|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I heard Robert Reich on NPR today saying something that I say all the time... it is not trickle down economics that works, but percolate up. If the lower and middle class are making out well, that prosperity filters up and floats all boats. Why is it that so few economists can figure that out?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
Because they're funded by obscenely wealthy corporate hacks?
(just a guess)
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
You are undoubtedly right, Steve. On another thread there is a vigorous discussion regarding an essay by Garet Garrett. What that discussion brought to mind for me was a much-heralded, but fundamentally disastrous development of 1908 - and that was the creation of Harvard's Business School. What that development portended, completely misunderstood at the time, was the establishment of Business as a profession on par with Medicine and Law, and the elevation of "economic studies" as a discipline. Under the guise of this conceit, all kinds of depredations and manipulations of public policy have ensued. We have had some discussions of these regarding Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of chicanery Economics. Now, I do believe that it is important to understand how economies work, but I am not at all in favor of the callous disregard of human realities that are perpetuated by viewing economic activities as merely dry academic considerations. It allows hacks to control a great deal of the political infrastructure and to disguise their rapaciousness in high-minded words and principles.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
Authoritarian conservatives, like the two currently running the Executive Branch are anti-government - they want "less government" and even to do away with many functions of the government.
So why is anyone surprised when two politicians who voice their anti-government views as wrecking financial havoc on an institution they have little regard for?
I'll even take it a step further - most of the GOP are authoritarian conservatives who have little regard for our government.
I cite the Republican controlled congress from 1995 - 2007 as having no regard for the constitution or the bicameral form of government our forefathers laid out for us.
For the authoritarian GOP, it's their way or the highway - their whole purpose in life is to destroy everything that "liberals" hold dear: providing for the general welfare of the American people.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Authoritarian conservatives, like the two currently running the Executive Branch are anti-government - they want "less government" and even to do away with many functions of the government. If this were true, california rick, they would not have initiated the largest new entitlement program to come along in years. They would not use the power of the government to intrude in almost every area of our lives. They would not continue to grow the government. They would not continue to use it to distribute goodies to their supporters. They are as happy to use government and abuse power as their predecessers were in the many decades they (the Dems) controlled Congress and/or the White House. As long as you want to portray one side as angels and the other side as devils, you will continuously be disappointed by the clay feet so many of our angels have. There are those who would try to con you into thinking that government is not the danger -- but that it is the 'wrong' people getting their hands on the power of government that is the danger. In truth, without many strong shackles on how a government can be used by the holder of its power, there will almost never be a 'right' person who will not quickly begin to abuse that power -- and in doing that, abuse the people. It is the difference between the rule-of-kings and the rule-of-law. Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
Authoritarian conservatives, like the two currently running the Executive Branch are anti-government - they want "less government" and even to do away with many functions of the government. If this were true, california rick, they would not have initiated the largest new entitlement program to come along in years. They would not use the power of the government to intrude in almost every area of our lives. They would not continue to grow the government. They would not continue to use it to distribute goodies to their supporters. Authoritarian leaders do not govern when they control the apparatus of government; rather, they rule. And given their world view, they rule from either the hard or radical right. This can best be seen by looking at the way they operate when in control of the government. Find Law.comNixon was an authoritarian president. So was Reagan. Indeed, it was during the Reagan years that conservatives made a complete change in their thinking about the American presidency. This change -- not coincidentally, I believe -- occurred as authoritarian conservatives began to dominate the GOP. The authoritarian conservative philosophy was fully articulated by Terry Eastland, a former Reagan Justice Department Director of Public Affairs, in his 1992 book Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency. This is a book that was studied closely by then-Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney, and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and his staff, long before they arrived in Washington in 2001. "Reagan demonstrated that the strong presidency is necessary to effect ends sought by most conservatives," Eastland wrote. For conservatives, Eastland's book made clear, a strong president is one who wears his commander-in-chief uniform every day, and tells Americans how they should think and act, rather than one who responds to the wishes of the voters. It is a Father-Knows-Best presidency, one that considers Americans to be children who do not know what is best for themselves. Nixon created the "imperial presidency." After the public rejected that concentration of power, in the aftermath of Watergate, Reagan restored the imperial presidency in another guise. Now, Bush and Cheney have created the post-imperial presidency. Using the threat of terrorism as their justification, Bush and Cheney have embraced the so-called "unitary executive theory" - which, in truth, is merely another term for an authoritarian presidency. Many observers have suggested that the Bush/Cheney Administration may, in the eyes of history, be the worst ever. Yet this condemnation must seem beside the point to authoritarians, for these people simply do not care what others think of their performance. What is important, in their eyes, is simply that these leaders and their compliant followers are doing things the way they believe they must be done, and enforcing their will upon any who dare to dissent or disagree. Find Law.com
Last edited by california rick; 02/01/08 10:10 AM. Reason: quote length
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
I have to disagree, Iss. They want less government, but they want more control. Government implies some input by the people. I think that George Bush thinks of himself as the leader of a Junta. That, to me, is not government, it is just dictatorship.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Actually, the evidence would seem to support the claim that this administration has adopted the tactics of the neocon followers of Milton Friedman with the intent to end government control by bankrupting it.
It worked for them in Russia, until Putin took control for himself.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,430 Likes: 373 |
...In truth, without many strong shackles on how a government can be used by the holder of its power, there will almost never be a 'right' person who will not quickly begin to abuse that power -- and in doing that, abuse the people. It is the difference between the rule-of-kings and the rule-of-law. Democrats held congress for 40 years prior to the Republican congressional takeover in 1995 - the average American was not abused by the Democrat's power, as they were when the Republicans where in control of Congress from 1995 to 2007*. I'm not stating that Democrats are in the end-all in government, because they have their failings as well, but I'm simply stating that the average American fares better when Democrats are in Office. Big business/Corporations/Wealthy Americans fare better when Republicans are in Office; Middle Class/Poor Americans/Justice for All fare better when Democrats are in Office. Laws and legislation bare the above facts out. * I would also like to point out that in the 109th congressional year, the Republicans didn't even pass a spending bill, which they are legally required to, prior to appropriating monies for other spending measures. Nine legislative bodies of legislation were not acted upon by the Republican congress of that year - if you remember. When the Republicans lost in the November 2006 mid-term elections, they simply packed up and left town and left the 110th Congress to clean up their mess. The 109th Congress didn't even have the class or integrity to finish their business before going off into obscurity. I place blame on the Republicans, because under Gingrich and DeLay, House rules were changed to effectively cut the Democrats out of the decision/law making process for 12 years. Under Nancy Pelosi's 110th House, a bicameral political process has been restored. ...and remember, it was the Republicans who gave the House a two-day work week - not the Democrats. When Nancy Pelosi came into power as Speaker, the five-day work week was restored as was a five-day work restored under Senator Reid in the Senate as they too had a two-day work week under Republican rule. I guess the Repubs were too busy spending lobbyist money to come to work.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 232
stranger
|
|
OP
stranger
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 232 |
Economists: It's Official, RECESSION IS HERE!February 5 2008 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A growing number of top economists believe that the U.S. economy has now toppled into recession. Alarm bells were set off Tuesday by a grim report on service businesses, which make up the majority of the U.S. economy. The Institute of Supply Management said that activity in the service sector declined for the first time in nearly five years. This report also indicated that employers are cutting staff. http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/05/news/economy/recession/index.htm
|
|
|
|
|
