Is the American dream over?

1,339 posts in this topic

I have not been able to verify the context of the clip - Levin claIms it was the Obama administration which asked to have the controversial language in the bill and then pretended that Obama would veto it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded

 

@cinzia - you seem to keep referring to Bush or Bush's policies which shows that you have learned absolutely nothing. The Dems were largely supportive of most initiatives coming out of the WH, but publicly threw Shrubco under the bus. Most Dem supporters or the people who blamed Shrubco for the PaTriot Act or the Iraq War while going easy on the other side of the aisle should just admit they were incredibly naive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've learned plenty, kropotkin. How many times have I written here that there are no differences anymore between the Dems and the Republicans, so it's futile to support either party at this point, unless you actually like the status quo?

 

That said, it can't be denied that Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act was passed under him. Those are Bush policies, and he'd get credit for them, instead of derision, if they hadn't created such a hash of things.

 

The only plus to having the Republicans in power is that the Democratic Party functions as a more effective minority party than majority party. Many people have said today that such a policy as this, had it been introduced during the Bush Administration, would have created an uproar in the Dem ranks. Instead, hardly any legislators are saying boo about it. There IS no major Democratic opposition to this bill. Why? Because Obama asked for it, not some Republican president.

 

That's no consolation to me now that Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama has put his stamp of approval on indefinite military detention for American citizens arrested on American soil.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

so it's futile to support either party at this point, unless you actually like the status quo?

 

That's the cold hard truth of it cinzia. Very sad... very sad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That said, it can't be denied that Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act was passed under him. Those are Bush policies, and he'd get credit for them, instead of derision, if they hadn't created such a hash of things.

 

You've learned absolutely nothing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've learned absolutely nothing

 

I don't understand why you're so fixated on what I've learned, or not learned, kropotkin. Nobody cares what your opinion is of how savvy, or not, I am.

 

We have bigger things to worry about, frankly.

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand why you're so fixated on what I've learned, or not learned, kropotkin. Nobody cares what your opinion is of how savvy, or not, I am.

 

We have bigger things to worry about, frankly.

 

You continue to play partisan politics, not in the supporting one party rather than the other, but rather in apportioning blame very unevenly when you have been presented lots of evidence on TT that blaming Shrubco is absurd.

 

At a time when you are confronted with nefarious intent from the current administration, you are playing the moral relativity card by bring up Bush.

 

People who voted for Obama were extremely naive. People who continue to equivocate are a major part of the problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with America is well described in the book "The Price of Civilization" by Jeffrey D Sachs on page 4 & 5.If that is not heard by the American public nothing will help but the desperate attempt of a revolution.A miserable time we have to look forward to.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You continue to play partisan politics, not in the supporting one party rather than the other, but rather in apportioning blame very unevenly when you have been presented lots of evidence on TT that blaming Shrubco is absurd.

 

At a time when you are confronted with nefarious intent from the current administration, you are playing the moral relativity card by bring up Bush.

 

People who voted for Obama were extremely naive. People who continue to equivocate are a major part of the problem.

 

The MAIN reason people who voted for Obama were naive was in thinking that ANYTHING could ever be accomplished with the religiously and ideologically fanatical right-wing nut-cases that the Republican party has become. Obama I believe wanted to make the country a better place. I don't think he's done a great job. But look at the shxx he has to deal with. The Tea Party and Limbaugh and Fox News and co. would rather see Washington burn than a Democrat have success. Period. Don't equivocate in response to that. The Republicans have poisoned American politics so badly since the days of Clinton that nothing is really achievable. Accept in cases where the Democrats cave and let wing-nut rigth-wing ideology have its way as with the Iraq War. FOR THAT they deserve blame.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The MAIN reason people who voted for Obama were naive was in thinking that ANYTHING could ever be accomplished with the religiously and ideologically fanatical right-wing nut-cases that the Republican party has become. Obama I believe wanted to make the country a better place. I don't think he's done a great job. But look at the shxx he has to deal with. The Tea Party and Limbaugh and Fox News and co. would rather see Washington burn than a Democrat have success. Period. Don't equivocate in response to that. The Republicans have poisoned American politics so badly since the days of Clinton that nothing is really achievable. Accept in cases where the Democrats cave and let wing-nut rigth-wing ideology have its way as with the Iraq War. FOR THAT they deserve blame.

 

The biggest piece of naivete found among the US public is the belief that any politicians actually care about serving the public rather than themselves, with a close second being the naive notion that there is a big difference between the two parties and that one party's politicians are full of selfless public servants who want to do right by the country while the other is full of evil forces interested in making the country either a theocracy or a hard-core socialist state depending on which side of the political spectrum your perspective lies.

 

The politicians and political operatives' idea of success is them getting rich and achieving power, preferably dominance from which they can become successful rent-seekers.

 

No one screaming how bad Republicans are seems to have the slightest idea how Democrats with 59/60 Senate seats and a large House majority in the previous Congress couldn't get the job done. It seems more likely that the Democrats didn't have all of the answers after all and were actually interested in pursuing policies that maximized their self-interest, although it's also true that there obviously isn't going to be consensus in a country of over 300 million people as to what the right policies are. Nevertheless, it's naive and disingenuous to suggest that everyone should have simply gone along with the Democratic politicians' self-interested policies, particularly when they didn't include solving the biggest issue the country faces- the coming crisis where we will not be able to pay for the entitlement promises made in the past.

 

But I guess it's easier to scream about Rush Limbaugh than the people who are actually in power. We were told in 2008 by people like eurovol that electing Democrats would solve everything. Now we know for certain that isn't the case, yet we still apparently have some peope who delusionally think that's because of Rush Limbaugh and some grassroots movement.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving the executive branch the power to detain civilians without trial used to be the hallmark of dictatorships. Unfortunately the US has decided to leave what was considered to be common ground of Western democracies with a shocking lack of opposition from senior politicians.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The biggest piece of naivete found among the US public is the belief that any politicians actually care about serving the public rather than themselves, with a close second being the naive notion that there is a big difference between the two parties and that one party's politicians are full of selfless public servants who want to do right by the country while the other is full of evil forces interested in making the country either a theocracy or a hard-core socialist state depending on which side of the political spectrum your perspective lies.

 

The politicians and political operatives' idea of success is them getting rich and achieving power, preferably dominance from which they can become successful rent-seekers.

 

No one screaming how bad Republicans are seems to have the slightest idea how Democrats with 59/60 Senate seats and a large House majority in the previous Congress couldn't get the job done. It seems more likely that the Democrats didn't have all of the answers after all and were actually interested in pursuing policies that maximized their self-interest, although it's also true that there obviously isn't going to be consensus in a country of over 300 million people as to what the right policies are. Nevertheless, it's naive and disingenuous to suggest that everyone should have simply gone along with the Democratic politicians' self-interested policies, particularly when they didn't include solving the biggest issue the country faces- the coming crisis where we will not be able to pay for the entitlement promises made in the past.

 

But I guess it's easier to scream about Rush Limbaugh than the people who are actually in power. We were told in 2008 by people like eurovol that electing Democrats would solve everything. Now we know for certain that isn't the case, yet we still apparently have some peope who delusionally think that's because of Rush Limbaugh and some grassroots movement.

 

That's a very weak argument - that the Democrats haven't achieved anything because they were busy filling their pockets? Please.. To name just one significant thing working against them - 9/11..,which made it hard politically to do anything that would make them vulnerable to the Limbaugh-ites shouting and labelling anybody who dared disagree with Bush "unpatriotic!".. That kind of nonsense, which extends to Limbaugh and Palin and the Tea Party clowns - from the right has sullied politics exponentially worse than anything else recently, and is the main reason Obama hasn't achieved more. I am among the first to agree the Democrats deserve a scolding - for not having any balls and standing up for themselves.. That, IMO, is precisely Obama's main flaw. Not "Obamacare" etc etc..

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a very weak argument - that the Democrats haven't achieved anything because they were busy filling their pockets? Please.. To name just one significant thing working against them - 9/11..,which made it hard politically to do anything that would make them vulnerable to the Limbaugh-ites shouting and labelling anybody who dared disagree with Bush "unpatriotic!".. That kind of nonsense, which extends to Limbaugh and Palin and the Tea Party clowns - from the right has sullied politics exponentially worse than anything else recently, and is the main reason Obama hasn't achieved more. I am among the first to agree the Democrats deserve a scolding - for not having any balls and standing up for themselves.. That, IMO, is precisely Obama's main flaw. Not "Obamacare" etc etc..

 

The Democrats weren't going to get their agenda passed while Bush was in office, especially when they were in the minority in the House. That's a reality of US politics at any given time.

 

Why have you completely ignored the complete Democratic control of government during Obama's first two years in office (when Bush was not in the picture, and he was, BTW, very unpopular at the end of his term and during Obama's first two years in office), when they should have been able to do what they wanted? Exactly how was politics so sullied that it wasn't possible to pass legislation with such control of the executive and legislative branches? It would seem to me that labeling popular policies as "unpatriotic" wouldn't work and would boomerang in their faces. I don't see how 9/11 could possibly have prevented the passage of any non-national security legislation in 2009 and 2010.

Obama hasn't "achieved more" because his main goal was re-election, hence we got stimulus legislation that reflected Democratic base politics and a health care bill that he could trumpet to the Democratic base and to receptive independents. Since he did get his stimulus legislation and his health care bill, maybe we should be discussing what else you think he should have gotten, especially given how anathema the health care bill and the stimulus bill were to the Repuiblicans and their inability to prevent the passage of either piece of very significant legislation, which hardly looks like effectiveness on their part.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main battle being fought - and lost by the Democrats btw - is more in the media and in public opinion. The Republican radical-right ideology machine has moved American culture significantly to the right, and to the country's (and world's..) detriment afaic. What happens in the meat-grinder of real legislative politics happens against a background - a background obviously with tremendous influence - of the broader culture of public opinion and mainstream media. The real right-wing wingnuts do seem to have died down recently(reigned in by the party I guess..), but that they were ever as influential as they were - Limbaugh, Palin, The Tea Party, Beck, etc.. is bad enough. And to me that's where the Democrats failed - in not stemming and ultimately reversing that tide.

 

To give one of many examples. WHY has the financial crisis not been blamed more on the Right? The - primarily right-wing(though yes not exlusively.. The red-lining issue I am aware of, and believe it or not I used to be as disgusted by PC as I am now by right-wing zealotry.. I have to say though, the latter is the more insane and dangerous..) - notion that unregulated free-markets will lead to the best outcome has been proven overwhelmingly wrong - and to the country's detriment. The Democrats should have been railing that home in the media and everywhere as hard as the righties were banging on about Monica Lewinsky..(the difference in importance between the two issues tells lots about the state of the Right afaic...) But Obama seems to want to be Mr. Niceguy all the time, and for that he has had to pay the price of not accomplishing very much. Presumably of course it's all just in the name of getting reelected, and once he is - hopefully - he'll come out swinging and punish the Republicans the way they deserve to be for all the travesties they have perpetrated against America, the world, and common sense for 20 years - Lewinsky, Iraq, the financial crisis, and so on. What travesties are the Democrats guilty of in that time - Clinton getting a blowjob and gay marriage in a few states?...

 

This new law btw, which enables the gov't to imprison people without trial or whatever.. Again - it emerged against the background of "The Patriot Act" and the whole "you're with me or against me" simple-minded Bush view of the world..

 

BUSH made it popular to not read and not have a passport. I mean, for all the Left's failures - and they have surely been legion, they were rarely as low as that.. I mean amoebas-swimming-in-the-mud stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a gross over-simplification to say that unregulated markets are a proven fail. No such test has yet been allowed in the history of mankind. There has hardly been a day gone by where some idiotic new law has not been introduced that skews the behavior of the market in ways that are difficult to predict, but never towards freedom.

 

The pure concept of a market - as taught in economics courses - could do no evil. It would allow the efficient exchange of goods and services obeying supply and demand forces. Nothing more.

 

Get outside forces - taxation, politics of envy, whatever - included in market decisions, and suddenly, the market is a force for evil. But, look tot he root of that evil, and you'll see the true cause.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. But back down on earth with your feet on the ground, I think it's safe to say that the Republican mantra about markets correcting themselves has been proven false. Greenspan admitted it.

 

I'm currently trying to make up for my admitted lack of economic knowledge. In "How Markets Fail", which I'm reading at the mo.., there is some good Econ 101-type stuff about game theory, the prisoners' dilemma, the tragedy of the commons, and some other fairly clear instances, for ex. in the world of insurance, where lack of regulation is not only bad for individuals existing within and affected by it, but ends up being bad for everyone and the system itself. It seems to me arguing for a pure, academic free-market system in any event is a pie-in-the-sky kind of utopian fallacy.., like some unachievable Kantian categorical imperative. Here in the real world where people get their hands dirty things are different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the main battle being fought - and lost by the Democrats btw - is more in the media and in public opinion. The Republican radical-right ideology machine has moved American culture significantly to the right, and to the country's (and world's..) detriment afaic. What happens in the meat-grinder of real legislative politics happens against a background - a background obviously with tremendous influence - of the broader culture of public opinion and mainstream media. The real right-wing wingnuts do seem to have died down recently(reigned in by the party I guess..), but that they were ever as influential as they were - Limbaugh, Palin, The Tea Party, Beck, etc.. is bad enough. And to me that's where the Democrats failed - in not stemming and ultimately reversing that tide.

 

To give one of many examples. WHY has the financial crisis not been blamed more on the Right? The - primarily right-wing(though yes not exlusively.. The red-lining issue I am aware of, and believe it or not I used to be as disgusted by PC as I am now by right-wing zealotry.. I have to say though, the latter is the more insane and dangerous..) - notion that unregulated free-markets will lead to the best outcome has been proven overwhelmingly wrong - and to the country's detriment. The Democrats should have been railing that home in the media and everywhere as hard as the righties were banging on about Monica Lewinsky..(the difference in importance between the two issues tells lots about the state of the Right afaic...) But Obama seems to want to be Mr. Niceguy all the time, and for that he has had to pay the price of not accomplishing very much. Presumably of course it's all just in the name of getting reelected, and once he is - hopefully - he'll come out swinging and punish the Republicans the way they deserve to be for all the travesties they have perpetrated against America, the world, and common sense for 20 years - Lewinsky, Iraq, the financial crisis, and so on. What travesties are the Democrats guilty of in that time - Clinton getting a blowjob and gay marriage in a few states?...

 

This new law btw, which enables the gov't to imprison people without trial or whatever.. Again - it emerged against the background of "The Patriot Act" and the whole "you're with me or against me" simple-minded Bush view of the world..

 

BUSH made it popular to not read and not have a passport. I mean, for all the Left's failures - and they have surely been legion, they were rarely as low as that.. I mean amoebas-swimming-in-the-mud stupid.

 

It looks to me like you are taking some marketing pitches from the politicians at face value and letting that dominate. You have also taken an event from 1998, a much more relaxed time as far as the state of the economy and national security, and conflated it with what occurred in 2008-2009, a much more volatile and difficult time, a reality which may have had something to do with the political prominence of Clinton's activities with Lewinsky at that time since it wasn't like the Republicans could complain about the state of the economy during the dot-com bubble.

 

Let me ask you this, exactly which "unregulated free markets" caused the financial crisis and exactly how did they cause it? Answering that may well go some way to explain why the Democrats aren't talking about it as much as you like.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The pure concept of a market - as taught in economics courses - could do no evil.&nbsp;&nbsp;It would allow the efficient exchange of goods and services obeying supply and demand forces.&nbsp;&nbsp;Nothing more.<BR>Get outside forces -&nbsp;&nbsp;taxation, politics of envy, whatever - included in market decisions, and suddenly, the market is a force for evil.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, look tot he root of that evil, and you'll see the true cause.

Yep. In theory it sounds good... until you include people in the equation.<BR>People do not always behave

rationally.

 

[quote name='Conquistador' date='20.Dec.2011,&nbsp;&nbsp;1:29pm' timestamp='1324384167' post='2631084'

Let me ask you this...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now