And the Nomination Race Begins!

Looking at the book description, it seems they share a lot of my beliefs. I'll definitely check it out sometime

 

Damedog - I'm not a Dem, but I've been a huge fan of Bill Clinton for years. You learn in business to judge results, not talk. Look at the record of what Bill and Hillary have done, especially Bill in recent years, and then judge for yourself. IMHO, if anything, or anyone, has "changed" during the last few years, it is Obama. We didn't know that when he was blowing his horn about "change" it would apply mostly to himself and mostly for what's good for him, not the rest of us.

 

This reminds me of the discussion during the 2000 presidential election. What is the difference? Both parties are lackeys to the corporations and only in it to fatten themselves. Then George W Bush was elected and showed that there is a difference between pleasing the big corporations with maybe some cut-backs on the side and being insane.

 

In a perfect world politicans would represent the people who elected them. We have an imperfect world and politicans acting as ass-wipes for the rich are nothing new, nor is it exclusive to the United States. But there is always a middle ground somewhere, and some politicians seem to know how to find that ground. Unfortunatley, many don't....

 

True, but I think our plutocracy is more pronounced than any other first world country. The different countries in Europe are full of communist and socialist parties, who actually have some hold over the levers of power. Here the very idea of workers just having a say in their living standards is under attack like we've seen in Wisconsin and Ohio.

That being said, i'm surprised you liked Clinton Chandos, as from what I know about his presidency he was just as willing to betray liberal values as anyone. Carnivore, the clipper chip bill, CDA, the gutting of welfare, and NAFTA, the knife in the back of the American working class, were all things that passed (or tried to be) under his administration. What redeeming features did he have?

 

I wasn't a big fan of Clinton but he did okay (other than the moral issues). One positive aspect of Clinton was he based a lot of his decisions on polls -- basically, laws that the majority wanted got passed and those the majority didn't want got scuttled (for the most part). I think the special interest groups and lobbies had less influence with Clinton than other presidents.

The problem with using polls to decide is you don't make the tough decision (there are no "guns" to "stick to"). That said, the specific items you list above really are not big negatives to me. I have no idea what "carnivore" is (except a pizza I can order); clipper chip and CDA don't affect me; welfare needed reform (and still does); and the unemployment numbers from NAFTA appear inflated to me (especially since the emergence of China as a manufacturing alternative coincided with NAFTA).

 

Carnivore was a way for the FBI to monitor nearly all emails. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that welfare needs reforming, at least not in the sense that it is justified by "balancing the budget". Our debts weren't created by welfare programs, they were created by extended wars and tax breaks, with a population that hasn't had real wage increases in 30 years, despite increasing productivity, coupled with massive job losses. Yeah, the loss of jobs means that you spend more on welfare programs, but the solution to massive unemployment isn't to let them starve and their sick go without medical care. The solution is to fix the system that created such unemployment in the first place. You really can't balance the budget on the programs for the poor because if you were to take it to effective budget-balancing levels the social effects would be catastrophic thanks to next to no government assistance on anything, and even if you see nothing wrong with that you can't expect the citizenry to be that complacent. It was estimated before the health care reform that lack of medical insurance could be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the U.S, and yet we refuse to bargain for pharmaceutical drugs even though we pay higher medical costs than any other first world nation. We will let people die for being poor to save money, but refuse to get in the way of the profits of rich corporations no matter how unfair the system.

The thing about China's rise in manufacturing is that it comes from the very same problem that NAFTA was a part of- what we're getting is goods that may be from China or Mexico, but that are from American companies exploiting criminally cheap labor. This is why it's maybe not a good idea to allow extremely powerful corporations to be run solely in the interest of a few people with no say from those that are under them. It is privately beneficial to a few people to dismantle unions which helped the standards of living of a vast amount of the population. It is privately beneficial to a few people to keep environmental regulations weak here and abroad despite the potential ramifications. Global capitalism, of which we are the leader of, has not served any of us and is the cause of the problems we are faced with. How can we expect a healthy and functioning society for the majority of the population if the rules are set by what is best for the already highly privileged, no matter the cost to the rest of us?

 

The only numbers I've seen with NAFTA is that ~700,000 jobs went south (which I doubt is accurate). That's small potatos compared to the millions that went to China, not to mention the 20,000,000 illegals taking jobs in the US. IMO NAFTA is just an excuse for some people -- it's not even the tip of the iceburg for jobs.

"A population that hasn't had a real wage increase in 30 years." Don't make me laugh -- 30 years ago I was in a minimum wage job making $3.35 per hour. You should really do the research there. If you mean versus cost of living I'd believe you, but then the "population" hasn't improved over cost of living in centuries.

 

Some people may do so, but I by no means believe this is the only problem- not that it makes passing it any more forgivable. Massive outsourcing and the exploitation that goes along with it is just a natural consequence of the profit motive being the only motivation for economic activity. It doesn't help us and it doesn't help them much either, it's not good for society or for the world but for maybe a few thousand CEO's.

I have. The term "real wages" is the amount of purchasing power relative to earlier periods after being adjusted for inflation.

 

To me, at least, it is amazing how much Clinton understands about the current economy. He can talk about real numbers and situations that people who are still in government seem clueless about. He is not standing around and just playing golf, like most retired presidents. Take a listen:

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2011/09/21/n_bill_clinton_jobs.fortune/

 

I'd agree there Chandos -- Bill was always a smart guy (or schmott guy -- he should have a hat).

 

Good video Chandos, I actually agree with him on a lot of his points, if it would actually work out the way he said. Cutting corporate taxes if they are going to use that money to invest in the U.S sounds like a good idea, but how do we know they aren't going to use that money to take yet more factories overseas? Rebuilding our manufacturing sector was the part I most agreed with. Create products in the U.S and though they may be more expensive, it takes a downward pressure off of wages that outsourcing does and makes consumer demand a more effective engine for economic growth. The only thing that irks my taters about his ideas, and this is something that most every politician does nowadays, is the appeal to the private sector to solve the problems they themselves created. Call me a Keynesian, but if the private sector is not investing and consumers are not spending than the only possibility for investment left is from the government. We've had jobs programs before and they have accomplished some really great things.

Oh, and he admired Reagan for his deregulation? I haven't seen anything good come from the policy of putting less rules in place. One of the reasons we had such a hard banking crisis and Canada avoided the worst of it was because they have clear separations between investment and commercial banks, something we did away with.

T2Bruno- Your link sent me to a comic strip, was it supposed to do that? Because if it was, I don't get it

 

Well, I used to joke that Clinton was probably the best Republican president of the latter half of the 20th century - the economy grew, the deficit got under control, regulations were mostly reduced, he bombed some faraway places without expending too much money and life, and his sex scandal was purely heterosexual. Best of all, no one could blame the GOP about it . Yet in 2000, there was talk of earth colors or similar idiocy. I imagine it will be the same today - care to imagine how many articles on Romney will still mention the dog on the car, as opposed to, say, Bain Capital and that GS industries steel mill?

As for reducing the corporate tax level and eliminating loopholes - which he essentially proposes - I'm not quite sold, but I guess he has a point. A lot of wealthy corporations pay a heck of a lot less than the maximum due to huge loopholes, so his idea might actually result in more cash flowing in. Note that unlike personal tax levels and stock earning tax levels, the US does have a quite high corporate tax rate. I do agree with you that it's dubious how effective this measure would be in making sure the money goes back to the US, but I imagine that mostly depends on how things are handled. I think a large part of the problem is a "make-believe" crisis: a lot of big players aren't sure if investing would pay off, not necessarily due to facts but an artificial fear (so many people say things are going bad, they can't all be wrong - can they?) which is why there are so few investments, which is why new business is delayed. The mortgage crisis is imo part of that - real estate is, after all, an investment. In a perfect world, we'd all be adequately and correctly informed - but in this world, we go with what we are told, right or wrong.

Oh, and by the way, Damedog, that was not just any toon strip. That was Girl Genius, by the author of the near-legendary RP comic "What's New with Phil and Dixie," and a few others, including one zapgun for hire and another with a few X's in the title. Webcomics are serious business here - well, some webcomics, at least .

 

Note that Clinton said that reducing the tax rate would help, while he commented that the "take" was actually only 23 percent, instead of the current rate of 35 percent. That means that some businesses are paying their share, while others are paying far less. And that's one of the things I've always liked about Clinton, that "fairness" matters to him.

 

Santorum actually won Iowa, Gingrich took SC, this looks pretty interesting. While I'm sure none of the current candidates can unseat Obama, I think Newt would be the WORST possible choice for the Republicans. But the electorate of SC disagrees with me....

 

This is interesting. What to vote, what to vote.

 

Fair enough. I don't have any particular issue with the Clintons or Obama really, it's just the fact that they don't go far enough. The liberal class is dead in America IMHO. What we get are center-right Democrats who may make some minuscule changes in the issues of justice but who won't challenge the unjust power structure as a whole. If we actually had an informed and politically engaged citizenry than this probably wouldn't be as much of an issue, but I think mass media (indistinguishable from propaganda in some cases) and popular culture have done a fantastic job of either depoliticizing or narrowing the perspectives of the people.

 

You're assuming everyone would agree with your point of view....