Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[Enoch Root]

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I thought we might have a couple posts worth of real discussion. What think you all about the recent debacle with Rupert Murdoch and that of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former chief of the IMF?

I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

What is so interesting about the hacking scandal is what it tells us about how class society works. While all capitalist countries are class societies economically, England is a very class-oriented society on the cultural level, far more so than the United States. Newspapers such as The Guardian and even Murdoch's own Times of London have long been the outlets turned to by the upper crust of British society. They are also celebrated for their high ethical standards and attention to detail and truth. They also enjoy the lowest circulation figures among British newspapers.

The tabloids -- The Sun, News of the World, and many others -- have long been the popular newspapers. Why is that? Part of it is the simple fact that they seek the lowest common denominator in their coverage. But a big part of it is the way they cover the powerful, the wealthier, the more privileged, be it a celebrity, a politican, or a member of the British royal family. By printing anything and everything about these people, they appeal to the oppressed class's desire to bring their oppressors down. And those with more wealth, power, and privilege are the oppressors in this simple calculus (even if at the individual level it is not the case, on a class basis it is true).

Now the tabloids have revealed that while seeming to speak for this desire of the "little people," they are actually in bed with the "enemy." Their editors and reporters rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, be it in private or in very public venues. Rebekah Brooks lives in a massive country estate, which everyone probably knew but nobody really saw until the scandal broke and it was shown on television every day in Britain. She who would pretend to speak for the powerless had become one of the powerful. Murdoch, always behind the scenes and always wealthy and powerful, is reaping what he and his minions have sown.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of media ethics at Washington and Lee University, has put it very well. These reporters were kind of the instruments of the underdog in soeity, pulling down the rich and powerful. Suddenly, now it turns out that these people were doing the bullying."

I believe that the full ramifications of this scandal have yet to be revealed. The British government may fall. Murdoch may divest himself of his newspapers, and probably be pushed out of the executive offices of News Corp. Fox News Channel here in the United States may have to be sold, too, perhaps to a buyer group that includes Roger Ailes (thus ensuring that nothing will change in how FNC functions). But in the end, this may be the thing that cracks the walls of the echo chamber.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

I think the DSK issue and Murdoch issues are not really discussable in the same breath. I will touch on the Murdoch hacking scandle, however. I want to make clear that my views have absolutely nothing to do with Murdoch's political positions or the political positions espoused by his primary media outlets, especially Fox News Channel in the United States.

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

The word "tabloid" when describing a newspaper is first a description of its size. So, strictly speaking of size, those supermarket rags to which you refer are tabloids and The New York Times (I presume you are familiar with its size) is called a "broadsheet." Lots of mainstream newspapers are tabloid size, including The Independent in England, which is one of the nation's most highly respected newspapers.

"Tabloid journalism" when used to describe mainstream newspapers or other media outlets (e.g., New York Post being "mainstream" and The National Enquirer being not mainstream) generally refers to the focus of the coverage on sensationalized stories about celebrities, crime, gossip, and with coverage of politics and economics that is typically either highly partisan, hysterically presented (often with too-clever headlines), or both.

Tabloid journalism in mainstream outlets typically goes to the limit of slander, libel, defamation -- call it what you will -- whereas in the supermarket rags tabloid journalism involves wholesale fabrication ... unless you actually believe that aliens visited Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, or that a woman has given birth to a baby who is half boy, half bat. When it comes to political coverage, though, the "mainstream" tabloid journalism outlets are prone to making things up, because they can get away with it, or in the case of Fox News Channel, "accidentally" running incorrect information on the crawl or beneath a picture of someone being covered, letting it sink in subliminally with the viewer, and then "apologizing" for it later.

[GRH]

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

Would you care to expand on this?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Would you care to expand on this?

There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

There was various stuff with her receiving money from criminals, she was involved in some kind of criminal scheme, and of course we all know that only good girls can get raped, once a woman commits any crime, she automatically consents to any sexual act possible with every man she meets.

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

[ila]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Would you care to expand on this?

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Do you ever read or listen to the news beyond the original sensationalist headlines?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Criminal scheme? That's the first I've heard of that. I have heard that she is, or was, illegal and there was something dubious about her accounts or some such but that this is not strange when it comes to illegals. Of course there are fools out there who would condemn her on that alone rather than recognizing the perilous position she is in.

I've also heard DSK has a history of misogyny and sexual harassment.

Well, apparently an assortment of known criminals have paid $100,000 into her bank account, so there's definitely something going on, that cash didn't spring out of a monkey's butthole.

The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment.
The prosecution is going ahead however as the US justice system places so much weight on victim 'credibility', it seems quite likely that DSK will not be convicted.

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

...The facts of the case though is that the medical and forensic evidence is in her favour, and the circumstantial evidence that is known to the public seems to back her up too, as does DSK's history of sexual harassment...

The medical and forensic evidence shows that there was some kind of sexual activity. It does not prove that there was a rape.

[smc]

I know Enoch Root wants this thread to keep going. Today's column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times is worthy of resurrecting the thread.

I am no supporter of Obama. His failure to stand up to the right doesn't surprise me at all. When he was running for president, I went on record saying that he stood for nothing.

But from the point of view of political process, watching his demise has been interesting. There are, of course, those on this site who will chime in with their usual dissembling about his policies. But I hope some of you will be spurred to discuss the process of governing, not just take the opportunity to spew bullshit that's already posted elsewhere.

One and Done?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: September 3, 2011

WASHINGTON -- One day during the 2008 campaign, as Barack Obama read the foreboding news of the mounting economic and military catastrophes that W. was bequeathing his successor, he dryly remarked to aides: ?Maybe I should throw the game.?

On the razor?s edge of another recession; blocked at every turn by Republicans determined to slice him up at any cost; starting an unexpectedly daunting re-election bid; and puzzling over how to make a prime-time speech about infrastructure and payroll taxes soar, maybe President Obama is wishing that he had thrown the game.

The leader who was once a luminescent, inspirational force is now just a guy in a really bad spot.

His Republican rivals for 2012 have gone to town on the Labor Day weekend news of zero job growth, using the same line of attack Hillary used in 2008: Enough with the big speeches! What about some action?

Polls show that most Americans still like and trust the president; but they may no longer have faith that he?s a smarty-pants who can fix the economy.

Just as Obama miscalculated in 2009 when Democrats had total control of Congress, holding out hope that G.O.P. lawmakers would come around on health care after all but three senators had refused to vote for the stimulus bill; just as he misread John Boehner this summer, clinging like a scorned lover to a dream that the speaker would drop his demanding new inamorata, the Tea Party, to strike a ?grand? budget bargain, so the president once more set a trap for himself and gave Boehner the opportunity to dis him on the timing of his jobs speech this week.

Obama?s re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?

And why is the White House so cocky about Obama as a TV draw against quick-draw Rick Perry? As James Carville acerbically noted, given a choice between watching an Obama speech and a G.O.P. debate, ?I?d watch the debate, and I?m not even a Republican.?

The White House caved, of course, and moved to Thursday, because there?s nothing the Republicans say that he won?t eagerly meet halfway.

No. 2 on David Letterman?s Top Ten List of the president?s plans for Labor Day: ?Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do.?

On MSNBC, the anchors were wistfully listening to old F.D.R. speeches, wishing that this president had some of that fight. But Obama can?t turn into F.D.R. for the campaign because he aspires to the class that F.D.R. was a traitor to; and he can?t turn into Harry Truman because he lacks the common touch. He has an acquired elitism.

MSNBC?s Matt Miller offered ?a public service? to journalists talking about Obama ? a list of synonyms for cave: ?Buckle, fold, concede, bend, defer, submit, give in, knuckle under, kowtow, surrender, yield, comply, capitulate.?

And it wasn?t exactly Morning in America when Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters Wednesday under the heading ?Frustrated.?

It unfortunately echoed a November 2010 parody in The Onion with the headline, ?Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail.?

?Throughout,? The Onion teased, ?the president expressed his aggravation on subjects as disparate as the war in Afghanistan, the sluggish economic recovery, his live-in mother-in-law, China?s undervalued currency, Boston?s Logan Airport, and tort reform.?

You know you?re in trouble when Harry Reid says you should be more aggressive.

If the languid Obama had not done his usual irritating fourth-quarter play, if he had presented a jobs plan a year ago and fought for it, he wouldn?t have needed to elevate the setting. How will he up the ante next time? A speech from the space station?

Republicans who are worried about being political props have a point. The president is using the power of the incumbency and a sacred occasion for a political speech.

Obama is still suffering from the Speech Illusion, the idea that he can come down from the mountain, read from a Teleprompter, cast a magic spell with his words and climb back up the mountain, while we scurry around and do what he proclaimed.

The days of spinning illusions in a Greek temple in a football stadium are done. The One is dancing on the edge of one term.

The White House team is flailing ? reacting, regrouping, retrenching. It?s repugnant.

After pushing and shoving and caving to get on TV, the president?s advisers immediately began warning that the long-yearned-for jobs speech wasn?t going to be that awe-inspiring.

?The issue isn?t the size or the newness of the ideas,? one said. ?It?s less the substance than how he says it, whether he seizes the moment.?

The arc of justice is stuck at the top of a mountain. Maybe Obama was not even the person he was waiting for.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

I know Enoch Root wants this thread to keep going. Today's column by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times is worthy of resurrecting the thread.

I am no supporter of Obama. His failure to stand up to the right doesn't surprise me at all. When he was running for president, I went on record saying that he stood for nothing.

But from the point of view of political process, watching his demise has been interesting. There are, of course, those on this site who will chime in with their usual dissembling about his policies. But I hope some of you will be spurred to discuss the process of governing, not just take the opportunity to spew bullshit that's already posted elsewhere.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

I have a story that must be all too familiar. I was in college. I had never voted before. I had never registered as a voter. Not even here in Puerto Rico. I had no idea what it was like. I'd never felt compelled to vote. But then along came Obama. I'd always been annoyed that my college years would be spent under Bush yet here was an opportunity for something different. So it seemed. An acquaintance of mine was a member of the College Democrats. Smart fellow, slim, ginger--Canadian if I remember correctly--full of energy. All in all he was a good man, calm and moral. He convinced me to register. He told me the dates to keep an eye out for. He was there in the public library we were driven to vote.

He was a Hillary man but then Obama became the candidate.

Now I wonder what he feels about Obama and Hillary. I certainly do not like what's happened. There's the old but true refrain: we've gotten four more years of Bush. It's certainly a lesson. I think I've learned it pretty well. Democrats are pretty much just like Republicans.

[randolph]

Enoch

Now I wonder what he feels about Obama and Hillary. I certainly do not like what's happened. There's the old but true refrain: we've gotten four more years of Bush. It's certainly a lesson. I think I've learned it pretty well. Democrats are pretty much just like Republicans.

I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Enoch

I would not jump to that conclusion in the upcoming election. Think about what will happen if Republicans get control of both houses. The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

Tell me randolph, how are the Democrats any different? To me it seems a matter of degree (a very slight one) rather than substance. Am I wrong? I welcome any information for further education.

A note: I have seen a difference between the rank and file Democrats like you, who do appear to have a concern for other people, and those Democrats in power, which appear to have power rather than people as their concern.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The democratic firewall will be gone and the Republicans can enact the immoral teabagger adjenda
Destroy social Security, destroy Medicare, eliminate family planning, redefine rape, the list goes on and on. We will see our great country decend into a morass of pseudo religious bull shit that supports a corporate takeover of the country. These are very dangerous times and it's not from Al Quida.

yikes... It's not about destroying social security and medicare. It's a recognition that those programs are going bankrupt. I know what you're going to say, but the democrats also said Fannie & Freddie were financially sound. It's about what to do to either rescue those programs so that it's actually there for the people who are paying into it, or gradually phasing it out based on age so that something else will replace it for the younger generations. It's not about destroying those programs leaving people with nothing.

I'm really not sure what's wrong with family planning. They should just call it sex ed though lol.

With respect to redefining rape. I wasn't aware of this and had to look it up...
"This legislation would exclude adult victims of incest, women who were raped while drugged or unconscious, and statutory rape."

I think you can exclude the first one. If adult siblings willingly want to go at it, then who cares. The other two are rape. The repubs screwed up on this in an effort to outlaw as much abortion as they can. If the repubs had control of the presidency and congress as you fear, they could just outlaw abortion for most cases rather than redefining rape.

There is certainly religious bullshit on the part of republicans, but how does said bullshit support a corporate takeover of the country?

I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times...

[randolph]

Tracy

I agree with your last sentence. Over the last 3 years, the democrats have stuck us with spending packages and royally expanded government which greatly accelerates our debts rise to $20 trillion. The debt level and current spending levels has already brought our credit rating down for the first time ever. This limits our ability to care for the segment of our society that worries you so much without putting us further in the hole. Dangerous times... __________________

We have gone over the "quantitative easing" and the enormous costs of that program in other posts and threads. I hate it that the banks have got off Scott free on the financial debacle.
The massive debt is indeed very scary, particularly in view of the fact that it has had marginal beneficial effect. Presumibably it prevented a worldwide depression, which is very good. If the economy was back on its feet and unemployment was down to 6% I suspect the huge debt would seem less important.
A lot of that will be paid back with recovery and the rest will be inflated away to the detriment of my and everybody elses savings. It will be good for the stock market however.
Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt? Now he wants to cut employment taxes, further weakening social security. Reinstating the Bush tax cut for the rich would only add 80 billion, where is the rest coming from. A serious slashing of our bloated imperialistic military budget would help alot.

[randolph]

Here is a hypothetical scenario and how it would work out for government income. It is quite clear where all the money is. FDR taxed the rich at around 70% to help pay for WWII.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Indeed, we are in a serious bind and now Obama wants to spend another 450 billion to reduce unemployment,. Where is that money coming from, more debt?

How many stimulus packages is this guy going to do before he finally realizes they don't stimulate the economy? There is something wrong with the economy. BO's administration needs to stop printing money to buy votes and try to understand WHY the economy is so bad and fix the real problems.

Some interesting posts. I've actually enjoyed reading them. I don't identify with either party. One thing that has become obvious is that the US desperately needs leadership and Obama is clearly not the "one":

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011...r-nation-needs

My ex-wife and I supported Hillary through the 2008 primary. Reluctantly I voted for Obama in the fall. It was in the midst of my divorce. Maybe I can plead temporary insanity?

Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

[ila]

Originally Posted by aw9725

...Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

The wrong person.

I don't really see any leaders running for the US president. The only person that has a chance of bringing some credibility to the office is Hillary, provided that she decides to run and gets the nomination.

[smc]

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Maybe the billions will come from China to build factories here when millions of desperate unemployed workers here in the US are willing to work for peanuts, like the dock workers in the nineteen thirties.

The United States has all the money needed to stimulate the economy without help from anyone. It's a matter of whose interests the government and the spending serve. Anyone who thinks the wealthiest are suffering even remotely in the current recession is delusional or lying.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by aw9725

Some interesting posts. I've actually enjoyed reading them. I don't identify with either party. One thing that has become obvious is that the US desperately needs leadership and Obama is clearly not the "one":

http://www.standard.net/stories/2011...r-nation-needs

My ex-wife and I supported Hillary through the 2008 primary. Reluctantly I voted for Obama in the fall. It was in the midst of my divorce. Maybe I can plead temporary insanity?

Who do any of you see emerging as the next US president?

That's one problem right there. There is no "one" leader. A leader is not needed. People working in concert in full knowledge of the benefits they will gain and the good they are doing for their fellows is what is needed.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

The problem is that the government is not stimulating the economy enough. Roosevelt understood it. Obama does not, or the intransigence of those who more directly represent the wealthy rulers (i.e., more directly than does he) keeps it from happening. What we need is many, many, many hundreds of billions in investment to create jobs doing things this failing, falling-behind country needs, not piddling symbolic stimuli ... and not tax breaks for phony "job creators."

Wasn't about half of the stimulus bill composed of tax cuts?

Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the “one” was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a “semi-messiah” (my own term… ) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry… I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I’m wrong. My use of the term “leader” also does NOT mean “dictator.” History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by aw9725

Enoch,

My reference to Obama as the ?one? was somewhat sarcastic as he was presented to us as a ?semi-messiah? (my own term? ) by the United States media. Here are a few images from his campaign in case anyone forgot. Sorry? I agree with you 100% that we need to work together--I hope that will happen--but seems unrealistic to expect from our society as fragmented as it is. Maybe I?m wrong. My use of the term ?leader? also does NOT mean ?dictator.? History is rich with individuals who rose to the occasion in times of crisis--I will let you pick your favorites--we need one of them now.

A

I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

[GRH]

Just some random musings on the new "Jobs Bill" that Obama proposed. Tracy Coxx has insisted that we don't need more "stimulus." But what of the proposed payroll tax cuts? Was there ever a tax cut (except for green energy subsidies) that a Republican didn't like?

Personally, I feel it's reckless to steal money from Social Security given its long term trajectory. Rob Peter to pay Paul-- gladly have a hamburger today if I can pay you for it tomorrow. But Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut isn't rooted in this. If anything, Republicans would like policy that would make entitlements more likely to go bankrupt (that way they have an excuse to destroy the social safety net). No, any Republican opposition to the payroll tax cut proposal is rooted in the fact that they don't want to do ANYTHING that might help the economy (and by extension, possibly help Obama's reelection chances).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Just some random musings on the new "Jobs Bill" that Obama proposed. Tracy Coxx has insisted that we don't need more "stimulus." But what of the proposed payroll tax cuts? Was there ever a tax cut (except for green energy subsidies) that a Republican didn't like?

Tax cut?
Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-send-job...230355229.html

[transjen]

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been greedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Tax cut?
Obama proposes tax hikes to pay for jobs bill
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-send-job...230355229.html

Read the story carefully, all.

As Obama said in his speech, there is a proposal to cut payroll taxes in half, to 3.1 percent. That is a "tax cut."

As for the tax increases, the are:

- an increase on the tax rate for the wealthy;
- an increase in taxes for the energy corporations that are raking in billions in profits;
- the elimination of some loopholes in the tax code for those making over $200,000 per year.

So, yes, it will be paid in part by a tax increase. And to those who will feel the impact of these increases (and their apologists), in our country where the number of people living in poverty grows each day along with the embarrassing gap in income between the richest and the poorest, I say boo-fucking-hoo.

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been freedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, they've created lots of jobs ... for lobbyists to carry some of the extra windfall cash the shameful tax cuts have given them into the offices of politicians of both parties and distribute it in unmarked envelopes.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes
For ten years they have been greedy pig hogging there money getting fatter and yet where are the jobs from these so called job creaturers?
The pigs have enjoying there cuts for oven ten years so by GOP logic this should be a jobs boom time and yet where are the jobs from the rich not paying taxes?
And the great trickle down BS the rich pay less taxes everyones life improves so after ten years of rich pigs not paying taxes way are so many Americans living under the poverity line?
I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault
But in trurh the Bush GOP policies are still in effect so we should be in the middle of a booming enconmy
And all eight GOP bozos answer is the same cut taxes do away with regulations trickle down all the way
And these are the same bozos who created this mess to start with starting with the deity R Reagan a brain dead two bit movie actor
Jerseygirl Jen

Hey Jen, you should be Obama's press manager.
You are saying the things he should be saying.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

You know i'm getting sick and tired of listening to the GOP BS about the rich should never pay one red cent in taxes

...

I know Tracy will scream it's all BO's fault

No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I am sorry. I never meant to give the impression you earnestly saw the man as a pseudo-messianic figure. In fact it never occurred to me you may have meant that. Instead the use of "the one" made me think of leaders, any leader, on whom all hopes are saddled. I am leery of any one person becoming a symbol. A friend of mine once put it as: we need leadership, not leaders. I think I understand that. Maybe I do not.

Sure, no problem. I think it is good and prudent to be wary of anyone who appears to be ?the one? or have all the answers. History is full of examples of this type of person too coming to power?usually with disastrous consequences. Also you make an excellent point that we need ?leadership? as opposed to leaders.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

No, Tracy will say "I didn't realize the GOP were saying that. You're right. That is wrong for the rich not to pay one red cent in taxes."

Let's take a stab at the civil discussion we've been talking about elsewhere.

What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.

Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?

Most important, please motivate your answer. What is the reasoning behind the answers you give.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What do you think is a reasonable breakdown of tax rates based on income levels? For instance, should we go back to the rates that existed during the Clinton Administration, or keep them as is with the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that Obama agreed to extend? If you are for a flat tax, I urge you not to re-open that discussion, but simply refer us to earlier postings.

It was discussed here.

Originally Posted by smc

Also, what about corporate tax rates? Should all corporations pay taxes? Should loopholes that create the known situation in which many of the largest corporations in the United States pay no income tax be shut?

I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

This sounds like an argument either for no taxes (or very little) on corporations, or for price controls. I am sure it's not the latter. Please elaborate on this question: is it reasonable in theory to tax profits? If so, what might be done to prevent the burden of such a tax from being passed onto to consumers? Do you believe, as Ron Paul might state, that the "market" can be counted on to solve all things?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It was discussed here.

I haven't thought a lot about corporate tax rates, so my opinion probably isn't worth much and I'm sure plenty of holes can be shot through it because it's a huge issue and like I've said I haven't thought a lot about it. Tax on corporations include income tax, employment taxes and excise taxes correct?

All these taxes are passed on to and actually paid by customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders. Many of these people are already paying income tax or sales tax so it seems that in taxing a corporation, the government is really potentially taxing customers, employees, suppliers, and shareholders twice, which I don't think is right. Excise taxes is a very thorny issue. Some of it is probably warranted, other parts of it, I don't
think so.

One opinion I am sure of is that corporations shouldn't be taxed to the point where they are not competitive against foreign businesses. Otherwise the corporations will relocate some or all of their work to other countries and drive their economy instead of ours.

There is some logic in just taxing just individuals. Of course corporations and individuals would have to be closely monitored to prevent cheating. Also the capital gains tax would also have to be progressive instead of a mere 15%.

[GRH]

If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

If corporations are "persons" as the Supreme Court has recently decided, than by God, they can pay their share of taxes like all the other REAL people I know.

I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I find the whole corporate personhood thing to be a real brain teaser. It is so self evidently absurd it's a wonder it's gained any traction at all.

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by randolph

Defining a corporation as a person was done back in the 1880s. the purpose was to protect the owners of the corporation from liability suits relating to the corporations activities. Since the corporation is a "person". Liability stays with the corporation and the owners are protected from lawsuits.

Right yea because that funny building that scratches the sky--made of glass and steel, lots and lots of glass eyes--is a thinking thing. Sure. How brilliant then--I mean, how curious it protects the corporation's owners from the repercussions they should have coming to them were they to do something bad. How very very odd.

[stephanie4life]

Mythought is none of the above. If you work for a living both parties have sold you out along time ago. The democrates support NAFTA, the red-neckpublicans support sending jobs to china. Personally ill vote for a third party every chance I get. I don't care if a german sheppard is running for office as long as its not a dem or rep.

[Enoch Root]

Occupy Wall Stree (Brooklyn Bridge):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUmyP...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_1bYVMwg8k