Over the years I became a liberal, it was some time early in my 30 years as a military officer (20 in reserves). During that time I paid a lot of dues, one was for life membership in one of those lobby group fronts for the military industrial congress complex. Last night I filled a survey for them it is filled with leading questions designed for them to say “this professional group thinks such or such cuts will harm national secuirity”.
I did not respond as they would expect.
Two issues hit me. One is that “security” is seen to depend on huge spending on weapons and support contractors, a lot of profit and a lot of PAC money. Two, that anyone who is sanctioned by these professional organizations is only allowed to be in favor of more money for “security”.
I am sure none in this group would consider me an expert in security affiars, however, I am very knowledgeable of the faults of the weapon acquisition system. Most of the security “experts” are pundits, who have neither correlation nor causation for why their “expert opinion” is for ever more money and expensive non performing stuff.
Subject: Treason Against USA Hi, These “secret pledges” signed by GOP supersede and conflict with their pledge of allegiance to the USA.
So I signed a petition to President Barack Obama, which says: “I believe that secret pledges signed by GOPs in congress violate our constitution as the supersede the pledge of allegiance to the USA and their purpose is the destroy the economy of our country. This is treason, which is a crime in our country.” Will you sign this petition? Click here: http://signon.org/sign/treason-against-usa?source=s.em.cp&r_by=431288 Thanks!
DeParle stated that the CMS issued a report on 28 July which served as the basis for her blog post. She didn’t bother to explain that CMS stands for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). She offered a hint by saying that the CMS report was issued by the Office of the Actuary. Well, that and the fact that she was discussing healthcare expenditures.
You would think that it would be easy to find that report. Not the case. The White House Deputy Chief of Staff DeParle didn’t provide a link. No news articles that I read on Thursday provided the link. That left the nightmare of CMS. And a nightmare it was. I did find the report eventually, but I have misplaced the link.
Mrs. Rustbelt is right. The willingness of a child or in-law to support a parent or other elder is proportional to how they were treated by that person. My first thought was. “How dare they!” I would expect them to have a paid-off house and be reasonably frugal, but that’s not always the case.
The more interesting question is why they would need to move in with a relative as soon as the checks stop. Are they THAT broke? I’ve moved a lot of times, and there are considerable costs to moving. The most vile moves are those that are a very short distance, because you are tempted to take everything with you.
I was lucky. A few days before my father died, my elder sisters demanded that I contribute money toward ending my father to rehab (alcohol) and assisted living. I refused because they wanted me to sign a blank check and they didn’t have their facts straight. Odds are that they were looking to have me pay the entire bill, but I knew something that they didn’t: many assisted living facilities charge an admission fee in the tens of thousands of dollars that is non-refundable. As far as I was concerned, I hd no obligation to contrbute to Dad’s care because I hadn’t bled him of his retirement money as my sisters had. I had argued against him taking a lump sum pension distribution because that was all that he would get, but he didn’t listen. They could have gotten him on Medicaid as I had done with my grandfather. ifthey wanted him to be taken care of by others, but Dad wouldn’t have agreed to that. He wanted a nice place for heis last years, nicer than the apartment that he had. This family fight became moot when Dad died abot 10 days later.
One of the really big surprises of reitirement is how small a seemingly large amount of money is when you have to view it as an income team.
CoRev–You’ve never met a socialist. Know how I know? Because I HAVE and they are the most boooorrrrrriiinnnggggggg people I ever met, and I have met a whole lotta people! Communists are even worse, because utterly morose and devoid of humor. You, being a member of the upper ranks of civil servants and therefore extremely sensitive to social improprieties, would have perished away from a single contact no matter how brief merely by virtue of your delicate nature.
I, however, had to be made of tougher stuff since I had the duty to serve the American public in whatever form they walked in the door. My experience taught me that stone Randian’s are nasty and want to smoke in your office. Anti-tax believers are worse. Sovreign citizens are armed and Rolls Royce driving real estate typhoons own everything down to the official portraits of the Pres and VicePres on the wall. Hell’s Angels members are, on the other hand, quite nice if you don’t mess with their bikes. Now, where was I?
TaTa. Gotta go over to my bird blogs now and find a suitable video of some raptor or otherwise predatory creature looking really cool for the edification of the Bears here assembled. NancyO
Cool, ilsm. I signed up because I think that to reject the basic premise of representative democracy, as we now see in the debt limit charade, is essentially revolutionary and seditious. So, no one can doubt what I think, I wrote it here, MG. NancyO
Well said, Ripley. Your sisters should have looked into the law regarding asset transfers before assuming the money would last forever, as you say. People behave very badly in such circumstances, and then feel abused when they have no reason to. NancyO
Okeydokey, here is this weeks animal pictures, just stills this time. I have never seen close up still pictures of insects like these before. Amazing may explain how some insects never seem to drink anything. Visually fascinating. Ta Ta! NancyO
Capitalism. Faith in the invisible hand. About the same as Camelot.
Toward the end of the next “dark ages”, as if the imperial Rome/Vatican axis were so bright, there will be romance novels about capitalism, and no archeologist will find evidence of its existence.
I wonder how they will portray the greed as chivalrie with the monetized confidence games called money and banking.
What we were fighting for in 1940 was Stalin, Chiang, and Chruchill. Against the truly anti Boshevists of Europe.
The unbridled right to property no matter how many people suffer and die.
I am looking for the link to the DoD comptroller’s testimony in congress last week that they can’t get the “asset side” books lined up for years and it won’t ever happen if the adminstration and congress don’t make it an issue.
He was being abit duplicitious, the reason is no one knows what specifications were met when the US paid for those things.
Like what spec was met when the Air Force paid for 182 F-22 which are now grounded due to a defect in the oxygen system causing hypoxia in the highly trained pilots.
Here is the statement which you included in the petition list when you signed up to support the petition:
“The tea partyand Rupert Murdoch have extorted the US congress to become inhuamne fascists. Norquist and his backdoor deals is worse than Hitler and the NAZIs.”
You have lost touch with reality. The recorded history of the activities of Germany’s Hitler and the Nazis appears to be subject matter for which you have a damned poor understanding and/or recollection.
“Remedial reading for hostile progressives and wannabe socialists:”
“Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending” by Anthony Gregory
The book may be well worth reading. The implication of the comment is nonsense. There are very few progressives that want to be socialists and there are very few socialists that have any voice in our government or MSM. I have rarely read here, or on any other liberal/progressive web site, that capitalism is an evil process. The point of most criticisms of capitalists is that they practice their ideology in a avariciously greedy manner. They don’t want to pay taxes, that interferes with their ability to either accumulate or consume more assets. They want yet a greater share of the GDP. They don’t like unions that make an effort to coordinate the needs and the power of the otherwise powerless. They don’t like anything about their government that interferes with their greed. They don’t even recognize (at least they don’t admit) that the government represents their interests to a far greater extent than it does the average American worker.
You’re too lazy to verify that Gregory wrote an article or book under the title that I identified with the author’s name. That is laughable.
Gregory wrote an article titled “Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending”. My lead comment was a take on a comment that Gregory made in the artice: “Progressives and socialists are downright hostile”.
Why don’t you stop your usual BS condemnation attacks and read the article before running your loud mouth.
You haven’t read the article, so you don’t know what the hell Gregory said.
The petition that ilsm, Nancy, and others support is a poorly written document. The petition states that “secret pledges” have been “signed by GOPs in congress” which supposedly “violate our constitution as the supersede the pledge of allegiance to the USA and their purpose is to destroy the economy of our country. This is treason, which is a crime in our country.”
What secret pledges? What subjects are covered in such supposed “secret pledges”? If the pledges are secret, how does the author know what is stated in such “secret pledges”? Where is there any evidence in the petition what the “secret pledges” state?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” violate the U.S. Constitution?
How do the “secret pledges” supersede the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” have as a purpose to “to destroy the economy of our country”?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” violate the U.S. Constitution’s treason provision, or U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381? Do the petition author and petition supporters understand the limitations of charging an individual with treason in the United States of America?
What are “GOPs”?
This is an exceptionally poorly written petition that individuals are supporting.
The petition author fails to acknowledge that members of Congress swear to and sign an Oath of Office. If there is a legal conflict worthy of court consideration, it would be one between the “secret pledges” and the Congressional members’ Oath of Office as well as any known or implied violations of the U.S. Constitution and supporting body of laws identified in the U.S. Code.
If one assumes that the petition author is referring to the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”, the premise that the pledges are “secret pledges” is nonsense. The text of the ATR pledge is published, available online. The members of the U.S. Congress who have signed the ATR pledge are identified by name at the ATR website.
The treason petition as written is junk. Yet, individuals are foolish enough to support such crap.
And you can’t even recognize that it is not Gregory that I am addressing. It is you that I am addressing. It is your baseless implication that capitalism as an economic practice that is under attack here at AB or virtually any other progressive economic web site. We’re not arguing about the value of capitalism. Most arguments here are about the greed off too many managers of capitalist organizations. Gregory’s opinions aren’t relevant unless he wants to express them here in defense of the greediest behavior of too many who call themselves capitalists, but who produce nothing other than a financial trade her or there.
My answer about capitalism is the US is: “I would be all in favor of it”. As Gandhi replied when asked about western civilization.
It is some ideologue’s ideal which is not the way it is.
So, what is there for the Lew Rockwell’s guy to sell or defend?
Liberarian ideals are property over any other human organization, need or right. Which sells on wall st, as long as they don’t recognize that money makes property surreal.
You’re the person who said, “The book may be well worth reading.” As such, you failed to understand that Anthony Gregory had only written the article that I cited.
I already explained that my lead comment was a take on a comment that Gregory made in the artice: “Progressives and socialists are downright hostile”. Apparently, you’re not smart enough to get that point.
When you pop up with your “we” junk, know that you don’t speak for the thousands of people who read Dan’s blog every week. You have no clue as to who most of them are. You’re just off in your world of pretending. I don’t waste time posting comments solely for the handful of liberals and conservatives who still participate on Angry Bear comment threads or even the three or so acknowledged independent voters who are not wrapped up in the ideology being pushed by either major political party. There are other individuals out in the real world who read Dan’s blog. My interest is to share whatever I think with them as well. And there is no question that Angry Bear would benefit significantly from a whole new group of participants, hopefully smart enough not to repeat the same old boring talking points and useless political soundbites, regardless of political ideology.
What you don’t appear to grasp is that AB used to be a high quality economics blog years before you showed up that focused heavily on economic data, outcomes, and projections. There used to be many well read participants at Angry Bear who were capable of discussing the macro issues in detail. People actually came to Angry Bear to learn and share their economic expertise and opinions. Well, that changed and Dan is left with very few participants who are focused primarily on macro economic issues. This blog has been dragged into becoming a mere political ideological mess that offers very little value from the standard non-economic blogs that focus primarily on such stuff. Dan knows it. And the loss of so many well informed participants who grasped the macro economic information and data so well who have left the blog did so because of the political mess that occurred according to some who have shared their thoughts with me.
I put up a comment that references a well written piece defending capitalism. That was my choice on an Open Thread. And yes, there have been individuals on the AB comment threads who have said that they are socialists and others who have said they could embrace a form of socialism over the capitalism system. AB has even had a few communists visit the blog from time to time. Presently, AB is suffering from a lack of participants who demonstrate primary interest in serious macro economic main posts. Now, that’s a shame but it is where AB is at the moment. Instead, much of the thread chatter is oriented toward political ideologies, political soundbites, political hatreds, political nonsense from one end to the other, and so on. AB has a long way to go in recapturing its fine reputation for economic commentary on macro issues. The other subject matter is fine as all of it has a place, but it cost the blog dearly in terms of participants.
Now, here you are crying wolf over my opinions about individuals who support capitalism, oppose capitalism, question the value of capitalism or promote other economic systems, none of which were stated in the comment post over which you are whining.
You don’t speak for everyone on the blog nor its general readership. You don’t speak for other blogs. You don’t speak for millions of individual who live in the United States. And you’re so foolishly arrogant […]
“It is your baseless implication that capitalism as an economic practice that is under attack here at AB or virtually any other progressive economic web site.”
You’re kidding right? Most of the commentors here support some sort of Command and Control economy, and several have even admitted to endorseing “Socialism,” including Bruce Webb, a poster here.
You have several times attacked the Capialist system, whether you realize it or not, and there should be no question that the constant drumbeat of class warfare is a symptom of this type of thinking. Almost every comment you make revolves around the Class Warfare talking points, the same used by the radical Marxists in this country.
Welcome to AB. Its a nice community for the most part. You will have to wade through the almost constant attack on capitalism and economic freedom (and individual freedom in general), but it is a good place to get some fact-based economic insight. Mike Kimmel (cactus), Linda, and Bruce are really good in bringing the data and so is MG and Sammy in the comments. Bruce has an excellent primer on SS that used to be linked at the top that explained how the system worked.(Where did it go?). Bruce’s latest is a good example of a thought-piece that will get you thinking even if you disagree with his conclusions (usually for the need of stronger and more pervasive central government).
Please come by a post often.
Islam will change
But you do have to wade through the highly partisan, at times DKos-hatesite style, coments at times. So far Rdan has decided he doesn’t want to run an echo chamber so as long as you are reasonably polite you won’t get banned.
You can’t make up this stuff: White House Believed Republicans Would Agree to Tax Increases, and Also, in Magic Unicorns By Blue Texan Monday August 1, 2011 11:15 am http://firedoglake.com/2011/08/01/white-house-believed-republicans-would-agree-to-tax-increases-and-also-in-magic-unicorns “Buried in a post by Jonathan Chait is this shocker: “The third mistake lay in assuming Republicans would agree to raise tax revenue. I spoke several times with administration officials who asserted with total confidence that Republicans would simply have to acknowledge the need for more revenue. They betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the party they’re dealing with.” “How can this even be possible? “What would lead them to believe that? Have they been in some kind of cryogenic freeze for the past 10 years? Have they never heard of Grover Norquist? Did they really think all those rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, newly-elected Teabaggers would actually agree to higher taxes? “If this is true, the problem isn’t that the White House is filled with a bunch of crypto-Republicans. It’s filled with a bunch of idiots.
“I actually find that more disturbing.” —— Idiots, no doubt.
I guess I just don’t understand why the Left is afraid to admit what they really are. If they really want some sort Socialist system, then why don’t they just come out and and say it, and let the debate begin. More could be learned and accomplished if they would just explain what they want. And if they are so confident then they should have no problem explaining to us how it could possibly work, and why it is “for the good of the country.”
Oh…I know why….it’s because they have to hide it, they know it will be roundly rejected, but they don’t care. So they force it, or manipulate their way into it. They almost have us there anyway…I just hope that when they get us there they will grow up and learn from it, so we as a country can move on. It’s all emotion!
I suspect by the end of Obama second term, unless Republicans can get a Super Majority in the House and Senate….the Capitalist system will be breathing it’s last breaths, and they will finally get what they want at the expense of the rest of us. Maybe they will finally shut the hell up!
From Darren: “I guess I just don’t understand why the Left is afraid to admit what they really are. If they really want some sort Socialist system, then why don’t they just come out and and say it, and let the debate begin.”
So let me understand your point Darren. The choice is only between laissez faire capitalism and all out socialism (ie state ownership of assets and the means of production)? Is that what you think liberal or progressive or left of center ideology requires? That’s not even close to the truth. What you will read from virtually all progressive economists is that capitalism, like all other human behaivor, requires a regulatory frame work laying out the boundaries of acceptable behavior and how such organizations would be expected to function in a complex society and contribute to that society. Like so many right wing apologists you set up a false dichotomy. You suggest that any control over business behavior by the government is a move towards Socialism. Are laws of contract permissible in your paradigm? Is any form of taxation acceptable? How is the need for structuring business activities in a complex society equivalent to ownership by the state?
Welcome to Angry Bear where readers are more impressed by the logic and validity of one’s comments rather than the stridency of one’s ideology. When what you have to say sounds like part of the script from All In the Family you should expect others to laugh at it.
You are refering to the dated reference of “Progressive.” That has nothing to do with the Modern Progressive Movement, for which we are witnessing now thru Obama and the Democratic Party.
When people like you are still hounding the buisness sector for more regulation, when it is regulation itself that forced the economic disaster upon the buisness community, it says alot.
People like you need to get out of the way, so we can fix this mess you created!
It is unfortunate that not one main poster at AB posted a link for the text of the debt ceiling bill or provided any serious analysis of the bill let alone a real summary.
Maybe none of them know how to find the legislation. Or maybe they would just prefer to keep all AB readers in the dark.
Over the years I became a liberal, it was some time early in my 30 years as a military officer (20 in reserves). During that time I paid a lot of dues, one was for life membership in one of those lobby group fronts for the military industrial congress complex. Last night I filled a survey for them it is filled with leading questions designed for them to say “this professional group thinks such or such cuts will harm national secuirity”.
I did not respond as they would expect.
Two issues hit me. One is that “security” is seen to depend on huge spending on weapons and support contractors, a lot of profit and a lot of PAC money. Two, that anyone who is sanctioned by these professional organizations is only allowed to be in favor of more money for “security”.
I am sure none in this group would consider me an expert in security affiars, however, I am very knowledgeable of the faults of the weapon acquisition system. Most of the security “experts” are pundits, who have neither correlation nor causation for why their “expert opinion” is for ever more money and expensive non performing stuff.
http://astrofibo.blogspot.com/2011/07/dji-interesting-time-ratio.html
My mother says if the Social Security checks stop she and her cousin Ellen and my cousin Mary are all moving in with us.
Mrs. Rustbelt did not find that amusing.
You are lucky to have a parent, yet.
That is the way it was, my Great Granddad lived with my Grandmother when I was a child.
Back to the 30’s is a tea party meme.
Remedial reading for hostile progressives and wannabe socialists:
Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending
by Anthony Gregory
July 29, 2011
http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory229.html
Subject: Treason Against USA
Hi,
These “secret pledges” signed by GOP supersede and conflict with their pledge of allegiance to the USA.
So I signed a petition to President Barack Obama, which says:
“I believe that secret pledges signed by GOPs in congress violate our constitution as the supersede the pledge of allegiance to the USA and their purpose is the destroy the economy of our country. This is treason, which is a crime in our country.”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/treason-against-usa?source=s.em.cp&r_by=431288
Thanks!
Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House Deputy Chief of Staff, wrote a White House blog piece on national health expenditures which was posted at 3:00 AM on 28 July.
DeParle stated that the CMS issued a report on 28 July which served as the basis for her blog post. She didn’t bother to explain that CMS stands for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). She offered a hint by saying that the CMS report was issued by the Office of the Actuary. Well, that and the fact that she was discussing healthcare expenditures.
You would think that it would be easy to find that report. Not the case. The White House Deputy Chief of Staff DeParle didn’t provide a link. No news articles that I read on Thursday provided the link. That left the nightmare of CMS. And a nightmare it was. I did find the report eventually, but I have misplaced the link.
Good luck finding the 28 July report at CMS.
If you find the link, please post it. Thanks.
ilsm,
Why don’t you also tell the AB readers what you stated (typed in) when you signed the MoveOn.org sponsored SignOn.org petition?
Mrs. Rustbelt is right. The willingness of a child or in-law to support a parent or other elder is proportional to how they were treated by that person. My first thought was. “How dare they!” I would expect them to have a paid-off house and be reasonably frugal, but that’s not always the case.
The more interesting question is why they would need to move in with a relative as soon as the checks stop. Are they THAT broke? I’ve moved a lot of times, and there are considerable costs to moving. The most vile moves are those that are a very short distance, because you are tempted to take everything with you.
I was lucky. A few days before my father died, my elder sisters demanded that I contribute money toward ending my father to rehab (alcohol) and assisted living. I refused because they wanted me to sign a blank check and they didn’t have their facts straight. Odds are that they were looking to have me pay the entire bill, but I knew something that they didn’t: many assisted living facilities charge an admission fee in the tens of thousands of dollars that is non-refundable. As far as I was concerned, I hd no obligation to contrbute to Dad’s care because I hadn’t bled him of his retirement money as my sisters had. I had argued against him taking a lump sum pension distribution because that was all that he would get, but he didn’t listen. They could have gotten him on Medicaid as I had done with my grandfather. ifthey wanted him to be taken care of by others, but Dad wouldn’t have agreed to that. He wanted a nice place for heis last years, nicer than the apartment that he had. This family fight became moot when Dad died abot 10 days later.
One of the really big surprises of reitirement is how small a seemingly large amount of money is when you have to view it as an income team.
CoRev–You’ve never met a socialist. Know how I know? Because I HAVE and they are the most boooorrrrrriiinnnggggggg people I ever met, and I have met a whole lotta people! Communists are even worse, because utterly morose and devoid of humor. You, being a member of the upper ranks of civil servants and therefore extremely sensitive to social improprieties, would have perished away from a single contact no matter how brief merely by virtue of your delicate nature.
I, however, had to be made of tougher stuff since I had the duty to serve the American public in whatever form they walked in the door. My experience taught me that stone Randian’s are nasty and want to smoke in your office. Anti-tax believers are worse. Sovreign citizens are armed and Rolls Royce driving real estate typhoons own everything down to the official portraits of the Pres and VicePres on the wall. Hell’s Angels members are, on the other hand, quite nice if you don’t mess with their bikes. Now, where was I?
TaTa. Gotta go over to my bird blogs now and find a suitable video of some raptor or otherwise predatory creature looking really cool for the edification of the Bears here assembled. NancyO
Cool, ilsm. I signed up because I think that to reject the basic premise of representative democracy, as we now see in the debt limit charade, is essentially revolutionary and seditious. So, no one can doubt what I think, I wrote it here, MG. NancyO
Well said, Ripley. Your sisters should have looked into the law regarding asset transfers before assuming the money would last forever, as you say. People behave very badly in such circumstances, and then feel abused when they have no reason to. NancyO
Okeydokey, here is this weeks animal pictures, just stills this time. I have never seen close up still pictures of insects like these before. Amazing may explain how some insects never seem to drink anything. Visually fascinating. Ta Ta! NancyO
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1260946/The-stunning-pictures-sleeping-insects-covered-early-morning-dew.html
Link to photos referred to in earlier msg. NancyO
MG,
You have seen it go ahead.
Nancy,
You’re clueless about who made the post to which you responded.
MG,
Capitalism. Faith in the invisible hand. About the same as Camelot.
Toward the end of the next “dark ages”, as if the imperial Rome/Vatican axis were so bright, there will be romance novels about capitalism, and no archeologist will find evidence of its existence.
I wonder how they will portray the greed as chivalrie with the monetized confidence games called money and banking.
What we were fighting for in 1940 was Stalin, Chiang, and Chruchill. Against the truly anti Boshevists of Europe.
The unbridled right to property no matter how many people suffer and die.
Galt as Arthur.
Chivalrie is property.
MG,
I am looking for the link to the DoD comptroller’s testimony in congress last week that they can’t get the “asset side” books lined up for years and it won’t ever happen if the adminstration and congress don’t make it an issue.
He was being abit duplicitious, the reason is no one knows what specifications were met when the US paid for those things.
Like what spec was met when the Air Force paid for 182 F-22 which are now grounded due to a defect in the oxygen system causing hypoxia in the highly trained pilots.
There’s lots of things to study.
ilsm,
Here is the statement which you included in the petition list when you signed up to support the petition:
“The tea partyand Rupert Murdoch have extorted the US congress to become inhuamne fascists. Norquist and his backdoor deals is worse than Hitler and the NAZIs.”
You have lost touch with reality. The recorded history of the activities of Germany’s Hitler and the Nazis appears to be subject matter for which you have a damned poor understanding and/or recollection.
You have all the leftists talking points down.
I wouldn’t expect that you would see any merits in capitalism. But others may.
“Remedial reading for hostile progressives and wannabe socialists:”
“Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending”
by Anthony Gregory
The book may be well worth reading. The implication of the comment is nonsense. There are very few progressives that want to be socialists and there are very few socialists that have any voice in our government or MSM. I have rarely read here, or on any other liberal/progressive web site, that capitalism is an evil process. The point of most criticisms of capitalists is that they practice their ideology in a avariciously greedy manner. They don’t want to pay taxes, that interferes with their ability to either accumulate or consume more assets. They want yet a greater share of the GDP. They don’t like unions that make an effort to coordinate the needs and the power of the otherwise powerless. They don’t like anything about their government that interferes with their greed. They don’t even recognize (at least they don’t admit) that the government represents their interests to a far greater extent than it does the average American worker.
Jack,
You’re too lazy to verify that Gregory wrote an article or book under the title that I identified with the author’s name. That is laughable.
Gregory wrote an article titled “Why Capitalism Is Worth Defending”. My lead comment was a take on a comment that Gregory made in the artice: “Progressives and socialists are downright hostile”.
Why don’t you stop your usual BS condemnation attacks and read the article before running your loud mouth.
You haven’t read the article, so you don’t know what the hell Gregory said.
You are clueless on Gregory’s opinion.
The petition that ilsm, Nancy, and others support is a poorly written document. The petition states that “secret pledges” have been “signed by GOPs in congress” which supposedly “violate our constitution as the supersede the pledge of allegiance to the USA and their purpose is to destroy the economy of our country. This is treason, which is a crime in our country.”
What secret pledges? What subjects are covered in such supposed “secret pledges”? If the pledges are secret, how does the author know what is stated in such “secret pledges”? Where is there any evidence in the petition what the “secret pledges” state?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” violate the U.S. Constitution?
How do the “secret pledges” supersede the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” have as a purpose to “to destroy the economy of our country”?
Which statements in the “secret pledges” violate the U.S. Constitution’s treason provision, or U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2381? Do the petition author and petition supporters understand the limitations of charging an individual with treason in the United States of America?
What are “GOPs”?
This is an exceptionally poorly written petition that individuals are supporting.
The petition author fails to acknowledge that members of Congress swear to and sign an Oath of Office. If there is a legal conflict worthy of court consideration, it would be one between the “secret pledges” and the Congressional members’ Oath of Office as well as any known or implied violations of the U.S. Constitution and supporting body of laws identified in the U.S. Code.
If one assumes that the petition author is referring to the Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) “Taxpayer Protection Pledge”, the premise that the pledges are “secret pledges” is nonsense. The text of the ATR pledge is published, available online. The members of the U.S. Congress who have signed the ATR pledge are identified by name at the ATR website.
The treason petition as written is junk. Yet, individuals are foolish enough to support such crap.
Merits, provide a list, I will follow no links.
And you can’t even recognize that it is not Gregory that I am addressing. It is you that I am addressing. It is your baseless implication that capitalism as an economic practice that is under attack here at AB or virtually any other progressive economic web site. We’re not arguing about the value of capitalism. Most arguments here are about the greed off too many managers of capitalist organizations. Gregory’s opinions aren’t relevant unless he wants to express them here in defense of the greediest behavior of too many who call themselves capitalists, but who produce nothing other than a financial trade her or there.
Jack,
My answer about capitalism is the US is: “I would be all in favor of it”. As Gandhi replied when asked about western civilization.
It is some ideologue’s ideal which is not the way it is.
So, what is there for the Lew Rockwell’s guy to sell or defend?
Liberarian ideals are property over any other human organization, need or right. Which sells on wall st, as long as they don’t recognize that money makes property surreal.
ilsm,
I could care less what you think about capitalism. I could care less as well if you never read any links on Angry Bear.
Anyone crazy enough to state that “Norquist and his backdoor deals is worse than Hitler and the NAZIs” is too far gone for me.
I believe that it would be in your best interest to seek medical help at this point. I say that with seriousness and concern for your well being.
You appear to be out of balance if not over the edge, ilsm. That’s not good.
Jack,
You’re the person who said, “The book may be well worth reading.” As such, you failed to understand that Anthony Gregory had only written the article that I cited.
I already explained that my lead comment was a take on a comment that Gregory made in the artice: “Progressives and socialists are downright hostile”. Apparently, you’re not smart enough to get that point.
When you pop up with your “we” junk, know that you don’t speak for the thousands of people who read Dan’s blog every week. You have no clue as to who most of them are. You’re just off in your world of pretending. I don’t waste time posting comments solely for the handful of liberals and conservatives who still participate on Angry Bear comment threads or even the three or so acknowledged independent voters who are not wrapped up in the ideology being pushed by either major political party. There are other individuals out in the real world who read Dan’s blog. My interest is to share whatever I think with them as well. And there is no question that Angry Bear would benefit significantly from a whole new group of participants, hopefully smart enough not to repeat the same old boring talking points and useless political soundbites, regardless of political ideology.
What you don’t appear to grasp is that AB used to be a high quality economics blog years before you showed up that focused heavily on economic data, outcomes, and projections. There used to be many well read participants at Angry Bear who were capable of discussing the macro issues in detail. People actually came to Angry Bear to learn and share their economic expertise and opinions. Well, that changed and Dan is left with very few participants who are focused primarily on macro economic issues. This blog has been dragged into becoming a mere political ideological mess that offers very little value from the standard non-economic blogs that focus primarily on such stuff. Dan knows it. And the loss of so many well informed participants who grasped the macro economic information and data so well who have left the blog did so because of the political mess that occurred according to some who have shared their thoughts with me.
I put up a comment that references a well written piece defending capitalism. That was my choice on an Open Thread. And yes, there have been individuals on the AB comment threads who have said that they are socialists and others who have said they could embrace a form of socialism over the capitalism system. AB has even had a few communists visit the blog from time to time. Presently, AB is suffering from a lack of participants who demonstrate primary interest in serious macro economic main posts. Now, that’s a shame but it is where AB is at the moment. Instead, much of the thread chatter is oriented toward political ideologies, political soundbites, political hatreds, political nonsense from one end to the other, and so on. AB has a long way to go in recapturing its fine reputation for economic commentary on macro issues. The other subject matter is fine as all of it has a place, but it cost the blog dearly in terms of participants.
Now, here you are crying wolf over my opinions about individuals who support capitalism, oppose capitalism, question the value of capitalism or promote other economic systems, none of which were stated in the comment post over which you are whining.
You don’t speak for everyone on the blog nor its general readership. You don’t speak for other blogs. You don’t speak for millions of individual who live in the United States. And you’re so foolishly arrogant […]
MG,
ilsm is a Buchanaite isolationist. He is so far out of the mainstream he can’t even see it. He’s lost it long ago. Just ignore him.
He at least occaisionally brings some facts with him unlike Jack.
Islam will change
MG,
Go get them. The leftist stupidity no’s little bounds. Heck even in Wisconsin the leftist have been proven wrong!
Islam will change
Thanks MG.
Jack,
“It is your baseless implication that capitalism as an economic practice that is under attack here at AB or virtually any other progressive economic web site.”
You’re kidding right? Most of the commentors here support some sort of Command and Control economy, and several have even admitted to endorseing “Socialism,” including Bruce Webb, a poster here.
You have several times attacked the Capialist system, whether you realize it or not, and there should be no question that the constant drumbeat of class warfare is a symptom of this type of thinking. Almost every comment you make revolves around the Class Warfare talking points, the same used by the radical Marxists in this country.
Appreciate it, Buff.
Buff,
True.
Darren,
Welcome to AB. Its a nice community for the most part. You will have to wade through the almost constant attack on capitalism and economic freedom (and individual freedom in general), but it is a good place to get some fact-based economic insight. Mike Kimmel (cactus), Linda, and Bruce are really good in bringing the data and so is MG and Sammy in the comments. Bruce has an excellent primer on SS that used to be linked at the top that explained how the system worked.(Where did it go?). Bruce’s latest is a good example of a thought-piece that will get you thinking even if you disagree with his conclusions (usually for the need of stronger and more pervasive central government).
Please come by a post often.
Islam will change
But you do have to wade through the highly partisan, at times DKos-hatesite style, coments at times. So far Rdan has decided he doesn’t want to run an echo chamber so as long as you are reasonably polite you won’t get banned.
You can’t make up this stuff:
White House Believed Republicans Would Agree to Tax Increases, and Also, in Magic Unicorns
By Blue Texan
Monday August 1, 2011 11:15 am
http://firedoglake.com/2011/08/01/white-house-believed-republicans-would-agree-to-tax-increases-and-also-in-magic-unicorns
“Buried in a post by Jonathan Chait is this shocker: “The third mistake lay in assuming Republicans would agree to raise tax revenue. I spoke several times with administration officials who asserted with total confidence that Republicans would simply have to acknowledge the need for more revenue. They betrayed a complete misunderstanding of the party they’re dealing with.”
“How can this even be possible?
“What would lead them to believe that? Have they been in some kind of cryogenic freeze for the past 10 years? Have they never heard of Grover Norquist? Did they really think all those rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, newly-elected Teabaggers would actually agree to higher taxes?
“If this is true, the problem isn’t that the White House is filled with a bunch of crypto-Republicans. It’s filled with a bunch of idiots.
“I actually find that more disturbing.”
——
Idiots, no doubt.
BuffPilot,
O.K……Thanks
I guess I just don’t understand why the Left is afraid to admit what they really are. If they really want some sort Socialist system, then why don’t they just come out and and say it, and let the debate begin. More could be learned and accomplished if they would just explain what they want. And if they are so confident then they should have no problem explaining to us how it could possibly work, and why it is “for the good of the country.”
Oh…I know why….it’s because they have to hide it, they know it will be roundly rejected, but they don’t care. So they force it, or manipulate their way into it. They almost have us there anyway…I just hope that when they get us there they will grow up and learn from it, so we as a country can move on. It’s all emotion!
I suspect by the end of Obama second term, unless Republicans can get a Super Majority in the House and Senate….the Capitalist system will be breathing it’s last breaths, and they will finally get what they want at the expense of the rest of us. Maybe they will finally shut the hell up!
From Darren: “I guess I just don’t understand why the Left is afraid to admit what they really are. If they really want some sort Socialist system, then why don’t they just come out and and say it, and let the debate begin.”
So let me understand your point Darren. The choice is only between laissez faire capitalism and all out socialism (ie state ownership of assets and the means of production)? Is that what you think liberal or progressive or left of center ideology requires? That’s not even close to the truth. What you will read from virtually all progressive economists is that capitalism, like all other human behaivor, requires a regulatory frame work laying out the boundaries of acceptable behavior and how such organizations would be expected to function in a complex society and contribute to that society. Like so many right wing apologists you set up a false dichotomy. You suggest that any control over business behavior by the government is a move towards Socialism. Are laws of contract permissible in your paradigm? Is any form of taxation acceptable?
How is the need for structuring business activities in a complex society equivalent to ownership by the state?
Welcome to Angry Bear where readers are more impressed by the logic and validity of one’s comments rather than the stridency of one’s ideology. When what you have to say sounds like part of the script from All In the Family you should expect others to laugh at it.
Jack,
You are refering to the dated reference of “Progressive.” That has nothing to do with the Modern Progressive Movement, for which we are witnessing now thru Obama and the Democratic Party.
When people like you are still hounding the buisness sector for more regulation, when it is regulation itself that forced the economic disaster upon the buisness community, it says alot.
People like you need to get out of the way, so we can fix this mess you created!
It is unfortunate that not one main poster at AB posted a link for the text of the debt ceiling bill or provided any serious analysis of the bill let alone a real summary.
Maybe none of them know how to find the legislation. Or maybe they would just prefer to keep all AB readers in the dark.
Pathetic.