To be fair I'm sure George W. Bush believes in his mind that his presidency was a successful one and has said that history will one day affirm that he is right. And I'm sure there are more than a few Republicans who will agree. But how WILL history view the legacy of George W. Bush?
Well, from where this correspondent sits the GW Bush administration gets an F minus. I know he did some things that could be called nothing but compassionate and generous like aid to Africa to fight AIDS. But these things are so canceled out by his monumental screw ups.
The first thing he did was undo everything Bill Clinton had done except the two things that needed to be undone like NAFTA and welfare reform. Then came the Bush tax cuts and just the news of it caused the economy to stumble. Coupled with some of the most out of control spending ever seen in our countries history, and the money pit called the Iraq war and we now see our Federal debt approaching 10 trillion dollars. That's more than 33 hundred dollars for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.
Now even Bush and the Republicans had to admit the economy had taken a down turn. Thus the recently passed Economic Stimulus Bill. Unfortunately the Stimulus package is like putting a Band Aid on a severed limb. The only other answer I've heard from the Right, other than this one time pay off is to make the tax cuts permanent and getting spending under control. Now it seems to me that the only way we could ever sustain the current tax rates would be to cut spending accordingly. The problem is that neither party has ever shown that they are capable of such a thing. And I say, why should they? Just so the monetary gluttons can keep more of THIER money? No, I think the people know that taxes are going to have to go up for the very wealthy if we're ever going to get back to the work of advancing our society.
And the other thing that has to happen to get this country back on track will be to abandon Bush's neocon ideology concerning foreign policy, get our troops out of Iraq, and start the task of mending fences with our friends who have been insulted and appalled by the actions of our current administration.
The George W. Bush presidency has left quite a legacy alright. A legacy of shame.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin's column, "Left Of The Right" published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin's columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin's postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange "Connect" button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 118
Actually, Bush may have gotten an inkling that his legacy was in trouble when he got booed throwing out that first pitch, but then, he'll feel better once he strolls through the old oil patch and gets all those pats on the back for doing such a grand job.
Unfortunately, he may feel that he needs to do more damage to the world to solidify his final legacy but I guess we can only hold our breaths and try to convince ourselves that all these signs of a possible attack on Iran are just in our imagination.
I believe that many people now want to get as far away from his type of leadership, and the crowd he brought in, as possible, i know i do.
He got one out of three right.
He signed the pension reform bill, a bipartisan effort in 2004, so, 1.2 out of 3.
You have voiced many of the very same thoughts and feelings that I have been pondering. The only way history will be able to remember 43 with any fondness, will be the writers are all drunk, stoned, delusional, committed AND bought off. Otherwise, some of the truth will get through.
I hate to correct your math, but I've been juggling these figures myself and I noticed you dropped a zero somewhere.
With an estimated resident population of just over 300 million in the U.S.A., $10 trillion actually equals $33,333.33 (thirty-three thousand; not thirty-three hundred) per every man, woman and child.
$10,000,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = $33,333.33
The scariest part comes in knowing that not every U.S. resident pays taxes. This means that the burden / cost to U.S. taxpayers is significantly higher than $33,000 each.
All this during a time when big corporations are enjoying record profits, the wealthy are enjoying healthy tax cuts, and the labor classes are struggling under decreased wages, shrinking employment, and higher competition.
History will only paint 43 favorably in the text books of greedy-league schools.
Now the fromer president the 1st son then Gov. G.W. Bush inch into the White House with the support of the supreme court. And I supported President Clinton but I even know there was a shame that was hard for some democrats to swallow, pund not intended.
Now G. W. Bush is in and wanting all ready to do what his old man could do win a second term and advenge his father loss to Bill. The cult of hate aganist the Clinton was already a cottage industry for the right wing consevatives to make the Republican the most powerful force on earth. Tax down for business and the wealthy Bush Jr. had delivered and then the horror of 9/11 occurred the revenge of the rightious give to Bush the younger the point in history his father could only had dream of, bad luck turn into an opprotunity.
This call to arms was a no brainer to get a second term into the White House. People voted their collective emotion so here we are, as much that may be atributed to G.W. Bush and his crew manipulated with the wizard Carl Rove at the controls. With a solid majorty with no oversight Geoge Bush's the president has become the most powerul president we ever had but with a power beyond his ablity to run or control . So who was the power behind Bush the younger. You know the answer already Dick Cheney the master weaver of a White House the likes we have never seen before. So here we are with a mess on our hands which if the truth be told the blame can be shared with several villians.
That's right, their blatant lies made people vote for this guy.
A lot of failed economic policies take many years to feel. Clinton failed policies during his second term were only felt after Bush took office. I am all for blaming Bush but we need to look deeper than that. Bill Clinton left some major fiasco in place that were only felt and noticed after he left. The whole lewinsky stuff just distracted the country and we did not pay attention to what the guy was doing.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/152922778.html
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ496/lence/spring2004/NAFTA.pdf
There is a reason why Obama's aid called Canadian Premier saying he really didn't mean it when he said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, something the Canadians are only too happy to do.
His failed economic policy has caused the largest growth in US economy EVER and that after the largest attack on our mainland..but lets ignore the facts and replace with empty rhetoric.
Lets see what Dems are doing today... We have a hearing thumping Oil execs and while I agree that we do not need to subsidize this industry any longer Dems can't get anything done besides a public thumping...more empty rhetoric.
Then during lunch on CSPAN talking about what Dem called the most important House bill forgot the number but its for a 1 dollar coin commemorating 50 years of civil right passage. Great milestone hardly "most important" thing to discuss in the house. You see that's the problem…libs talk and complain about actions others take but when it comes time to act or make decisions they are nowhere to be found.
Our current options for the next President are John McCain (who some argue is Bush's third term), Hillary Clinton (nuf said), and Barack Obama.
Now, who should we vote for? If we vote wrong due to fear or uncertainty than we deserve what we get.
Blame Clinton for paying down the national debt, and in raising the revenue in doing so. As well as a 23 million new jobs in the US. And yes I would agree that all that is terrible Alan.
The country and the market turned south when Bush was appointed President, and not before.
"...what do you object to more, record low unemployment rate, the record low interest rates or the almost record high stock market."
Let's see...
... that would be an unemployment rate recorded only by counting the number of people currently receiving unemployment benefits; which means those who are unemployed and NOT receiving any compensation are not counted; which means that all you have to do to make and keep the number low is kick people off unemployment, or deny new appliers any benefits (which runs out after twenty-six weeks anyway).
... that would be a record low interest rate, whose rate has been set at a record low by the FED in hopes of bolstering and shoring up a staggering and sputtering economy which threatens to collapse under the sub-prime meltdown; which is further acerbated by the loss of jobs and reduced pay of today's American employment markets.
... and an "almost" record high stock market, which had been maintaining record growth right up until 43 took office, and which has kept dipping and falling ever since 43 took office, despite all of 43's laxing of rules which allowed American based companies to import foreign laborers, contract with overseas businesses, and move manufacturing to other than American shores
Well, I guess I just can't be sure which one I object to more.
But thanks for asking.
That is too funny !!
Although Al Gore ran a lousy campaign and conceded to quickly, we ALL know that Bush was the result of voter irregularities, hanging chads and a court decision from a Republican judge in a state where 43's brother was governor.
Without those things, Bush never would have become 43.
These are GOP policies not Bush policies.
And Richard B you got it all wrong. Hilary ran the White House in the 90's just like Cheney is doing now. NAFTA really is her baby, and probably the reason healthcare went nowhere. Both she and Bill were too preoccupied.
We can critisize Bush for tax cuts and deficit spending --- at least until Hillary or Barak resort to tax cuts and deficit spending to "fix" the economy.
As for foreign relations being hostile -- they should be. Again, who really believes that Hillary or Barak can or will do anything to please the Socialists of Europe or the Terrorists of the Middle-East?
Those people who actually believe that someone like Obama will make the rest of the world happy really do not understand the world. The only way that Europe can be Europe or the Middle-East can be the Middle-East is if the United States continues to play the bad guy while they enjoy the benefits of us being the bad guy.
However, it is wrong to assume that Bush is just dumb or seriously out of his depth and guided by malignant forces that flow through the office of his VP.
Bush does not think that a $10 trillion deficits is good for the USA. He does not think that tax cuts that favour the wealthy are good for the USA. He does not think that invading Iraq was good for the USA, nor does he believe the occupation of that country is good for the USA. Bush perhaps realized that invading Afghanistan was a necessary response to 9/11, but he only did that because he could not get away with not doing it. It was only a minor distraction, anyway.
Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what is good for the USA and anyone who thinks he does is seriously deluded.
Bush cares only about his own enrichment and that of his close associates whose continued wealth ensures his own. Those people have made out very well as a result of his presidency, reeping windfall profits on untendered contracts and through the ongoing costs of war. Those people have enjoyed the transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans into their own pockets and bank accounts.
To them, Bush is a smashing success. And if the USA should falter and collapse, falling to second-rate or even third-world status as a result of their theft, so what? They owe no allegiance to the flag or the constitution (which they've pissed on repeatedly) nor the republic for which they stand.
Their motto can be summed up thus: Screw America, pass the profits on down.
Poland, Ukrane, and most eastern bloc countries love him. The folks running France and Germany like him. He was a big hit in Africa a few weeks back. Bob Geldof even said Bush has done a lot for Africa and congratulated him.
So, leftists hate Bush, and radical Islamists hate Bush. What's so wrong with that?
Devin, society does not advance through government handouts as you have implied, it advances through education and hard work (sorry for using a four letter word). I know it is sacreligous for liberals to imagine those who earned the money actually keeping it for themselves, but at least you are willing to acknowledge that it is THEIR money (at least before the government confiscates it in order to give it to "society")
And you also completly ignore the positives of NAFTA. What a depressing life it must be always looking at ONLY the negative side of things. The only hit devin scores is pandering to people that fail to look at reality and just believe empty rhetoric. Tell me...do you believe that your front runner Obama will TRY and renegotiate NAFTA? Hell no because he is smart enough to understand that overall its a good deal for the US.
Listening to the news as I write. Fox is reporting that a private entity, is teaching terror techniques to cadets at West Point. They use the excuse of knowing what the terrorists think, will help understand how they operate. While this is true, to a point, who are the recruiting to attend this class, and where do their allegiance lie. To me, this is very scary.
fz
Secrecy hides incompetence, the illusion of incompetence, hides secrecy.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39365
Go ahead...just walk away from this deal. We get the majority of our oil from Canada. What you think would happen if we cancel NAFTA and they significantly reduce their exports? Can you say $5-6 dollars per gallon? How would THAT affect the little guy?
The Bush presidency HAS accomplished its main goal: enrich Baby Bush's friends beyond the dreams of avarice. The rest of us don't count, anyway; at least not to them. All we are is cattle to be exploited.
What is beyond me is this: How can people with low-to-moderate incomes believe for one second that the RepubliCONS have their interests at heart? Or that they even know what those interests are? And, how can you excuse the selfish "me first" attitude they continually display.
Once again, it's not YOUR money. It's the AMERICAN PEOPLE'S money; ours to spend on Americans' needs. Stop trying to steal it back and let us make ALL our lives better. Just calling it a "handout" doesn't make it so. Welfare, assisted housing, etc. are really a form of corporate welfare, there because companies refuse to pay their workers what their time is worth!!!
Once again liberals can only come up with empty rhetoric completely ignoring the facts. Bush has increased entitlement programs more than any other president but it still not enough for you. Of course you would have to look at factual data like annual budgets and take your shoes off to make the calculations but you are right its much easier to spout empty rhetoric.
We need statistics that indicate the average income, and number of those who earn $20,000 per year or less, and do so in $10,000 increments up to !,000,000 or more per year. Also include a statistic of those who are of employment age, but make zero income. Then we will see how awful the state of our economy is. You can't afford a car, and a place to live on a job at Walmart! Especially with the massive amounts of taxes we pay on our income, our homes, our goods we buy.....
Economic growth or GDP is another false indicator of our economy. GDP includes loans, mortgages, income from service work, and does not indicate what our nation actually produces, and also does not include the negative effect of outsourcing jobs, and trade deficits.
As far as Bush goes, he is a complete idiot. He makes none of the decisions that affect our society. It all comes from the Federal Reserve, and folks like Cheney, and Wolfowitz. The simple fact is that our government should never be operating with a deficit! Spending more than one takes in always leads to bad things. The fact that our government borrows fake money created out of thin air from the Private Federal Reserve Bank is an atrocity of epic proportions! Bushco, congress, and all in Washington know that they are screwing us all with this system. It is not a partisan issue that we are being screwed into bankruptcy by our government.
Bush rates in my book about on par with Hitler. He and his cronies falsified information that has lead to a needless war where millions could eventually die. Bush, Cheney, and Rice (among others) have openly perjured themselves on national television countless times, and yet no congressional investigations into their lies. Bush has broken numerous laws, and has yet to be charged by congress. He certainly is guilty of war crimes against humanity....that does not bode good on one's legacy!
Not to mention that the ''fed'' is illegal. And the 16th amendment was never ratified. It's a fraud.
''Id like anyone (everyone) out there with a 401k to post how it has done these past 8 years.''
Hey moron, poor people don't have 401 k's. They spend their money on luxuries like food and rent and medicine.
''How about you homeowners out there? Even considering this huge adjustment on house prices, mine is more than doubled since I bought in the summer of '01.''
Yea, well try to sell for ''double'' right now. Haven't you been listening to the news lately. The housing market is collapsing. But since ''your'' average, and doing ok, I guess that means ''everyone'' is doing ok. Talk about ''spiiiiiiiin''.
''Dr Dummy, wait, the Trinity Church also doesn't believe in the teachings of Jesus, that is obvious. So there is hope for you becoming a parishoner--Go for it! You go by the name dummy--self loathing or descriptive--which is it?''
Why do you say that church ''doesn't'' believe in the teachings of Jesus. Because their preacher is still angry, because of the treatment of blacks in America, past, present, and future. Oh, wait, maybe you don't know of their treatment. It almost sound like you're a rascist, or at least a classist.
Did you also hear that home equity that is owned by homeowners dipped to 48%, the lowest level since the 40"s?
Where is your proof? GDP grew from 7 trillion to 9 trillion under clinton and Bush from 9 trillion to over 13. That's is a bigger growth...don't even need to take your shoes off for that one...
Receipts from the evil corporations even with Bush tax cuts went from an average of 9% during clinton to 14% under bush...gee I guess even WITH the tax cuts we get MORE money from them.
Now lets look at Human Resources which includes Social security, education, VA etc. under clinton it went from 920 billion to just over a trillion. Under Bush it went from 1,1 trillion to to 1,7 trillion. Just to make it easy for you. Clinton increase about 100 billion...Bush over 500 billion (am rounding down to help you as much as I can). So who had the better economy? Who paid more on social programs? Here are my lack of facts...speaking of which, where are yours?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
I quoted your statement as a reference point, in order to most properly challenge the assertion it made; not because I was impressed by it. The idea that George W. Bush (our current President) won his term in office solely or primarily because of the nation's disgust with Bill Clinton's philandering with Monica Lewinsky is just not credible.
If the nation so resented that specific action of Bill Clinton, so much so that they voted against Al Gore simply because Al belonged to the same party (or even administration) as Bill Clinton, then the nation would would have cleansed even more Republicans from the legislature in the past mid-term elections thanks to Larry Craig and Mark Foley; but that didn't happen.
The nation votes according to its best hopes, not solely nor primarily by any scandalous innuendo.
Your 401k will dip, your housing value slip, the price of your consumables rise and your income revenues shrivel. This will happen because we are all swimming in the same pool; and eventually all the P and S that 43 has been dumping, and letting get dumped in will reach you. (Unless you bail to the Cayman's or something).
And are you arguing for less taxation on the rich?
You mean the more a person makes the less percentage they should have to pay?
How is that "right"?
Those with the least need to be taxed the least so that they can have more to work with to build themselves up and better their positions. Those with the most, can MOST afford to contribute toward the national well being, as their personal well being is already doing well.
Strugglers need to be helped by those who have already found safe places in the boat.
...or is that too passe' for the cold and calculating attitudes of business dominated America?
No one said its in "good" shape, you putting up a straw man again. There are difficult sectors, people struggle and no one is ignoring that. To constantly say the sky is falling is neither correct nor helpful. In my company we just had a marketing meeting about how to tell customers we can't handle any more business. We are looking for people like crazy...can't find enough engineers or computer programmers. There is a shortage in nurses and doctors. My tree guy put me on a 3 week waiting list before he could come cut my tree down. Its NOT ALL bad and your side of the isle ignores that and that's the frustrating part.
To say all of NAFTA is bad is neither correct nor helpful. Most people have not even looked at NAFTA and the only thing they hear is we lost jobs. Yes we lost SOME but overall how many were created? How is it helping that we are guaranteed a supply of natural resources from Canada?
You can't always be negative and don't expect people to question your rhetoric. And when someone takes the time to spoon-feed factual information to you (and other liberals that just come here to tell you how right on you were) you dismiss it as blind neocon propaganda. The internet makes it way too easy to find factual information. Its amazing how little time people spend looking things up like the good Col forgot to do about his oil import "fact".
No, the progressive income tax is the best tax ever invented. After the AMTectomy, it should be further tweaked as we lose tax base when the baby boomers retire.
A substantial tax increase, voted in by both parties, demographics is destiny.
Can you see the future ??? I know I can't----
IF--- big IF --- IF fifty years from now, Iraq is a stable democracy, and several of their Arab nations are as well, then of course, history will judge him as a visionary, despite your vapid lies and distortions.
If however the ME remains in conflict, then he will be seen as the boob you suggest he is.
Please, don't tell me you know which of those two options will transpire, because you have no idea.
1)Technically, if you wanted to truly be FAIR, everyone would pay the same percentage. Wouldnt they? Isnt that inherently more fair?
The answer here is YES !!!
.. and I would add that it also the most "right".
2) I'm no saying Im for this next one but: there are plenty of examples where it makes economic sense to that a person that pays more gets a break. Ever buy anything in bulk? Ever see prices of services come down as you upgrade? Ever see a business give their good customer a break? They do this because they want to keep them coming back. If the good customers walked, business would suffer. What would happen to the tax revenue bottom line if the lower 10% of tax contributors stopped paying tomorrow? Now, what would happen if teh TOP 10% stopped?
Oh yes, I get the point, but we are not talking about consumer economics or sales tax economics, we are talking about income tax economics. In this realm, allowing higher dollar tax payers to pay a lower percentage will not result in them paying more into government coffers via "repeat" or the spreading of favorable word of mouth business.
And to address your scenario: if the bottom 10% of tax payers stopped paying their taxes then our jails would swell with the incarcerated law breakers; where as if the top 10% quit paying their taxes the nation would just be screwed (no more military, highways, public works, etc.).
3) And here is the biggie... the rich DO pay more. They pay more percentage-wise, they pay more raw dollars, they pay more of the total revenue... how can you look at the numbers and argue that?
When you say "percentage-wise" here, you can only be referring to the fact that they pay the highest percentage of taxes received by the government, and NOT more, percentage-wise, of their wages, earnings or income.
The real transalation of the left's "they should pay their fair share" is "they should pay even more unevenly than they already do"
Well, I don't give a hoot about whatever spin "the left" may attach. The use of the word "unevenly" in this context is a cracked crock of pooh-dooh, seeing as how the incomes being compared are already significantly uneven.
Equal percentages are the most fair, just and right.
In response to your second comment:
The logic I was using applies to income taxes, not sales taxes. Since these two economic methods are very different from each other, the same logic would not apply; as you have aptly pointed out.
As for the rest of your second comment, you have gone completely off into a weird zone talking about things that I never promoted, mentioned nor even insinuated.
My comment that "Strugglers need to be helped by those who have already found safe places in the boat." was NOT said to imply that the government should force those that "have something" to give that something to those who do not "have that something".
I made that statement in reference to the idea that those with much SHOULD help those who have little, of their own accord; but we all know that many of the rich will still put the poor down below so they can be the first to go.
The majority of America's corporate aristocracy are not beneficent oriented; they are self aggrandizingly oriented.
BTW, My daughter had a good job all the way back when you were insulting her. She was the asst. mgr. But through hard work and a worthless boss (R), that always took credit for what everyone else did, her boss got fired and she was immediately offered the mgr. job. So you see, she ''is'' one of those people, that you always praise, that get out and work hard to get ''ahead''.
''Unless you want communism (as many here do) the poor struggle. Period. A solid economy is here waiting for them if they decide to take advantage of it.''
And no one ever has setbacks, or discriminated against, or stolen from, or on, and on, and on. So I guess you think all those people that have lost their 401 k from companies going bankrupt, are to blame for loosing their ''own'' money. And the only one that I know of that wants communism, is bu$h.
''http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf'' See Victor, this is your problem. You believe what comes from this web site. Why wouldn't bu$h lie about this, too?
''the price of your consumables rise '' Don't you know, ''dr.'' rich kaye shops at a grocery store in the 1950's. He isn't effected by the rising cost of groceries, gas, and anything else delivered by that fancy new ''motorized buggy''
''the rich DO pay more. They pay more percentage-wise, they pay more raw dollars, they pay more of the total revenue... how can you look at the numbers and argue that?''
Warren Buffet said the his secretary pays more taxes than he does. Is he a lier.
''Granted, there are ways the rich can find breaks but those are loopholes that - if unfair - should be closed. But as far as tax brackets the rich DO pay more.''
But you know, they aren't closed and the rich use the hell out of them to pay ''less taxes''. And maybe you haven't heard. There is something in the 1040 called ''adjusted income''.
''Youre willing to say we shoudl take money from the rich because those with less need to be helped.''
Here's a concept I know you don't understand. The rich usually didn't get rich ''alone''. Usually those with ''less'' helped them to get rich. Those with the money'' choose'' to keep the majority for themselves, and give those with ''less, ''less''. It's called greed. Occasionally, I have to use 2 extra workers when I get a big job. Then there are 4 on that job. After cost of materials (not cost +), I split the profit 4 ways. ''Evenly'' Fairly.
The Danish Kroner was among the strongest it the world, sometimes doing better than the Euro even with the two are linked. Last summer, a good friend flew to NYC for the first time in her life. She was astounded by how cheap it was to even stay in a good hotel and eat food in fine restaurants... and never mind the shopping... using her Kroners.
But the Americans I meet in Copenhagen are floored... horribly floored... by how little they can do on a US dollar.
Of course not. And I am not a communist. I am a social capitalist. I believe in the capitalist system to a point. I believe that those who have the most invested in a venture, deserve the most rewards. But here's where you and I differ. If you own a business that does 10,000 a month in revenue, and your costs are 3,000. Your labor cost is 2,000 which leaves you 5,000. You have a choice, to take the whole 5,000 for yourself, when you could live comfortably on 3,000, or you could take the 3,000 and ''trickle'' some of that other 2,000 down to the labor that helped ''you'' get ''your'' 3,000. Or even if you just ''trickled'' down 1,000. Where as your version of capitalism is simple. Charge as much as you can, for as little cost (people are in cost) as you can, regardless of anything else. And you want ''as much'' as you can get. Greed.
''People get paid WHAT THEY ARE WILLING to be paid. Once again, its all about choice.''
You are absolutely right. But you forgot one aspect of your idea. ''THOSE WITH THE MONEY, SET THE PRICE OF WHICH YOU CAN CHOOSE TO ACCEPT OF REFUSE.'' And in the business climate of today, that amount has dropped in the last 7 years. Now run an get you ''official'' government statistics to prove me wrong. I'm sure bu$h hasn't lied about that.
BTW, ''relatively smaller'', poor people don't think that things like gas and rent and food and medicine are relatively small.
How will his presidency be remembered in history? I'd bet accurately. But, that's probably fine with him. It was always all about the money. He and his buddies are rolling in it so I'd bet Good Ole Double D Dubya is crying too, all the way to his banks, mansions, oil fields, stock brokers, yachts, etc...
Anybody who looks at the 3000 point drop in Dow, national home value drop, credit crunch and goverment bail-out of sleazebags while not holding them accountable, then claims the "system works" is cracked. Anybody who thinks that every executive department under the Bush Admin has not been corrupted by ideolouges is also living in Oz among the munchkins. NOTHING, no economic data, Justice dept claim, EPA rule, NOTHING from the Bush Admin is worth spitting on. Only when the executive is wrenched from his hands and enough Repub Congressman are sent to the welfare lines will we truly know the state of the economy and government. Remember, these are the masters of "created reality."
Way to point out how ignorant the people who voted for him really are.
I woke up a half hour ago, about to go to work... and your post inspired this long response... Please forgive grammar stuff. I don't have time to better formulate it.
At the very big and very small of the universe, as best we know it now - perhaps close to the alpha-omega of many religions - all the fragmented bits of mechanical dynamics which we have thus far observed, and from which we have attempted to create systematic theories, and hence rules of engagement over which to enable technology, become irrelevant. We often forget how interactive all these physical systems can be when they get expressed at the biological level, which gives us a brain to think and make choices from. Many of the great religions I've studied seek to reduce human suffering, interfaced sometimes on what little science may understand of society's or the individual's inabilities to integrate an accepted understanding of those mechanical and relatively short term dynamics, such as Newton's laws of thermodynamics, which gives us to an extent cause and effect. I really don't want here to get into a long scientific discussion of how even our genetic codes, and thus are deeply subtle yet having a huge effect on our here and now activities in the real world, are a factor of a very long history of previous actions, influences and reactions. But I think you can glean a bit of what I'm trying to state.
Since a lot of what I've studied also deals with the arena of how culture evolves through the language of the collective unconscious, which is a term some hard-scientists don't like, I naturally see the correlation of those mechanical systems of the universe... all the way to the quantum level... and human behavior.
Most Christians now accept that the universe is not some 6000 years old based on the Old Testament ...of she begot... who begat... etc ad infinitum.
So if we can agree that the universe was created at some point without getting into a world war over what actually "God" is, can we not then agree to an extent that there are some very fundamental mechanical patterns involved with every feature to human existence, including thinking and behaviors. Is it not also possible that this just like when some sailors went past that "edge" which many Christians freaked out over far out in the Atlantic several centuries ago, only to find that a straight-line path in any direction is actually a circle of sorts. Most Greeks and countless other cultures around the world seemed aware of that simple fact prior to their dissolution for a while into a dark age(s), of the earth being a globe (for even if you drew a straight line anywhere in the universe, you are actually sort of taking a round trip), is not not then possible to link destructive human thought patterns and behaviors with an inability to differentiate the simple mechanical rules that support even the microbiological capacity to think and act.
For me, this is simple and obvious. I can even look at my own life and the mistakes I've made.
Like you eloquently imply but don't outright state above, all those mechanical dynamics are temporary in the great scheme of things. But here we are, eh? If we stick our heads in the sand to shout at the universe, "Hey, you can't catch me?" Well, gee, that sure as heck ain't going to work. No, the intelligent and faith-reinforcing thing to do is to learn absolutely as much as we can about what makes us all tick, so as to avoid getting sick in body, mind... and thus our social behaviors.
Until Louis Pasteur's and Madame Curie's time, illnesses caused by bacteria were considered the domain of "spontaneous generation" or "God made you sick to punish you," such as many with HIV suffered from a host of well-known tele-evangelists back in the 1980's. Now we know that by simply better understanding the vectors involved with how infections are spread, we can begin to reduce a whole lot of suffering for everyone in the world. And let me wax socioeconomically here, for I am really upset with the lack of a Hippocrates philosophy in the medical industry. That ought to be considered, for the sake of all humanity, in the same way a fire department fights a fire. The fire chief doesn't ask the homeowner if he's paid his "fire fighting" premiums to his department. Unless that fire is immediately fought without reservation then the whole community is in danger. See, that's a selfish way to better understand wy every single human being who is sick absolutely must be treated with equal dispassion by the medical "industry."
OK, back to your point about mixing oranges with apples, Obama with the domain you mention. All cultures I've looked at are infused with symbols that evoke this collective unconscious which Jung described. And in analyzing most of these patterns within cultures who have survived through all sorts of stressors over great periods of time, we see that they behaved at the social level in ways that were often not in conflict with the natural laws that give rise to human biological existence.
We've now come in our history as a species to that point of natural laws where we could very easily commit suicide en masse, by making choices that aggressively challenges the mechanical laws that has evolved us... and I don't argue with a creative God. Just don't give me a Thor that sits up in heaven and vengefully manifests lightning to express anger. That's just a reinvention of a male ego who's displaying dominance to a bunch of other monkeys. If you believe in God, what do you think God would say if you pointed a loaded 45 at your head and said, "I have faith that God will not let this bullet make gel of my brain." Don't anybody go trying that.
Now I am going to make a small leap of faith of my own. And it's not based on anything other than an intelligently derived hope that Obama will be able to a greater extent than the other candidates in America, manifest the potential he's so very often exhibited in how he behaves in public and private life, and in his consistrent rhetoric. That he has a balanced level of intelligence that gives him a greater than usual awareness of how what we do today will have a huge impact on how we survive tomorrow.
This is why, at an almost subconscious level, for many people of all ethnic and economic strata feel rather inspired by him.
By himself, he's nothing special. That's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that a lot of people intuitively feel - and many know this based on hard science - that how the power structures in our world now are behaving will lead us to a level of danger that is unparalleled in history. Many are very aware on various levels of knowing this, how foolish our elected officials and corporate executives have led us to this brink.... and how potentially proactive in problem solving this dilemma an Obama presidency might be.
A single person like Obama is not going to collectively pull our heads out of any metaphorical pile of sand. That's up to a lot of individual choices in society. But he definately thus far inspires a whole lot of people towards a more sane set of choices.
I could go on here, but then I'd be writing a book...
Congrats for having your article featured by Gather on their homepage in the Politics section.
Rich, thank you , about my brother. In theory what you call trickle down economics, is good too. But the problem is, that the trickle down is ''not'' legislated. If you legislate the tax breaks in the first place, why wouldn't you legislate the purpose for the tax breaks, Trickle Down. Unless the true reason is to make the rich, richer. When Reagan implemented TDE in the 80's, the rich got bigger houses and bigger yachts, and their workers got the shaft. I just think that if you have a 100 foot yacht, and you get a big tax break. 100 feet is enough. There were some socially conscience businesses, but the executives got the vast majority of the TD. As, I think you said once, It's just human nature to gather for themselves. The more one gathers, the longer one survives. It's not in our nature to share. That has to change. You say that what I talk about ''is'' capitalism. Yes, in name, it is. But to add the ''social'' part, makes a world of difference to the poor. The way to really keep people happy is take care of them. Pay them a living wage. I was in retail management for 25 years, and the chase for the almighty ''profit'' was intense. We constantly had to beat last years figures. To the companies that I worked for, if you got a 10 % increase, they wanted 20 %, if you got 20 %, they wanted 30 %, and very rarely did the workers get any of that. I got my bonuses. But they paid even me, less than I felt that I deserved. A living wage. So those bonuses where eaten up, paying bills buying groceries and the such. All I'm saying, be fair to everyone.
Dr. I do agree with what you are saying about greed...but how do you regulate "fairness"? Take the tax code. It gets bigger and more complex every day. All that means is that CPA's have to get smarter to find loopholes. I choose to work for smaller companies where I do not get paid as much don't have as good a benefit package but I get treated well. We all have a choice in the matter. Sometimes the choice may not be easy and involve night school or changing industry but you are in control of your destiny. Companies that are social conscious and take care of their employees are more often than not successful because they attract good people. This in a way is what the free market society is about....the good companies succeed and the bad ones eventually fall. Well unless they get a government bailout ...sigh.
I am also sorry to hear about your brother.
And Ron…also agree with you that this grandstanding of both parties... it is getting out of hand. We need to put an end to useless hearings and move forward with solutions.
See, this is where you guys on the right, just don't get it. You have this rosy picture, that everyone in America, starts on an even keel. You don't get discrimination, or oppression, fear, or any of those other fine qualities that our leaders use to keep us divided. This is the big picture, that the vast majority of Americans just don't see.
I quoted on another thread, A. Lincoln, ''a house divided'' and instead of an intelligent response, the other person responded, ''that was a bible quote''. You see, it doesn't matter who said it. What matters is, the message. Throughout history, our forefathers warned us of the collapse of America from within. Look at where we are as a society right now. Our government ''spy's'' on us to protect our liberties. Don't you find that a little strange. They have us believing that you're either with us or against us, and 1/2 of the America people think the other 1/2 love osama bib laden because their against the war. Your assumption that everyone in America has the same opportunity that you had, is your delusion. Respectfully. It's like everything else with the individual. Your opportunities and choices depend on the offers even before you can choose. We all have the same right and responsibility to make the right or wrong choices. But tell that to a crack baby that was just born somewhere in America.
Don't get me going on any trickle down nonsense. Mere vil have mere... as the Danish expression goes
"See, this is where you guys on the right, just don't get it. You have this rosy picture, that everyone in America, starts on an even keel. You don't get discrimination, or oppression, fear, or any of those other fine qualities"
You ever hear of reverse discrimination? You ever hear of "quota"? Look Obama is the poster child for what you can achieve if you keep your nose clean (or learn from mistakes) and work hard. It's always someone else's fault right Denny...THATS the liberal message you have bought into. Look I lost my job after 9-11. The state of TX paid me unemployment for a few weeks but then stopped because I didn't register with the local employment office. Ok I understand that...but what they ignored was the fact that I work in a specialized industry and I had to expand my search nationwide. I remained unemployed for little over a month. I am responsible for my family and my future...not the Texas employment department.
As long as you keep blaming others for your misfortune and make excuses of how others are keeping you down you will never get out of the mess. Look at your daughter, she hung in there…worked hard and that was recognized with a promotion.
Brent,
Personally I also do not agree with government bail out programs and if it were up to me I would have let the chips fall where they may but there is a bigger picture as this would have rippled through the entire economy.
Wish he had to work for a living and have to try and come up with the money to take care of his kids like the rest of us do. Its funny how all the ones that are born with a silver spoon in their mouths don't have a clue of what life is all about and what it takes to live.
''As long as you keep blaming others........ Look at your daughter, she hung in there…worked hard and that was recognized with a promotion. ''
He, I'm doing fine, and my daughter learned her life lessons from me and her mom. That's what we taught them. I guess you guys think someone has to oppressed to complain. I look around America and see millions of people in distress and want to help, you look around and see millions being lazy.
''The list of obstacles to success is endless. But, you just want to talk about the high profile ones that the liberal leaders have pounded into your head'' No, I was thinking of anyone disadvantaged to the point of need.
1) Regulate EVERYTHING such that ALL obstacles are rendered meaningless........
2) Give everyone the SAME opportunity under the Law''
I completely agree. Give ''everyone '' the ''same'' opportunity. How can you say that a poor black child, has the same opportunity to succeed as someone born into a family of multi millionaires. The MM usually don't have trouble finding summer jobs. The MM, don't usually have trouble paying the ''rent''. The MM don't usually have trouble buying groceries. When MM get sick, they go to the ''private'' family doctor. Now contrast that with the poor black child. What's equal about that.
BTW Rich, 81% of Americans believe that we're heading in the wrong direction. And Jan. job ''loss'' - 76,000, Feb. ''loss'' 76,000, March ''loss'' 80,000. There's 232,000 people that probably would say the economy is in shambles. That's just 3 month's. Do you mean, ''your economy isn't in shambles'' ?
I don't quite understand your point. You want everyone to start out at the same level? You do understand that it's impossible do you not? Communism failed, true communism was never achieved. Albania came the closest but since the politicians had cars it was NEVER truly equal.
Sure some people have it easier than others but isn't that LIFE? Have you ever watched "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery? Now those guys have it rough!!!
Why, because it's never been done before. Now that's good enough reason ''not'' to try.
''Sure some people have it easier than others but isn't that LIFE?''
Sure it is. How about ''you'' start over from scratch or even lower than scratch, like some disadvantaged people, and see how far ''you'' make it up the ladder. But I guess as long as it's not ''you'' that has the lousy life to start, huh?
Are you a Christian, Victor. If you are, where is the compassion that ''Jesus'' talked about. How do you justify ''not'' helping the poor. Did you know if ''Jesus'' really did live and lived today. He would be considered a socialist. What's up with that.
You're arguments are the usual right wing rhetoric. There will always be poor so why even try. Well I'll bet if it were you, you'd want some one to try. And BTW you're labels mean nothing. What is Denmarks form of government.
Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a representative democracy based on a unicameral parliamentary system.
A constitutional monarchy or limited monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an ''ELECTED'' or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power.
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives.
Unicameralism is the practice of having only one legislative or parliamentary chamber. Many countries with unicameral legislatures are often small and homogeneous unitary states and consider an upper house or second chamber unnecessary.
And yet despite high taxes, the people of Denmark are reported as some of the happiest people on earth. They have cradle to grave health care, and their social programs take care of those in ''need''. They don't seem to mind. Oh I'm sure Denmark has some right wingers like you, who feel they are being robbed, but, hey, you can't please everybody, huh?
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03inccart.pdf
People who make more than 10 million donate more than all other income brackets combined. One notable exception are the Clintons who while they gave to charity it was their own foundation that received their donations. The foundation mostly works with global issues which while honorable do little to help the suffering in the US.
Why do you pick a country with population the size of Maryland and try to compare that to the US? Our GDP is 2.2 for 2007 and theirs is 1.7. Our per capita GDP is $46,000 while theirs is $36,000. We still have a stronger economy... What works in Denmark may not work so well in a country the size of the US. We deal with different issues. We have a lot more immigrants (both legal and illegal), our population growths at much faster rates and that will have a direct impact on welfare.
Sure we have an abysmal 12% people living below poverty but take Canada roughly the same size at almost 15%, Russia comparable population size almost 18%. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=lo&v=69
Again, a large country deals with many more issues then a tiny one.
Denny, the problem is that our welfare system is broken. Take health care. We spend more on health care then any other OECD country - including denmark.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
So we do not need MORE taxes to pay for more health care we need to fix the problem. One part of the "problem" is the fact that we have the best and most advanced health care in the world which also makes it the most expensive. What drug was developed in Denmark? Which medical procedure was developed in Denmark? I incorrectly assumed that the reason for high health care was law suit abuse...actually the reason for our high cost is the fact that we use the most advanced equipment...and quite frankly that's not such a bad thing. There are still many problems with health care and they need to be addressed. We desperately need serious welfare reform and not just throw more money at a system that is so broken.
''People who make more than 10 million donate more than all other income brackets combined.''
I never said the wealth don't contribute to charities. The problem with your facts are ''who'' they donate to. Your assumption that ''all'' charitable donations that the rich make are for the ''poor'' , and furthermore the poor in America. They do somewhat. But don't forget, a donation to '' most any'' non profit organization is tax deductible. So the donations made to ''the arts'' benefit mostly the rich. As I don't know many poor people that go to the opera or the museum, who do those donations benefit the most.
''Why do you pick a country with population the size of Maryland''
Just as an example of what ''could'' be done. In a recent survey, of people ''all'' over the world, the people of Denmark were reported as the happiest people on earth. So you can throw out all the statistics you want about GDP and taxes, but those people are ''the happiest people on earth''.
''I incorrectly assumed that the reason for high health care was law suit abuse.''
That is actually about 1 % of that problem.
''Sure we have an abysmal 12% people living below poverty but take Canada roughly the same size at almost 15%, Russia comparable population size almost 18%.''
There you go with th right wing rhetoric again. Are you saying that since Canada and Russia have a higher % of those living below the poverty level, than ours, it' OK. My opinion is if we have 1% below that line, that is unexceptionable to me.
''One part of the "problem" is the fact that we have the best and most advanced health care in the world which also makes it the most expensive. ''
''Exactly''. Well beyond the budgets of millions of Americans. Is that OK with you?