Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Post-election posturing (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tea Party adherents realize there is a coercive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, Amber6541, Laconic Lib

    force afoot in the land. What they are confused about is the source. They are still firmly convinced that the elected royal -- i.e. the executive -- is in charge. They still haven't cottoned to the fact that the Congress controls the money and uses the threat of withholding or paying bribes to their corporate supporters in order to keep themselves in power. As long as there was still an abundance of natural resources to dole out for exploitation via:

    Water rights
    Mining rights
    Drilling rights
    Fishing rights
    Logging rights
    Hunting rights
    Landing rights

    And the electorate was restricted to mostly adult Caucasian males and the women they control, not only were human rights not a concern, but power could be exercised by simply depriving the underclass of access to sustenance. People deprived of land had to work for someone else.
    Now that everyone has been hooked on using money, the deprivation is easier. Power can be exercised by depriving the indigent of access to money. Unfortunately, pension payments, health care and welfare payments are undermining the exercise of power. How can man be forced to work, if his access to food and shelter isn't threatened?

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 04:48:57 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm pretty sure... (0+ / 0-)

      that you are going to start talking about the proletariat and such, and it is too early in the morning.

      "The president was elected on the basis that he was not Romney and that Romney was a poopy-head and you should vote against Romney" -Grover Norquist

      by Wolfox on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:22:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never write about the proletariat. (0+ / 0-)

        It is not a word I use.  I am not a groupist, although I do appreciate that humans come together and associate in groups to accomplish common purposes.
        There is a difference between identifying individuals by their associates and defining association in terms of functions. Functions are the focus of people who want to do things; associates are people who just want to be a part of some group, just to be.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:11:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  SO...when you say that, do you remember that the (0+ / 0-)

      last two years of the so-called Bush administration were actually the Reid-Pelosi administration?

      Which would be when the economyu took a nose dive, by the way.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:36:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know you aren't implying (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        that because Reid and Pelosi were the majority leaders in the House and Senate starting in January of 2007, the economy took a nosedive?

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:42:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not at all. But...we keep seeing Bush get all (0+ / 0-)

          the 'credit' for the economy, even thought Democrats held a lot of the power for the first two and last two years of his administration -- and for the 8 years prior. It was, after all President Clinton who signed the repeal of

          Might as well issue a reminder.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 06:23:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, two wars on Chinese credit card (0+ / 0-)

            as well as a budget surplus expected to last ten years killed in one fell swoop of tax cuts, as well as unfunded mandates like NCLB and Medicare Part D might have something to do with that, don't you think?
            And I assume you're referring to Clinton repealing Glass Steagal, except that allowing banks to underwrite mortgage securities, sell insurance and real estate had started under the Reagan administration, way back in 1987.

            On October 13, 1999, the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department agreed that direct subsidiaries of national banks (“financial subsidiaries”) could conduct securities activities, but that bank holding companies would need to engage in merchant banking, insurance, and real estate development activities through holding company, not bank, subsidiaries.[239] On October 22, 1999, Senator Gramm and the Clinton Administration agreed a bank holding company could only become a “financial holding company” (and thereby enjoy the new authority to affiliate with insurance and securities firms) if all its bank subsidiaries had at least a “satisfactory” CRA rating.[240]

            After these compromises, a joint Senate and House Conference Committee reported out a final version of S. 900 that was passed on November 4, 1999, by the House in a vote of 362-57 and by the Senate in a vote of 90-8. President Clinton signed the bill into law on November 12, 1999, as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (GLBA).[241]


            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:05:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The federal government can issue an infinite (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of money, however much we need to mediate exchange and trade with figments of the imagination that are certified as authentic. Think of the issuance of official IOUs as comparable to issuing marriage certificates. A marriage is no less a real commitment without a certificate, but public and official recognition is worth something. Ditto for dollars. They are certificates of obligation. Nothing more. We could each issue our own IOUs, but strangers would be reluctant to credit them. Official certificates of value work better.
              Why we let banksters play middleman and decide who gets to use them and who doesn't is another question. Of course, once upon a time, we also let the written word, another figment of the imagination, be restricted to use by scribes.
              Humans are inventive and restrictive. I suspect these characteristics are usually not found in the same individual.

              We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

              by hannah on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:24:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Without question -- but (0+ / 0-)

              Bush did not come into a Republican Congress, and Democrats played along.  That was the root of the whole "I was against it before I was for it" or however that went in the 2004 campaign.

              Which brings up a point:

              I've seen John Kerry's name floated as a potential Secy of State, but he was one of the Senators who voted for the Iraq war.

              His position will have to be that he agreed to go to war or that the war wasn't important enough to warrant due diligence on his part, leading to his being duped by the not-very-formidable  Bush.  Either way, Kerry is an intellectual lightweight on a par with Bush.  I hope those stories are just noise.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:32:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton brought down the final wall (0+ / 0-)

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:38:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think he's implying (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, Laconic Lib

          That the razor thin majority (if you count Lieberman) that the Democrats had should have allowed them to steamroll all opposition and overcome every obstruction in implementing their agenda.

          The conservative line is that we had a super-majority but squandered that power and thus failed. Almost as if we didn't need their cooperation. (May it become so in two years.)

      •  I actually agree that the government should (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        not be involved in managing the economy. However, the fact is that throughout the history of the United States, as well as during the colonial era, the coercive powers of the state have been used to advantage commercial or merchantile interests to the detriment of the population that actually produces the material substances we need to thrive.
        Some enterprise is too complex to be carried out by individuals or family groups. So, it makes sense to organize larger bodies to carry out large projects (building the pyramids or the Aswan dam or Hoover dam come to mind), and there really isn't any practical reason why groups that come together on the basis of purchased membership (stock companies) are better suited to carry out big enterprise than groups that happen to have located in georgraphic proximity to each other (residents of political jurisdictions). I used to think it made sense to assign functions on the basis of whether the goods and services produced by the groups are welcome by the recipients as pure benefits or respond to an identified need most people would rather not have. On that basis, I'd assign fire suppressions, flood controls, defense and incarceration to public bodies. Also, public education on the elementary level because juveniles and self-centered parents don't really appreciate education that serves a larger social purpose. Besides that, it is difficult to measure the success of programs that deal with disutilities, so increasing profits doesn't work at all. (Successful medical intervention, for example, means the recipient needs no more and the profit motive leads to the provision of care the individual doesn't actually need because the provider wants to keep the patient coming back).
        More recently, considering the continuation of the myth of autonomous endeavor free from all governmental assistance, I'm more inclined to argue that we should just be honest and, if public resources are to be doled out, we should insist on imposing standards of how and when and for what purpose they are used and be done with the farce. Letting the ex-men exploit to their heart's content has not served us well because they have proved themselves ready to sell us all down the river. We have, probably inadvertently, nurtured a cadre of middlemen, who stand with their hand out like highwaymen, and have given in to their demands, without getting any benefit for ourselves. The United States have been held hostage by middlemen, the same type of people, I would suggest, as those that made fortunes shipping captives from Africa to the Americas for pieces of silver and gold. Middlemen, profiteers from the middle passage.

        I say "inadvertent" because, for some reason, their role has gone largely unnoticed in theoretical considerations of economic behavior. While they obviously sit at the intersection of producers and consumers, their predations are not accounted for, even now that we count just about everything. Maybe it's because some people just don't count -- don't like numbers, or facts.

        We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:03:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site