Polarized America & Class War Politics

[Astronuc]

"Polarized America" & "Class War Politics"

As he often does, Paul Krugman hits home with poignant issue - economic disparity in America, and the politics which supports it - even thrives upon it.

"Class War Politics" by Paul Krugman, NY Times, June 19, 2006

In case you haven't noticed, modern American politics is marked by vicious partisanship, with the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right. It's clear that the Republican plan for the 2006 election is, once again, to question Democrats' patriotism.

But do Republican leaders truly believe that they are serious about fighting terrorism, while Democrats aren't? When the speaker of the House declares that "we in this Congress must show the same steely resolve as those men and women on United Flight 93," is that really the way he sees himself? (Dennis Hastert, Man of Steel!) Of course, not.

So what's our bitter partisan divide really about? In two words: class warfare. That's the lesson of an important new book, "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University.

"Polarized America" is a technical book written for political scientists. But it's essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what's happening to America.

The poor don't have money, so they don't contribute big bucks to political campaigns, so the politicians ignore them!

So much for Democracy. And the Bush administration wants to make the rest of the world that way. Perhaps that's why Bush and buddies are comfortable cozying up the dictatorships like that of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo in Equatorial Guinea.

On the domestic side of politics (NY Times, June 23, 2006):

A Look at Republican Priorities: Comforting the Comfortable
Two weeks ago, the Senate killed an effort to repeal the federal estate tax on multimillion-dollar fortunes. The "no" votes were a stand for budget sanity and basic fairness. But the pro-repeal camp doesn't want to take no for an answer.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed an estate-tax cut that is a repeal in everything but name. The so-called compromise would exempt more than 99.5 percent of estates from tax, slash the tax rates on the rest and cost at least $760 billion during its first full decade. Of that, $600 billion is the amount the government would have to borrow to make up for lost revenue from the cuts, which would benefit the heirs of America's wealthiest families, like the Marses of Mars bar and the Waltons of Wal-Mart Stores. The remaining $160 billion is the interest on that borrowing, which would be paid by all Americans.

No lawmaker who voted for the compromise gets any points for moderation. Like the earlier full repeal bill, this one is unfair and grounded in intellectual dishonesty. The goal is not to pass good legislation, but to get this top priority for big-shot constituents nailed into law before the November elections produce a legislature that's more responsible on fiscal matters.

 

[loseyourname]

No link? I know I can search the NY Times archive myself, but come on, I don't want to do that!

What they should really do with the estate tax thing is exempt anyone that owns more in land than liquid assets. A lot of family farms are lost because the land is so valuable but the person paying the taxes has no actual cash with which to pay a tax. This obviously benefits corporate farms a great deal since corporations don't die.

 

[edward]

No link? I know I can search the NY Times archive myself, but come on, I don't want to do that

The NY Times is pay per view. Even to get their free 14 day trial one must sign up and give credit card info ect. The link below has the original article in full text.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/paul_krugman_cl.html

As far as poverty and the USA, we seem to also export it to other countries.

Third, the North American Free Trade Agreement, initially put into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, required Mexico to eliminate Article 27 from its progressive Constitution written in 1917. This article granted peasant farmers the right to farm co-operatively on government land rent-free. Many Mexican farmers had been sharing the work, the produce and the profits from this way of farming for decades. Thus, on Jan. 1, 1994, 1.9 million farmers were off their land and out of work.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/134647.php

So who is farming those thousands of acres now?

Incidentally, the state-owned land that was thus "liberated" by NAFTA now provides a number of American businesses thousands of acres on which to grow crops, such as tomatoes, for export to the United States. A great many of the displaced farmers have had to move to the border to work in 3,000 assembly plants that our companies have set up there. These workers earn roughly $1 per hour, and NAFTA does not require these companies to provide any health and social security benefits.

So these so called leftist Mexican farmers have come north to become our next lower class.

 

[Evo]

The NY Times is pay per view. Even to get their free 14 day trial one must sign up and give credit card info ect. The link below has the original article in full text.

Uhm, I registered for the FREE NYT account. I don't pay anything, never have. I read it all the time.

If you're paying, you need to sign up for the free registration.

 

[Astronuc]

For certain editorials, such as those of Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman, one has to purchase an on-line subscription "Times Select". Otherwise, the articles, which appear in the NY Times newspaper are free for one week.

As for Krugman's column - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26nQ3DTopQ252fOpinionQ252fEditorialsQ2520andQ2520OpQ252dEdQ252fOpQ252dEdQ252fColumnistsQ252fPaulQ2520Krugman&OP=4fcaf76fQ2FQ25Q3D(pQ25_Q7E299_Q25733Q2BQ253Q2BQ25t-Q259Q24Q2AsQ2A9sQ25t-62XFkTsQ3Ba_kY - one can see a brief statement, but to read his column, one has to subscribe to http://www.nytimes.com/products/timesselect/overview.html?incamp=ts:chall_article_overview . IIRC the subscription is about $50/annum, and one can download 100 articles/month free.

 

[russ_watters]

Some things I agree with, some I don't. The part about "the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right" made me laugh, and Astronuc - the politicians ignore the poor? C'mon, the Democratic platform is targeted directly at the poor-middle class. Or perhaps a gun the democratic politicians give them to aim at the rich. From my point of view, yes, a lot of politicians thrive on the economic disparity, but it is by and large the Democrats who benefit from it and therefore push to keep it an issue. It is why guys like Obama will never be allowed to make it far in the Democratic party - get rid of the class struggle and the party's constituent base and reason for existence evaporates.

I also think he's (and the Democratic party) are really fooling themselves about where they are and what they have to do to become relevant again. If the Republican party were really just for the rich, only 5% of the population would support it. The eat-the-rich game is not working and that's the main reason the only President from the left in 25 years was elected in the middle of a recession, driving out a one-termer. You can only hate the rich so much when you do still want to be one of them. And you can't convince a guy who has a bigger house than his dad did that he's worse off than his dad just because Bill Gates exists.

 

[Evo]

For certain editorials, such as those of Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman, one has to purchase an on-line subscription "Times Select". Otherwise, the articles, which appear in the NY Times newspaper are free for one week.

As for Krugman's column - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26nQ3DTopQ252fOpinionQ252fEditorialsQ2520andQ2520OpQ252dEdQ252fOpQ252dEdQ252fColumnistsQ252fPaulQ2520Krugman&OP=4fcaf76fQ2FQ25Q3D(pQ25_Q7E299_Q25733Q2BQ253Q2BQ25t-Q259Q24Q2AsQ2A9sQ25t-62XFkTsQ3Ba_kY - one can see a brief statement, but to read his column, one has to subscribe to http://www.nytimes.com/products/timesselect/overview.html?incamp=ts:chall_article_overview . IIRC the subscription is about $50/annum, and one can download 100 articles/month free.

Well, that would explain why I never pay. But I am detracting from the rant.

 

[edward]

You can only hate the rich so much when you do still want to be one of them. And you can't convince a guy who has a bigger house than his dad did that he's worse off than his dad just because Bill Gates exists.

Bill Gates isn't a good whipping boy for this topic.

The world's richest man recently announced that in 2008 he will step back from day-to-day oversight of the company he founded with Paul Allen to focus his attention on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has pledged to spend billions of dollars on health, education and overcoming poverty.

.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/jun/25/bill-gates-seen-as-role-model-in-philanthropy/

edit:
It was announced on the news today that Warren Buffet is giving billions in stock to Gate's philanthropic organization.

 

[Smurf]

For certain editorials, such as those of Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman, one has to purchase an on-line subscription "Times Select". Otherwise, the articles, which appear in the NY Times newspaper are free for one week.

As for Krugman's column - http://select.nytimes.com/gst/tsc.html?URI=http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/opinion/19krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26nQ3DTopQ252fOpinionQ252fEditorialsQ2520andQ2520OpQ252dEdQ252fOpQ252dEdQ252fColumnistsQ252fPaulQ2520Krugman&OP=4fcaf76fQ2FQ25Q3D(pQ25_Q7E299_Q25733Q2BQ253Q2BQ25t-Q259Q24Q2AsQ2A9sQ25t-62XFkTsQ3Ba_kY - one can see a brief statement, but to read his column, one has to subscribe to http://www.nytimes.com/products/timesselect/overview.html?incamp=ts:chall_article_overview . IIRC the subscription is about $50/annum, and one can download 100 articles/month free.

does he publish it anywhere that I might be able to get at a library?

 

[Smurf]

Bill Gates isn't a good whipping boy for this topic.

.
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2006/jun/25/bill-gates-seen-as-role-model-in-philanthropy/

edit:
It was announced on the news today that Warren Buffet is giving billions in stock to Gate's philanthropic organization.

Yeah, something like 80% of his wealth. Interesting move.

 

[Astronuc]

Some things I agree with, some I don't.

Same here. I am just providing food for thought. Often expressed opinions and even texts oversimplify a very complex situation.

I was stunned by the number (dozens) of homeless in Washington DC, many of who are clearly mentally ill, and in some cases, suffering from alcoholism or drug abuse. Many were sleeping on the grass or on benches in parks near the White House during the night and throughout the day.

The part about "the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right" made me laugh,

I don't think comments like that help in the analysis or in finding a solution. On the other hand, I am concerned about the propensity for politicians to villify or otherwise disparage the opposition - it goes both ways.

and Astronuc - the politicians ignore the poor?

Yeah, in general I think that many politicians do - even many Democrats who seem to exploit the poor, but offer little in the way of viable and sustainable solutions. Well, I guess I should have said "politicians ignore the reality of the poor".

 

[Astronuc]

does he publish it anywhere that I might be able to get at a library?

The book, "Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches," by Nolan McCarty of Princeton University, Keith Poole of the University of California, San Diego, and Howard Rosenthal of New York University, should eventually be available in libraries, at least in the US, and possibly at various universities.

Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman have several books in print. Krugman is at Princeton, and he may have some of his articles on his website. On the other hand, his columns are likely copyrighted by the NYTimes.

But I am detracting from the rant.

Sorry 'bout that. I am just blowing off steam.

 

[arildno]

Rather on a side note, but perhaps not:
I'm currently reading Howard Zinn's "The people's history", it is a very interesting read.

 

[Astronuc]

Rather on a side note, but perhaps not:
I'm currently reading Howard Zinn's "The people's history", it is a very interesting read.

My wife just bought a copy. It's been on my To-Read list along with dozens of other books.

 

[loseyourname]

For certain editorials, such as those of Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman, one has to purchase an on-line subscription "Times Select". Otherwise, the articles, which appear in the NY Times newspaper are free for one week.

That doesn't seem right. I know I've read Krugman's pieces on the NY Times archive before for free. They were essays, though. Are those separate from his column?

I'm not expecting you to know, by the way. I'm reading what I can find right now from google. Sounds like the same stuff he was saying in "For Richer." Okay, I found a link to what appears to be the entire article:

http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/2006/06/class-war-politics-by-paul-krugman.html

 

[russ_watters]

Bill Gates isn't a good whipping boy for this topic.

Yeah, he used to be the generic whipping boy, but I was too lazy to think of someone else. I'm actually a pretty big fan of his (even before he started his charity work).

Yeah, in general I think that many politicians do - even many Democrats who seem to exploit the poor, but offer little in the way of viable and sustainable solutions. Well, I guess I should have said "politicians ignore the reality of the poor".

That makes more sense. It is a cruel irony that since their constituent base is largely poor, they must stay poor in order to be of use to the party. The Republicans therefore have more to gain by the poor being better off.

 

[Skyhunter]

Some things I agree with, some I don't. The part about "the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right" made me laugh, and Astronuc -

It all started with this guy.

I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don't encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics.
Newt Gingrich

Newt changed the tone and Republicans have become nasty in politics. And it seems to suit them because I see no signs of it bothering their conscience. Actually there are no real Republicans left, the party was taken over by the nasties.

the politicians ignore the poor? C'mon, the Democratic platform is targeted directly at the poor-middle class. Or perhaps a gun the democratic politicians give them to aim at the rich.

Here is John Edwards' http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/edwards_dc

From my point of view, yes, a lot of politicians thrive on the economic disparity, but it is by and large the Democrats who benefit from it and therefore push to keep it an issue.

I suppose it is better than ignoring it altogether, otherwise there would not even be a mention of raising the minimum wage for the first time in nine years.

It is why guys like Obama will never be allowed to make it far in the Democratic party - get rid of the class struggle and the party's constituent base and reason for existence evaporates.

Really?

If that were true Russ, don't you think that the Republicans would be out in the forefront eliminating poverty, raising everyones standard of living, not just the select few.

I also think he's (and the Democratic party) are really fooling themselves about where they are and what they have to do to become relevant again. If the Republican party were really just for the rich, only 5% of the population would support it.

But the Republican Congress just killed legislation to raise the minimum wage, while giving the top 5% a $600 billion tax cut.

The eat-the-rich game is not working and that's the main reason the only President from the left in 25 years was elected in the middle of a recession, driving out a one-termer. You can only hate the rich so much when you do still want to be one of them.

I agree on both points. Hating the poor is easier, 'cause who wants to be poor?

Hating the rich while you wish to be rich is envy not hate. That is what keeps people supporting the capitalist system. Greed and envy are powerful motivators.

I don't hate the rich, nor do I want to be one of them.

Democrats are proposing to help lift people from poverty, Republicans are telling their friends to give to charity.

 

[russ_watters]

It all started with this guy.

Newt changed the tone and Republicans have become nasty in politics. And it seems to suit them because I see no signs of it bothering their conscience. Actually there are no real Republicans left, the party was taken over by the nasties.

Newt is a buffoon, but if you think partisan negativity started with him, you need to pick up a history book. Certainly there is an ebb and flow, but don't pay him the credit of having such an impact on the political scene.

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=3929

History shows that these sorts of unsupportable attacks and seemingly childish antics are not new to the election game. Candidates for all sorts of public office have engaged in name calling and public denunciations of their opponents from America's earliest days as a democracy.

Not even one of our most admired founding fathers was safe from personal attacks. According to a BBC news article, during the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was "accused of favoring the teaching of 'murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest,'" by his opponent.

Perhaps one of the most venomous elections was in 1828, when John Quincy Adams was running for President against General Andrew Jackson. According the same BBC news article, Adams was "nicknamed 'The Pimp' by the campaign of his opponent…based on a rumour that he had once coerced a young woman into an affair with a Russian nobleman when he had been American ambassador to Russia."

Here is John Edwards' http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/edwards_dc

Yes, and as I said, it is a cruel irony that the political success of his party requires the failure of his policies - regardless of whether or not he wants them to succeed.

I suppose it is better than ignoring it altogether, otherwise there would not even be a mention of raising the minimum wage for the first time in nine years.

Is it better? The Democratic party exists by convincing people they are incapable of supporting themselves. The damage that does to those people and the nation as a whole is devistating. People who don't think they are capable of succeeding on their own stop trying.

Really?

If that were true Russ, don't you think that the Republicans would be out in the forefront eliminating poverty, raising everyones standard of living, not just the select few.

They are. See, that's the point you and the Democratic party as a whole are missing - even though you've seen the data. The Republican party has had a stranglehold on national politics for 25 years because people believe in the American Dream and with them in power, the American Dream has been happening for more and more people. They believe that if I try hard enough, I can succeed and I don't need a government handout to do it. And you know what? They are right. Naked capitalism is what drives the US's economy and is the reason why odds are you'll have a bigger house than your parents did.

But the Republican Congress just killed legislation to raise the minimum wage, while giving the top 5% a $600 billion tax cut.

And yet, people vote for them. Why? Unless the Democratic party accepts the reality that people are interested in fairness and the American Dream (and naked capitalism is the primary component of both), they will never understand why a party who (in their minds) only cares about 5% can get 55% of the vote. They're not even trying to understand(or, perhaps, simply cannot accept) where those other 50% come from. And if they won't - they have no hope of ever convincing that 50% of the population to vote for them.

I agree on both points. Hating the poor is easier, 'cause who wants to be poor?

Huh? I don't know if I should call that a strawman or a deliberate mischaracterization. Surely you know it isn't true and isn't what I said. No one makes hateful statements toward the poor. There is no "eat the poor", only an "eat the rich". Again, what you and your party just plain don't/refuse to see is that the Republican simply have a different (and, as history and economics show, better) way of dealing with the problem of poverty.

Hating the rich while you wish to be rich is envy not hate.

Granted, but I think people fool themselves into thinking they don't envy the rich but only hate them. You said you don't want to be rich. Fine - but virtually everyone in the world wants to be better off than they are now.

That is what keeps people supporting the capitalist system. Greed and envy are powerful motivators.

Yes, they are. And attempting to short-circuit that doesn't work. It is ironic (sad and hopeless, even) - you know it is a reality, yet you fight against it. Skyhunter, if I though wishing could change human nature, I'd be a communist. It is a beautiful system - everyone working together for the common good. What could be better? But it doesn't and can't work, and just like in physics, politics is constrained by reality. You cannot change human nature by wishing - or legislating - it.

I don't hate the rich, nor do I want to be one of them.

Hate, dislike, whatever. Regardless of what you want to call your feelings toward them or what you want to become, the reality you do want to punish them for being rich. Democratic policies toward the rich are putative to the point they can be considered nothing else.

But that isn't even the worst of it. In addition to punishing the rich, via punishing them, the Democratic party rewards the poor for being poor. And that's their real hook. The second irony of Edward's lofty goals above is the reality of how it is applied: reward the poor for being and, more importantly, staying poor (because that's what free money does) and you can claim you tried while simultaneously maintaining your constituency through bribery, yet keeping them poor because of it. I guess that's a double irony...

Democrats are proposing to help lift people from poverty, Republicans are telling their friends to give to charity.

No. Democrats are trying to convince people they are trying while not actually helping, and Republicans, through capitalism, are actually doing it by supporting the American Dream.

And whether you believe that or not, unless you can accept the reality that the American people believe it, your party will continue to flounder.

One good domestic policy thing I'll give Clinton - he did something that Democrats hated but actually helped: he put restrictions on welfare and reduced the welfare rolls. Heck - that's why my dad (a Republican) voted for him the second time!

 

[Gokul43201]

Unless the Democratic party accepts the reality that people are interested in fairness and the American Dream ...

...and no gay marriage, and no flag burning and no abortion...

A large chunk of the Republican voters picked Bush because he was a religious man. It had very little to do with Capitalism or welfare programs. Do you really think a capitalist atheist stands a chance of being elected President any time soon?

 

[Manchot]

Yes, and as I said, it is a cruel irony that the political success of his party requires the failure of his policies - regardless of whether or not he wants them to succeed.

Your "irony" has no consequences whatsoever, because it could apply to almost any situation. By the same logic, it is beneficial for any politician who rallies around any policy to fail in his or her endeavors. For example, I could argue that it is beneficial for the Republicans to never pass an amendment criminalizing abortion, or an amendment banning gay marriage.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that your point is incredibly disingenuous. By saying "Democrats are better off as long as they fail at their policies," you're really implying "Democrats intentionally fail at their policies."

Is it better? The Democratic party exists by convincing people they are incapable of supporting themselves.

This is pure opinion.

They are. See, that's the point you and the Democratic party as a whole are missing - even though you've seen the data. The Republican party has had a stranglehold on national politics for 25 years because people believe in the American Dream and with them in power, the American Dream has been happening for more and more people. They believe that if I try hard enough, I can succeed and I don't need a government handout to do it. And you know what? They are right. Naked capitalism is what drives the US's economy and is the reason why odds are you'll have a bigger house than your parents did.

First of all, do you really believe that the Republicans are for naked capitalism? They may not be for social welfare, but they're all about the corporate welfare. Just go back and look at the Republican Congress' voting record. For God's sake, they extended the copyright term by 20 years solely for the benefit of Disney, one of the world's largest corporations. Most Republicans are also for putting caps on medical malpractice judgments, even though the experts have determined that malpractice insurance accounts for less than 1% of the total health care costs (yes, that includes "defensive medicine"). Tell that to the widow of a man who died in routine surgery because his multimillionaire surgeon had a few too many at lunch.

Secondly, the American Dream® is simply not possible for everyone. It's easy for you or me to think so, growing up at least somewhat intelligent, but tell that to the poor kid with an IQ of 80, or to the single mother who works two jobs just to feed her kids. I guarantee you that you do not work as hard as millions of people who are significantly worse off than you (though it is very easy for someone to delude themselves into thinking otherwise).

And yet, people vote for them. Why? Unless the Democratic party accepts the reality that people are interested in fairness and the American Dream (and naked capitalism is the primary component of both), they will never understand why a party who (in their minds) only cares about 5% can get 55% of the vote. They're not even trying to understand(or, perhaps, simply cannot accept) where those other 50% come from. And if they won't - they have no hope of ever convincing that 50% of the population to vote for them.

They get 55% of the vote for three reasons. First, they're funded better, mainly because they're typically richer to begin with. Believe it or not, statistics have shown that the more money you spend on a campaign, the better you do. Now, I guess you could make the argument that the richer you are, the smarter and therefore more qualified you are to have the job, but I don't think you want to go down that road.

Secondly, they've shown themselves to be better at universally using easily-digestable labels (e.g., flip-flopper, liberal, East Coast Liberal, West Coast Liberal, tax-and-spender, womanizer, soft on defense, soft on crime, cut-and-runner, etc.) I'm not saying that these labels mean anything; rather, they're just fodder for the more easily brainwashed among us.

Finally, Republicans are better at getting out the vote from the Religious Right by playing up such "issues" as gay marriage near election time. Is it a coincidence that the last time I heard the words "gay marriage" in the press was in November 2004? (Speaking of the religious right, the Republican party has completely controlled the government for almost two years now. If they really care about abortion so much, why haven't they even attempted to pass a Constitutional amendment banning it?)

Actually, in retrospect, I forgot about two other sources of votes for the Republican party. One is from people whose parents were staunch Republicans, and would never change their beliefs no matter what evidence was presented, because they have been ingrained from birth. (To be fair, Dems also have these votes.) The other is from people who were or are in the military. The Republicans have shown a willingness to fund them far beyond what is necessary, and have even made baseless wars to keep them employed.

Again, what you and your party just plain don't/refuse to see is that the Republican simply have a different (and, as history and economics show, better) way of dealing with the problem of poverty.

This assertion is completely baseless. Sure, the Republicans may have controlled the government during a period of economic growth, but so have the Democrats. I would like to see some statistics backing up your argument that their way of dealing with poverty is "better." From what I've heard, the number of people in this country under the poverty line has increased by 4 million people in the last six years.

Democratic policies toward the rich are putative to the point they can be considered nothing else.

Do you know how our tax system is supposed to work? Across the board, everyone is (in theory) supposed to pay the same percentage of their income as taxes. While income tax may favor the poor in lieu of the rich, other taxes, such as sales tax, greatly favor the rich. (Someone making $20,000 a year is going to spend a much greater fraction of their income on consumables, and pay more sales tax, than someone making $200,000 a year.) Moreover, richer people typically get the benefit of the corporate subsidies. This is how the system's supposed to work in theory. If you decide to go and give major tax cuts to the rich, assuming that the correct balance had been established before, you've effectively placed a greater burden on the poor. You're mischaracterizing the balancing act as a punishment, which shows a misunderstanding of basic economics.

 

[loseyourname]

This assertion is completely baseless. Sure, the Republicans may have controlled the government during a period of economic growth, but so have the Democrats. I would like to see some statistics backing up your argument that their way of dealing with poverty is "better." From what I've heard, the number of people in this country under the poverty line has increased by 4 million people in the last six years.

Since the end of the depression, the only administration that has seen a significant drop in nationwide poverty rates has been the Johnson administration. Rates dropped from about 24% to 12% and have stayed right around that level ever since.

 

[russ_watters]

...and no gay marriage, and no flag burning and no abortion...

Those issues were not very big in 2004.

A large chunk of the Republican voters picked Bush because he was a religious man. It had very little to do with Capitalism or welfare programs.

Though 91% of those who considered his religious faith important voted for him, that only covers 8% of votors. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html And yes, "Moral Values" was considered an important consideration, the combined economic categories cover more and the combined war categories covered more. And "Moral Values" is a little vague, anyway. While I'm sure that is mostly about religion, you don't have to be religious to hold the opinion that (and care that) one candidate is more moral than the other. Ie, the leadership, decisiveness, and most importantly honesty categories of the "most important quality" question all affect that.

No - as always (when relevant), this election was dominated by war and the economy.

Do you really think a capitalist atheist stands a chance of being elected President any time soon?

Certainly not - he/she would have no chance of being nominated. It is the same problem as with McCain and Obama. But that should not be taken to imply that the American people wouldn't vote for such a person if they had the opportunity.

 

[russ_watters]

Your "irony" has no consequences whatsoever, because it could apply to almost any situation. By the same logic, it is beneficial for any politician who rallies around any policy to fail in his or her endeavors. For example, I could argue that it is beneficial for the Republicans to never pass an amendment criminalizing abortion, or an amendment banning gay marriage.

Explain why. I think you are missing my logic. What I was getting at is that "poverty" is both a social issue and a group of people. Eliminating that social issue eliminates the group of people voting democratic. The Republicans criminalizing abortion would not eliminate a constituent base (especially since passing the law would not end the fight).

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that your point is incredibly disingenuous. By saying "Democrats are better off as long as they fail at their policies," you're really implying "Democrats intentionally fail at their policies."

I'm not beating around the bush here, Manchot: politicians are two-faced, Democrats included. They do intentionally fail at their own policies. Now that's your wording, I used (for clarity), and the reality is somewhat more complicated (more often than not they simply say they are trying but aren't actually doing anything), but close enough.

It runs the gamut from supporting something (ie, the draft) you know has no hope of passng just to make a statement to 'I supported the war before I voted against it' (or was that the other way around?), which is active sabbotage of your own policy by voting against it. Sometimes it is making different and mutually exclusive promises to different people. Sometimes it is making campaign promises you don't intend to keep. Sometimes it is doing something you know will make people happy but you know won't actually help them.

This is pure opinion.

No, it is pure psychology.

First of all, do you really believe that the Republicans are for naked capitalism?

No, but they are much, much closer to it than the Democrats. Besides - what democrats like to call "corporate welfare" often is naked capitalism: things like lowering corporate taxes.

Secondly, the American Dream® is simply not possible for everyone. It's easy for you or me to think so, growing up at least somewhat intelligent, but tell that to the poor kid with an IQ of 80, or to the single mother who works two jobs just to feed her kids. I guarantee you that you do not work as hard as millions of people who are significantly worse off than you (though it is very easy for someone to delude themselves into thinking otherwise).

There are certainly people who will be in need regardless of how much effort they put into improving their lives. But how many and why? A child with an 80 iq has an uphill climb, but there are jobs that you can do that don't require much intelligence. And that single mother - how did she become a single mother? High school graduation rates are another issue - the correlation between education and income is extremely strong. So there are certainly some social issues here beyond what capitalisic pressure alone can handle, but on the other hand, simply handing out money does not fix them either: it helps perpetuate them. And that's a psychological reality.

They get 55% of the vote for three reasons. First, they're funded better, mainly because they're typically richer to begin with.

In the 2004 election, Bush spent 11% more than Kerry, but neither spent much of their own personal money - few national politicians do. Besides - Democratic candidates are typically rich too.

In the 2004 election, "soft money" was reorganized from direct contributions to "527" organizations, but the Democrats still received the lions-share of it. Which is ironic, because one such pac, with mediocre funding, helped Bush a lot. http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/softtop.asp?cycle=2004
http://www.hillnews.com/news/042004/kerry.aspx

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and his Democratic allies have raised almost twice as much money as the Bush-Cheney campaign so far this year, according to recent government filings.

So no, it isn't the money.

Finally, Republicans are better at getting out the vote from the Religious Right...

As I showed above, that played a very small part in the 2004 election - and that was probably the biggest part it ever played (since Bush is probably the most religious we've ever had).

This assertion is completely baseless. Sure, the Republicans may have controlled the government during a period of economic growth, but so have the Democrats.

Just not in the last 25 years (Clinton got lucky for several reasons, otherwise we'd have had no democratic presidents in 25 years)...

I would like to see some statistics backing up your argument that their way of dealing with poverty is "better." From what I've heard, the number of people in this country under the poverty line has increased by 4 million people in the last six years.

Short term fluctuations don't say anything about long term trends. Its the most commonly used fallacy in the book.

But to address the main (and loseyourname's) point - I started focusing on poverty, but my main point was on the bigger picture: the overall economic situation (I did mention the middle class too). Poverty itself is tough because it is getting low enough and its definition muddled enough as to not have all that much meaning. But overall, it is a fact that inflation adjusted incomes across all segments of the populous rise long-term in the US. It is a fact that average home size is increasing in the US. It is a fact that immigrants account for 40% of our population growth and they are disproportionately poor (meaning the existing population moves up and new poor people from other countries enter to fill their spots and keep the rate high).

The point is that regardless all the technicalities of how the rate is calculated, the actual human condition of Americans continues to improve.

More generally, it is a fact that China's poverty rate dropped by half when they started embracing capitalism - capitalism, not socialism, is responsible for economic prosperity and decreasing poverty in general.

Do you know how our tax system is supposed to work? Across the board, everyone is (in theory) supposed to pay the same percentage of their income as taxes.

Since when?!?? The US's tax system is designed to be progressive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

While income tax may favor the poor in lieu of the rich, other taxes, such as sales tax, greatly favor the rich.

Besides the fact that there is no national sales tax and every state sales tax is different (so even if you were correct about the intent, the logic wouldn't work - and you can't be correct about the intent since the intents are incompatible), the federal income tax plays a far bigger role in whether or not our overall situation is progressive or regressive. Heck, the effective tax rate for people at the bottom is negative, while the new AMT ensures that those at the top can't take too much off due to deductions.

This is how the system's supposed to work in theory. If you decide to go and give major tax cuts to the rich, assuming that the correct balance had been established before, you've effectively placed a greater burden on the poor. You're mischaracterizing the balancing act as a punishment, which shows a misunderstanding of basic economics.

No. You misunderstand the basis of our tax system and therefore your conclusions about how that affects the fairness of taxes/cuts is incorrect. All that changes with a tax cut is it reducess how progressive the system is - it is still progressive.

More on tax rates: http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm#2
Though they say the payroll tax is regressive, it is only regressive above $87K, due to the cap on income covered by it (so for mor than 80% of the population, it is flat). Regardless, looking at the different taxes, it is clear that the overall tax situation in the US is very PROgressive, with the bottom 5th paying a total of 18.8% and the top fifth paying a total of 35% - about double the total tax rate of the poor.

 

[SOS2008]

Some things I agree with, some I don't. The part about "the great bulk of the viciousness coming from the right" made me laugh...

I could provide a long list, such as recent attacks against veterans such as Kerry and Murtha. As the article points out, the use of "unpatriotic" to attack Democrats has been the most common. "Rovian" has even become a new word:

Karl Rove's reputation is such that, among both his supporters and critics the phrase "Rovian" has come to be used as a synonym for "Machiavellian" (i.e., to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rovian

His supporters use the term with pride. Perhaps you have a long list of examples on the part of Dems that would match what the Republicans have done?

Our two-party system is what is laughable, and the platforms have become blurred for both. The Republican party now represents big government, irresponsible spending, and social conservatism. The poor saps who are still registered Republican have yet to figure out that the 1% (or even top 5%) of wealth in our country are pro-monopoly, not free market capitalism. As such, the disparity will continue to grow, and less and less people will be able to rise to higher levels of wealth. And the guy who owns a larger home than his father, well he doesn't own it. In fact, he has taken out equity to pay bills, and if he sells the home now he won't be able to afford to buy another one.

From my point of view, yes, a lot of politicians thrive on the economic disparity, but it is by and large the Democrats who benefit from it and therefore push to keep it an issue. It is why guys like Obama will never be allowed to make it far in the Democratic party - get rid of the class struggle and the party's constituent base and reason for existence evaporates.

Obama will never make it far in the Democratic party? If you say so, I guess it's true.

The Democratic party has become more about individual/civil liberties and preservation of constitutional rights in general (e.g., right to privacy, right to choose, freedom of speech, transparent governance, etc.) and not just about the poor or minorities. And addressing issues such as the environment, energy conservation, improved education, affordable health care, etc. is about a better world for all.

Unfortunately the lottery/gambling mentality in this country will prevail no matter how poor the odds. So the struggle is really between the enlightened progressives and the delusional wannabes who enable the status quo to their own detriment and everyone else's.

EDIT: My family is very religious, and I assure you that abortion and gay marriage are huge issues for them. As for the rest who voted for Bush in 2004 (including quite a few Dems), they fell for Duped-ya's "war on terror" fear mongering.

Now many no longer support the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and are concerned about deficits, etc. Nonetheless, they will not admit they were wrong about their vote, and certainly do not support impeachment for being lied to about Iraq--though they should. We all should be out on the streets protesting every damn day.

What will Republicans do in upcoming elections? They will stay the course, because they have been brainwashed to believe the Dems are communists.

 

[edward]

Talk about Rove and Rovian tactics, when the recent vote on redeploying troops in Iraq was defeated by the Republicans, Rove quickly jumped on the Democrats as cut and run.

A week later the DOD announced that they would not be replacing 7,000 troops in Iraq on their regular rotation schedule. This non deplayment = a reduction in troops, and is to happen just before the upcomming election.

The Democrats have to outsmart the Rovian tactics. It is obvious that Rove and a lot of Republicans knew about the upcomming troop reduction at the time of the vote.

Talk about playing dirty, Rove and the republicans have used young soldiers as their pawns in the rottenist political maneuver I have ever seen.

They continue to show their true colors as they use this illegal war and the troops fighting it for political gain, and personal power.

 

[Manchot]

The Republicans criminalizing abortion would not eliminate a constituent base (especially since passing the law would not end the fight).

I think that a constitutional amendment leaving it up to the states would end the fight, since it would move the debate from a national issue to a state one. It would completely leave the scope of the federal government, because it's hard to motivate a liberal base to push for an amendment nullifying the first one if it it easier to push for one at the state level (which it is). I'm sure that I'm not the pro-life first person to come up with this, yet I never hear it mentioned by the Republican politicians. Now, you might say that "Oh, such an amendment would never pass, so they may as well not bother." Well, to that I'd respond that the flag-burning amendment has been tried multiple times in the past few decades, all ending in failure. Doesn't keep them from trying, does it? With regards to the abortion issue, "pro-life" Republicans (and I use the term loosely) have taken a passive method of fighting abortion: appointing conservative Supreme Court judges. There are many more active ways of going about this, but do they perform them? No...they need to make sure that their base thinks that the only way abortion will be outlawed is by electing Republican presidents over and over again.

I'm not beating around the bush here, Manchot: politicians are two-faced, Democrats included. They do intentionally fail at their own policies.

You can think whatever you want, but what I know is that the last few pieces of legislation before the Republican Congress have been pure election year fluff. The only bill which has had any importance has been the proposed minimum wage hikes, which were almost universally voted for by Dems and voted against by Republicans.

Besides - what democrats like to call "corporate welfare" often is naked capitalism: things like lowering corporate taxes.

If a corporation is going to have the same rights as a human being under the law, shouldn't they have the same responsibilities (taxes included)? Secondly, when I say "corporate welfare," I'm talking about the subsidies given to them (both in terms of money and in terms of legislation). Why should Disney get a law solely passed to protect Mickey Mouse's copyright? Or, to go further, who gains the most from the interstate system that we pay for? You, or Wal-Mart?

(FYI, I'm not a Democrat, but I do agree with them on a lot of things.)

And that single mother - how did she become a single mother? High school graduation rates are another issue - the correlation between education and income is extremely strong. So there are certainly some social issues here beyond what capitalisic pressure alone can handle, but on the other hand, simply handing out money does not fix them either: it helps perpetuate them. And that's a psychological reality.

If you're implying that most single mothers deserve their situation, stop now. I'm not suggesting that the feds should hand out money willy-nilly, I'm saying that the safety net should be there. If you suddenly have two mouths to feed, and you're working 60 hours a week to make $16,000 a year, I would think that getting some money wouldn't perpetuate your problems.

Besides the fact that there is no national sales tax and every state sales tax is different (so even if you were correct about the intent, the logic wouldn't work - and you can't be correct about the intent since the intents are incompatible), the federal income tax plays a far bigger role in whether or not our overall situation is progressive or regressive. Heck, the effective tax rate for people at the bottom is negative, while the new AMT ensures that those at the top can't take too much off due to deductions.

Again, you're not including the benefits that exist for people at the top. A national system of roads with which you can transport your product. A government which provides you with large contracts. Laws designed to protect your product from foreign competition, and to give you monopolies. A patent system. Copyright law. A telecommunications infrastructure. The privilege to broadcast your information over public airspace. The list goes on and on. Obviously, these aren't easily quantified. Nevertheless, they are absolutely essential to many business operations, and as a result, they benefit the shareholder. They easily counterbalance the progressiveness of the overall tax burden, and even make it somewhat regressive.

 

[Skyhunter]

Newt is a buffoon, but if you think partisan negativity started with him, you need to pick up a history book. Certainly there is an ebb and flow, but don't pay him the credit of having such an impact on the political scene.

He probably didn't have as much impact as Grover Norquist.

Al Kamen, "John and Mary and Jayson and Rick (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A46063-2003May27&notFound=true)," Washington Post, May 28, 2003: "Quote of the Month: 'Bipartisanship is another name for date rape,' says Grover Norquist, GOP strategist and head of Americans for Tax Reform, according to an article yesterday in the Denver Post. 'We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.'"

I think that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have more to do with the hate speak that is dividing America today.

But it was the Republican Congress that employed a special prosecutor to hound Clinton. That is not election year rhetoric, or push polling, that is twisting the legal system not only to ones personal political advantage, but actually using it as a weapon against ones political enemies.

http://silverchips.mbhs.edu/inside.php?sid=3929
A high school newsletter, how quaint.

When the article makes false statements, I believe the author is either uninformed or deliberately lying.

Working offensively for the Kerry side is a group called MoveOn.org. The group has many internet ads posted on their website that attack the Bush administration. The commercial which is probably most famous is the ad that, according to this article, "depicts Adolf Hitler ranting in German, with subtitles "translating" his words into a fictitious quote by Bush." The commercial was taken down after many complaints from the Republican side.

MoveOn never ran such a commercial.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=24749

"It is shocking that a mainstream political group like MoveOn.org not only allowed this vile and outrageous comparison of the American President to Adolf Hitler to be entered into its "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest in the first place, but that they even went so far as to make it available to the public on the Internet. Those responsible for this contest at MoveOn.org should have immediately identified this advertisement as one going far beyond legitimate criticism and rejected it out of hand. Instead, they made an irresponsible decision that has given legitimacy to the exploitative manipulation of images in a campaign season."

You see it was part of a contest, and was never run as an advertisement. The worst that can be said is what is being said here. Of course their argument is that MoveOn should censor an open public contest.

I read both Kerry and Bush's military records. The swift boaters were lying and it was obvious from the military reports and even in the way they presented themselves as having served with him. The only one who served on the same river, at the same time, as Kerry was another swift boat commander, and I read his account of the battle (the one in the official military records) where Kerry was awarded the silver star. He was also decorated for his role in that battle. His statements in 2004 were nothing like the official report that he endorsed right after the battle.

Bush's records show that with his classification, his service required that he train and fly with his squadron, so as to be ready to be deployed and operational whenever his unit might be called up into theatre. No one from his unit in the Alabama Air National National Guard remembers him.

I find it interesting how easy it is to dismiss the entire affair on the grounds that one piece of evidence, not even a particularly compelling piece, just one allegedly forged letter. I say allegedly because I have not seen an official ruling on the authenticity of the letter, although in my mind it is not of any particular importance

Yes there is historic precedence for dirty politics. Historic precedence does not make it right. We should never condone, this behavior, nor should we allow historic precedent to be used as an argument to excuse a persons conduct.

In this particular time in history, historic precedent is not as relevant because modern communications are unprecedented. We have entered into a period in history where social changes, brought about by our technological prowess, are obliterating old paradigms. The fact that FOX is calling for "Liberals to apologize, now that they found WMD in Iraq is an example of how the Republicans are marketing government. The claim is based of course on old information. and is a blatant obfuscation of the facts. However the Republican strategy is to beat the war drums and paint the Dem's as cowards, so FOX is providing them a platform to hone and deseminate their message.


There is an entire cable network devoted to hate speak directed at liberals, not real liberals but this media stereotype that most liberals do not even resemble. I have taken to using the term wing-nut to describe the die hard Bushys. I cannot understand how anyone could support what is obviously a failed presidency. But I would never have started routinely using derogatory terms if it were not for listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his hate rhetoric directed at people who live in magnificent ancient trees to keep them from being cut down to satisfy someones greed.


Our ability to affect the physical world is growing by leaps and bounds. As India and China begin to compete with the US and Europe for resources, the world's already heavily damaged ecosystems will be pushed to breaking points.

.

The Democratic party exists by convincing people they are incapable of supporting themselves.

This is your opinion and completely unfounded. Check your history, the Democratic party goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson. To make such a statement is hyperbole.

People who don't think they are capable of succeeding on their own stop trying.

I agree that people who believe they can't won't even try, however I don't see how providing someone with healthcare, an education, or paying them a living minimum wage is convincing them that they are incapable of succeeding on their own.

They are. See, that's the point you and the Democratic party as a whole are missing - even though you've seen the data.

What data is that?

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911

AMERICANS do not go in for envy. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than in any other advanced country, but most people are unconcerned. Whereas Europeans fret about the way the economic pie is divided, Americans want to join the rich, not soak them. Eight out of ten, more than anywhere else, believe that though you may start poor, if you work hard, you can make pots of money. It is a central part of the American Dream.

The political consensus, therefore, has sought to pursue economic growth rather than the redistribution of income, in keeping with John Kennedy's adage that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The tide has been rising fast recently. Thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago. In the late 1990s everybody shared in this boom. Though incomes were rising fastest at the top, all workers' wages far outpaced inflation.

But after 2000 something changed. The pace of productivity growth has been rising again, but now it seems to be lifting fewer boats. After you adjust for inflation, the wages of the typical American worker—the one at the very middle of the income distribution—have risen less than 1% since 2000. In the previous five years, they rose over 6%. If you take into account the value of employee benefits, such as health care, the contrast is a little less stark. But, whatever the measure, it seems clear that only the most skilled workers have seen their pay packets swell much in the current economic expansion. The fruits of productivity gains have been skewed towards the highest earners, and towards companies, whose profits have reached record levels as a share of GDP.

The Republican party has had a stranglehold on national politics for 25 years because people believe in the American Dream and with them in power, the American Dream has been happening for more and more people. They believe that if I try hard enough, I can succeed and I don't need a government handout to do it. And you know what? They are right. Naked capitalism is what drives the US's economy and is the reason why odds are you'll have a bigger house than your parents did.

What is your definition of success?

A bigger house that is too expensive to heat and cool, that is to far away from the job you must drive to everyday in an SUV that now costs $100 to fill with gas and the money goes to fund extremists that want to kill you because of your lifestyle.

Naked capitalism is not the solution. When 6 billion people have a bigger house than their parents, where are they going to build all those houses?

Russ the main reason I don't want to be one of the rich is that to get there I have to support a system that I see as a cancer upon the living earth. I have greater dreams than owning a big house. I want to help ensure the survival of life on this planet. Naked capitalism, and the consumption economy is killing the earth. Everywhere industrial society goes it kills the life that was there. More roads, urban sprawl, parking lots, unsustainable agriculture, factory farms, and deforestation. We simply cannot continue the path we are on. Development ends up killing everything including microbes, and then replacing it with something dead.

The world will not support 6 billion people living the "American Dream" of a bigger house and car.

And yet, people vote for them. Why?

Many reasons. Some like you believe that Republicans make it easier to succeed. Many for religious or moral reasons, like abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, etc. I think that having Rush Limbaugh,, Sean Hannity, and FOX news spread disinformation like "They found Saddams weapons!", to a sympathetic audience just perpetuates the division. The more I see of it the greater the division.

I agree on both points. Hating the poor is easier, 'cause who wants to be poor?

Huh? I don't know if I should call that a strawman or a deliberate mischaracterization.

It was meant as a joke.

Surely you know it isn't true and isn't what I said. No one makes hateful statements toward the poor.

No I would call it disdain, not hate.

There is no "eat the poor", only an "eat the rich".

Well Duh, hello, the rich eat at like, 5 star restaurants, why would they want to eat the poor?

The poor on the other hand...well without always getting 3 squares, or when Top Ramen just doesn't hit the spot...you know a fat juicy capitalist just might start to look appetizing.

Again, what you and your party just plain don't/refuse to see is that the Republican simply have a different (and, as history and economics show, better) way of dealing with the problem of poverty.

I would have to disagree, the best times for the poor in America was the 90's when Bill Clinton (democrat) dominated politics. As you said yourself, his chief rival was/is a buffoon.

but virtually everyone in the world wants to be better off than they are now.

Yes they do, I agree. But if the definition of what better off means changes, then human nature does not need to change. When people have the necessities of life provided, they are ready to seek fulfilment through other pursuits than just amassing material wealth and comfort. I know everyone will not automatically become a philanthropist, but more than a few will. If their is additional social incentives, like greater sufferage as a reward for service, this can be a powerful motivator. People will become more involved with their community when there is an incentive to get them to take the initial step. Once people get involved with volunteerism, they discover the benefits and rewards and usually continue to contribute. In the volunteer community you see the same people at disparate events, the same people step up nto the plate whenever there is a challenge to be met. i believe this idealism exists in everyone at some degree or another. The political challenge is to cultivate this higher nature.

We can provide basics for all Americans so we should. With a well fed and idealistic nation, the American people, with the real ideals of the American dream like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, manifested by the practice of liberty and justice for all, who can say what the accomplishments of an entire nation inspired to act from the higher aspects of human nature might accomplish.

Democratic policies toward the rich are putative to the point they can be considered nothing else.

Not entirely, I believe there are politicians like William Jefferson, who use race and class as a means to gain power and then use that power for personal gain at the expense of those they was supposed to be championing. I don't believe that is true of the party as a whole, nor is it widespread with the majority of members.

One good domestic policy thing I'll give Clinton - he did something that Democrats hated but actually helped: he put restrictions on welfare and reduced the welfare rolls. Heck - that's why my dad (a Republican) voted for him the second time!

Democrats did not hate it. And he did not just put restrictions on welfare, he put in place support programs to get people from welfare to work. On the left you had those who cried it would devastate the lives of the poor, and on the right you had those that said the poor are poor because they are lazy, so just cut em off cold. Clinton did the smart thing and brought the majority together on a more comprehensive plan that addressed the issue, thereby winning support from both parties.

Sorta makes one nostalgic fr the good old days when the President was a true leader, and the political jokes were about cigars.

 

[turbo]

As he often does, Paul Krugman hits home with poignant issue - economic disparity in America, and the politics which supports it - even thrives upon it.

"Class War Politics" by Paul Krugman, NY Times, June 19, 2006

You may be interested in hearing him speak. This was from a public meeting June 13 in NYC. Greg Palast, who has broken a number of stories for the BBC on the Bush administration and the inner workings of the Republican party including massive purges of black voters from the rolls. Especially shameful are the purges of black servicemen serving in Iraq, who cannot validate their voting status, and in fact do not know that their right to vote is being stolen.

http://www.gregpalast.com/greg-palast-amy-goodman-paul-krugman-randi-rhodes-live-in-nyc

 

[SOS2008]

Yes there is historic precedence for dirty politics. Historic precedence does not make it right. We should never condone, this behavior, nor should we allow historic precedent to be used as an argument to excuse a persons conduct.

In this particular time in history, historic precedent is not as relevant because modern communications are unprecedented. We have entered into a period in history where social changes, brought about by our technological prowess, are obliterating old paradigms. The fact that FOX is calling for "Liberals to apologize, now that they found WMD in Iraq is an example of how the Republicans are marketing government. The claim is based of course on old information. and is a blatant obfuscation of the facts. However the Republican strategy is to beat the war drums and paint the Dem's as cowards, so FOX is providing them a platform to hone and deseminate their message.

There is an entire cable network devoted to hate speak directed at liberals, not real liberals but this media stereotype that most liberals do not even resemble. I have taken to using the term wing-nut to describe the die hard Bushys. I cannot understand how anyone could support what is obviously a failed presidency. But I would never have started routinely using derogatory terms if it were not for listening to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his hate rhetoric directed at people who live in magnificent ancient trees to keep them from being cut down to satisfy someones greed.

My thoughts exactly as I was reading that post. It is just another version of "Clinton did it" justification, and it seems that pointing out the flaw of such reasoning does no good. I've joked that there must be something in the water in the red states, but I'm beginning to believe it is a permanent brain disorder.

The most recent example of Rick Sanctimoron's claims and Faux News usual dis-info reports regarding WMD is exactly what causes intense divide. I can't even describe the feelings of disgust and contempt this makes me feel.

I agree that people who believe they can't won't even try, however I don't see how providing someone with healthcare, an education, or paying them a living minimum wage is convincing them that they are incapable of succeeding on their own.

In areas where the minimum wage has been increased to a living wage, the economy has improved and businesses are just as profitable if not more. If I have time, I'll try to find sources on this.

The world will not support 6 billion people living the "American Dream" of a bigger house and car.

This is a large part of the argument for stopping the massive flow of illegals across our southern border. The rapid, exponential increase in consumption, most specifically automobiles (and often older vehicles that don't pass emissions) is taking the U.S. backward, not forward.

 

[Skyhunter]

If you are not a wing-nut, you better get angry and vote!

edit: post violates guidelines

 

[Smurf]

I think you are missing my logic. What I was getting at is that "poverty" is both a social issue and a group of people. Eliminating that social issue eliminates the group of people voting democratic. The Republicans criminalizing abortion would not eliminate a constituent base (especially since passing the law would not end the fight).

Just because the democrats are supported by the impoverished now does not mean that once that group is eliminated that the democrats will have nothing to stand for. If they actually accomplish such a task it would change the political climate considerably, I would think, and put them in good favor at least temporarily.