All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I can't force you to vote. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for idiots like you. If you vote, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will beat the stupid out of you.
Didn't register to my new county in time. Too busy writing shit scripts. So no vote from me, and I live in Ohio. Something tells me whoever wins this state will win the election. Go Bronco Bromney!
Never been a fan of the conspiratorial stuff, bert. Obama will win today because his vision for America will benefit average Americans in an FDR kinda way. This should be called the 'Second Bill of Rights election'.
RE: Foreign policy? Unnecessary war with Iran is far more likely under Romney - hence the reason the vast majority of the world would vote Obama. A bit like the majority of Americans will today.
Obama will win today because his vision for America will benefit average Americans in an FDR kinda way.
Andrew, I have this image in my head of what will happen if Obama is re-elected (which he probably will be).
In a generation, full-time jobs will be a myth. Every job will be part-time, household median income will continue to drop and we'll all, for the most part, become reliant on the government.
Not exactly the future I want to end up with, but certainly the one that's looking more and more likely.
P.S. Andrew, I don't know for sure because I've never seen it mentioned, but are you an American citizen living in England or are you a citizen of England?
\ A bit like the majority of Americans will today.
Ah, but you can still win the majority of votes and lose the presidency here in the states due to our electoral votes. A broken system that needs replaced.
I'm English via Northern Ireland and Germany. My intense affiliation with Obama is owing to him crystallising a lot of what I believe. Back in '04 I watched his rise to prominence at the DNC and then afterwards read The Audacity of Hope. It simply chimed with how I, and many left-leaners, view the world. That said, I am a pragmatic progressive. Romney is no doubt a decent man who wouldn't govern as he has campaigned - he's simply had to bend to a ridiculous, basically thick (English slang for dumb/ill-educated) far right. That's dangerous. FOR THE WORLD. Obama has the shown himself to be sensible and IMO, the stuff you mentioned there re: full-time/part-time is nothing more than talking points. It's not reality, mate. IMO!
Aye, you have a quirky system, Jamo. But O has the advantage in EC. All of my confidence is not without the realisation Romney can win tonight. I just believe Nate Silver and Intrade more than Karl Rove, Dick Morris, George Will and Michael Barone - angry white old men who cannot reconcile America for what it is to what they think it is.
Never been a fan of the conspiratorial stuff, bert.
Ha! I am not a conspiracy theorist by trade, Andrew, but I also lived in Tallahassee, Florida, for Bush v. Gore in 2000. That was ground zero for the battle.
I am not sure how much that will mean to a Brit -- though you seem well-studied -- but you can trust me when I tell you there is ALWAYS more to American politics than a simple ballot box.
Often I am nearly convinced it is just a big dance, with the outcome predetermined.
Kind of like professional wrestling -- only dirtier.
In a generation, full-time jobs will be a myth. Every job will be part-time, household median income will continue to drop and we'll all, for the most part, become reliant on the government.
Larger than a breadbox and smaller than a house, how does a President "create" jobs? How does the absolute responsibility lie on his or her shoulders or at his or her feet? (For those of you playing the home game abroad, this question could be applied to your Prime Ministers.)
Ah, but you can still win the majority of votes and lose the presidency here in the states due to our electoral votes. A broken system that needs replaced.
Replaced with what? How do states with smaller populations or more industrial investment or long-term investments gain any voting representational equality to states with simply larger populations? Should Congress also be replaced, specifically, dissolve the Senate?
All afternoon I watched CNN in Miami at a polling station where the line was a 2 to 4 hr wait. Now for those that followed the 2000 election, they know that the elections are run in Florida by county. Miami is a Democrat county, so the voting there is run entirely by Democrats. That's why Gore picked the counties he did for recounts.
Anyway, seeing the line today, I found myself thinking, "Jeez, those Dems in Miami must be kicking themselves", because those lines are going to cost significant votes by people who can't wait in line. And since it's a Democrat county, they are shooting themselves in the foot!
But then CNN revealed that THIS particular district was heavily Republican!
So the Democrat county is running a polling station that will vote Republican, and they are running it with up to 4 hour lines.
Coincidence? Maybe. But politics is dirty, and it's dirtiest in the big cities.
Replaced with what? How do states with smaller populations or more industrial investment or long-term investments gain any voting representational equality to states with simply larger populations? Should Congress also be replaced, specifically, dissolve the Senate?
So on the other hand, people in smaller states get 4x the voting power of larger states??? You're cool with that? Wyoming has one Elector for every 165k people. Texas has one elector for every 652k people.
Simply put, if you win 50.1% of that state's votes, you win them all. Also, the electoral delegates are not obligated by any law to vote their state's choice. I could be a delegate for Ohio and say Romney wins Ohio, I could simply not cast my ballot. It's happened 150x already.
Today, one of our friends waiting in line for over an hour and then they told her that her poll place had changed. So she had to drive to another place and wait in line for another 30 minutes.
At one location here, someone had taped up ballots that were bubbled in. It was a copy of Corrine Brown's ballot with opinions. It said "Corrine's Picks". They were taped up in EVERY voting booth until my friend brought it to one of the poll watcher's attention. Whoever put them up HAD to be involved there(working).
Corrine Brown is a US Rep for Florida's 3rd congressional district.
Just saying. Some dirty shit going down around here....at least in Florida.
bert, you know how I view your intellectual bona fides - and thus your proclivity to believing in nonsensical conspiracies.
Lot of people checking in their excuses early on both sides.
Yep, the Bush 'stolen election' is interesting, but Rs would contest JFK '60. These things happen.
At the end of the day, I believe in Obama's vision and know Romney's math does not add up. Your far right there have accused me right here of essentially being anti-American because I disagree with their intellectually bereft arguments. The reality is that I'm massively pro-American and often pour water over Europeans who try to pigeonhole Americans as this or that.
It's going to be an interesting night, but Obama is the only sensible choice. IMO.
Clearly, no one should draw any broad conclusions. However the election goes, it was razor thin. Hurricane Sandy had an enormous effect, as did other factors, including the heavy and early investment in negative campaigning.
But I have long said, the right strategy is not to focus on elections. What's important for those that oppose the radical progressive agenda is to win the battle of ideas, and that's something that has to be waged all the time and with a long term strategy.
And it's uphill. The media and entertainment industry are overwhelmingly liberal and increasingly pro-active. The progressive agenda is also instilled at the school system level.
And the ideas of progressives can be seductively simple: helping people is good, so we should have government programs to do it. When one is young and has not experienced the complexities of the world, those ideas seem self evident. It takes a certain level of sophistication to see through them. That's why people tend to become more conservative as they leave youth behind.
There's a lot at stake. Mankind lived under the idea of strong government for millennia. Only in the age of enlightenment and reason did mankind develop the notions of individual freedom that enabled the majority of people to escape a hard scrabble and opportunity-less existence. But we persist in wanting to surrender these freedoms under the idea that government will make things better for us. Thus we have things like regulation and redistribution as the primary shapers of our policy.
So the battle goes on. The beauty of the American system is there is balance. That limits the damage that can be done. Our best hope now, as a country, may be Bill Clinton. Perhaps he can be a restraining influence on Obama, since Hillary will want to run in 2016.
Four more years indeed. America will look back in 2016 and wonder how it was even close. A booming economy awaits to finish off the discrediting of economically illiterate trickle-downers and bizzarro ideologues who want war w/ Iran.
The insignificant gurgling of the far right cannot detract from the mission to go forward. What a great day for America and the world today is.
Wonder how Dick Morris' landslide is coming along...
But serious congratulations for Romney's campaign - he ran very close against a man destined to go down in history for all the right reasons.
Obama has the shown himself to be sensible and IMO, the stuff you mentioned there re: full-time/part-time is nothing more than talking points. It's not reality, mate. IMO!
I hadn't actually seen this before, but I do, now.
Well, you being across the pond wouldn't directly understand what's going on here but it's quite simple... and not just a talking point, because I have no political affiliation. I watch from the middle as both are basically destroying themselves and, in the end, us. The country as we know it.
But, to reply to what you said, it's easy. Any business with more than 50 employees is required to offer health insurance, according to the Affordable Care Act (P.S. Who makes it affordable? Tax payers. So, if you have a tax payer who has health insurance, you're now going to be paying others' as well).
So, you have Business X who has 50 employees. They offer mandatory health insurance for full-time workers or face a $2,000 penalty for every offense (if I understand the thing correctly). What's to stop them from adding 50 employees (creating 50 new jobs, which is where many of Obama's created jobs came from) and setting all 100 of their employees' hours to 20/week? I mean, he's got the work covered, the time covered and they're saving themselves all that money while people pick up 2 or 3 part-time jobs without health insurance, which, in turn, drives down the median household income and pushes us further and further down the path we're embarking on. The more people who don't have insurance, the more people we're going to be paying for. The more the insurance holder's have to pay, the less money they're going to have and the vicious cycle gets to the point where it all collapses.
Dude. Take a look at the rest of the world and its provision of health care for its citizens. Your argument, with all respect, is completely illogical. Don't mean to be rude, but if you're really asking those questions about hours seriously, you need to research this thing more. You're coming at this from a blinkered view. One of Dick Morris' and Karl Rove's "independents".
I'm sure plenty of Presidents down the line will tweak and improve Obamacare, but it's here to stay and millions of uninsured Americans woth pre-exisiting conditions can breathe a huge sigh of relief.
But this is not a night for debate - it's a night to celebrate, and for America to heal.
Dude. Take a look at the rest of the world and its provision of health care for its citizens. Your argument, with all respect, is completely illogical. Don't mean to be rude, but if you're really asking those questions about hours seriously, you need to research this thing more. You're coming at this from a blinkered view. One of Dick Morris' and Karl Rove's "independents".
I'm sure plenty of Presidents down the line will tweak and improve Obamacare, but it's here to stay and millions of uninsured Americans woth pre-exisiting conditions can breathe a huge sigh of relief.
But this is not a night for debate - it's a night to celebrate, and for America to heal.
Well, like I said, you live in England. I have a very good reason to have absolutely no faith in the people who inhabit this country. You don't think it'll happen? That's fine with me. I guarantee it'll happen. And, don't worry, you're not rude in your retorts. We just have a serious disagreement. =)
I've come to terms that it was going to stay. Even if Romney got in, there was no way he was ever going to get it past the Senate. They'll get their sigh of relief and be broke (eventually) with a big smile on their face.
Yeah... no. Because we haven't done any healing since September 12th, 2001. That was the last day our country actually healed from anything. We had this great sense of national pride and a common goal. Every day since then has just been deteriorating again. Today is no exception.
P.S. Thinking back on it, I hate the expression, "Breathe a sigh of relief". You can't breathe and sigh at the same time. Just random thoughts from me. Pay no mind.
It's not the President's job to create jobs. It's his job to put policies in place to allow job creators to do their jobs.
To incentivize the apathetic; those with the means who would otherwise hole up until "someone else" would test the waters for them at risk of peril so that they may walk to the top upon the corpses of those foolish enough to try first.
I've personally asked two economics professors what economic model replaces a growth based economy. Both provided evasive answers. In the next four decades I fear I shall find the answer before they do.
Florida is working feverishly to try and finagle a state win for Romney. Won't change anything, but those wingnuts down there just won't let go. Multiple states were called for either candidate with a smaller margin and fewer returns.
I have not been totally happy with Obama, but I keep telling people the grass isn't always greener over there. Be careful what you wish (vote) for.
I'm happy with the outcome, although I really like Rocky Anderson. Not on the ballot in Ohio.
What I learned this election cycle: 1) the polls were accurate. So time to stop the claims of polling bias. That dog don't hunt anymore. 2) negative campaigning works. Obama ran the most negative campaign in the television era, and he started early, while Romney was still in the primary. And it was especially effective because of the allied media. They completely invented this war on women out of thin air: where was this war last election? What new developments have there been where suddenly there is supposed to be a war? It was something crafted in DNC headquarters, an effective strategy. 3) we(GOP) need the Hispanic vote. Bush got enough of it to get by because he speaks Spanish. Hispanics are conservative. But we don't get that vote because of immigration and perceptions of racism. Long term, the Hispanics are the key to our success. It's a marriage that has to happen, and the sooner we realize it the better. 4) evangelicos are killing us(Republicans) in the primaries. I have nothing against them, I respect their earnest beliefs and admire their strengths. But they need to start focusing on what's most important to them. Do they want a monstrous and intrusive federal government? If not, they need to ease up on certain issues that should not be part of the national debate because they just distract from the real issue: freedom.
other notes since there are some who tend to confuse the meaning:
1) this election was not an endorsement of Obama or his policies. No one should be confused on that. People didn't like Romney. He's a hard guy to like. People personally like the President. The fact that the election is close is evidence how much they are against his policies and the job he's done. To expect some kind of revolutionary era to follow is childishly naive.
2) the damage Obama will inflict on the country is not the kind of thing that will be easily measured year to year. It's only when we are able to look back over the long prism of history that it will become apparent. Things will not be destroyed, they will be diminished. There will be growth, but it will always be less. There will not be Depression type unemployment, but it will be much harder to find a job, and they will pay less. Small businesses will carry on, but there will be fewer and fewer. Opportunity will still exist, but it will fade and fade and fade.
These things will not happen overnight. They will happen slowly, so slow that it will be easy for the media and the progressives to convince many of us that something else caused it.
We will be more and more dependent on the government. Not just to take care of us when we're old or sick, or to educate our kids. But for our very survival. Bureaucrats will hold enormous power over all aspects of our lives, like a holy priesthood. If you want to pursue a dream, start a business, even just get a job, you'll have to pay homage to the bureaucrat. And his party.
Freedom suffered a terrible blow last night. It's not the first. These blows have been wearing away at the body since the New Deal and even before that. The country will survive, and freedom is not extinguished, But it is diminished. Very diminished.
Ray, you are a research dynamo! Is there only one Ray? Or did you clone yourself?
I hit some of the links, but do not have sufficient time to read through those in depth articles.
Keep in mind some things though. UN predictions have a strong built in bias(we know what kind) and have been almost comically inaccurate.
Let's look at energy, and sorry, no time to google for links. The United States is suddenly on the cusp of energy independence. Was there some magical discovery? Nope. It's the cumulative effect of new technologies that have been in development for decades(tax breaks for oil companies anyone?). Fracking is the big one, of course, with natural gas.
And one of the results has been a significant reduction in carbon emissions in this country,
Did the UN anticipate any of this? Even though it's been in development for decades?
Planning for the future is notoriously tricky. In the 70s there were all kinds of experts that said we'd be running out of key resources and food by the 1990s, and there would be widespread famine. None of that happened. And those same people and their disciples are largely the ones doing UN studies. And, BTW, running the current administration's science and energy policies.
They've been dramatically wong on everything so far. Maybe some day they'll be correct, but smart money looks somewhere else for predictive analysis.
I'm very much interested in your thoughts on growth. I agree, if I am understanding you correctly, that capitalism is in trouble as an economic and political system, when growth stops. It's survival is conditioned on continuous growth. What happens if there is no growth, or seriously reduced growth?
But I think those questions are more hypothetical than something that should be applied to policy. Don't you? The alternatives are proven to be dire.
The system is not perfect, but it's so far and above any other system attempted or conceived that it's dangerous to consider messing too much with it. There is not only the law of unintended consequences to take into account, but the known consequences of submitting to some type of authoritarian system.
Predictions for what things will look like 4 years from now:
1) growth will have remained around 2 to 3% on average. Probably no recession. Just anemic growth, closer to 2%. 2) unemployment will fall to 6.5%, maybe 7%, but that's it. And these will be less paying jobs, many part time. 3) several blue states, who have spent themselves into oblivion with reckless pension promises, will turn to the federal government for relief. They'll get some, too, but in a way that will damage the country long term, but not be noticeable short term. In other words, they will consider selling off the country's future by passing things to the next generation. 4) inflation will become a serious concern for the first time since Reagan fixed it. So with anemic growth, poor paying jobs, limited opportunity, relatively high unemployment, and inflation, this will look and feel like the 1970s. 5) foreign policy: ironically, Romney, who knows little about foreign affairs, will turn out to have been right. Russia will be a growing problem. The Russians are suddenly flush with energy cash, and are feeling their oats around the world. They're looking to spread their influence and establish their manhood. 6) Germany will form its own block of northern European states. They can't keep carrying the lazy socialist countries that don't want to work, that don't produce anything or even contribute much to world culture. Germany suffered short term heavy loss when they absorbed East Germany, but in the long run came out stronger. They will do the same thing in leaving the EU. 7) Obamacare will not go away. But as with Europe it will result in serious doctor shortages and similar problems in service. The government will take stronger action to force doctors to play by their rules, which will only make the problem worse. Americans might not accept what Europeans and Canadians have gotten used to. nothing will be fixed or improved in education. Union run schools will continue to run down our schools and dumb down future generations. People will still be talking about it next election. Schools will get yet more money, but nothing will improve. 9) Michelle will leave the President. And it will crush him. I think he's a family man and a decent guy generally, and I don't think she loves him. She wants someone a little more alpha maybe? Or maybe someone she can dominate? I don't know. Something doesn't look right. So you heard it here first!
From an outside perspective the Republicans have a major problem.
They seem like a backwoods Party...like the last two centuries have gone by without them.
The crazy religious claims are like something you'd expect to hear from the Middle East, but the problem is deeper than that...they seem "anti-modern" for want of a better word.
You generally expect a right wing party to be technologically advanced and thinking about modernisation and what have you, whereas the Republicans seem like they are positively medieval...interested in rural communities whilst ignoring cities and that kind of thing.
Just feel they really need to update their image and their policies.
When the capitalistic economy is strong it's good to be a conservative republican. When the capitalistic economy is weak it's good to be a liberal democrat.
To treat a healthy person as a sick person is expensive and absurd. To treat a trauma patient as a healthy person is likewise absurd. Some things you can't just "walk it off."
I'm curious to know where you're getting your info from about full time jobs becoming rare. Maybe that study just hasn't reached my desktop yet, but this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Are you spouting Fox News fearmongering or do you have a link to at least one nonbias, fact checked article? I'm guessing not.
And its the GOP that's in the way of everything. The House of Reps make it impossible for him to get anything done. You have your own party to blame for everything that you bitch about. It's not the Democrats. It's not Obama. It's you, sinking your own ship.
And this "war on women" is real. The Democrats didn't make it up. With comments from Akin (Good bye!) and the crazy religious right, woman's rights were threatened. Many states have lost funding for Planned Parenthood, which is the only way for most women to receive the help they need. It's a proven fact that women don't make as much as men. What do you say about that?
As a gay man (surprise!), I fully embraced Obama and proudly voted for him again. Marriage equality is happening, whether the Republicans and GOP want it to. By the time Obama is out of office, I believe that both DOMA and Prop 8 will be overturned and I'll be able to marry my boyfriend. You can either accept the reality or look like those racists fools who didn't believe in segregation and interracial marriage.
Also, before I link you this next bit, headzup on a pet peeve of mine regarding "seasonally adjusted" data. So called "seasonally adjusted" data takes into account discrepancies between differences in the number of days month to month as well as holidays that may adversely or perversely distort data. Fine. This is great for slow people that like all their reality wrinkles ironed out flat so that they can make nice month-to-month data comps. Problem is is that we pay for things in non-seasonally adjusted paychecks/dollars. So, when it comes to employment (useful to people who are concerned with how much money is available to be spent) and unemployment (useful for... I dunno, people who like to b!tch, I guess*) ACTUAL numbers are more practical than FABRICATED numbers.
When referencing EMployment always try to use ACTUAL employment, not seasonally adjusted numbers. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CEU0000000001 Be sure to click on the "include graph" button then the blue-circle "go"
*Unemployed people typically don't have normal paychecks coming in that will eventually go towards a sustainable economy, so I tend to not care about that data for stock market/EPS purposes.
I'm curious to know where you're getting your info from about full time jobs becoming rare. Maybe that study just hasn't reached my desktop yet, but this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Are you spouting Fox News fearmongering or do you have a link to at least one nonbias, fact checked article? I'm guessing not.
Wow, you're not biased either, are you? Whew, I mean, I can just sense the balanced point of view you're carrying around your neck, AB. Besides, what I'm talking about is for the future. You can't do a study for something like this. Potential name-calling aside, I don't watch Fox and I don't have a political affilation. What I am is a person who knows that when a business can do something to save themselves money, they'll do it. You, being the obvious liberal you are, would probably send that money away to Oxfam or Amnesty International because you guys hate when people make money. Sucks when people boil you down to a stereotype, doesn't it?
Point is, I'll sit back and watch it slowly take over within the next 15-20 years, give or take, and not be the least bit surprised when it does.
If you're that certain about the demise of our future, and you are fairly certain of yourself, how about you run for office. That's the only way to change the political spectrum, is to work from the inside. You sitting behind your monitor won't change a damn thing. While you sit and moan, there are people trying to fix it. People like Warren and Baldwin, and of course, President Obama.
I work somewhere between 40-60 hours per week. I have a full time job AND a part time job. My part time job has hired at least 20 people for the holiday season and we'll probably be hiring more. My full time job is looking to hire one more guy but only one person has applied and she was grossly underqualified.
I'm a 100% social liberal but I'm also for small government. I actually like paying taxes, but I want to control what I pay for. I'm against this stupid war. I'm pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage. I think weapons should be regulated better. Frankly, I'd feel better if no one was allowed to carry weapons. The Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be tossed.
I think it's inaccurate to put a big fat OBAMA'S FAULT on every bad thing that's happening. Our politicians have to work together in order to get anything done. The Blame Game doesn't help anyone. Bush fucked shit up in 8 years and it's going to take at least 8 to fix.
I was kind of hoping all this political stuff would go away today. The election is over. Go do the best you can with the result.
...It was nice to see a normal FB today.
Sorry, Pia. I wanted to let it go but I had to respond properly. I promise today is the last day for me, though (unless somebody sends a retort to me tomorrow).
If you're that certain about the demise of our future, and you are fairly certain of yourself, how about you run for office. That's the only way to change the political spectrum, is to work from the inside. You sitting behind your monitor won't change a damn thing. While you sit and moan, there are people trying to fix it. People like Warren and Baldwin, and of course, President Obama.
I considered it once. I honestly did. Then, I realized that I'm a political or law major, I have no money, no contacts and I can't be bought. You can't make it to the level where you can begin to make a difference (the Federal level; HOR, Senate, President or state Governor) without being bought and paid for. That's not me.
That said, you named 3 people who will NEVER vote against their own party. People who won't vote for the good of the country but for the good of their party. The Republicans have plenty of them as well, and we're losing all our moderates (You mentioned Warren, I bring up Scott Brown who was a moderate in Massachusetts).
I work somewhere between 40-60 hours per week. I have a full time job AND a part time job. My part time job has hired at least 20 people for the holiday season and we'll probably be hiring more. My full time job is looking to hire one more guy but only one person has applied and she was grossly underqualified.
I'd say congratulations, but I don't understand what that had to do with what I said. I mean, if you're just saying it to say it, I wholeheartedly say good for you. Keep it up. =)
I'm a 100% social liberal but I'm also for small government. I actually like paying taxes, but I want to control what I pay for. I'm against this stupid war. I'm pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage. I think weapons should be regulated better. Frankly, I'd feel better if no one was allowed to carry weapons. The Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be tossed.
I'm not a social liberal, but I side with the Democrats on social issues more than Republicans but not on all things. I'm also pro-choice, I'm pro medical marijuana (in the sense that I'm not against it), I'm pro same-sex marriage (see medical marijuana), but I'm also pro-guns (all kinds). pro-death penalty and I'm a big believer in welfare being good on paper but, once again, when it's put into practice (among many things these days), it's becoming a monster that can't be fed.
I think it's inaccurate to put a big fat OBAMA'S FAULT on every bad thing that's happening. Our politicians have to work together in order to get anything done. The Blame Game doesn't help anyone. Bush fucked shit up in 8 years and it's going to take at least 8 to fix.
I'm fairly certain I didn't say this was Obama's fault. Virtually every problem in this country was put into practice before he was in office. Federal Reserve, taking us off the gold standard, welfare, stealing from Social Security, the Iraq-Afghanistan Wars, Dodd-Frank, Planned Obsolescence. NAFTA, the 14th Amendment (when applied to illegal immigrants), I could really go on and on. We have allowed our politicians to do everything they could to fuck this country up, one way or the other. But, as you like to pretend, nothng at all went wrong during any other presidency. It's all Bush's fault, right?
I have to wonder how Obama would've fared if Sandy didn't show up when she did. People saw the president perform during a disaster and he got a lot of praise from Governor Christie who carries a lot of weight (pardon the pun) in the political ring. To make matters worse for Romney, Christie turned his back on him for a photo shoot, favoring the president.
While I was never party loyal, I never voted for a Democrat for president until 2008. I lost interst in the Republican party when Caine made that vaccuum tube, Sarah Palin, his running mate. He had not problem in keeping the war running another ten years while she saw Russia from her house.
With Romney and Ryan, I felt that their religious views would only hurt those who didn't share them. And that's a lot of people! And their stance (as well as other GOP knuckleheads) on women's rights offended a lot of people as well.
Oh, and Colin Powell endorsed Obama. The only thing I could say when I heard this was Wow!
The Republican party is scrambling to see who they have to run in four years. They'll need someone who is more middle of the road. Governor Christie would be a good choice; as much as he offends people with his blunt, shoot-from-the-hip attitude, people love his blunt, shoot-from-the-hip attitude. Joel Lieberman would've been a nice choice, despite the fact he's a former democrat.
President Taft weighed 300 pounds or more. I don't think Christie is up there yet. He's close, but not quite there.
Phil
True, Taft and Grover Cleveland were some hefty dudes. But I think a president's physical image means a lot more now. And IMO Chris Christie looks like he's hell and gone past 300lbs. Closing in on 350, I'd say.
ABSteel, you are a strange fellow. It would probably surprise you that I agree with you on most of the issues. But you're kind of a spouter. You come on here all revved up spouting things out in an breathless outburst. Settle down, listen to my positions, and decide if I am the ogre you suppose.
You want me to give "info" to back up my predictions? They are predictions. How can there be info on them yet? I don't have a time machine. These predictions may come true or not. Unfortunately my web browser does not let me search articles from 2016.
You do understand that the Democrats controlled the house until 2012? You do understand that though the Senate is required by statute to submit a budget they have not done so for several years. And the President's budget received 0 votes in the Dem controlled Senate the last few years. So what's this about obstruction? The Democrats seem to obstruct him every bit as much as the Republicans. That's because there's a dirty secret they know: Americans oppose Democrat policies generally, even though they elect Democrats.
And what is it you want the House to do? Sign off on another 700 trillion dollar stimulus?
I am pro choice. I have no problem with gay marriage, though I think it should be a state issue and not the business of the federal government. The President claimed to be against gay marriage until this summer when Biden's blunder forced his hand. Talk about flip flopping!
When did the war on women start? What legislation have Republicans proposed that declares war on women? The Republican Party platform has been against abortion since Roe passed. It ain't knew. And nothing has ever happened. Romney used to be pro choice. He flipped for political expediency...just as Obama flipped on gay marriage! It certainly has not been a policy objective of his to ban abortion. I live in the state he was governor. Pro life people have more reason to be suspicious of Romney than do pro choice.
The problem with Planned Parenthood is that it has become radicalized, advocating and encouraging abortions, including third trimester ones. Pretty soon they'll be paying for people to be able to kill babies that are a week old. That's an exaggeration, but not as crazy as it sounds. The overwhelming majority of the country is against some of the things Planned Parenthood advocates. Many conservatives would rather see those policies moderated. Which is what happens to a degree when Republicans are in power.
Again, I am pro choice. If I thought these rights were seriously threatened it might change my vote.
I honestly and sincerely hope you can soon marry your boyfriend. I am a libertarian. You should be free to live your life. I wish you nothing but happiness and I'[m sorry to the extent it's been prevented.
I don't agree with the entire Republican party platform. It's not racist in any way, but it is pro-life, and takes a traditional view of family. But the effect of those stances is basically benign. Roe is not going to be overturned, it's established law. The only way it would would be by constitutional amendment, and even though most Americans are pro-life(look it up), that amendment will never happen. And society is slowly but steadily accepting gay marriage.
Lastly, I don't consider my predictions fearmongering: 2% growth, 6.5% unemployment, persistent inflation. When I was growing up, I saw that. We called it the 70s. You should have heard the music! And the hair!
The worst thing about the 70s was this: no sense of hope. No sense that things would ever get better. As a historian I can tell you that that's never before happened in American history, except in the 1930s. So it's happened before. And I see something similar happening again. Brought on by more or less the same policies. But that's hardly fearmongering, considering this is 2012, the year of the apocalypse!
ABsteel, disagree with me, that's fine! Make your own predictions. But please don't make the mistake of assuming that conservatives, or libertarians(more accurate here) are mindless robots plugged into Fox News. We were here long before Fox. Most liberals just don't know it, because they won't have anything to do with those of other viewpoints. I hope you are not that way.
If you still think I am an ogre, well, ok. I offer you friendship and wish you the best. Cheers!
The worst thing about the 70s was this: no sense of hope. No sense that things would ever get better. As a historian I can tell you that that's never before happened in American history, except in the 1930s. So it's happened before. And I see something similar happening again. Brought on by more or less the same policies. But that's hardly fearmongering, considering this is 2012, the year of the apocalypse!
Having lived through the 70s I can honestly say there was most definitely hope. I was there and they were very good times. It wasn't until the early 80s that people lost hope and turned to greed. The US has been a greedy place ever since - completely centered on money and the accumulation of it. Fact is you can't live without money in the US so it's somewhat understandable (but even that requirement came into play in the 80s).
When you make sweeping opinionated statements Kevin - that doesn't make them true because there are people who have opposing views of history and different opinions.
The 70s were dark times. Were there good times? Of course. Just as there were during the Great Depression. Look at old 70s movies. Take a look at the polluted gutters.
Even the architecture of the 70s was drab and monstrous.
Greed is a part of the human character. I doubt it rises or falls. For those that wanted to get ahead in the 80s, there was actually opportunity. Very strange to call this a bad thing, but, and sorry, that's what the Left does. It distorts reality.
I don't mean that disrespectfully, Michael, I really don't. I say it with pure intellectual intent. This idea that people pursuing success somehow created a world where ordinary people suffered as a result. Man, the opposite is so true. The 70s were a time of struggle for the working poor. My family was in that category. We don't want to bring that back, and frankly it's selfish to do so.
As for sweeping generalizations... "The US has been a greedy place ever since - completely centered on money and the accumulation of it."
The 70s were dark times. Were there good times? Of course. Just as there were during the Great Depression. Look at old 70s movies. Take a look at the polluted gutters.
Even the architecture of the 70s was drab and monstrous.
As for sweeping generalizations... "The US has been a greedy place ever since - completely centered on money and the accumulation of it."
And most of your complaints about Obama relate to???
Historically, the US was founded on greed - land and business owners that didn't want to have to pay taxes.
Over the years it's been an attraction for people from around the world who wanted a better life than they had in their own country - having more than others - greed.
It's no wonder that there is a greedy culture there and that it has overtaken political ideologies.
Instead of wanting the government to help the populous, you're unhappy if it doesn't line your pockets with gold.
Sweeping generalization - hardly. I spent most of my life in the US, however, I didn't see the greed until I traveled around the world quite a bit.
I was kind of hoping all this political stuff would go away today. The election is over. Go do the best you can with the result.
I completely agree.
I strongly, strongly disagree, actually, on two counts.
1. The idea that politics or the frequency of discussion of politics should be linked to the election. Politics are an inextricable and on-going element of our daily lives and the fact that Americans weigh in every once in a while on whether they're roughly Democrat or roughly Republican, or that Canadians weigh in on whether they're roughly left, middle, or right, has very, VERY little to do with the greater concerns of politics, which are how the state should be run to most greatly reflect the will of its people.
2. The frequently occurring argument that this is a writing site, and therefore not for politics. At its best, writing is fiercely and fundamentally political; at its worst, writing is accidentally and irresponsibly political. The stories that we tell are the myths of our nations and communities, and they reflect and guide political thoughts and decisions; the characters that we create are our archetypes, and they influence how we perceive politicians and therefore who we elect. Dubya was for The Duke's crowd; Obama is for Gosling fans. As writers, we should be constantly engaged and challenged politically. Even if you're just in it for the money, I believe this is true. Writers create, analyze, tear down, and build up ideas, and there are few arenas of ideas more fundamental than the political one (the others, I think of religious, romantic, and sexual; but these all have strongly political sides as well). As writers, we should be constantly charging ahead into deeper territory, deeper analysis. We ask the questions and explore the thoughts that other won't -- even if we're just in it for the money. I think the General Chat area should be alive with debate on all topics at all times (and it often is, to my delight). We're a writer's group -- a big one -- and writers should push each other to reaffirm and reconsider.
I never called you an ogre. Thanks for sharing your views and I agree with some of it. The thing with Planned Parenthood, besides "other services", abortion is the lowest on the list. It only covers 3%. Contraceptives and STD testing and treatment make up the most of their services. Of course, each site is going to differ in which services are used more often. I'm also getting this information off the website, so who knows if it's true.
For millions of American women, Planned Parenthood is their destination for sexual education, birth control, etc. Not every woman is going to use them to have an abortion. That radical right wing claim is unfounded and a lie.
As far as Obama flip flopping on gay marriage, I don't agree with that. His position on the matter has changed, but not overnight and not as severely as Mitt Romney has on other issues. Obama has always supported civil partnerships and even called the difference "semantics". Did Biden force his hand? Maybe. We don't know what strategy those two had up their sleeves. Point is, Obama has always been on my side. According to NBC news, in 2006, as a Senator, he voted against a constitutional amendment to say that there wasn't a fundamental right for gay rights. That was 8 years ago. Obama was also against DOMA. (Since I brought it up, and I wasn't very old during the Clinton years, but I think Clinton will even admit DOMA was a bad idea.) And not since has Obama gone back and said, "I now believe marriage is between a man and a woman." So, he flipped, but he hasn't flopped.
I think the General Chat area should be alive with debate on all topics at all times (and it often is, to my delight). We're a writer's group -- a big one -- and writers should push each other to reaffirm and reconsider.
Historically, the US was founded on greed - land and business owners that didn't want to have to pay taxes.
Oh, boy. And this shows how dangerous the Left truly is. Michael, you're brilliant at film analysis, I'm sure you're a great guy too. However, those ideas will harm so many millions if they ever bear fruit. Like they did so often in the 20th century
People escaping Europe to make lives for themselves...to escape the tyranny of a rigid guild riddled and aristocratic system...that is greed? That's freedom, my friend. Something the Left will never truly understand, except when it comes to pot and porn(and I ain't knocking either!)
The movie Americathon was made in 1979. I actually saw it at the theater as a kid. Only dark times could even make such a movie plausible. I would not wish the 70s on anyone.
Look, the Great Depression produced what many call our Greatest Generation. The generation which fought WWII and which rebuilt much of the world was one that had been hardened through the suffering of the 1930s. And the 1930s were a time of family values, especially compared to the 1920s.
But do we want to bring back the Great Depression? Do we want to have people begging and starving again?
Surprisingly, there are some here who would. Perhaps so they could finish what FDR started, as has been mentioned. It was the golden age of communism in the US too. Communist writers filled the newspapers, Hollywood, and the FDR administration(look it up).
This is why the Left is harmful. They would destroy us under some misguided notion of helping us. Man, oh man. The havoc that bad ideas can bring.
Chris
Yeah, why wouldn't it be welcome? No one has to open a topic they don't want to. I like clanging swords with you guys, but it's not disrespect. I try to support my positions colorfully and strongly. It keeps me awake. I trust it does not offend too much, and hope some day we all have a beer somewhere!
Obama's stated position was against gay marriage. Was he really? Of course not! He took the position for political reasons, as did...Romney!
Romney did not fight gay marriage in Massachusetts. He would not have opposed it as President. He might not have pushed it...why upset your base? But it would have been left to the states, as it should be.
You are correct on Planned Parenthood. But the government under Romney would not have taken away funding. As with the Democrats, there is a certain amount of noise that gets made at primaries. There were no Dem primaries to speak of this year because it was Obama's reelection. But in 2016 both side will have primaries, and both sides will say things that are less than serious.
That's what stinks. Many things we focus on as issues are non-issues. No one thinks Roe will be overturned. Foreign policy will remain mostly the same whoever wins. Both sides will try to avoid the issue of gay marriage one way or the other. Social change like that has to come from the bottom usually first.
There is a major difference between the two sides, and that's ALL the election should have been about. One side believes in big government, believes that government is the solution for all human woes and shortcomings. The other side believes that thinking is dangerous and ultimately leads to suffering and oppression. That was the debate. But people vote on other issues that are closer to their heart.
This is why the Left is harmful. They would destroy us under some misguided notion of helping us. Man, oh man. The havoc that bad ideas can bring.
Kevin, I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from but they seem slightly paranoid and delusional to me. They're based on such little fact that it's difficult to find any points that justify a refute. So say what you will but I'm not the one standing at the corner clothed in my sandwich board shouting the end of the world is nigh. We all know it isn't.
End of the world just cuz you mentioned it....me and my girls are having an End of the World party December 21st in Charleston if anyone wants to attend
Hopefully it won't be 'the end' but we're going to go out happy if it is
I heard on the news that the last time the world was supposed to end (last year), some people bought into it so much that they gave away their stuff and money. I really wish I were friends with one of those people...
Lol, I predicted 6.5% unemployment and 2% growth. In what universe is that shouting that the end of the world is nigh? Spain would take that as glorious news.
No idea what a sandwhich board is.
No idea what idea I offered that could be considered paranoid. I believe that calling people coming to America in order to try to make a life for their family greedy is crazy talk. I used the word dangerous because it seems clear what it is: pure Marxism.
The idea that profit is a dirty word. That business is evil. Especially when compared to the glorious collective.
The collective is a romantic and seductive idea because it sounds like the opposite of individualism, which seems closely related to selfishness and...greed.
Those ideas result in human suffering. They always have and they always will. I'm fine if people want to join them voluntarily. As long as they are not forced on anyone.
Redistributing wealth, taxing businesses into oblivion, making people dependent on the government...these are all versions of this philosophy.
Michael, I will personalize the story in case that helps make my position a little clearer.
Remember, you joined this discussion in response to my saying Obama will recreate the 1970s, which I called a dark time. You responded that it was not dark at all, that it was the basically the last good time in America, and since then dark times brought on by greed descended and remain.
You've expanded that to say that greed has always characterized America, but lets stick to the 1970s as the last non-greedy time. Less greedy anyway?
I first entered the job market as a teen in the late 70s early 80s. Pay was 3.25 hr. That was min wage, and no one payed more. It was hard to get a job, which meant that when you did, you faced a somewhat miserable existence because whatever boss you had held you by the balls. You had to take it because you knew you would not easily find another job.
And as much as the money, that was what sucked. The crap you had to put up with.
But the money was a factor too. I worked every ounce of overtime that was ever available to me. During summers, I worked 60 to 70 hrs a week.
Around 1983, 1884, the Reagan plan to fix the economy finally took effect. You felt it, like a whoosh of air hitting the collective sail. And it had been so long since anyone had felt that whoosh that few believed they'd ever hear it again.
People had slaved in the 70s in their go nowhere jobs knowing the future was bleak. It's not like when a major disaster hits, and everything is destroyed but you know you will rebuild. There was a hopelessness to things in the 70s that permeated every day of existence. There are good times, of course, but despair becomes so mundane no one even recognizes it.
When the economy turned around, it was like being born into a new world. Not only did pay go dramatically up because of labor shortage, but you were treated with respect at work. Employers did not want to lose good employees.
So when I hear people say they would prefer things be like the 1970s because there was less greed, it drives me crazy. I don't care for myself, I'm getting old. But I think of my nephews and nieces going into the job market. I think of that young guy with three kids who has to suck it up at a bad job because that's all there is. All because we are trying to legislate against greed. All because we want to stick it to some rich guys who we are envious of.
I could care less about the rich guy. I haven't known all that many, and I'm pretty sure they will always be fine. It's the little guy and his suffering that bothers me. Those WERE dark times. The thought of going back to them is troubling. The thought that there are so many people who are eager to purposely bring them back is disturbing.
Up until the 80s the very rich were taxed at quite a high percent (Reagan slashed the top income tax rate from 70% to 28%). Are you trying to tell me the economy was shit through the 40s, 50s, and 60s as well as the 70s? If you are then you are lying to me and yourself.
In actuality taxing the rich at a high rate had an added benefit. Because the rich wanted to avoid those taxes they created their own foundations and charities. These foundations and charities helped the public.
Now that the very rich aren't being taxed - do you see them doing anything humanitarian? No. They are all busy pouring their money into PACs that are there to keep their taxes as low as possible. Are they building parks? Creating museums? Adding to culture? No, because there's no reason for them to do it any more.
Reagan may have sparked the economy for a few years but his policies where also directly responsible for a large number of bank failures and one of the biggest bank bailouts in history. And from 1981 to 1989, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled. He was increasing the economy using the country's credit card.
You might buy into the rhetoric of the conservatives and the 80s - but I was there with my eyes wide open and saw how it really went down and what it did to the US.
As far as your feelings about the 70s are concerned, they are just that, feelings. I've spoken with a number of people who lived through that time period ever since you brought this up and they all agree - it was a time of optimism and freedom.
Was it perfect? Of course not - nothing, nowhere and no time is - but it was as I said before - a good time and probably the closest to a free country the US has ever been.
Now that the very rich aren't being taxed - do you see them doing anything humanitarian? No. They are all busy pouring their money into PACs that are there to keep their taxes as low as possible. Are they building parks? Creating museums? Adding to culture? No, because there's no reason for them to do it any more.
By Maria Di Mento and Caroline Preston
The 50 biggest donors, including William S. Dietrich II (No. 2), contributed $10.4-billion last year, up from $3.3-billion in 2010.
I’m not sure where you got that statistic from Michael. But it’s not accurate.
In order to account for changes in buying power I looked for figures that compared philanthropy against the GNP. Here's a progression of change. Unfortunately couldn't find any figures on the web specifically for the 70s. These figures are for American data.
Gauging a market during specific times is (for me) a real slippery slope.
Many…many factors can contribute to these numbers from then until now-
Valuation of the dollar, the number of millionaires / billionaires in America etc…
To say that the percentage against X at Y time is = to a decline or an increase is above my pay grade.
My point was based on your comment that there has been a decline in actual giving by American elite.
I honestly don’t understand the correlation between an individual’s contribution and the GNP.
But that’s my ignorance. I’m sure there are some here that know these things and I’ll be glad to learn if they can make it in small enough bites for me…
GNP (gross national product) is the market value of all products and services produced in one year by labour and property supplied by the residents of a country.
When you compare charitable donations against that you are providing a ratio of how much the country gives to how much the country makes. How generous they are compared to how much they have.
Dollar values fluctuate and this ratio takes that fluctuation out of the equation. It's a common way economists measure this activity.
EDIT: And here is an interesting article about the current state of giving from the same website you provided above.
Once again, the conventional wisdom and the "experts" were wrong. The US is on the verge of becoming an energy exporter.
Also note, none of this had anything to do with government planning. This is private industry responding to need. Or greed I suppose some might say.
Think about the ramifications for the Persian Gulf, and for the world economy.
Of course, I am not weighing the impact of carbon output on AGW(global warming). But it should be noted that carbon output is significantly down in the US, not because of government policy(unless you count the recession), but because of new technology developed by private industry.
So we can put our faith in the central planners and the regulators and redistributors, and surrender our freedoms to their wisdom and authority...
Or we can trust in the only thing that has ever worked to allow mankind to prosper and to gain freedom: capitalism.
"The IEA said Monday it expects global energy demand to increase by more than a third by 2035, with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the growth" Groannnn... Scares the sh!t outta me.
Once again, the conventional wisdom and the "experts" were wrong. The US is on the verge of becoming an energy exporter.
Also note, none of this had anything to do with government planning. This is private industry responding to need. Or greed I suppose some might say.
Conventional wisdom has a certain "lag" that can be ascribed to it and the "experts" do change/modify their predictions as new data becomes available. So, in that sense they are not wrong, but rather in or out of agreement with one another depending upon their area of expertise and adeptness at interpreting the data.
And I don't think being an energy exporter is a particularly wise thing to become, especially when it's due to increased production rather than decreased demand. Non-renewable energy is a finite resource. How bright is it to eat all the food on your own plate today only to go begging for food off the plates of other's tomorrow. Brilliant.
Additionally, alternative fuels & energy, specifically renewable + nuclear, are not cost competitive unless the price of oil is high. With the U.S. as a net exporter due to increased production the price per barrel should drop making the development of alternative fuels & energy non-competitive.
Maybe it's a short-term loss, long-term gain national plan. I dunno. Allow RoW to consume all the consumable fuel while the U.S. develops expensive high tech alternative energy to provide when they all run out. Possible. Seems dangerous, but sound.
Private industry is largely enabled or constrained by government regulations, and in the case of energy policy, as a result of global competitive markets which themselves are frequently controlled by nationalized oil companies rather than capitalistic oil companies. http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/world_oil_market.cfm
Capitalism exploits the opportunities foreign and domestic governments permit.
Whatever alternative to capitalism is proposed will be tyrannical. No one should have any illusions. And people will suffer. This is why the Left is dangerous. Sorry, Rick, all due respect, and I think you know my respect is sincere.
"Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That's worth looking into," said Larry Sabato.
In 59 Philly voting wards, not one single vote for Romney. Not one! That's better than Saddam Hussein did in his fake elections in Iraq. Maybe the tyranny is closer at hand than one would imagine. Call that paranoid if you like, but 59 voting wards in a major city, wards full of illiterates...and not even one accidental vote for Romney? That's not suspicious?
Ray, this is not the first such energy report. I read one about a year ago that said the same thing. Also, these technologies have been slowly accumulating for decades. No major break through was needed. It's not surprising that most of us might not know about them, but shouldn't "experts" on energy writing reports for the UN...reports that they hope will affect sweeping world policy...shouldn't those "experts" know about these things.
Maybe they're not experts at all. Maybe they know next to nothing about energy developments. Maybe, just maybe, they are nothing more than more Left wing agitators who dominate the UN and want to take our freedoms in the name of some "justice" they advocate for.
World running out of energy? Nope. Check it off the list. World running out of food? Check it off. Hasn't happened. Only places where famine exists is due to local conflicts. Carbon stimulated global warming? The extent and damage of global warming is still hotly under debate. Most predictions have been dramatically scaled back, even by advocates of the theory. There's been no global warming in the last 15 years. Global warming scientists are about as objective as those people doing energy reports for the UN. It's worth monitoring, and worth considering reasonable steps to reduce carbon emissions. There is no reason for hysteria, however, and there is no justification for using it to implement Left Wing schemes.
Yes, I know the Lefties here can't stand me. Hopefully you can leave that hatred to the politics thread, and we can remain friendly in film related topics. I will continue to learn from you guys in those threads, and be grateful for your superior knowledge there. Have a good week guys! I got work to do. We can't change the world from here anyway. It's all just noise to give us a work break.
Hopefully you can leave that hatred to the politics thread, and we can remain friendly in film related topics. I will continue to learn from you guys in those threads, and be grateful for your superior knowledge there.
6 days! That's all it took before insinuations of Obama stealing the election (or wards as proxy) have surfaced in a mainstream forum!
Facts:
Obama +2.7% popular vote or over 3.25 million, if you like that better. Obama +126 in the Electoral College.
Scurrilous rumours:
Obama +59 Philadelphian wards.
"How do you like them apples, ****?"
Regards a new societal structure: not gonna happen. A far brighter bunch of men debated these type of issues way before people checked out of the debate, 'cos "talking politics is dangerous". Nobody talks about the big ideas anymore - everyone is too afraid to offend.
Besides, for all his undoubted intelligence and analysis, Karl Marx never proposed an alternative to capitalism. People who actually read his work know this. And on the contrary, he was quite impressed and complimentary of the efficiency of capitalism in advancing the common good. What the far right and far left have done is draw the map in a way not reflective of the sensible masses. Capitalism is the best way to advance mankind, assuming the people harnessing it apply it responsibly. The absurd and simple-minded criticism that disagreeing with elements or application of capitalism is effectively disowning it is playground stuff of intellectual lightweights. Bit like those who suggest you hate a country because you make a criticism of it. The problem, then, isn't the system, it's the people.
It is the fact it puts a monetary value on every blade of grass on the planet and has perverted all value systems so that even human life is measured in monetary terms.
Capitalism has run out of things to exploit and it's internal contradictions are only going to become more apparent as technology (in particular automated workers) improves.
I agree that it is not going to change though...we're going back to a Feudal age where we have a tiny percentage of people who control all the resources and the rest are serfs.
Maybe it's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?
The feudal days are gone and they're not coming back. Sure, poverty and income inequality is more pronounced now than since the Gilded Age - not my words, but those of The Economist. Hardly a left-wing rag. But my point is, IMO, the rapid shift to free market economics is what you describe as corporatism. Of course, those on the right believe in this particular calibration of capitalism and sell this version as capitalism. In reality, of course, it's just one form of capitalism. That's partly the problem - capitalism is Reganomics but it's also the social democracies of Scandinavia. Variations of the same system. It's a tough word to pin down and since the right championed their free market economics as capitalism, it's taken on that meaning in the wider vernacular. False, but widely and tacitly accepted in our discussion. Once we place the history of economics in context, we see the shades of grey.
So my argument would be that when you say that capitalism puts a monetary value on every blade of grass, I agree that's a sympton of the problem, but that's free market capitalism rather than the capitalism per se. Reagan and Thatcher brought about a systemic shift in our society and a real paradigm shift that funamentally altered what was previously a 'post-war consensus' centred around Beveridge in Britain (and modelled on Roosevelt's New Deal), or Eisenhower's soft Republicanism in the States. Now, I think the move to free market economics was for the bad, and someone like Kevin thinks it was for the good. No doubt there's merit in elements of both arguments. But what's undeniable is that there was a paradigm shift and it lasts until today. Clinton and Blair were third wayers who didn't really sit as either fundamentally left or right on policy, but obviously were men of the left - what I would term pragmatic progressives.
The only real way to make capitalism work is democracy and the only way to make democracy work is civility, understanding and compromise. That's the problem us first worlders face. Our problems are not intractable - it's our inability to tackle them together that is currently intractable. Yes, there are many greedy rich people who try to avoid their fair share and yes, there are many lazy idlers who will avoid work at any cost - both are problems we must tackle, but whilst the sensible middle is bickering and distracted, the far right characterise problems in terms of fringe groups, whereas the far left chracterise problems in terms of plutocrats. Stalemate on that issue and so many more. Root of the problem is the propensity for both sides to utilise the blame game. And becaue people carry their political stripes around like a football team, when a sensible politican comes around that looks to work across the aisle, they're torn down like you would tear down your rival football team's star player. Or, (and in England we call this banter, Kevin) in terms of Lenihan, you blame the entire history of dictators and evil men to be (dun, dun, dun) "the Left". Such simple-mindedness obviously lacks nuance and deserves ridicule, but it's that type of corrosive belief (espoused on both sides) that fuels the partianship we see, and leads people to believe "the sytem is broken". IMO, of course.
The only real way to make capitalism work is democracy.
Not necessarily true. Capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a political system and they have no dependency on one another. A democratic govt can vote to have a socialist economic system and a communist govt can decided it is in the best interest of the public to have a capitalist economic system (look at what China is up to these days).
Not necessarily true. Capitalism is an economic system and democracy is a political system and they have no dependency on one another. A democratic govt can vote to have a socialist economic system and a communist govt can decided it is in the best interest of the public to have a capitalist economic system (look at what China is up to these days).
It's a fair point re: China's so-called 'State Capitalism' and an interesting discussion in and of itself.
My opinion is that democracy is the only real way to make capitalism work because democracy is - in theory, and unfortunately used as a pretext by neocons - the political system that allows for the requisite freedom to unleash the productive forces capitalism is capable of. So, I'd actually argue that whilst in terms of semantics they are, of course, two separate ideas/terms, in reality they coexist and that you can't have one without the other. That's what my interpretation of history tells me. Perhaps the future will show democracy can thrive in a non-capitalist economy, and capitalism will be able to thrive in a non-democracy. For the sake of clarity, I don't consider Scandinavia a socialist economic model, but an example of the flexibility of capitalism - if you look at how they run their economies, it's clasically capitalist. Of course, there is more than reasonable grounds for that to be debated.
My opinion is that democracy is the only real way to make capitalism work because democracy is - in theory, and unfortunately used as a pretext by neocons - the political system that allows for the requisite freedom to unleash the productive forces capitalism is capable of.
And my question is that when China becomes the world's economic leader - as it is poised to become - will you still be singing that same song?
And my question is that when China becomes the world's economic leader - as it is poised to become - will you still be singing that same song?
It's a very interesting question, to be fair. It's a multi-faceted discussion, with lots of angles. India is really only comparable to China regards population, and it's interesting to explore the difference in growth between state capitalism and the more recognisable democratic - although notoriously rife with corruption - capitalism of India. Whilst it's inevitable China will eclipse the US in terms of its GDP, if and when, it overtakes the US in capita per head, that's when there's a tipping point and we can start to assess that wider question fully. It may well be that China will show there's a different path, but if that's to be on the basis of their human rights record, I'm fearful. Not that I want to irresponsibly build China up as a bogeyman, but I trust the verdict of the big charitable organisations that report these problems.
Not that China isn't worse, but the US isn't squeaky clean in this area.
Completely agree.
Funnily enough (and vaguely relevant, I guess) I'm just about to crack on with episode 7 of the new season of Homelamd after just finishing episode 6. Now there's a show tackling tough issues head on. Episode 6 was pretty stunning, too.
Pages: 
Author
Election Day Is Over
Logged
don't come hunt me down please. 
nothing will be fixed or improved in education. Union run schools will continue to run down our schools and dumb down future generations. People will still be talking about it next election. Schools will get yet more money, but nothing will improve.
Locked Board