They're also incredibly docrtanaire and intollerent towards any sign of heresy by anyone on the moderate left of the party.

Depending on how strong the beliefs are of the moderate forces, if the far left does control the nomination for 2008, this has the poential for creating a lot of little Nikolay Bukharins, confessing their own guilt for not being fervent enough about marching the Democrats back into the early 1970s with their party platform.

Delusional??? Were the Founding Fathers delusional?

"The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust."
-- James Madison, Federalist #57

"[A]ll will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good."
-- Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Perhaps INT, at this juncture, you need to define what is the "common good" IYHO.

"So, they need to move beyond the centrist Third Way politics that made Bill Clinton the only successful national Democrat of the last quarter century to get back to their redistributionist core beliefs that are being rejected even by some European electorates? They aren't just reactionary; they're delusional."

Delusional is believing that lowering taxes and raising spending results in lower debt; delusional is WMDs in Iraq; delusional is pretending that you're not going to be eating crow come Nov. I'll be back then to typekey in a sweet hello to "the Bros. Judd" and their amazing and indepth "The Dems Are Gonna Lose Cus Their Losers" analysis.

Okay. How'd you manage to get not just one, but two trolls to pop in and demonstrate your comment that they are delusional? Do you also have a secret ability to herd cats?

Not so delusional as all that OJ. A coherent minority can take control while the majority is fractured. That's how they took control of China, Cuba,France, and Russia. The question is: are we delusional for thinking the Left is compatable with democracy.

"The common good". Ha Ha. isn't that just some quaint old-fashioned liberal idea, like The Geneva Convention and the Fouth Amendendment? C'mon people, we've moved way past that kind of thinking.

The Daou Report sends its regards. You guys are in for a long day.

Better get those excuses ready Randy. What'll it be this time? Karl Rove fixing the voting machines is always a good one. It'll really fire up the whacky base for 2008.

Remember: you can only win by moving far far left. That's the ticket.

The Dems are making a big mistake if they try to put together a platform for the elections. The only chance they have is to hope the anti-GOP sentiment keeps up and that they can slip in as the only alternative. If it turns into GOP vs. Dems, the GOP wins in modern America. Recall that pretty much the only time that Pres. Bush's poll numbers have gone UP since 9/11 (other than at the start of the Iraq War) was after Kerry was nominated and it became clear just what Anybody But Bush actually meant.

There's much more than just Karl Rove and unverifiable voting machines to get the majority of Americans fired up against Bush and Republicans in general. People are waking up to the glaring fact that Republicans aren't good at public service. Their radical anti-government stance coupled with an Ayn Randian worship of greed has created a government so corrupt that no good can possibly come from it. The federal government is run by men who despise the government in any role except that of lining their pockets. Sane people want a government that promotes the public good, the way our founding fathers intended.

Randy:

Nope, it's just gas prices.

Two words- Duke Cunningham

GOPDE:

By gum, you've got the Democrats' Contract with America:

(1) Higher taxes

(2) Bring back Saddam!

r:

Three words: 1% name recognition.

INT:

Everyone agrees the basis of successful democratic politics these days has to be the common good. Bill Clinton's New Democrat agenda and the identical compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush, the New Labour of Tony Blair, and the conservatism of John Howard, David Cameron, and Stephen Harper are all perfect examples.

Unfortunately for you guys, Democrats have rejected that politics in favor of a reversion to New Deal/Great Society statism. To berlieve in the common good today is to believe in George Bush's Ownership Society.

Republican's contract with America

Lower taxes on the wealthiest tiny fraction of the public. Increase spending. Run up $9 trillion dollars of debt to the Saudis and China. Great idea. Why didn't the Democrats think of that? Because in spite of all their flaws they aren't insane, that why.

Endless war against an abstract concept. We've seen that before. You know War on Drugs, War on Terror. Whatever. Why not a war on Al Qaida? Well it turns out Bush and Bin Laden need each other. Oh yeah, that whole Iraq thing is REALLY working out well, at least for Kellog, Brown and Root. After all, isn't keeping Hallibuton happy what it's really all about.

Duke Cunningham. It's fun to post his name on Republican blogs.

Just remember, lefties. Keep pushing queers and gun control, especially gun control. How can you miss.

Gearge W. Bush's compassionate conservatism? What's that beside a worn out bumper sticker slogan that's outlived it's usefullness? Look what happened in New Orleans. Bill Clinton did some awful things, like NAFTA, but under him, government agencies that actually do things for people, like FEMA were well run. Heckuva job, Brownie.

Oh yeah, Duke Cunningham

Randy:

Bingo!

Lower taxes

Higher spending on popular programs.

Anti-drugs

Anti-terrorist

Pro-business

And Democrats being the reactionary party end up opposing all those things. It's not hard to figure out why they became the permanent minority again.

"Endless war against an abstract concept. We've seen that before. You know War on Drugs, War on Terror. Whatever."

Don't forget the grandfather of them all, the War on Poverty. But you supported that one, didn't you? After all, it was properly "progressive."

"The Daou Report sends its regards. You guys are in for a long day."

I really don't think you understand how much we enjoy trolls around here. The nuttier the better!

Randy,

Why should I be bothered by your namesake (Duke's first name, after all, was Randy) sitting in ClubFed? Are you really disturbed that we can cashier our own crooks as well as you guys cashier your own?

Oh, wait...Patrick Kennedy, Alan Mohollan, and Dollar Bill Jefferson are still in office. My bad.

Randy:

Almost as fun as posting William Jefferson's name on Democratic ones.

Randy:

Yes, what made Bill Clinton the best Democratic president since Cleveland was things like NAFTA, Gatt and Welfare Reform that his own party opposed but Republicans helped him pass. Sadly, the party apparently has no more politicians of Bill Clinton's vision.

Has Rick Perlstein dropped Duke Cunningham's name yet? After all, he's gone through all the other items on the list that were going to sink Bush, Rove, and Cheney.

The GOP will hold its own in the House, and actually pick up a Senate seat (or two, or three).

And what will the leftys be saying on Nov. 8? Dump Nancy Pelosi? Impeach Harry Reid? Fire Howard Dean? Deport Michael Moore? Arrest Cindy Sheehan? Censure Alan Mollohan? Expel William Jefferson? Draft Hugo Chavez for 2008?

Who knows? They might even try to take up a collection for Zarqawi. The NYT is already apologizing for him.

Yeah Iraq is going terribly. I suppose Koss didn't let you know that the new gvt is just about formed huh? Or that the latest AlQ memo shows that they're just about as depressed over their losses as , as , as, well as the Democrats will be in November.

I'm pro-business. I own a small business myself. I just believe that one of government's functions is to regulate business, especially big business. When government fails in this function, you end up with fubar situations like Enron.

"Fascism could rightly be called Corporatism, as it the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussilini

Doesn't the merger of corporate and government power pretty much define what's going on in Washington DC today?

Lower taxes and higher spending may sound attractive to the immature, but if you ran your household that way, you'd be in the poor farm in no time. Even the most complacent Americans are realizing that they aren't getting anything but shafted, while the rich are getting huge rewards.

I'm pro-business. I own a small business myself. I just believe that one of government's functions is to regulate business, especially big business. When government fails in this function, you end up with fubar situations like Enron.

"Fascism could rightly be called Corporatism, as it the merger of corporate and government power." -Benito Mussilini

Doesn't the merger of corporate and government power pretty much define what's going on in Washington DC today?

Lower taxes and higher spending may sound attractive to the immature, but if you ran your household that way, you'd be in the poor farm in no time. Even the most complacent Americans are realizing that they aren't getting anything but shafted, while the rich are getting huge rewards.

Oh dear, yet another lefty who doesn't understand what corporatism meant in the context of 1930s politics.

What's the word for "corporation" in Italian, Duke? It's not "corporazione" (that's the word Mussolini used) it's "societa'" or "ditta." But keep trying, it's cute.

From CNN last week: New deficit projections 30 percent below White House estimates. due to increased tax revenues.

Next, we can talk about the current deficit as percentage of GNP and compare it to historical levels of the past 65 years.

Even at 30% below the predicted rate of deficit, it's still at $300 billion. Not really a cause for celebration, but I guess for Republicans even news that's not quite as bad as predicted is something.

Since we're on the subject, perhaps one of you can tell us exactly what the *real* policies and platform of the Republican party is? Because as far as I can tell it consists of:

1. Giving tax breaks to the rich under the pretense that they use it to "create American jobs", when in reality they simply invest in foreign interests and tax shelters, or just hide it away in a bank.


2. Systematically slandering and rendering helpless the other party by such methods as "The K Street Project", using legitimately gained majorities in states to gerrymander/redistrict thus ensuring continued dominance.


3. Continuously decrying the "liberal" MSM (while simultaneously relaxing media ownership laws) in the effort to stymie real debate. All while they control: AM Radio, an entire cable network, all the billboards, etc. The media is now so afraid of appearing "liberal" that even the MSMSM (non AM, non Faux News) slants observably to the "right". Anyone who doesn't admit that the "cry liberal MSM" tactic didn't have the specific objective of wiping out real debate is a fool or a hack.

4.Continuously introduce discreditable "noise" to the debate through hate-mongering "authors" such as Coulter, Malkin, Horowitz, etc. in order to prevent the "real" issues from being discussed. Keep in mind, it's all discreditable, but the more there is out there, the harder it is to sift through it all.


5. Slowly bankrupt the country by selling out to foreign interests, borrowing as much as possible the entire time - consolidating wealth in the hands of very few and stealing oil to keep things going just long enough to get richer.


6. Slowly incorporate all power in the Executive branch and shrink ...oh wait....SAY you're going to shrink the gov't, when in fact your version of "small" gov't is a huge military, huge police force, lots of prisons (the ones that aren't privatized yet - a criminal state.

7. Oh, and I almost forgot - create and perpetuate new "wars" to keep the people scared and confused. Especially important is the perpetuation of these wars, because it leads to more of all of the above.

The "war on terror" had its roots in noble purposes. 9/11 was an act of war, and the Taliban needed to go - good job, Bush. But when you set your sights on Iraq it was all too obvious something else was afoot. And now, as our own Army commanders admit - for every insurgent/terrorist we kill, we create 10 more. But hey, that's all part of the master plan. Right guys?
NOW we'll ALWAYS have an enemy to fight and the Democrats are just soft on terror!

Well it's not just percentage of deficit to the GNP that we need to consider. It's the national debt that keeps piling up year after year (at least when Republicans are in the White House) and the amount of our money that we spend in taxes that goes to service said debt.

KC, well said. You summed up the real Republican platform in a nutshell.

Oh, I forgot another one.

8. While insulting your opponents for any number of things, don't consider yourselves hypocrites while engaging in your own rampant corruption (illegal campaign contributions,slush funds, free trips, free meals, free escort services, money, etc.

I think a poster on another blog I read said it pretty well:


"Suppose your annual income was $20,000, your expenses were $24,000, your debt was $80,000, and the interest on your debt was $1000 alone. What do you have to do to get out of that mess? Would you ever think the way out would be to borrow some more money? No, you would not. Maybe you could work two jobs and get out of debt in 20 years, or maybe you could start stealing. You'd eventually conclude that your only hope would lie in bankruptcy and a fresh start."

While the Republicans and the Bush Administration do this, does the other party really need a platform other than "the other guys really suck" or "we're here to clean up after these morons"?


Not really.

KC:

Right here in detail:

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1529/

But, in general, it's the same as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair tried doing from the Left and Thatcher, Pinochet, Howard, etc. from the Right, using capitalist methods to achieve the end of providing a comprehensive social welfare net to every citizen.

Meanwhile, in foreign affairs it's to follow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Clinton and use American military and moral might to extend liberal democracy.

You'll note that the program is identical to that of the most successful politicians of the modern era.

On the other hand, Demcorats are counseling a return to 70s style socialism and isolationism. Their repududiation of Bill Clinton and reversion to McGovernism is one of the most remarkable acts of political suicide we've ever seen.

Randy:

You don't want to consider that either, the amount is negligible.

Yep, it's crazy. You'd think that a nation in this much economic trouble would have unemployment higher than 4.7% and a growth rate well under its current rate of what was it last quarter, 4.something %?

Dang and who would consider the treasury notes of such a nation a good investment.

Bryan, you said, "but don't forget the grandfather of them all The War On Poverty." I haven't forgotton. During the years the war on poverty was in affect the rate of poverty in this country went down dramatically. Wow, what do you know, a war on an abstract concept that really worked. Leave it to the liberals to do something right. Unfortunately, the war on poverty was only in existence for a couple of year when it was defunded to support the military industrial complex in Vietnam.

Well, now that I've told you what it *looks* like the Republican platform is, let me see if I understand what you think the Dem platform is:

1. Gays have the right to openly fornicate on any street corner they choose; all the while they get all the benefits of state recognized marraige like the HUGE tax breaks Bush gave to the middle class, and the right to adopt babies and create more queers. Cuz we all know, ya ain't born gay.

2. All women have the right to as many free late term abortions that they want! There will be an abortion clinic on every street corner, and fetus blood and placenta will be used in queer rituals to be held on the steps of all city halls.

3. We'll offer unrestricted citizenship to the ENTIRE population of Mexico - oh wait - Bush is already doing that.

4. No guns. Because we all know that if all those rednecks had guns, the Armed Forces and/or ATF and or Police would never be able to quash a rebellion.

5. Legalize all drugs - no wait, that's the libertarians.

6. Bow to the whims of the angry Muslim masses, and just engage in a program of forced conversion to Islam. That one is a secret until we get elected though.

7. Offer unrestricted welfare to all the ghetto rats who want to have 8 or more babies.
8. And finally, through the use of 3, 6, and 7 - dilute and render extinct the white race - we want a beige country!

IMHO, the "common good" can be pursued by solving our "common" problems. Specifically we should use the problem solving process of the U.S. Army staff study (FM 101-5, Appendix D), which is also used by the Army to train its leaders in ethical reasoning (FM 22-100).

Yep, it's crazy. You'd think that a nation in this much economic trouble would have unemployment higher than 4.7% and a growth rate well under its current rate of what was it last quarter, 4.something %?

Dang and who would consider the treasury notes of such a nation a good investment.

I almost forgot:

9. Continually redefine terms such as "employment rate" to benefit yourselves and degrade your opposition as necessary. Conveniently negate in creating said definition terms such as "full time" or "with benefits".


10. Restructure credit laws so as to benefit the creditor and hurt citizens such as students.

KC, nice straw man arguement. Unfornately none of what you say is true, unlike KC's cogent analysis of what's happening under one-party Republican rule. All you have is hate. That kind of talk only works out with the %30 of the public that will support Republicans under any circumstance. You know, backwash.

INT:

There's a winning 30 second ad for the Democrats if ever I saw one.

Meanwhile, in foreign affairs it's to follow Wilson, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Clinton and use American military and moral might to extend liberal democracy.

Or just to garrison the planet and steal oil. Tell me, OJ - how is that "liberal democracy" working out in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Are those crazy izlamics unable to engage in "liberal democracy" or was it just that someone wasn't really ever that serious about what happened after the "mission was accomplished"?

Wow, I just realized there's two KC's. The good one and his knuckledragging, mouthbreathing, Republican evil twin.

KC:

Yes, as the Democrat commenters here have repeatedly suggested, the Democrat platform is: tax hikes, spending cuts, end the WoT, end the war on drugs, gay rights, abortion rights, terrorist rights, and Duke Cunningham.

It doesn't seem like a winner.

Yawn. Isn't it fairly obvious that what we've got here is a single lefty who stumbled upon the site this morning? I particularly enjoyed his hilarious citing of "a poster on another blog I read" (probably himself posting on his own blog), that demonstrated a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the size of the gov't debt compared to the size of the budget and economy.

I also am enjoying oj's attempt to bait the troll into joining other threads, particularly the autism post...

Randy:

Except that since the GOIP ended the war on poverty we now have a poverty level that is higher than the GDP per capita of European nations. The war on the War on Poverty has done more to raise living standards than the War did.

Possible definition of a liberal: Someone to whom "war on terror" is indecipherably vague, while "the common good" is a concrete program.

Randy:

You can't both oppose everything conservatives have done the past twenty-five years and object to being associated with the opposite of what they've done. Especially if your party has no ideas of its own to run on, just opposition to W.

KC:

It's working rather well. Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have all joined countries like Turkey, Indonesia, etc, so that over half of all Muslims even in the Islamic world now live in democratically governed states. Meanwhile, places like Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, etc. are reforming at various paces, but all recognize that to be legitimate they'll have to be governed by the consent of their people. It's hard to see how things could go any better or more quickly.

A winning 30 second ad??? lol....

Yea, but note that it doesn't talk about altruism, elitism, sacrifice or statism.

So once again, the pursuit of the "common good" can be operationalized by simply solving our "common" problems. That's it!

QED

Yawn. Isn't it fairly obvious that what we've got here is a single lefty who stumbled upon the site this morning? I particularly enjoyed his hilarious citing of "a poster on another blog I read" (probably himself posting on his own blog), that demonstrated a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the size of the gov't debt compared to the size of the budget and economy.

I also am enjoying oj's attempt to bait the troll into joining other threads, particularly the autism post...

"Yawn" is right, B. And I was simply trying to give credit where credit is due. If you must know, it was from the dreaded Daou Report - one of the commenters there.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the true size and nature of the budget and economy. The other guy was using something called hyperbole to make a metaphorical point. Change the ratios and extrapolate to a few more decades and you get the point.

Sorry, I couldn't care less about your thread on autism. Is OJ autistic? No, I'm really asking. The only thing breathtaking here is the lack of interesting dialogue.

Randy,

You're right in a sense. The post on the Democrats was me being sarcastic.

What's the Daou report?

It's working rather well. Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine have all joined countries like Turkey, Indonesia, etc, so that over half of all Muslims even in the Islamic world now live in democratically governed states. Meanwhile, places like Morroco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, etc. are reforming at various paces, but all recognize that to be legitimate they'll have to be governed by the consent of their people. It's hard to see how things could go any better or more quickly.

Any mention of Iran? How's Palestine's new government working out for our interests? Did we say "liberal democracy"? I thought so. I think you are confusing the ideas of "democratic elections" with "democratically governed".

Jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will reform when they run out of oil.

In any case, since we're in the business of taking out dictators now, what's stopping us from invading Cuba, North Korea, or any other number of countries? Could it be that they don't have any oil?

How's this for a platform?

Raise taxes on the rich to pre-bush, Clinton-era levels. You remember those boom years don't you? I think the rich did very well back then.

Raise the frikkin' minimum wage already.

Put anyone who hires illegals for less than minimum wage in jail. That goes for middle class homeowners with garden chores as well.

Set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Invest in new technologies such as stem cell research and future sources of energy.

Start charging resource extraction companies the royalties they owe the US people for the priveledge to profit off of resources that belong to the commons.

Single-payer health care.

Public funded political campaigns.

Restore enforcement of environmental laws.

Completely redo foreign trade agreements to include labor and enviromental standards. The goal of free trade should be to raise standards of living for undeveloped countries, not lower the standard of living in developed countries.

Put the Social Security Trust fund back in a lock box forever. Make the incremental changes necessary to keep it solvent.

De-privatize the military. Corporate graft in the military-industrial complex is mammoth. We didn't need to fix things that weren't broken in the first place. Mercenaries, outside of the chain-of-command are not the American way.

Outlaw offshore tax shelters.

Finish off Al Qaida to the extent that that is possible. Take the steps necessary to stem the cycle of religious war that we entered under the misguided neo-con philosophy of global domination.

Invest in raising the standard of living in Mexico. Make any investment dependent on the Mexicans policing their own border.

That's a start any way.

INT:

Yes, the common problems that folks want solved are things like Social Security, which they want reformed but Democrats oppose, the tax code which they want reformed but Democrats oppose, health care which Democrats are afraid of getting burned again on by proposing their National Health plan, etc..

A party to terrified of the unpopularity of its own ideas to address common problems doesn't win elections.

"...knuckledragging, mouthbreathing, Republican evil twin."

See, conservatives can only sling hateful slurs at their opponents, while liberals always have the rhetorical moral high ground. Lord knows, a liberal like Randy would never stoop to such skullduggery. Oh wait, he did.
Randy, if you think the War on Poverty was such a resounding success you've probably never met anyone who grew up in the projects.

I may be wrong, but didn't the War on Poverty move the line from (roughly) 15% to (roughly) 12.5%? Or even less? Not so dramatic, is it? Especially given that those at the bottom were forced to endure the oppression of the state, beginning in about, oh, 1965 right on through to the mid-1990s and beyond.

And it was the same in the poor rural Midwest as it was in the inner city ghettos, just not quite as dangerous and not quite as publicized.

"lower taxes on the wealthiest, tiniest fraction of the public..."

We ALL received a tax break! It is extremely difficult to avoid giving the wealthy a tax cut when the top 5% of the wealth pays 85% of ALL taxes.

Yes, the common problems that folks want solved are things like Social Security, which they want reformed but Democrats oppose, the tax code which they want reformed but Democrats oppose, health care which Democrats are afraid of getting burned again on by proposing their National Health plan, etc..


I do object to "reforming" Social Security by privatizing it. We have 401ks and IRAs for that. Simply needs to be left alone and maintained.

I do want the tax code reformed. I want the rich and uber rich to pay what they should pay. Didn't this country allow them to become rich? I don't object to some of the alternative tax systems being considered, but I do object to Republican fear mongering re: the old tax code on subjects such as the "death tax" or estate tax.

And I do believe in reforming the medical care system. I think the Republican think tanks decided that they could convince rubes like you to believe that the reason everything is so expensive is those rampant malpractice suits. This served two purposes - it enriched the insurance companies who contribute heavily to Republican interests, and it cuts off trial lawyers to tend to lean Democratic. Have health care costs gone down since tort reform? Not that I can see. Tell me, OJ - what do YOU propose for health care?

Randy:

Higher taxes.

Jail terms for the middle class.

Bio-engineering.

Raise prices.

Hillary-care.

Make people pay out of their own pockets for the political races they despise.

Invade Pakistan....

and folks wonder why Democrats won't announce their plans....

KC:

Iran has been a democracy for some time and we don't deserve too much credit for that, though the Shah did so Westernize them that the evolution was natural.

Palestine will be fine once Hamas renounces destroying Israel.

You're cerainly right that we should do Castro, Kim, Assad and Mugabe. Democratic support for the missions would help.

jim:

Keep in mind too that the War destroyed the family structures of the black community and made themn dependents of the State.

KC:

Universal Health Savings Accounts with us footing the bill for those who currently receive Medicaid.

Just some facts for bartman:

What percentage of taxes are paid by the wealthiest 5% of Americans?

The wealthiest 5 percent have 59% of the wealth and pay 38.4 percent of federal taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent have over 38 percent of the wealth and pay 24.8 percent of federal taxes. These households have an average wealth of $10.2 million and pay only 3.5 percent of their wealth in taxes. By way of comparison, the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers have an average net wealth of $1,100 and pay 163 percent of their net wealth in taxes.

If all taxpayers paid the same 10.5 percent of their wealth in taxes as median income families pay, the taxes of the lowest 40 percent would be cut by 94 percent while the taxes of the wealthiest would triple.

Source: Congressional Budget Office and United for a Fair Economy

Iran has been a democracy for some time and we don't deserve too much credit for that, though the Shah did so Westernize them that the evolution was natural.

Palestine will be fine once Hamas renounces destroying Israel.

You certainly are the hopeful one. On what grounds do we base our objection to democratic Iran having nuclear power? Does it do us a bit of good if they're a democracy in name only and that they hate us?

Hamas will never renounce that viewpoint, so that point is vacant.

We agree to disagree on foreign policy then. I don't think we have any business waging pre-emptive wars. I'm not saying we don't ascertain threats, and do our best to prevent attack - that's what intelligence is for, but last I read Saddam didn't have any plans to attack anyone, and we're out of political capital. Oh, wait, Screw the UN and the rest of the world - we do what we want. Let's keep this military industrial complex a-turnin'.

KC:

Of course the rich are paying for a higher percentage of the budget under W:

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/04/26/PM200604264.html

KC:

Iran is welcome to nuclear power, just not nuclear weapons.

Hamas has already said they're willing to bargain away their viewpoint for territory, just as Israel has already done. Now we're just down to details.

Yes, the main difference between us on foreign policy is likely that you feel that a genocidal dictator like Saddam is none of our business.

KC: Oooh, a wealth tax! Can you please do whatever is necessary to convince the Dems to make that a part of their platform? Pretty please?

Nice talking points oj.

Higher taxes - I would reiterate what KC wrote about taxing the rich. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a developed economy. We need to at least cover our expenses. Surely you can see that.

Jail terms for the middle class - If they break our labor laws repeately, yes. Are you not serious about the problem of illegals in this country? Until we can break our addiction to cheap labor nothing will ever be done.

Bio engineering - I'm against the current lack of regulation on genetically modified foods. There's some real dangers there. What I'm talking about is stem cell research. Those zygotes you're so concerned about will be thrown away any way. Get over it.

Raise prices - I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Some of my proposals will drastically reduce prices. For example, with our present insane health care system we pay significantly more for health care than any other developed country and have worse outcomes.

Hillary care - Yeah that phrase is a winner. Have you checked her approval ratings recently? I'm not a big supporter of hers, but you really need to get some new material.

Making people pay out of their own pockets for races they despise - I can name something worse- the quid-pro-quo that exists in our pay-to-play political system. Sooner or later people will wake up to the corrupting influence of campaign contributions, the sooner the better.

Invade Pakistan - I said finish off Al Qaida to the extent possible. Obviously invading Pakistan is off the table. They've got nukes.

So anyway, you've demonstated that you can spew talking points, and talking points win elections. Your attitude seems to be all about winning by casting opposing views in a negative light. It seems like a dreary way to approach things to me, but then again I'm a liberal.

Yes, the main difference between us on foreign policy is likely that you feel that a genocidal dictator like Saddam is none of our business.

Well, we did hang the Kurds out to dry under Bush I, did we not? Let me guess - the Dems' fault.

I'm for consistency in our policies. We knew what Saddam was doing a long time ago, but we still utilized him against Iran, and Iran against him. It's just stupid. He has oil. Period.
Meanwhile we ignore the fact that more people have been victims of genocide in sub Saharan Africa since 1994 than all who died in WWII.

Well, we don't exactly ignore it - we tacitly encourage it by continuing to buy diamonds, tantalum, and other resources.

b - I was simply making a point. What do you have against a "wealth tax"? Just wondering. Is it all about getting elected to you people?

Correction: *HAD oil.

What do you have against a "wealth tax"?

What is the sound of several trillion dollars going overseas?

OJ - you linked to an interview with Steve Moore of all people. Sorry, don't buy it for a second:


On Steve Moore:

"A voodoo economist ... [who uses] especially devious methods to torture the data," says The New Republic's Jonathan Chait. "[H]is career has been marked by a pattern of errors, deception and falsehood," concurs Spinsanity. "Moore has zero credibility" concludes economist Brad DeLong.

OJ - spinsanity is pretty neutral:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030922.html

KC: Gosh, who could possibly have issues with a tax scheme that asymptotically approaches a rate of 100% with the passage of time?

You cannot maintain S.S. by leaving it alone. That would be called killing it.

Sorry, b. I don't recall anything about the rate reaching 100% in an asymptotic fashion. How did you flesh that one out? That would imply much more than that it would ever even reach 30%.

You cannot maintain S.S. by leaving it alone. That would be called killing it.

I said maintining it, too.

What is the sound of several trillion dollars going overseas?

I think that is a valid point. I also think your other point is valid. There would have to be a means of honestly assessing net worth, so as to account for inflation thereby assuring that there is minimal evasion by transferring assets overseas.

How about the "fair tax"?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm

If I remember correctly, the executors to the SS Trust Fund have figured that at the current rate of paying in, the fund will only be able to pay 80% of its current rate by 2045. That's a long way from the gloom and doom predictions the Bush administration was making while it was trying to push privatization. Adjustments, like the ones made in the 80s will need to be made to keep the program solvent. The Bush plan would have done nothing to insure the solvency of the trust fund, indeed it would have had the opposite affect. Getting rid of Social Security has been a goal of conservatives since its inception. Bush's privatization plan, would have gone a long way toward achieving that goal.

Sorry, but if you think the worst problem with a wealth tax is that people will try to evade it, you need to sit and think some more.

KC: Sigh. Let's say I earn $1M this year selling B's Granola Bars. Then I decide to retire. My net wealth is $1M. For the sake of simplicity, let's say I live in a world with no inflation, and I'm really, really conservative, so that I invest my money in something with no return. Let's call the "wealth tax" 10%. So the gov't takes $100K and leaves me with $900K. Next year the gov't take $90K, so I have $810K. After a decade I would have $340K (the gov't will have taken 66% of the money), after two decades $120K (the gov't will have taken 89% of the money).

The 80% of the population that owns their house is going to be a wee bit surprised at their tax bill. CA, NY, and MA would overnight become the reddest states in the Union.

Randy:

Yes, it's easier to scare folks into Reform than get them to do it because it's just the right thing to do. It's the same when Democrats natter abnout the number of uninsured.

KC:

It would be better to tax consumption than income.

KC:

He's wrong about Jefferson, for sure.

KC:

No, George H.W. Bush and he alone is to blame for bowing to transnationalism and screwing the Shi'ites and Kurds. He should have done Saddam in '91. His kid cleaned up the mess but it was too late for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Randy:

Taxes: tell it to the voters. Raising taxes is a biennial is a loser for Democrats.

Jail time for the middle class: no, we aren't serious. By your standard even a racuist whacko like Tom Tancredo would have to do time for the illegals he hired. It's a loser.

Bioengineering: The Left's contempt for human life, in the form of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc. has cost it dearly and estranged it from middle America,

Prices: you want to keep adding these regulations and taxes which raises prices. People hate price increases as witness the direct correlation of the President's popularity to the cost of a gallon of gas.

Hillarycare: Even she doesn't run on it since the '94 debacle.

Public finance: "sooner-or-later" means the issue is a dog now.

Pakistan: what little is left of al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. If you won't go get them you aren't proposing anything different than what we're doing now.

Talking points: ideas win elections. That you can't express any ideas that voters actually support amply demonstrates why the belief you guys will win elections is lunatic.

I say bring on the class warfare. I'm looking forward to future days when I am considered a conservative.

The number of uninsured is a very real problem. The impending demise of Social Security was something the Bush admistration created from whole cloth to sell "reform" where none was needed. Big difference.

No. The truly needy uninsured are a small problem, like the potential future shortfall of SS. But good policy in both cases would personalize the systems for everybody. Both lies serve good ends, like WMD did.

In 2000 Gore tried to convince us that the rich and powerful were pulling a 'beat down' on the poor. He lost the Presidency - a two inch 'tap in' if there ever was one. And after the disasters of 2002 and 2004 they want to turn back the clock to 2000?

If you're turning back the clock it seems to me you'd go back to 1996 and 1998. 1996 was driven by NAFTA and welfare reform. 1998 was driven by Republican overeaching - the Dems are trying to push this as the culture of corruption and will probably work to some extent.

But that's a fairly micro look at the situation. Looking broadly, rising household wealth and home ownership rates are the enemy of the Dems. Fact is, when you buy your first home few write letters to their Congressman to thank them for their management of the economy. Most look at their new home as the fruits of there own labor. The Republican planks of ownership and personal responsibility - you have a house because you worked for it - feed right into this. Unless the Dems follow the 96/98 lessons (and 98 has to be given to you, it can't be created in the new media environment) they will never see 50% support at the polls again.

"It would be better to tax consumption than income." Agreed - that's why I posted about the "fair tax".


b- I was merely positing ideas. Point being, something needs to be done, and Bush's gift to the wealthy isn't it.


"Bioengineering: The Left's contempt for human life, in the form of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc. has cost it dearly and estranged it from middle America,"

Wow, talk about an oversimplification. I think I made my point on abortion earlier. Abortion should be a legal option, but the last option. You can't legislate your religious values.

"He's wrong about Jefferson, for sure."

Are you implying he's not wrong on the other stuff?

"His kid cleaned up the mess but it was too late for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis."

I beg to differ. As I said: Jury's still out, but it's not looking good unless you conveniently apply an indefinite timeline to when you want to see *real* democracy in Iraq. Voting is not the only prerequisite for a functional, liberal, democracy. I really hope they do. But wrong war, wrong time. Sometimes you just miss opportunities. Oh, and he had OIL.

"Pakistan: what little is left of al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan. If you won't go get them you aren't proposing anything different than what we're doing now."

I think he was referring to the quick and dirty job we did in Afghanistan, missing many opportunities to capture our real targets. Don't tell me that Clenis didn't accept a handover of Bin Laden.
Besides, what do you know about it? What exactly is "Al Qaeda"? Are you referring to it as it was on the day of September 11, 2001? Well then, you may be right but I don't think you can disingenuously shift the focus on Al Qaeda only to Pakistan. Seriously. I'd bet there are lots of "insurgents" in Iraq who would say they're "Al Qaeda". Its just not a well defined organization.

Sweetie:

If corruption helped Clinton in '98 why will it hurt the GOP in '06?

Pick a door, any door. Is there no sword? Ole!

First, we need to get away from the 2-party (or the current 1-and-a-half-party) system.

Be that as it may, if the Dems need a platform its to bring back the middle class. It grew under Democratic leadership and shrunk under the Reagan Revolution.

Short and sweet.

But that's a fairly micro look at the situation. Looking broadly, rising household wealth and home ownership rates are the enemy of the Dems. Fact is, when you buy your first home few write letters to their Congressman to thank them for their management of the economy. Most look at their new home as the fruits of there own labor. The Republican planks of ownership and personal responsibility - you have a house because you worked for it

What does Congress have to do with anything? Who sets your property tax rates? Who determines the interest rate? Are you implying that the Dems are against personal responsibility?

Eh, nevermind - that just seems to non-sequitir.

KC:

So where's the Democrats tax reform proposal?

All legislation reflects our religious values. GOP legislation reflects the Judeo-Christian morality of is base. Democrat reflects the secular amorilty of its elites. That's why they're losing.

The jury isn't out--Saddam is gone and the Iraqi people control their own destiny.

Bin Laden is dead. There are a few AQ operatives left in Western Pakistan, but they've been attrited so badly they don't matter much. If you want to finish them off it means we go into Pakistan. There are no insurgents in Iraq who would say they are al qaeda publicly. The Shi'a would kill them.

KC -

It's not that the Dems are against personal responsibility, it's that they don't believe in it. The rest of their platform follows naturally from that.

oj,

I'm actually arguing the opposite but I stated it clumsily. 'Overeaching' is a different animal than 'corruption' but they both are driven by the opposing party so the Dems can't really affect that, unless they kidnap Rove and use his mind rays for good instead of evil/sarcasm. So they're different but they both require Republican actions (or the public to perceive Republican actions) to work.

Robert:

That's inane. The Left's notion that the middle class has suffered these past 25 years but votes for the GOP even against its own interest is right at the top of the delusion list. Americans have a household net worth of $53 trillion--the middle class is fat and happy.

Sweetie:

Right. The GOP ran on Clinton corruption and nothing else in '98 with disastrous results. Democrats are borrowing that playbook for '06 and will reap similar results.

KC:

The Fed determnines the interest rate and it's now safely in the hands of a White house operative who's concerned about deflation not imaginmary inflation, so look for rates to start falling this Summer leading into the election.

ideas win elections

OJ, let's look at the ideas that won numerous elections back in 2004:

• Gay marriage bad.
• A John Kerry presidency will enable terrorists to nuke our cities.
• Talk tough about fighting terrorism without describing the plan while accusing the other side of not having a plan.
• Bush gave the middle-class a tiny tax cut ... so that the middle-class could pay for soaring gas prices.

That's about it. I can't think of anything other ideas you boys are always coming up with. Your great ideas don't work, and that is why Republicans are failing in running the country. What new ideas are you boys gonna come up with now? Republican's certainly can't run on their record ... although I hope they do.

KC 4;34 - That's my point. Congress, the President, local politicians - these are the folks that developed our economic system. Any individual's success could not have happened without the framework that politicians developed. But who really thinks that way?

Personal responsibility isn't monopolized by one party. But on the spectrum from - you are soley responsible for yourself to society is soley resopnsible for yourself the parties lean in opposite directions. Unless you wish to argue that Democrats support lower taxes and lower social spending?

Mike:

In '04 the President ran on Reforming Social Security, Free Trade, standing up a democratic government in Iraq, Liberalizing the Middle East, extending Tax Cuts, banning gay marriage, overturning Roe, etc.

25 years of conservative government has given us uninterrupted economic growth, falling crime rates and declining social pathologies, freer trade in the world, a huge increase in the number of democracies in the world, Welfare Reform, HSAs, public school vouchers, record home ownership, etc., etc., etc.

The idea that Democrats can win by asking "Had Enough?" with a booming economy, full employment, and record Dow is deranged.

I guess y'all should read some polls.

"TODAY'S LEFT EXISTS ONLY TO AMUSE THE REST OF US"

The "rest of us" is now getting down to about 30%.

Of course law is based on morality. If you can't legislate morality, then you can't have laws.

Tano:

That's just a measure of satisfaction with gas prices. In the voting booth it's still a 60-40 nation.

So where's the Democrats tax reform proposal?

Dunno. Wish they had one. I think at this point the first step is trying (in vain) to fight Bush's idiotic tax bills.

All legislation reflects our religious values. GOP legislation reflects the Judeo-Christian morality of is base. Democrat reflects the secular amorilty of its elites. That's why they're losing.

No, that's not true. You see, if a Republican Congressman's daughter wants an abortion (even if it's illegal) - she gets one. When a Republican does drugs, hires prostitutes, takes money and trips illegally - he thinks he can do it with impunity. Just like Democratic Congressmen. Why is that? Because this "moral" legislation is designed only to pander to, and keep their base in check - doesn't affect the rich and/or powerful.

You think that Democrats want free abortions, at state expense for all women? No. But why does it have to be made illegal?
Drugs? Decriminalize the right ones and watch crime go waaaaay down - but no! Condoms or sex education? no as well. You see, you can't make laws based strictly on morals. Doesn't work in the real world - unless you look at some Islamic countries - take the Taliban for example. Anyway, the whole point you make is based on a big strawman - Unnamed secular, amoral "liberal elites" want people to be able to run amock and screw, do drugs, have abortions, etc. Why? Who? Please tell me.
No, unfortunately for both sides (one more than the other IMO) it's all about the money.


"The jury isn't out--Saddam is gone and the Iraqi people control their own destiny."
OK - so again, how long do we stay? Since we obviously didn't commit enough troops to secure the peace, do we indeed have an indefinite timeline during which you can say to all of us Dems: "we told you so!"?

KC:

So you concede the Democrats aren't addressing problems like taxes.

Pandering to the American people is called governing. Those things are illegal because Americans want them illegal even if Democrat elites don't.

We're leaving now. We won.

Of course law is based on morality. If you can't legislate morality, then you can't have laws.

OK, by the definition of morality below, you are correct. Perhaps I was being too specific. But you only serve to make my point for me. Going with OJ's argument, Republicans view of morality is a Judeo-Christian construct. In that case, I'd say the Democrats' purported concept of morality is based less on religion and more on philosophical and cultural thought.

But this is all foolish speculation because I think that at this point people have been on the planet long enough to know what is "right" and what is "wrong", and that there is a huge situational gray area in between. The danger is allowing a particularly orthodox or fundamentalist viewpoint dictate life for all others in a "liberal democracy" - which the Christian Right obviously wishes to do. Human nature dictates that you would then have a criminal state.

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members.

KC:

Exactly. The GOP governs according to the Judeo-Christian morality of 90% of the public while the Democrats rely on the amorality of the secular 10% and of Europe.

Pandering to the American people is called governing. Those things are illegal because Americans want them illegal even if Democrat elites don't.

Tell me why these Democrat[sic] elites don't want a "moral" society. Please.

And you failed to grasp my point: Republicans pander to groups of people who normally hold diametrically opposed views of what is moral and what is immoral - especially if it doesn't affect one's self, or if it's profitable. People like the Christian Right and corporations exploit foreign workers and the environment - often to effects that would draw serious outrage from the CR at home.
Enough of this coffee shop philosopy. You have your faith in Christ, and I have my faith in the human spirit and that logic and science will see us through.

We're leaving now. We won.

We did? How is that? What about the Iraqi people? - oh yeah, it's their problem now.

KC:

Here's why they no longer believe in morality:

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1129

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1264/

Yes, the precise point is that we enabled the Iraqis to decide for themselves what kind of people they'll become.

Forgive me. I allowed you to distract me with the strawman that the "left" works in the interest of its amoral, secular elitists. You never explained to me exactly how that works, why, and who these elite supposedly are. I'd really like to know. The link to the book review surely didn't provide an answer. Though interestingly the author did say this, which seems to describe modern conservatism to a tee:

"Well, for me I think the best I've been able to do with that question is to try to
recognize and come to terms with the reality of the fact that there are human beings who
are able, by convincing themselves that there's some higher good, some higher ideal to
which their lives should be dedicated, that the pain and suffering of other individuals doesn't
matter, it doesn't have to do with them or that it's... That they're expendable, that it's a cost
that's worth making in the pursuit of these objectives. So evil for me is the absence of the
imaginative sympathy for other human beings."

Anyway, this country was founded on both secular and religious concepts. Separation of Church and State. The state is not an arm of the church, and vice versa. People are free from governmental persecution to worship as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights.

But when we get down to strictly legislating Judeo-Christian morals, the hypocrisy of the "right" shows through. Are you talking about making each of the Ten Commandments law? We'd be the Christo-Facist counterpart to the Islamo-facists.

OJ - you're editing your posts. You only had one link before, now there are two - my last post was based on that fact.

Anyway, thanks for being civil.

Good day.

and by "rest of us," you mean a third of the electorate, right?

okay, maybe a little less.

KC:

No, it wasn't. It was Founded on the basis of the Creator and Fallen Man. The denial of that is why the Left is estranged from America.

Oh really, OJ? Do you have a source to back that up?

oj-

Why do you bother?

KC:

Yes, so do you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Tom:

These are teachable moments. These guys who believe in the common good are Bush Republicans. They just can't face it yet.

In '04 the President ran on Reforming Social Security

That's not true, OJ. Bush was asked about this once during the campaign, but goosestepped around. Social Security was never an issue until after the election. Reforming Social Security is not a new idea.

Free Trade

Free trade isn't just a Republican issue. It was minor discussion point. My four bullets was the essence of the Republican strategy. Free trade is not a new idea.

standing up a democratic government in Iraq

That's not an idea, that is a responsibility that resulted from a BAD idea.

Liberalizing the Middle East

I remember a time when one of the great Republican ideas was to not build other nations.

extending Tax Cuts

Ah yes, a bad idea on top of a bad idea.

banning gay marriage

A strategy only used to motivate the base and other folks who have no problem limiting freedom to tax-paying U.S. citizens. You can't really call this a new idea.

overturning Roe

Not a new idea. This is also a strategy used to motivate the mouth-breathing base.

25 years of conservative government has given us uninterrupted economic growth

Except for the Raygun recession, the Bush I recession, and the Bush II recession.

falling crime rates and declining social pathologies

You wouldn't know it if you watched the 10 O'Clock news on your local Fox affiliate. But really, much of this started to happen during Clinton's watch.

freer trade in the world

Free trade is not an idea exclusive to Conservatives.

a huge increase in the number of democracies in the world

And how has "25 years of conservative government" made this possible?

Welfare Reform

And yet you folks still complain about welfare. I guess the reform wasn't so spectacular.

public school vouchers

This bad idea is in effect in how many parts of the country?

record home ownership

There ya go. I didn't realize record home ownership was part of the glorious plan, but ya got me on this one.

The idea that Democrats can win by asking "Had Enough?" with a booming economy

Booming? What we have is an economy where people aren't losing their jobs at a rate we experienced five years ago. Wages are still low and stagnant.

full employment

Surely you aren't using the unemployment rate to determine that are you?

and record Dow is deranged.

What percentage of growth has the Dow undergone since January 2001? One percent? Lower?

You forgot to mention all of the other wonderful things Republicans have done in the last five years. Would you like me to list the rest of these things for you?

When it comes right down to it, OJ, when the Republican's campaign, fear ... gays ... and guns are the only ideas that are presented to the American people. After five years of running the show, you boys won't be able to run away from your failures. Shall I list them for you, or do you already have a good idea of what they are?

No, it wasn't. It was Founded on the basis of the Creator and Fallen Man. The denial of that is why the Left is estranged from America.

So, the folks who invented democracy ... The Greeks ... didn't provide the foundation for our government? Are you suggesting that the great philosophers before 0 AD are irrelevent to our countries origin?

I realize that you folks rely on truthiness when saying these ridiculous things, but please provide a few Bible passages that inspired our founders to have a liberal democracy.

Psst, mikelwhatever, see the Declaration of Independence. As OJ already noted.

As for your laundry list of drivel above:

and yet, and yet, we're still gonna hold both the house and senate in nov, if not pick up seats in both. And you and your pals will cry and whine, and claim the voting machines that y'all demanded in 2000 were rigged.

Have fun.

Impressive comment list, OJ. 129 so far. Is that a record? While the lefties are here, how about a Jill Carroll post now? That is the last time a mass leftypalozza happened before now.

Mike:

No, was elected twice running on it:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57466-2004Sep2.html

Actually, the Democrats have made Free Trade a purely Republican issue. Not only did Bill Clinton need GOP votes to pass NAFTA and GATT but even previously Free Trade Democrats bailed in the recent votes under President Bush.

Democratization is the idea--it's the American idea.

When haven't we built nations in our image?

Taxpayers like them.

Gay marriage bans pass everywhere they're on the ballot.

The overwhelming majority support abortion limits that the Curt is preventing.

No we don't, we're expanding Welfare Reform to include health and retirement.

No Child Left Behind put it in effect in the entire country allowing kids in failing schools to move to other public schools while the NCLB standards mean that every school will eventually be failing.

There hasn't been a recession since the Reagan/Volcker one in the early 80s extinguished inflation.

Yes, Bill Clinton's was a conservative presidency.

As we can see. It's not that Republicans don't have all the ideas, just that you hate the ideas. That's the essence of the Left these days, reaction.

Mike:

Yes, the Founders explicitly sought to avoid the Greek system. That's why we have a Republic, not a democracy.

Only the Bible can provide the foundation of a liberal democracy:

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1002

"to get back to their redistributionist core beliefs"

What the hell kind of liar and/or idiot must one be to use the label "redistributionist" for policies designed to stop the terrible increase in wealthy concentration going on under the republicans since 1980 - the real redistributionists?

In 1976, the top 10 percent owned 50 percent of America's wealth. By 1997, they owner 73 percent.

(The flip side: the bottom 90 percent of Americans owned 50 percent, and then only 27 percent.)

The redistribution has only gotten worse since then.

Two things, Craig:

The rich aren't getting richer due to favorable tax policy, they're getting richer because they own businesses, and the economy's doing well.
The middle class are generally employees of the rich, and while their downside is smaller, so is their ability to grow their incomes.
So, if you want to be rich, you usually have to be exceptionally skilled at something, really lucky, or take command of your destiny and start your own company.

The top 10% are typically older people, who are reaping the rewards of hard work and good luck.
Only 1 in 10 can be in the top 10% at any given time, but because the elderly rich tend to die off pretty frequently, perhaps i in 3 Americans will be in the top 10% at some point in their lives.

Further, it's not like "wealth" is a zero-sum game.
The 27% of all American wealth that the bottom 90% own is a GREATER AMOUNT OF WEALTH, in absolute terms, than the 50% that they owned in '76.

Craig:

Stopping poeople from accruing wealth is the very point of redistributionism.

Noam, you are not an idiot or a liar; you are uninformed.

You have a plausible theory, which just happens not to fit all the facts.

The truth in what you said is reflected in the fact that in the decades before 1980, the whole country did better; as both the wealthy and not wealthy saw their incomes increase over 100%, by very similar percentages. The wealthy made more than others - but a similar percentage.

All the factors you mention were present then, too; this increased concentration in wealth is not a necessary result, and it's not a desirable result.

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that '1 in 3 will be in the top 10%' of *wealth*?

We're not talking income, when 20 year olds are paid little but make better salaries when old.

We're talking wealth, how much they own. I don't think that shifts nearly as dramatically.

"The 27% of all American wealth that the bottom 90% own is a GREATER AMOUNT OF WEALTH, in absolute terms, than the 50% that they owned in '76."

If by "absolute terms", you mean not adjusted for inflation, that's irrelevant.

They do not only NOT get more now, they get less.

Adjusted for inflation, while people are working more - a 44% increase in multiple jobs since 1970, for example - their salaries fell by 9% - and the wages for new high school grads fell by 28%.

And why should their share of the increased pie drop? It doesn't need to, it didn't before.

We've gotten to the point that 1% of Americans make as much as the bottom 100 million workers - and that's out of a total of 140 million. We're on the road returning to the most common economic model in human history: feudalism, where a few have nearly all the wealth, and most are merely working for sustinence. While home ownership is stil high, you need look no further to the record debt, both private and owed by the publie, to see the impending problems for all but the very wealthy.

My post was an attack on the lie that it's the *liberals* who are the 'redistributionists', when it's the right who are the ones whose policies are causing a major redistribution of wealth, and liberals are simply trying to take care of more people than fewer.

The economy exists to serve society, not the other way around, and the right forgets that.

I know it's easy to get caught up in a few simplistic platitudes that extreme liberal policies - equality for its own sake - are counterproductive and harm society more than help it - but get past over-applying that simple fact and see the reality of what's going on.

That's not the problem in the real world.

What's your goal: feudalism, or a strong middle class - and which policies are better to get it?

You can crow about how strong the economy is all you want, but out here in the world, people know the score. Families are getting deeper in debt and working harder for less real money than during any period of my lifetime. GNP figures don't mean a thing except people are working harder and producing more. A 4.7% unemployment rate sounds good until you factor in the fact that we lost 4 million jobs early in the Bush adminisration and job growth is way slower than it needs to be to keep up with the growing population. Many people are not even given a chance to enter the work force. Many others have left the workforce and have not been able to get back in. Those people who are outside the work force are not represented in your glowing figures. Home ownership is up, and that's the one thing we've been able to keep going from the Clinton years, but filings for bankruptcy are also way up too. The biggest cause of bankruptcy by far medical catastrophy and now that we've got a draconian Republican bankruptcy law in place, these families will never have a chance to get back in the game.

In the past, things like the Dow averege, GNP and employment rates gave a pretty clear picture of how the average American was faring. That's back when a rising tide lifted all boats. Our economy is undergoing a fundamental restructing and the social contract that made our econlmy work for everybody is in the shredder. It's funny to see rich talking heads on the tv seemingly mystified as to why the public isn't jumping up and down with joy over the economy. Well, it's not mystery to me or anyone I know.

Just:

That's quite wrong. The increased debt reflects the return we're getting on the wealth we invest as opposed to the low cost of borrowing, which is why Household net worth (which is after debt is subtracted) is a record $53 trillion.

Wrong?

Why don't you link a graph of household net worth over the last few decades, oj -

Here's the catch, do it where it shows the different groups, how the poor, middle and rich are doing?

That will show the error in your ways.

Craig:

You obviously weren't, but ask anyone who was alve in the 60s and 70s if we were better off then. The notion is too absurd for words.

The Ownership Society benefits the common good, not one class over another--though it obviously helps the poor the most--precisely by building wealth and freeing people from dependence on the State. That's why the Left is threatened by it. The need the poor dependent.

Craig:

Every measure you can devise will show that the poorest today are as wealthy as the middle class of forty years ago. In America the poor have cars, tvs in every room, etc. You work fewer hours to better house, feed, and clothe yourself than your father or grandfather did.

OJ, thanks for offering a test of the accuracy of your views.

"You obviously weren't, but ask anyone who was alve in the 60s and 70s"

I remember both decades.

Perhaps you should question the accuracy of your other views, when you get this completely wrong.

"if we were better off then. The notion is too absurd for words."

No, it's not. There are different measures; my idea for how things should work is for there to be an optimal balance between as many people doing well as poissible, while having the amount of inequality in wealth where it provides a bigger pie for all.

The changes in American society from 1933 to 1970 reflect something in the ballpark of this.

A seperate issue is that continued progress in technology benefits society - but having the top 10% go from owning the same share of total wealth as the other 90% to owning three times the share as the other 90% poses all kinds of dangers and problems.

As I asked above, what is your goal: a strong middle class, or feudalism?

"The Ownership Society benefits the common good, not one class over another--though it obviously helps the poor the most--precisely by building wealth and freeing people from dependence on the State. That's why the Left is threatened by it. The need the poor dependent."

That's a nice thought, but it has about as much reality as the communist's claims.

Look at the *facts*, and you see that the 'ownership society', an Orwellian marketing term that's a euphamism for right-wing economic policies, in fact means increased ownership for a very few, and less ownership for most people.

Liberals' politics are not dependant on poverty; that's propaganda, one more of those things which has enough logic to be believable, but which is actually a lie. As liberals showed while in power 1932-1969, they're all about reducing poverty.

For example, elder poverty was the norm before FDR's social security; and LBJ's Great Society resulted in a permanent, significant decrease in the percent of Americans below the poverty line.

I have a request for you oj:

Read just one book: "Unequal Protections" by Thom Hartmann.

It's an outstanding book that will inform you. I suspect you can afford it; if not I'll buy it.

Craig:

Yes, your measure would prefer a society where everyone was equally poor to one where there's wide inequality but even the poorest are doing better than in your ideal. The poor would disagree with you, which is why the socialist Left has fared so poorly in America. We just don't resent success the way other cultures do.

Note how much lower standards of living are in more equal Europe:

www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200408110849.asp

Indeed, our poverty level for a family of four is the middle class of a European country.

oj:

I see you are unable or unwilling to respond to actual points, and instead you ignore any points which are presented to you and post little sniping comments, instead of a conversation.

So, I won't waste any further time on you, sadly.

However, I'll make it simple for you.

The right wing is all about increasing the wealth of the few, at the expense of most.

Because we have a democracy, and they need votes, they have to get most of 51% of the people (well, of the electors, but let's not get into how Al Gore won in 2000) to vote against their own interests.

They do this in a variety of ways, but in large part it's by paying for think tanks, or more accurately propaganda machines, to put out messages which promote policies good for the rich by saying they're good for others, which the republican voters fall for.

Anyone who analyzes the economic facts compared to the rhetoric will see the lies.

For example, as you spout the lie that the left wants everyone to be poor, you imply that a measure like the stock market's performance would increase more under the republicans, than under the democrats who are busy crippling productivity to redistribute wealth.

But look over the last century at how the market has increased under the two parties' presidencies - each of whom has had power about hald of the century - and you see that a ranking has about all the democrats above all of the republicans. Same for measures like increases in the GNP.

The difference is whether you learn the facts and support liberal policies, or whether you are a 'sucker' of the propaganda giving you myths to get you to to vote against yur own interests.

You go read the book, and I'll watch for others' comments to discuss.

Whoops, I'd not seen the bottom half of your post before, citing National Review (an instrument of the propaganda I spoke of). Comparing the US and Europe is a complex, apples and oranges issue that's unnecessary for discussing the apples and apples issues in the US.

The US does take certain steps which, by reducing wealth among the poor and middle, increase the overall productivity of the nation; just as slavery was of great economic benefit to the south for two centuries.

This has some benefits; to some extent the bigger pie does get shared. Americans are wealthier than many of their European counterparts. But the picture is much more complicated than a simple conclusion, ranging from the wide amounts of wealth in different European nations, to the 'safety nets' Europeans enjoy - America has far more and worse poverty than the wealthier European nations - to the quality of life issues from health care to longer vacations.

Given your ignoring the issues raised previously, though, I'll defer the expansion of the topic.

Surprisingly close, the Right wing is all about increasing the wealth of everyone, even though that will inevitably result in inequalities. The theory is fairly simple--it doesn't matter if A has more than B so long as B has enough to live comfortably.

The Left demands that A and B be more equal even though that means that A will have less. It's the politics of envy. But Americans aren't an envious people so it fails here.

As i happens, Robert Samuelson, the best economics writer in America, today refutes you entirely:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901214_pf.html

Ah, "complex"--what follows is always an admission that the numbers disprove your case.

No, oj, you are simply a liar.

The numbers are in my favor, where numbers are the appropriate measure of the issue.

If they weren't, I'd change my views. Unlike you, I'm not locked into views; my views are derived from the facts, not the other way around as with you. Now, can we agree not to interact further, since we have no interest in each others' comments?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2004 60% of American households had incomes between $ 18,500 and $ 88,000, and 95% of American households earned less than $ 157,000.

The median income among the working-age population — households headed by adults under 65 - was $ 51,000.

Among the 6% of American households headed by a person aged 15 to 24 years, 33% of those households had incomes of less than $ 18,500, and fully 60% had incomes of less than $ 35,000.

Which is exactly what we’d expect: Young people, with little or no work experience, earn less than everyone else.

If we only look at households headed by people aged 25 - 64, we see that 85% of them earned more than $ 18,500, with fully 25% earning more than $ 88,000.

Further, among households headed by people who worked at least one full-time job for 27 weeks or more that year, 93% earned at least $ 18,500, and 75% earned more than $ 35,000.

Therefore, nationally, for the 75% of American households that were within the top 80% and the bottom 95%, the largest income disparity was 7 - 1. That’s a disparity that progressives regard as being “equitable”.

Among those households headed by a person who worked full-time for at least 27 weeks in 2004, 48 million earned between $ 35,000 and $ 157,000, an income disparity of 4.5 at the very most - an extremely equitable distribution of income.
Those 48 million households comprised 70% of households headed by people who worked full-time for 27 weeks or more, and 42% of ALL American households.

Now, we might say that such is all well and good for those who have jobs, but perhaps work is hard to find ?

Not at all.
If we look at people aged 25 - 64, including so-called “discouraged workers”, (who would’t mind working, but only if they find the perfect job), unemployment is only at 4.5%.
19 out of 20 people who want to work, or who are willing to work under the right conditions, have jobs.

So, we can see that “American income disparity” is largely a myth.

For 75% of American households, the gap between the poorest in their group and the richest is 1 - 7, and for 70% of the American households headed by a full-time wage earner, the gap is less than 1 - 5.

Half of all households headed by people aged 15 - 64 have annual incomes of $ 50,000 or more, providing for a very comfortable life.

Further, the existence of income disparity doesn’t automatically signal poverty. The average household incomes of households in the South and Midwest are much lower than those in the Nor’east and West, but due to the lower costs of living in those areas, disparate incomes result in similar standards of living.

Craig:

No, I'm interested in what you say it's just so absurd I have trouble believing you believe it. You can't honestly think you're less wealkthy than your grandparents were. In the 60s how many cars did your family have? TVs? Telephones? How many calories a day did you consume compared to now? How much did your father have in his savings account and how much is in your 401k?

Today's poorest Americans are wealthy:

moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P140067.asp

Better off during the 70's? No way.

It's obvious that the U.S. is far and away the most prosperous nation ever to exist for reasons already noted above. That's why hordes of people are risking life and limb to get here to try their hand at reaching that top one percent.

Instead of quoting statistics, why don't the name callers tell us where American style prosperity is enjoyed by every citizen equally. The only equality I've seen, is the equality of lowest common denominator where misery and poverty are shared equally by the proletariat while their masters live in opulence and are even on the Forbes list of billionaires.

Kudos to Randy and KC for a lot of thoughtful intelligent posts. If either of you decide to run for public office I'd vote for you in a heartbeat.

In closing ...

Duke Cunningham

... you're right, I enjoyed typing that.

And isn't it grand some of the places the Daou Report sends you?

Ah yes, the Duke, the poster who didn't understand what corporatism was.

Typical of the standard of historical knowledge on the Left.

Isn't Duke Cunningham the guy in Doonesbury?

Now OJ & Noam, be kind - Craig may work in the mainstream media or for the airlines, so to him the economy of today is in Depression, while the 1970s were like heaven.

The only group for whom the 1970s were as good as Craig says were the large industrial unions, the UAW and the USW. But they hit their peaks around 1977 (after the 74-75 recession), and have been in straight-line decline ever since. Even then, only the 20+ year guys did 'well', with their benefits and vacation time. The guys starting out in the 70s got nothing when the mills and plants started withering. The UAW has hung on (in reduced numbers), but the USW was essentially dead by 1986.

Of course, what Craig fails to mention is the inflation of 1967-1981, which hurt everyone. Since Reagan and Volcker stopped that spiral, everyone has benefitted, the 'poor' most of all.

Surprising, too, that he claims slavery was of great economic benefit to the South. My understanding has been that the South was held back by clinging to slavery. Otherwise, the war might have gone differently, eh? And exactly what is 'far more and worse poverty' than the richest European nations? Worse than the Parisian slums? Worse than the dying villages of Eastern Germany?

The South Bronx or North Philly or the Hill District in Pittsburgh or inner-city Atlanta were not eviscerated by insufficient income redistribution. Remember, the highest tax rates were 70% until 1981.

Um...you must mean "The Left Exists Only To Amuse The Rest Of Us Who Can Afford To Be Amused."

I'll say one thing for Clinton, he understood that the regressive binary left/right politics would be a thing of the past. He was a meritorcrat and manager who believed in using the best ideas. Instead you chaps have a leader finds comfort in intellectual inflexibility and confidence in narrow ideological thought, the better to strangle democratic dialogue. While you diddle away locked in some bizarre tribal ideological power play whose aim is simply to bait the boogey left, your country dies daily from neglect, lack of investment in the future. Your country is in hock to China, your population has little or no savings, your middle class is vulnerable when life long savings can be wiped out by major surgery or illness. Frankly if I were you, I'd retire this tired old Cllinton bashing and left baiting. Find yourself a technocrat, a highly intelligent problem solver with a flexible mind and a good heart, a vision and vote them in fast, whether they are left or right leaning. As Americans you can't afford to do less. Don't let your great country slide away while you fight over the last slice of cake.

exo:

Clinton's secret wasn't secret--he had the exact same governing philosophy (or narrow ideology if you prefer) as W, the Third Way. That's why he was the only successful Democrat of his generation.

oj:

Um, I beg to differ. You're trying to conveniently swap "governing philosophy" for "narrow ideology." As I interpret the terms, the latter is way more determinist, a "my way or the highway," "dead or alive" and all-roads-lead-to-Rome notion. Clinton always left himself room to maneuver both intellectually and in terms of public and foreign policy. Put it this way, Clinton could absorb the free marketplace of ideas and could accomodate the demands of a Republican congress, whereas Bush, as a highly ideological president, has a largely partisan one size fits all notion of government. For Bush there is only one RIGHT way, an interlocking and overarching set of, well, principles, from the economy, to the judiciary, and of course enforced democracy has got to fit this all encompassing ideological world view. Needless to say, real life is not quite as cooperative, especially those pesky Middle East countries. Infact the more the ideology begins to fall apart, rather than being Clintonesque and diverting the river flow around the problem, Bush, hacks away madly believing he will reach clear ground--only there is no way out. Unfortunately the country is on the same expedition.

exo:

To the contrary--Clinton was a tad too doctrinaire, which is why his accomplishments are more limited than they need have been--Welfare Reform, NAFTA, GATT.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, is willing to accept stuff that's fairly worthless--increased Education spending--so long as broad principles are vindicated--testing, accountability, vouchers. Or getting HSAs in the prescription drug plan. That's why his legislative legacy is so massive and transformatory.

It's also why Democrats ought to have been eager to work with him on things like Social Security reform. If they were just willing to accept a few things like personal accounts and means testing--which we're going to get eventually--this president would have been only too happy to have the Federal government start and maintain accounts for every child, or every poor child, in America.

Immigration reform is a perfect example of how they could together endrun the diehard Right.

exo:

Bill Clinton's "ideas" amounted to midnight basketball, dropping the 30-year bond, and running a campaign government. The biggest accomplishments of his tenure were Republican ideas that he felt compelled to sign, either for electoral success or to achieve the perception of maturity. And I'm not even counting his attempted health care stuff. Let's face it, his main self-generated item remains "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which is mush compared to what he originally was pushing). Even the gun control legislation he signed wasn't something he heartily endorsed (it came from the netherworld of the Democratic Party).

Technocrats make terrible Presidents. Ask the GOP, who gave us Hoover and Nixon. Jimmy Carter is the most recent example. George W. Bush is quite different, and he is achieving historic changes in many areas, precisely because he is a manager, not a technocrat.

P.S. - America isn't sliding away, nor are we fighting over the last slice of cake. Instead, we are making the cake bigger. But that only happens when the government stays the heck away from the kitchen (or at least from the oven). Europe is having exactly the opposite experience: technocrats abound, but there is no moral courage in government. Hence the crumbs.

Jim:

That's not fair. While Clinton did govern somewhat to the Left for his first two years--though he was extremely fiscally conservative--in the subsequent six he governed as he had campaigned in '92. The GOP landslide may have brought him back to Jesus, but he had it in him all along.

Its not conservative vs. liberal, its Socialism versus Democracy. You Libs are nutty, nuts, nutz. Read back over some of the claims you make. If its all about oil, where is it? Oh, thats right, the oil companies have it hidden and are just gouging us. If we could drill in Anwr, and use hybrid technology, we could probably sustain our needs, with some conservation, of course. About Desert Storm and not taking out Saddam, we could not because we had a pact with the Arab countries whose lands we were using to launch our efforts. Put every employer who hires illegals in jail period. If we stop catering to them by printing everything in Spanish and giving them free services they will eventually leave. I hope there are enough of us with cajones to stand up and keep this great country from turning brown. Time to paraphrase JFK--ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was more of a Republican than many realized.

Its not conservative vs. liberal, its Socialism versus Democracy. You Libs are nutty, nuts, nutz. Read back over some of the claims you make. If its all about oil, where is it? Oh, thats right, the oil companies have it hidden and are just gouging us. If we could drill in Anwr, and use hybrid technology, we could probably sustain our needs, with some conservation, of course. About Desert Storm and not taking out Saddam, we could not because we had a pact with the Arab countries whose lands we were using to launch our efforts. Put every employer who hires illegals in jail period. If we stop catering to them by printing everything in Spanish and giving them free services they will eventually leave. I hope there are enough of us with cajones to stand up and keep this great country from turning brown. Time to paraphrase JFK--ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was more of a Republican than many realized.

If its all about oil, where is it? Oh, thats right, the oil companies have it hidden and are just gouging us. If we could drill in Anwr, and use hybrid technology, we could probably sustain our needs, with some conservation, of course.

For starters, read this: http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html

Due to the "unforseen" insurgency/terror campaign, things haven't quite gotten off the ground for the western oil interests. Here's an article for which you must subscribe, but I think the opening paragraph sums it up:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328526.ece

Put every employer who hires illegals in jail period. If we stop catering to them by printing everything in Spanish and giving them free services they will eventually leave. I hope there are enough of us with cajones to stand up and keep this great country from turning brown.

Too late on the "brown" thing Judy. It's an inevitability at this point, even if we engage in mass deportations. That comment struck me as a bit racist, though.

Any idea why everything is printed in Spanish? Hmmm...maybe because BIG BUSINESS realized the enourmous profit potential of catering to that market! Wow, a neo-con who's against business when it does things she's personally offended by.

I agree that we need to do something about the immigration problem. Shouldn't we start by SECURING OUR BORDERS? Good grief - I think both parties in Congress would get behind that one.

KC:

If we wanted the oil more than a democratic Iraq we'd just kill the Iraqis. Saddam was giving us the oil and it didn't do him any good.

No one is willing to either pay for closing the borders or accept the draft that would be required to man them. It's just a bit of racist raving.

oj:

Clinton doctrinaire? You mean old "slick willie?" The "is, is" man docrinaire? Not likely. Clinton's accomplishments were more limited because he had to work with a Republican congress. But I think even you admit he worked with them well. He navigated (not a doctrinaire aim, navigation) the country through its usual emotionally laden extremes and managed to get results.

Now Bush on the other hand I grant you is a big risk taker, the kind of high stakes roller who does not mind playing for large sums as you note "worthless--increased Education spending," just to make a point, what you might call his principles. But that's just my point. Put it this way, Clinton spent money to improve things and make investments. Bush just spends money to make a point. With Bush operates a Chinese lunch economy. He is not obesessed enough with the metrics of value for money, you know, the wonkish manegerial aspects of governance that any 21st century advanced economy needs. Look at the mess made of Katrina, the prescription plan the sheer waste of money to correct errors that should have been forseen, look at Iraq for that matter. Betting the US treasury on democracy? Spending money to make a principled point is like trying to impress your date with an expensive meal and paying by credit card although you are over drawn at the bank. Frankly, there are a lot of credible Republican ideas out there, Clinton brilliantly extracted (minus all the emotional baggage) what worked to help the country and chucked the rest, Bush on the other hand is stuck putting on expensive and "principled" Kabuki morality plays to distract people while backstage cronies are making off with the ticket money. How this benefits the American people, God only knows.

One other thing, I reluctantly agree with you on Social Security reform, the problem is Bush now has a reputation for trickiness, i.e., not squaring with the American public fully. He is not seen as a careful, detail-oriented fiscal manager of the nation's wealth. You need a more credible and articulate salesman to convince people of the plan.

Jim:

Yes, quite. That's not fair. You make my point exactly though, Republican's have this need to emotionally "own" their ideas. What's that about? Some kind of separation anxiety? Frankly, I don't care whether an idea is Republican or Democrat generated, just as long as it encourages the health of the country. This was the genius of Clinton, he understood that no one party had the monopoly of ideas. He was both a technocrat and a maverick consensus builder for the sake of advancing the country, not just certain constituencies. Are enough American's willing to let go of their Karl Rove style of Whack-A-Mole politics that they seem to be adicted to? I hope so, because the stakes of governance are getting higher, that's the point I was making and that's the point chaps like Tom Friedman make. Just make the damn country work.

As for cake, well, I agree, I overstated it a little. American's are not fighting over the last slice of cake. You're fighting over the last big cake, and not only are you under-investing in bakers and bakeries, you're wasting time having distracting foreign and domestic flour fights while the Chinese are figuring out how to sell you ovens, cake mix, and dare I say your venerable Kitchen Aid food mixers. I can hardly make out the cake for all the distracting flour smoke. Enough flour throwing I say!

exo:

To the contrary, the GOP was perfectly happy to have Clinton sign the free trade agreements and Welfare Reform because they were good for the country. Likewise, George Bush has accepted more spending than he'd have liked on education and medicare because it brought testing/vouchers and HSAs. If Democrats wanted to help their constituents they could propose the Paul O'Neill or Charles Murray plans for SS reform and make the GOP pony up money for the poor but reform of SS violates their ideology so they're incapable of it.

exo:

No, had Clinton not been so locked into liberal doctrine and truly believed in the New Democrat stuff he could have achieved a tremendous amount with the GOP Congress, along the lines of free trade and Welfare Reform. He had a mucvh better opportunity to reform SS than W, who has to get to 60 votes in the Senate.

exo -

Is Chirac a 'technocrat'? Compare with someone like Koizumi, who has actually brought fundamental change to his country.

I don't think the GOP has to 'own' its ideas - Reagan (and now Bush) always cited JFK when discussing tax cuts, for example.

The problem when looking at the Clinton years is that he governed in such a slapdash fashion. Sure, he had a 'hostile' Congress, but he invested so much energy in staying on the majority side of virtually every poll question that he never really had any authority. The press and the Europeans (and the UN) loved him, but part of that was due to the expectation that he wasn't going to do anything to shake up the status quo. He was a wonk, yes, but he was certainly not a maverick. As OJ said, he could have done so much more. Funny that many on the left (like Robert Reich, a real technocrat) have the same view of Clinton's presidency, though for very different reasons.

With respect to China (and trade), don't you think the American position would be much more precarious were the situation reversed (with thousands of our factories dependent on continued consumerism from a growing foreign economy)? In the crudest terms, would you rather have the labor force, or the fruits of that labor? Or is the Venezuelan/Bolivian model (nationalization born from politics) the way to go?

No, Chirac is a classic Second Way statist.

There are no new ideas--the GOP is the American Party applying free market solutions to social; welfare problems. Bill Clinton had that turf but Democrats abandoned it.

We don't need the Chinese to assemble parts--any idiots can do it.

Jim:

Chirac is not a technocrat, but like all well educated French leaders (he graduated the venerable l'ecole Nationale d'Etudes Politique) he was educated as one. Besides being French President and not Prime Minister (that's the technocratice part) does not entail being a technocrat you are, as Jim notes bound to be more of a statist. But to get to be a French president, you have to have be acquainted with the technocrat part of governance. Chirac was, don't forget, afterall Mayor of Paris, an uber-technocrat's job if ever. My point is that at least Chirac knows how the government plumbing works. Though the British system is different Blair had to prove his metal as a shadow minister of various portfolios, so he too has a fair idea of the plumbing in the governance of Britain. And Bush? Well that's my point! He has no idea where all his schemes go after they leave Karl Rove's fetid mind, so we end up with Katrina like messes. In America, future presidents seem to be educated as technocrats through being governors, Clinton certainly understood the need for follow through from policy to execution. Bush does not, and governs through the symbolic politics of empty yet grand gestures, you know, clap a few soldiers on the border prime time speech, mission accomplish aircraft carrier declarations, he lacks the ability to try to get to the underlying problem, you know, that ghastly thing that technocrats like to do.

Clinton "slapdash?" That's balderdash! But if you think Clinton was slapdash what does that make Bush? Actually, my whole point is, Bush hates governing, but loves politics. He would have made a better Vice-President. He seems to love the symbolic trappings better. He is a ceremonial president in a time that demands much more, and America is suffering for it rather like a bright and capable class in the hands of a poor teacher. By the way, when a Republican president cites Democrat ideas, its usually out of desperation or blame, its either the dog ate my homework, or Johnny helped me break the chair. My only point is America has pretty bad leadership, at a point when it needs competence. Frankly I don't care if that leader is a Republican or Democrat. Whatever you may say about Clinton, he worked for America, one rather gets the feeling that with Bush, America works for him. It's a l'etat cest' moi kind of deal with Bush. Ironically, Bush is a statist and he would love being President of France, where symbolically representing the state and foreign policy is all you are required to do, leaving all the rest to the Prime Minister. Though I don't think Bush could have made the cut in France where fluency of thought and language are at a premium. I don't even think he would pass muster on the back benches of the house of commons where the ability to express oneself fluently is the first order of leadership.

exo:

Bush ran on a complete philosophy of transforming the way we structure the welfare state and has enacted at least parts of all of it except for SS accounts, which will have to wait until the GOP has 60 Senate seats in 2008.

That philosophy shifts power from the state to individuals by giving you power over your own social welfare net. France is conspicuous by iys failure to follow even the Germans in heading in this direction. But France is the birthplace of statism and it's not suprising they choose to go down with the ship. It is strange that our own Democrats choose to since statism is anti-American. Clinton tried saving them from themselves but they don't want to be saved.

The risky transfer of assets from the state to the indivdual will never happen. First of all Bush, largely through incompetent leadership, does not have the trust of enough of the populace anymore. Bush now has a reputation of being something of a corporate statist if you will. With Halliburton, Katrina and wasteful Iraq in the mix, people suspect that under Bush power will never truly shift to individuals, rather it will end up resting with corporations.

Europe's "been there done that," in various governing permutations. It's not going backwards. Don't worry about France or Germany, Europeans will ultimately sort out what the right mix is for them. America will also have to cope with its own custom-made recession, a baby boomer retirement and health care crisis as well as its declining superpower status. Americans will have to decide whether to go the lone wolf individualist route or figure out the right social democratic mix. I suspect after some more dubious experiments an exhausted America will eventually embrace a carefully revised European social democratic model. However, Bush is out of the game now. Its all about his legacy at this point.

Er.. oj:

The risky transfer of assets from the state to the indivdual will never happen. First of all Bush, largely through incompetent leadership, does not have the trust of enough of the populace anymore. Bush now has a reputation of being something of a corporate statist if you will. With Halliburton, Katrina and wasteful Iraq in the mix, people suspect that under Bush power will never truly shift to individuals, rather it will end up resting with corporations.

Europe's "been there done that," in various governing permutations. It's not going backwards. Don't worry about France or Germany, Europeans will ultimately sort out what the right mix is for them. America will also have to cope with its own custom-made recession, a baby boomer retirement and health care crisis as well as its declining superpower status. Americans will have to decide whether to go the lone wolf individualist route or figure out the right social democratic mix. I suspect after some more dubious experiments an exhausted America will eventually embrace a carefully revised European social democratic model. However, Bush is out of the game now. Its all about his legacy at this point.

exo:

Of course it will, anything that 60% of the people in a democracy support happens.

oj:

60% eh? Perhaps in a Diebold democracy. As the polls now go however I doubt it. Remember 2 words: Iraq & Katrina. The American middle class does not forgive incompetence, especially when it results in tax money a wasting. As de Toqueville understood, this is a "show me" empirically minded country and I'd say the Bush experiment has just about destroyed half the house. 60% is done with Bush. He has been an expensive lifestyle choice for the Red states aspiring middle classes. I'm afraid its over and out for him. Next!

Next is McCain with the majority needed to pass SS Reform.