Beezer | February 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
steam,
C’mon, try English please; we’re having trouble keeping up.
“Incur” is to acquire or lay yourself open to; and if you foreclose on your house you’ve just incurred property for failure to honor a contract.
If you incur a medical bill you are unable to pay allowing your home to go to foreclosure is singularly the stupidest thing you’ve said thus far. Please, you seem reasonable; think before you write.
Obama2008,
How much would the military and national defense cost if Mr. Bush wasn’t enthusiastic about protecting the US? (I also suggest you read a dictionary before writing; you’ll look a lot less oblivious.)
36. SteaM | February 20th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Well shucks… I guess my vocabulary is about as good as George W. Bush’s.
I should have plenty of buddies around here… har har.
Lighten up, Percy. I used a word incorrectly.
37. Darva Conger | February 20th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Percy:
You proceed from a false assumption. You think the war in Iraq “about protecting the US.”
Spain fought along side us in Iraq. They fought in Iraq so they wouldn’t fight them in Spain. (Sound familiar.) Yet the Madrid bombings took place.
The UK fought along side us in Iraq. They fought in Iraq so they wouldn’t fight them in the UK. (Sound familiar.) Yet the London bombings took place.
We will be attacked again. Ridge has said it. Cheney has said it. Chertoff has said it. They have said it is not a “matter of if, but a matter of when.”
Odds are it will be home grown Muslim terrorists or our “friends” the Saudis like it was on September 11.
And once and for all, the American people will know that the thousands of lives we lost and the billions we wasted in Iraq did nothing “about protecting the US.”
38. Ricorun | February 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
HXA:Please explain “the fact remains that the growing income disparity really is a concern“; because I don’t see that as a fact at all. Actually, as the incomes and standard of living has increased for the bottom 20% as well as the top 1% that first group is no worse off than before, unless you’re arguing that the economy is zero sum gain, you’re not are you?
Before I answer your question, let me point out that I found the article I read which indicated that the increase in incomes of the top 1 percent of Americans from 2003 to 2005 exceeded the total income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans. It was a NYT article. They were reporting on a report from the CBO. In that sense, I did something I don’t generally like to do: cite a second-hand source. But in this case I am only citing it as indicative of a trend that can be seen in a variety of lines of evidence, not conclusive in and of itself. The trend of which I speak is that the rich are getting richer and the poor aren’t.
But are the poor getting poorer? Or, said, slightly differently… is the economy a “zero sum game”, as you call it? That’s not an easy question to answer. Objectively, whether the economy is a zero sum game is dependent at any given point upon whether there is a rise, fall, or no movement in GDP. But knowing that doesn’t get you very far in and of itself. You also have to know how various income brackets are affected by those fluctuations in order to answer questions like, “has the standard of living for the bottom 20% increased?” And in that regard, if you went up to the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site to get the numbers (then adjusted them for inflation) I think you’d be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the bottom 20% of wage-earners are doing better now than they were five years ago. The top 1%, or top 10%, or even the top 20% is a very different story. One could also fold into that questions about whether the “real” cost of living has increased, decreased, or stayed the same, and also questions about worker productivity. In other words, if worker productivity has increased, is it reasonable to suggest they should be paid more or isn’t it?
These are all difficult questions to answer with any sort of objectivity. Part of the problem is that you get very different answers from different groups, think-tanks, or agencies depending upon their approaches and/or biases. And people tend to believe those they want to believe and disregard those they don’t. And chances are that not too many are going to have any sort of deeper understanding either way. In a very real sense it becomes a matter of belief, or perception (which is ironic, because perceptions are fundamentally unreal). And the bottom line perception for most people is their own pocketbooks. If they’re feeling pinched they’re going to start grumbling and looking for answers. And to the extent that they don’t get them they will feel less and less enfranchised. And if too many people feel that way then things can get volatile in a sociopolitical sense. I don’t think it’s happenstance that countries with the highest GINI indexes (a measure of income inequality) also tend to be the most politically volatile. And it becomes even more so to the extent that income inequality becomes generationally entrenched — i.e., to the extent that your success becomes more a matter of who your parents are than what you yourself are able to bring to the table. It’s one thing for a country to have a high GINI if they also have high socio-economic mobility. Unfortunately, most countries high on the GINI scale find ways to curtail socio-economic mobility. More and more they come to resemble aristocracies rather than meritocracies. That’s the danger as I see it.
Of course, there may come a time beyond that when the economy completely collapses — e.g., after the sack of Rome, et. al. Then everyone is poor and their GINI drops precipitously. But I’m sure that’s not something to look forward to.
39. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
SAR,
As usual your assembly is faulty.
Communism is a branch of socialism. People would know that if they were not educated in the government indoctrination centers they try to pass off as schools.
Socialism borders on stagnation. Especially when you have a population, who have their hands out demanding all sorts of government programs exceeding the population of those who will be the financing for those programs.
Just look at your examples Canada and Europe. The socioeconomic problems they are having - riots in France, high unemployment etc. etc. Canada - don’t even try to be a US citizen entering the country for a temporary job - they treat you like a scab during a strike.
Some assembly? More like a major overhaul.
….USEFUL IDIOT indeed.
40. Percy Beezer | February 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Ricorun,
Can’t you answer a simple question simply.
First, I said “zero sum gain” not game. In that respect the economy is not by any judgment zero sum gain, that is, there doesn’t have to be losses to offset gains. The very nature of an expanding economy makes that point moot. Did not the economy grow during the same period you are quoting?
Next, you make a logical leap beyond what I have stated; I didn’t argue that the bottom 20% need be “better off” than they were at some arbitrary point in the past, only that they are no worse off. I would point to any number of economists that will state that the bottom 20% are in fact better off, but that’s an argument for another day. Suffice to say that unless the wealthy gain their wealth at the expense of the poor, as I stated above, the theory collapses under its own weight.
It may or may not be “happenstance” as you put it, that income disparity has shown a correlation to political instability, but many other more pertinent factors are at play in those countries. One could also argue that the great disparity of income in Cuba is the very reason there is virtually no political unrest. If you follow my meaning.
41. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Communism is a branch of Socialism and Capitalism is a Branch of Socialism, works both ways.
As for citing Riots in France, where does rioting have anything to do with their economic system? You think they took to the streets because they can’t get medicine for their children? I have not heard of anything recently out of France aside from the peace marches about the war in Iraq numbering millions a few years ago. France has free health care (paid by taxes), a very efficient workforce, with 2 to 3 times the holiday time as the US I might add. As for high unemployment in Canada come on man. Canada is in the midsts of an economic boom right now. If I’m not mistaken the Canadian and US dollar are on par, first time since the 70’s(speaking of stagnation) These systems are working and have been for some time.
You mention high employment rate, that is the most hypocritical statement I’ve heard all day, and there have been a good few.
42. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Whoops, gave away my “secret” identity.
Now I can’t carry on two arguments simultaneously
43. Magnum Serpentine | February 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Is there a problem?
Give me health care.
Give me prescription drugs.
Make them raise my salary.
Make them bring my job back.
Give me lifetime job security.
Pay my heating bill
Make my gasoline cheaper
Pay for my kid’s college education
Give me a comfortable retirement
Give me free transportation
I see nothing on this that could be troubling
Give me health care.
health Care free for everyone is a good ideal.
Give me prescription drugs.
Free medicine should be the goal of every drug company. Who would want to keep Heart medication from someone that needs it?
Make them raise my salary.
Make them bring my job back.
Give me lifetime job security.
its about time they raised the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour then raise it according to the cost of living.
Many jobs were lost due to so-called free trade. I say, we can make steel better than any other nation. Bring back our textile jobs. Punish those who moved jobs overseas by forcing them to pay the US minimum wage to the workers in those nations. then they will pull their jobs back to the USA.
People use to be able to work a job 40 years and retire with dignity and security. its time we brought this back. there is no reason to fire someone simply because they make too much money.
Pay my heating bill
Make my gasoline cheaper
I say for those who are disabled and elderly that the federal government should pay the Heating and electric bill. and for the rest they should have a 75 percent reduction in their price gouged rates.
As I said earlier, all the President need do is say price gouging and the price of gas will fall.
Pay for my kid’s college education
Give me a comfortable retirement
College education is a necessary for todays high tech job field. College Education should be totally free.
And as I said above, you use to have retirement security, time to bring this back.
Give me free transportation
I say if you cannot afford a car, you should have access to public and free transportation. Who would want to be against allowing those who cannot get a car to be able to travel anywhere they want?
yes I wish for these things. And I am proud to do so.
44. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
BS,
I was mistaken, Riots in France just last year. Though this had nothing to do with their economic system, it was a racial issue specifically related to immigrants and their children.
45. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
(Manifesto of the Communist Party)
46. Sunny | February 20th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Socialism is such a blazing success, huh?. Just look at China, Cuba and North Korea. tiredoflibbullsh**
I didn’t realize that China, Cuba and North Korea were Socialist countries. I learn something new every time I read your posts.
47. Canadian Rationalist | February 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
You people are all stupid.
Religion is only a problem when it is pushed on other people. No one knows, or can know the truth about religion because it’s all up to interpretation.
I think it’s all BS too, but that’s just my opinion.
Public Policy should be based on secular values. If you value freedom then there’s no other alternative; unless the only freedom you value is your own, and you think everyone should have only the freedoms you agree with.
And why is terrorism only a problem now that it’s been done by muslim extremists? Where were you neocons and Conservative Christians when Tim McVeigh blew up that building in Oklahoma?
You people are all stupid and afraid.
The only thing you’ve gotten almost right is saying freedom isn’t free. That’s true, but you’re dead wrong on the price. THe price is risk. The risk that someone else will use their freedoms to kill you. You’ve just got to use your freedoms to make them not want to… i.e. don’t be a dick.
48. JS | February 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“Religion is only a problem when it is pushed on other people”
Like abortion, evolution, representations of atheism. So why dont you fight against it?
Doesnt that make you stupid and afraid?
49. FmrMarine | February 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
canuk MORON
>>>>>THe price is risk. The risk that someone else will use their freedoms to kill you. You’ve just got to use your freedoms to make them not want to… i.e. don’t be a dick.<<<<<<
As they say “CAMON DOWN” ….big boy!
spend a couple of weeks in
S. CENTRAL LA,
maybe WATTS, LIBERTY CITY, HARLEM ….you can sing kumbayah and hold your cigarette lighter and sing we are the world.
Make the residents there not want to KILL your white liberal ass.
Better yet make it Somolia, Iran, N.Korea, Syria,
Tell your little tale to HAMAS, Al Quida, et al.
You liberal LOONS are all the same, the world is a dangerous place and you kanucks better believe W has made it safer for YOU, not that your 3 man military has done much.
50. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
SAR,
check again on those riots - there was more than one riot episode. One was racial with the Muslims. Another had to do with jobs that are heavily regulated by the socialist government which also controls their economic system.
Capitalism a branch of socialism????? okkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyy. Thanks for proving what a USEFUL IDIOT you are and thank your local government indoctrination center for your achievement. Pick up a book man.
Little Viper wants to sit on his (expletive deleted) and have everything handed to him - FREEDOM WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY. After all, hey it’s not his money.
51. Ricorun | February 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Percy: Ricorun, Can’t you answer a simple question simply.
To quote Joe Biden… yes. Lol!
But as I indicated in my previous comment, your question wasn’t simple. It only appeared so. And in fact, I would argue that a problem with both political parties is that they tend to offer up simple solutions for complex problems. In the case of the economy the Dems tend to suggest handouts while the Reps tend to suggest the poor just need to work harder. I suppose in certain instances one could make a case that either solution works sometimes. For example, not everyone that ever received any sort of welfare benefit continued to do so indefinitely. Likewise, not everyone who is unable to make ends meet are also unable to work harder. But as a general and broad solution, neither of those policies work very well.
Suffice to say that unless the wealthy gain their wealth at the expense of the poor, as I stated above, the theory collapses under its own weight.
Like it or not, most people aren’t driven by theories. Most people are driven by perceptions. And if the perception is that they are not as well off as they were before, and/or if they become convinced that they’re not getting their fair share of the pie, they will start grumbling. And so on, and so forth. In the interests of simplicity, I’ll leave it there. But really, the hard part is what to do about it. I think it was ToLBS that mentioned this statistic a couple of months ago: the bottom 50% of wage earners contribute 0.6% of all federal income taxes. Maybe it was 1.6%. Either way, that’s a startling statistic, because it means that hardly anyone in the bottom 50% of wage-earners will be directly affected by any sort of additional tax break to alleviate the strain. You have to do something else — assuming you’re inclined to do anything at all. However, if you do nothing then you have to expect to pay the consequences at the polls. After all, we’re talking about half the freakin’ population.
I’m not one of those that suggests our society is anywhere close to some sort of tipping point. I am, however, suggesting that we should be concerned. To quote James Carville, “it’s the economy, stupid”. Paradoxically, it seems that those least concerned are often the ones that we’re getting perilously close to some sort of tipping point. How does that figure? It seems to me the ones most missing the point are those that don’t recognize that a lot of people are very worried about the future. They worry about whether they can keep their homes, put gas in their cars, and go to a doctor when they’re sick. That doesn’t make them communists, or otherwise “useful idiots”. But it sure as hell does make them wonder about the folks in power — and who to put there in their stead.
52. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I’m not sure about the Job regulations, but products are heavily regulated for the safety of the people so say a major beef recall doesn’t occur due to manufacturers neglect.
No where have I seen any mention of Muslim immigrants, North African yes, but no Muslims. But these are Immigrants, something which the US has a problem with, I seem to remember the Latino’s cause panic in California a little while back.
Socialism uses both capitalism and communism in the one system. For example the government provides healthcare to an extent but you also buy private insurance for meds and such (the government sets a standard to this to ensure the company does not scam the people it insures). One can start from the ground up and make millions just as you can in the US. Theres not much difference in the systems aside from the added social securities socialism brings. People in both Canada and Europe are free, and for the most part, are not spied on by their own countries. So tell me why in your infinite wisdom is Socialism so evil?
53. SEW | February 20th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
This Texas State Senator is as knowledgable about Barack Hussein as are the libs here. This is Chris Matthews?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/20/11252/0951
54. Jones | February 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Magnum Serpentine,
After reading your list of things that you want such as $15 dollars minimum wage, free health care, free prescription drugs, free heating, free transportation, lifetime job security, etc., I have to say that I hope you get some free college education.
I would first recommend taking an economics class so that you can understand how stupid your wish list. It would drive jobs from America, produce less revenue for the US government, and drive government spending through the roof.
55. FmrMarine | February 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
sar….
>>>>>So tell me why in your infinite wisdom is Socialism so evil?<<<<
EASY !
The GOVT. TAKES MY MONEY / PRPOERTY ETC. at the POINT of a GUN, and GIVES it to someone who DID NOT EARN IT. really quite simple.
However, if you have always been a stiff, and a leach you wouldn’t understand.
56. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“People in both Canada and Europe are free, and for the most part, are not spied on by their own countries. So tell me why in your infinite wisdom is Socialism so evil?”
For the most part? Whatever that means……
Socialism…..uh, is not the system our founding fathers established. It is not the system outlined in the Constitution. It is not the authority the Constitution gives the federal government. Now if a state wanted to adopt this system, then so be it (10th amendment). There are 49 other states one can move to. It is that simple. They did not want an overreaching and tyrannical system. Yes, tyrannical where the government has control of almost every aspect of our lives.
Again, pick up a book.
57. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Ricorun,
So many subjects; so little bandwidth. Do you stop and read your posts before sending them out to the ‘net? tsk-tsk, wordy don’t ya’ think?
If it’s “perception” that is paramount then you’ve made the argument that we need an information minister ala Big Brother to tell us we’re well off. In the 1992 presidential campaign the Clintons focused on the economy claiming the Bush economy was the worst since the Great Depression. This, of course wasn’t true but the willing sycophants in the media perpetuated the lie until Clinton was in the White House then it was a “remarkable turnaround.” Except that the economy grew by over 4% in 1992 before Clinton took office in 1993. throughout the 1990’s the gap widened and nary a word from the 5th Estate until, like the homeless population, the issue once again arose in 2001 owing in full measure to the dastardly Bush in the Oval Office.
Now we are to believe that the wage gap must be narrowed to a point we haven’t seen since the Great Depression and the bottom 20% will be happy with their lot in life unlike now.
I don’t believe (not that I don’t believe you, I just don’t believe in general) that the wage disparity is of any concern to anyone aside from Krugman and a few malcontents that can’t explain in real world applications how it is a problem (with sincere apologies to you, I believe you tried to make a point but got sidetracked a few times.) I certainly don’t see an armed rebellion from started by poverty pimps to “take from the haves, and give to the have-nots.”
58. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | February 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
btw, loved the Biden reference; clever!
59. Some Assembly Required | February 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“The GOVT. TAKES MY MONEY / PRPOERTY ETC. at the POINT of a GUN, and GIVES it to someone who DID NOT EARN IT. really quite simple.” - FmR
How is that any different from paying into an insurance company, then when you get sick they investigate you to try to find a way out of covering you. That to me sounds like a much better system, just giving a company money to benefit shareholders. I’m not saying the US should go Socialist, I’m just trying to understand why you hate it so much. Also, why not adapt some socialist polices such as regulations and standards so that food is safe to eat, and toys don’t contain mercury? Wait, I know why, if you or or kids get sick it’s an excuse to sue and make money the American way… (sarcasim)
“They did not want an overreaching and tyrannical system. Yes, tyrannical where the government has control of almost every aspect of our lives.” - BS
I agree they didn’t, but they also didn’t want a country that invades another country for oil. Nor did they want a country which spies on it’s own people. Nor did they want a country to favor corporations over it’s people, Or how about top government officials outing Covert agents, the list goes on. What is truly ironic is that you claim you want to limit government but by invading Iraq the opposite has happened. But I guess that’s just the military, it’s not really part of the government. (sarcasim)
60. Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Sunny,
If you don’t realise that North Korea, Cuba and China are socialist nations, then you are the most astoundingly ignorant person who has ever lived.
61. Magnum Serpentine | February 20th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Anti-trust laws and Tariffs will keep our jobs in the US. If a company decides to close in protest, federalize the company and then sell it to someone who will run it or if no one wants to buy the company then the Federal Government can run it.
I believe Economics is the root to the problem. Force prices up as high as the public will tolerate then force them up more is not the way to go.
62. phnx | February 20th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
After listening to Obama’s speech my wife turned to me and said:
This must be his “I have a daydream” speech.
I think she nailed it.
63. Jones | February 21st, 2008 at 7:39 am
Magnum,
Sounds like quite the “worker’s paradise” you are dreaming up there. Your ideas would tank the economy but it would be alright since we would eventually all work for the federal government when they take over all of the businesses that go bankrupt.
You may want to take some history classes as well with that free college education that you want. I suggest you study the 20th century and the demise of the Soviet Union. Once done with that, then take the economics class.
64. Sunny | February 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
JS | February 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“Religion is only a problem when it is pushed on other people”
Like abortion, evolution, representations of atheism. So why dont you fight against it?
JS, I am sorry someone pushed you into having an abortion, believing in evolution and turning you into an atheist. So far, I have been pretty lucky - no one has forced any of these things on me! Although I will have to admit, I do believe in evolution and believe that it is consistent with Biblical teachings.
65. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
SORRY … BUT IT’S HARD TO DEAL WITH THESE UNEDUCATED LIBERALS (you know who you are) …..
Now I know that with our system of government schools there is every excuse for people to be badly misinformed on critical issues. Let’s face it … these government schools have been more interested in feeding you dogma than the truth. Let’s take the idea that our country is a democracy, for instance. I would guess that virtually every government school in this nation teaches its hostages (students) that the United States is a democracy. Now don’t you find this just a bid odd, considering the fact that neither the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the 50 states even contain the word “democracy?” Isn’t it odder still that the Constitution specifically says that our form of government is “Republican?”
I’ll give pause so libs can catch their breaths……………………………………….
Yes, a REPUBLIC! There’s a reason for this. Around the time of Woodrow Wilson the idea of government welfare programs that were OUTSIDE OF THE GRANT OF AUTHORITY in our Constitution began to take hold. Politicians knew that if they continued to tout the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they would have a rather difficult time getting their government welfare programs enacted. So, the idea started to spread that we were a democracy .. a country ruled by men and not the law. Whatever the majority of the people (voters) wanted .. they got. After all, isn’t that what democracy (majority rule) means?
You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There’s an incredible book out there titled “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here’s what they thought of democrats:
“… the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who
panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”
I know … it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering “to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.”
So .. why have our government schools been so anxious to spread the “democracy” lie? Because the more people believe that crap the stronger government becomes. If the dumb masses can be convinced that, since we are a democracy, the government should be able to do whatever the political class convinces the majority of Americans it should do … then we have stronger politicians and weaker protections for our rights.
Again, which party wants to grow social programs and add to their every growing list of dependent Americans? Which party are the dumb masses (USEFUL IDIOTS) are going to vote for? The USEFUL IDIOTS will keep giving up their liberties and freedoms for security to these same liberal power hungry politicians who keep touting the same tired old ideas! All, of course, in the guise of “helping people”.
‘Nuff said.
66. Some Assembly Required | February 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
BS,
If the US is a ‘Republic’ then why is it were fighting to spread ‘DEMOCRACY’ to the developing world? Open your eyes.
67. Sunny | February 21st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Mark Noonan | February 20th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Sunny,
If you don’t realise that North Korea, Cuba and China are socialist nations, then you are the most astoundingly ignorant person who has ever lived.
Thank you Mark for you kind words. The last time I checked all three of these countries were Communist. I guess my definition of socialism differs from yours. When I think of socialism, countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway come to mind. I stand corrected (as you so eloquently put it above - as the most astoundingly ignorant person who has ever lived) in my view of Communism, as a much more repressive form of government. I have a hard time comparing Cuba, China and North Korea to Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
68. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“If the US is a ‘Republic’ then why is it were fighting to spread ‘DEMOCRACY’ to the developing world?”
I see the uneducated has chimed in. He knows who he is.
69. Xango Annie | February 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 am
“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism , but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program,until one day America will be a Socialist nation with out knowing how it happened.”
Norman Thomas, American Socialist