Letters to the Editor
-
@ New Deal Dem
Thank you!
I often wonder why, since Clinton is running on the 1990s, there isn't more of an examination of precisely what that legacy is.
As one who never supported Bill Clinton for the reasons you invoke, I'd love to see this election actually be a referendum on her husband's legacy, both to the Democratic party as well as to the country in general.
-
Obama's plan
I think this highlights a significant distinction between HRC and Obama. HRC approach as she demonstrated in the failed health care plan is to nail down all the details, develop "the perfect plan" and then "fight" to get people on board. Obama I believe(as did Ronald Reagan) sees the Presidential role as setting the general direction and then working the political process to move in that direction. The problem with setting forth a detailed proposal is that any compromises are seen as losses and it is real easy to get bogged down in the weeds. Good facilitators understand this.
In many respects this election is about what we want from the President. Somebody who tells us what to do or somebody who helps "we the people" achieve a more perfect union somebody who recognizes the inherent genius of the people working collectively. In this respect I would disagree with your assertion and argue that Obama is more Friedman and less Keynes. It also explains the great generation divide in this election. Younger Americans are more used to the facilitator and less used to the command and control of the elder generation.
-
The McCain Morons respond:
Tucker Bounds, McCain campaign spokesman issued the following statement on Mr. Obama’s speech: "No amount of rhetoric can hide Senator Obama’s clear record of embracing the liberal tax and spend, big government policies that hit hardworking American families at a time when they’re most vulnerable, and are certain to move America backward."
Like a fucking broken record! Just how do those "hardworking American families" feel right about now about McCain/Bush economic policies? D'ya think they're willing to "stay the course"?
Oh man, I'm starting to believe we're gonna bury this imbecilic relic, burn off his coattails, and run a few more Republicans outta Washington.
(Yeah, yeah... call me when that actually happens ...but I'm feelin' it. I'm feelin' it!)
-
Obama the Moderate
When you compare Obama and Clinton on health care, and now on financial market reform, you start to see how Republican claims that Obama is the most liberal senator on the floor are so much hot air. Few would mark Clinton with this label and she is significantly to the left of Obama on both of these issues.
Moreover, she is less realistic. A universal health care mandate would have gov't bureaucrats diving under bridges to strongarm the homeless into signing up for insurance. Likewise, a rate freeze would further dry-up the already barren mortgage market and increase the severity and length of the housing crisis.
Fundamentally, there's a big difference between regulating the rules of the game and attempting to regulate the rules of economics. That Obama understands this, and Clinton does not, makes him the favorable candidate.
-
Yeah, right. New rules for nobody to adhere to. And really, there is no difference between the parties.
For those deluded souls who might still think there is no significant difference between the two major parties in the United States, a review of McCain and Obama's speeches this week is in order. They are like bookends at opposite ends of the economics shelf. Obama snuggles up to John Maynard Keynes, while McCain seeks the warm embrace of Milton Friedman.
And they all snuggle up to the Military Industrial Complex, the Central Banks, and the Banksters, not to mention Zionist hardliners like Hagee and AIPAC. All fundamental problems that they won't talk about and have no solutions for, because to the establishment, these thing are not problems but policy pillars. And, on varying levels they all support our Interventionist foreign policy of DU Diplomacy and Spreading Democracy around the world, none of them oppose "Making the World Safe for Democracy" through American Intervention, be it medieval sieges, bases, or bombs, they only disagree on how they can blow people up without making us look like jerks in the eyes of the neighbors. None of them are going to close down our 800+ bases around the world, they'll just argue about it while Kellog, Brown, and Root keep on keeping on.
But really, they are different! They have different plans to destroy the country by letting an unaccountable, appointed Banksters named Bernanke continue to give all his Bankster pals everything they want and putting everyone else on the hook for it. It isn't like Bernanke really answers to anyone, he just mezmorises the committee while they drink at his alter.
Obama sounded like he understood what he was talking about. McCain sounded like he was reading a speech designed to make him look like he understood what was going on.
None of them know what they are talking about. They just repeat the lies their advisers feed them. They say things like they support a strong dollar while Paulson goes and tells China and Japan that we support a weak dollar. They are all clowns and none of them care about the collapsing greenback, they are probably hoping the dollar is wiped out by the time they take office so they don't have to deal with it.
And more rules or new rules are the answer. Sure they are. More rules for everyone to ignore, the same way they've been ignoring and/or exploiting the current rules.
-
@ Ricardo Malocchio
Yeee hawww!!
-
They're both a pair of stinkin' liberals
The political parties that is.
The government has the responsibility to create a level economic playing field. One way this is done is by disclosure requirements - so we're all talking the same language. Another is to create rules that prevent some market participants from having an economic advantage - the G-S Act wasn't perfect but it did prevent the gamblers from having access to other people's money with which to do their betting which is the essence of our current difficulties.
They also have the responsibility to define economic crimes (remind me again - why aren't we prosecuting some of these mortgage brokers for fraud?).
It is not the government's role to hand out economic goodies. In living memory, the Republicrats have been giving them out to big business and the Demicans have always handed them out to the people. Neither vision of liberal giveaways is appropriate.