What's new
By:

Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

franklin said:
Until there's 80 million of them supported by 135 million workers. But that wasn't the point and way to miss it entirely.
Click to expand...

There is a profit incentive for an entire industry and a lot of public workers in the business of keeping people in prisons and out of the work force.

If you are arguing that our economy would be more robust by having more people working and less people incarcerated, than I am not arguing you on that.
 
I don't equate what we have now with free market economy. We have a system that protects industry from downturns but does not protect individuals. That's being done in the name of "free markets" and is destroying any support actual free markets could ever have. Corporate welfare is not capitalism.
 
Obama is an admirer of Reagan, and whether he realizes it or not, he is following the tradition of trickle down economics and taking it to a whole new level.
 
Compared to the current GOP he's pretty moderate.

He did intensify the drug war though, so he's scum for that.
 
Life expectancy is at an all-time high. Crime is at an all-time low. People are living more comfortably than ever. The environment of the developed world is getting better each year (air and water pollution, forests health and coverage, etc). The U.S. is still the main source of innovation world-wide. The U.S. is still, far and away, the most significant player in the science and technology sector.

Are there problems? Of course. A government that conspires with business elites to ensure their continued benefiting of the status quo at the expense of others. A broken congress that is occupied by people with zero interest in governing, and total interest in using their position for personal gain. Abuse of executive power to establish an indiscriminate surveillance blanket. A military industry that requires the endless creation of conflict in order to stay in business, despite living in a world where war is largely a relic of the past. And plenty else.

But I wouldn't say that we're doomed or in the ****house. There will always be problems, and the vast majority of today's problems are caused by a manipulated market that disproportionately benefits the entrenched players. It isn't a free market, and I don't think a truly free market is a much better solution anyway. A freer market where companies can live and die in fair competition, and a strong government with a purely bureaucratic administrative and peace-keeping purpose would serve us much better.
 
Gameface said:
I don't equate what we have now with free market economy. We have a system that protects industry from downturns but does not protect individuals. That's being done in the name of "free markets" and is destroying any support actual free markets could ever have. Corporate welfare is not capitalism.
Click to expand...

Nowadays, industry protections are enshrined in law. However, even when they weren't, major industries were able to protect themselves. It's always the middle class that suffers in the downturns.

Capitalism hates free markets. Unfettered, capitalists have always done what they could to destroy them.
 
MoreFeasts said:
If you are arguing that our economy would be more robust by having more people working and less people incarcerated, than I am not arguing you on that.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out a parallel that exposes many on the left for the hypocrites they are. It was a condemnation of both systems.

Gameface said:
I don't equate what we have now with free market economy. We have a system that protects industry from downturns but does not protect individuals. That's being done in the name of "free markets" and is destroying any support actual free markets could ever have. Corporate welfare is not capitalism.
Click to expand...

I don't know that we protect industry in downturns. Some get saved for the greater good i.e. Detroit, but most are left to fend for themselves. Even the banking system was left to its own demises in 2008 until the pressure reached collapse point.

I think people in general make a mistake by conflating banking with a free market economy. There's been plenty of discussion about the end of capitalism ever since TARP. However, banking is tied to government, born out of it, and is not a free market in the least. It is a facilitator for capitalism and must be backstopped in order for markets to flourish. Banking is part of a government construct that fosters a vibrant private economy.

The question shouldn't be between backstopping our banking system vs. sitting on our hands as everything collapses. That would be stupid. The question should be centered around how to liquidate banking entities without disturbing the markets or bailing out investors. Dodd-Frank has gone a long way towards allegedly solving these issues, so maybe we can all start having faith in the system again some day soon. Banks are highly capitalized right now and are supposed to have their own liquidation plans to solve things before the FDIC cracks them open.
 
One Brow said:
Nowadays, industry protections are enshrined in law. However, even when they weren't, major industries were able to protect themselves. It's always the middle class that suffers in the downturns.

Capitalism hates free markets. Unfettered, capitalists have always done what they could to destroy them.
Click to expand...

Getting tired of your **** middle class. Stop your whining. Poor people got it a lot worse than you.
 
MoreFeasts said:
Getting tired of your **** middle class. Stop your whining. Poor people got it a lot worse than you.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The working poor also suffer, although not to the same comparative degree between boom and bust. The impoverished suffer more, but to an even lesser comparative degree.
 
Sorry for splitting hairs, but I still disagree on "comparative degree". If you go from poor to losing everything, that is worse than going from middle class to middle class in a downturn.

I'm tired of people with a good job, a good home, and a 3% mortgage complaining about money because the tuition for their kids private schools or whatever went up. Government has spent 10 years subsidizing their mortgages, purchases, tax bill, investments , and retirement portfolio. You say when someone is already at the bottom there is not much more to fall, but that is not true in reality. Poor people suffer more. The middle class just complain out of habit. They are actually doing very well.
 
Last edited:
One Brow said:
Absolutely. The working poor also suffer, although not to the same comparative degree between boom and bust. The impoverished suffer more, but to an even lesser comparative degree.
Click to expand...

Serious questions:

What indices are you using to define "suffering"? Since you're using quantitative language with respect to suffering, what methods are you using to measure it?
 
I'm a little surprised to see certain posters using the notion of a "free market" as some sort of measuring rod against the status quo. Can't we ditch that notion for good? Capitalist States have ALWAYS been serious meddlers, and the "free market" idea has always been a sort of heaven -- a distraction for the weak from the conflictual and highly differential conditions in which value is actually created and CERTAIN methods of value creation sustained.

It's hard to see how the interests of the middle and poorer classes have been anything but placated to. To talk in heavy puffs about who suffers more is sort of embarrassing when the tippy-top of the elite have been making out soooo well.
 
I would want to look at quality of life issues that go beyond dollars and cents, so therefore are not so easy to quantify by simply measuring one's income and expenses.
However, of course you would consider things like job, assets, debt, income, food, home, clothing, health care, transportation, education, social status, fun, savings, leisure time, personal rewards of work.
 
green said:
If the answer is so obvious, and the democrats had complete control for two years, why was nothing done?

Either your wrong, or your party is pathetic.
Click to expand...

False.

This is more of an indictment on the GOP than it is on the Democrats.

Foxnews and AM radio won't tell you this, but the Democrats have actually moved closer to the right since the 70s, not to the left. The GOP meanwhile, has put the pedal to the metal and has gone off the cliff to the right. Seriously folks, today's Democrats represent yesterday's GOP. Whereas, today's GOP represent something very close to yesterday's Germany or Italy.

Consider Eisenhower. He'd be considered by today's GOP as a flaming liberal.
Consider Nixon and Reagan. They'd be considered RINOs.

Literally, the stances and positions that Reagan took are being vilified by today's GOP as liberal/Communist policies. From his stances on taxes (he raised them. He would be KILLED by today's GOP). He raised the debt ceiling many times (would be killed by today's GOP which would rather destroy our credit rating than raise the debt ceiling). He came up with an incomplete immigration law (which included the forbidden A-word condemned today by the GOP as Obama trying to bribe the Latino vote).

The Democrats didn't change much because they too have been infected with the failed Reaganomics disease. We have gone sooooo far off the path from the policies which made us successful through the 30s and into the late 70s that both parties have forgotten it.

The difference is, while one party is fairly moderate and conservative, the other party is unbelievably far off to the right.

Seriously folks, we have heard for 6 years now of the Bolshevik Revolution in the White House. In reality. Obama's policies are extremely Reagan-like. The Democrats are very GOP-like.

Consider how today's GOP lowered our credit rating.
Consider how it has desires for further military expansion (especially in oil rich countries).
Consider the paranoia towards homosexuals, women, and minorities.
Notice how it bashes intellectuals.
Has aspirations to deport all illegals.
Has already passed laws encouraging racial profiling.
Stances on the family and desiring to define women as the baby makers of society. As mere commodities to be used. Notice how literally every month or two we here another republican talking about women in a derogatory fashion. Usually about rape or birth control.
Views on religion, merely using it to propel their agenda (Ann Richards anyone).
Overly strong nationalism.
views on food stamps, entitlements, and health care.
Views on prosperity. If you're rich, you deserved it. More importantly, if you're poor, then you most definitely deserve it and should never receive government assistance. You are essentially, "Life Unworthy of Life." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
Finally, breaking the rules of decency which have helped govern this country for centuries and abusing the filibuster to prevent governing. Threatening to shut down the government over Obamacare brings back memories of my studies prior to the Nazi takeover of Germany. Mike Lee like Hitler, "We will run this country, Democracy be damned!"

And so many more!

So while Foxnews and AM radio keeps warning us of the Communists, they turn a blind eye to themselves. We're much closer to a Fascist takeover than a Socialist one.
 
MoreFeasts said:
I disagree. I'm tired of people with a good job, a good home, and a 3% mortgage complaining about money because the tuition for their kids private schools or whatever went up. Government has spent 10 years subsidizing their mortgages, purchases, tax bill, investments , and retirement portfolio. You say when someone is already at the bottom there is not much more to fall, but that is not true in reality. Poor people suffer more. The middle class just complain out of habit. They are actually doing very well.
Click to expand...

I think you and One Brow agree on this issue for the most part. I think what he's saying is that during a bust the middle class experiences the brunt of the busting. The poor, who were suffering during the boom, continue to suffer during the bust. Their situation was bad and it continues to be bad.

It's the middle class worker who goes from being able to pick where they want to work, negotiate for higher pay, being highly valued by their employer who doesn't want them to leave and create a void that the company will have to fill from a small pool of applicants, etc. During the bust employers are overwhelmed with overqualified applicants who will accept any wage just to get a job, any job. The power dynamic shifts and the middle class worker is in a completely different world than they were before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top