The void stares back...

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[David Orange]

As we teeter on the brink of a collapse of the United States, much the same as hit the Soviet Union, we shouldn't think that this happened overnight or especially in the last three years.

It seems we have a cabal in Congress who want to "destroy America to save it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=2

[lbb]

It seems we have a cabal in Congress who want to "destroy America to save it."

Yeah, classic revolutionary theory: "the worse, the better". Ralph Nader is very much of this mindset.

[dps]

The cabal would be the congress and president being of the same political party and having the same economic goals.

No checks and balances like the founding fathers envisioned.

dps

[phitruong]

No checks and balances like the founding fathers envisioned.

dps

our checks bounce and our budget isn't balance.

i wonder if china recalls our loan, wouldn't they be owning the west side of the Mississippi? and east side, if OPEC nations recall their. so would we be spending money on defense for something that we are no longer own? when you default on your home loan, you get evict out of your house. how do you evict a country?

sometimes i wonder if it wouldn't be better if we used the money we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan to buy those countries out right, would it be cheaper?

[dps]

our checks bounce and our budget isn't balance.

i wonder if china recalls our loan, wouldn't they be owning the west side of the Mississippi? and east side, if OPEC nations recall their. so would we be spending money on defense for something that we are no longer own? when you default on your home loan, you get evict out of your house. how do you evict a country?

sometimes i wonder if it wouldn't be better if we used the money we spent on Iraq and Afghanistan to buy those countries out right, would it be cheaper?

Probably.

It would of been simpler and cheaper if Obama had just given every adult citizen 1 million dollars instead of given billions to his banking and corporate buddies.

dps

[Janet Rosen]

Probably.

It would of been simpler and cheaper if Obama had just given every adult citizen 1 million dollars instead of given billions to his banking and corporate buddies.

dps

Looking for the thumbs up or +1 button.....

[David Orange]

The cabal would be the congress and president being of the same political party and having the same economic goals.

No checks and balances like the founding fathers envisioned.

dps

Yeah. That's why Bush ran up 5 trillion and Obama ran up 1 billion and the real cabal in congress is crying that we have to stop him. Don't kid yourself, Bud.

The Tea Party is wailing now when they were cheering as the horse left the stable.

Vote Republican if you want to feed the rich and screw yourself.

David

[David Orange]

Probably.

It would of been simpler and cheaper if Obama had just given every adult citizen 1 million dollars instead of given billions to his banking and corporate buddies.

dps

Whereas Bush only gave a few 10-million each to a handful of warlords and heroin producers. It trickles down, though, of course.

The New York Times has shown quite clearly who the thief was.

And who the thieves are now.

[David Orange]

The New York Times has shown quite clearly who the thief was.

And who the thieves are now.

Has anyone noticed how the Republicans are using the debt ceiling issue on Obama almost exactly as they used the Whitewater thing on Clinton, while Al Quaeda was building strength and infiltrating the US?

The Republicans ran up 5 Trillion under Bush. They are unquestionably the cause of the financial collapse of 2008...and NOW they call for fiscal responsibility? And not only call for it but are ready to sink the economy to get it? After all... if it hurts the Democrats...it's good, right?

And what life-and-death issues are the Republicans forcing Obama to ignore right now, as they forced Clinton to hold back on bin Laden when they were grinding him on Whitewater and Monica Lewinski? Screw the country if they can score a point, right?

Let them have their way and in five years there will be no United States. We will be a mass of "former US States," and when someone says "Georgia," they'll have to distinguish between the "former Soviet State" and the "former US State".

[sakumeikan]

Dear All.
It seems to me that the U.S.A and the U.K have almost reached the point of economic melt down.
In the U.K the politicians are paid good wages, enjoying expenses accounts and many are fiddling the books .Meanwhile bankers [after ruining their Banks by high risk investments] are getting bonuses of millions of pounds.Firms are closing down on a weekly basis.
Meanwhile the common people are facing increased costs, unemployment.Student fees at Universities are increasing dramatically.The young kids have little prospect of work.
The Army, navy , air force and the police are all set for reductions in man power.Our laws are dictated by Brussels.Immigration from third world countries are at a all time high.I am not even on the subjects of Afghanistan.
Neither political party is any help in this situation.Possibly like America we are being led by a bunch of self serving individuals.
Cheers, Joe.

[Janet Rosen]

Bush was a lying war criminal willing to bankrupt the country. Obama is a spineless patsy to the capitalist class who keeps negotiating to the middle of the road even as the road twists ever rightward. We have been and are screwed.

[Tim Fong]

Actually this is a ploy by the White House and the leadership of Congress to ramrod through so-called austerity measures. These are a means of enriching a small group of people at the expense of the economic and physical well-being of the American people.

What is sad is that the US can't go bankrupt, and it is taxes that drive the value of money. This entire debt ceiling debate is a crock of crap:

More on this:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/michael-hudson-mr-obama’s-scare-tactics-to-get-democrats-to-vote-for-his-republican-wall-street-plan.html

For those that prefer a video explanation, Yves Smith on debt ceiling extortion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_yAh27O4jA&feature=player_embedded

[David Orange]

Bush was a lying war criminal willing to bankrupt the country. Obama is a spineless patsy to the capitalist class who keeps negotiating to the middle of the road even as the road twists ever rightward. We have been and are screwed.

My only change to your statement would be that "Bush is a lying war criminal.."

Obama has been very disappointing in putting medicare cuts on the table while letting the right refuse to consider taxes on the super-wealthy. Very disappointing.

I have been accused here, at times, of fomenting class warfare. But Warren Buffet agrees with me: the super-wealthy class are hard at work waging economic war against everyone "beneath" them.

And the pack of baying cuckoos lined up for the Republican nomination for 2012 are just ridiculous.

[David Orange]

Actually this is a ploy by the White House and the leadership of Congress to ramrod through so-called austerity measures. These are a means of enriching a small group of people at the expense of the economic and physical well-being of the American people.

That's what it looks like, all right.

But the stage was carefully set by Bush and Friends over eight years of tax cuts and convincing the poor and ignorant to vote for the enrichment of the rich.

I said in 2000 that democracy had ended in the US.

I wish I had been wrong.

[dps]

And the pack of baying cuckoos lined up for the Republican nomination for 2012 are just ridiculous.

Compared to the braying on the other side.

http://geaugaconstitutionalcouncil.org/userfiles/image/Jackass_braying_donkey.jpg

dps

[lbb]

Bush was a lying war criminal willing to bankrupt the country. Obama is a spineless patsy to the capitalist class who keeps negotiating to the middle of the road even as the road twists ever rightward. We have been and are screwed.

...and Janet gets my vote for president, or would, if the idea weren't essentially bankrupt.

But the alternative isn't the void. The problem with progressive politics is that for at least a generation, progressives have conditioned themselves to seek solutions for every problem in the form of a top-down policy initiative. And, to be sure, they had their place; I wouldn't want to be without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. But the great policy initiatives of the last century and a half came about because there was enough of a screaming need to create enough of a consensus to get it done at the top and get it (mostly) accepted at the bottom. Those conditions no longer obtain. The solution now is to build the change you want from the bottom up. Don't wait for national policy to come around to favor you, you'll be dead before it does. Don't try to sway national policy to favor you, there are a lot of rich and powerful guys who are bent on swaying policy in their favor, and the only way you're getting any crumbs is if they choose to let them drop. Instead, create the conditions you want without depending on policy to make it happen.

[David Orange]

http://geaugaconstitutionalcouncil.org/userfiles/image/Jackass_braying_donkey.jpg



Bray as you might, you can't disguise the fact that it was your people who wrecked the economy, before your commander in thief left office, the full results of eight years of your policies.

Why anyone would believe that the Republicans can solve this problem for any but the super-wealthy, I can't understand.

Just yesterday, I was talking with a friend about how the wealthy slave-holding Southern landowners were able to talk the poor, landless, non-slave-owning peasants of the South into fighting the Civil War to uphold the rights of the wealthy against the good of their own families. Those are the Bush voters of 2000, the Republican voters of 2011.

[David Orange]

The solution now is to build the change you want from the bottom up. Don't wait for national policy to come around to favor you, you'll be dead before it does. Don't try to sway national policy to favor you, there are a lot of rich and powerful guys who are bent on swaying policy in their favor, and the only way you're getting any crumbs is if they choose to let them drop. Instead, create the conditions you want without depending on policy to make it happen.

Sounds great, but completely abstract. Can you give some concrete examples?

[Cliff Judge]

Personally, this whole debt ceiling issue is causing me to really appreciate a functional government where elected officials find a middle ground and make things work. This is a new realization for me.

Yes I have my ideology. Yes, I get greatly upset when I vote for somebody based on a campaign that is in line with my ideology, and then when they get into office I see them vote for things that are against my ideology.

But this is how the frickin' thing is supposed to work. Its reality. Congresspeople should go behind closed doors where they don't have to worry about being drawn and quartered over being friendly with their counterparts across the aisle. And then they hammer out a deal that doesn't satisfy either sides ideology completely.

The big problem with American politics is that it is actually very responsive to the voters - how else did the Tea Party suddenly acquire so much power that they could get enough seats in the House that the GOP can't even pass its own plan? And the voters don't understand how the government is really supposed to work.

So election day rolls around and you are like "should I vote for incumbent?" and you look at what he or she voted for in their past term. Oh look - its a bunch of terrible stuff that you don't agree with and seems to be opposite what their platform is. Well, they must be a dishonest, scummy politician! Dang rotten scoundrels!

Well what you entirely miss is the context surrounding that vote. The self-proclaimed environmentalist candidate voted to increase a cap in emmissions as a concession, and in return, sometime down the line, a pro-business colleague from the other party gave a YES vote to conserving a bunch of wetlands, despite owing some allegiance to a corporate interest that wanted to pave them.

You are sitting in front of your computer, and all you see is that there was a vote for something you disagree with. To understand the context from primary sources is a lot of work for every single thing you might see.

This is exactly how the tea party candidates got elected. They connected with voters who were unable to grasp the context behind compromises and concessions. They campaigned to end "buisness as usual on Capitol Hill" and that's what they are delivering right now.

[lbb]

Sounds great, but completely abstract. Can you give some concrete examples?

All it takes is a little imagination. Look around you at the problems that surround you, whatever they are, and start seeing ways that they could be solved locally. Give me a concrete problem, I'll give you some ideas for concrete solutions.

[mathewjgano]

But the alternative isn't the void. The problem with progressive politics is that for at least a generation, progressives have conditioned themselves to seek solutions for every problem in the form of a top-down policy initiative. And, to be sure, they had their place; I wouldn't want to be without the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. But the great policy initiatives of the last century and a half came about because there was enough of a screaming need to create enough of a consensus to get it done at the top and get it (mostly) accepted at the bottom. Those conditions no longer obtain. The solution now is to build the change you want from the bottom up. Don't wait for national policy to come around to favor you, you'll be dead before it does. Don't try to sway national policy to favor you, there are a lot of rich and powerful guys who are bent on swaying policy in their favor, and the only way you're getting any crumbs is if they choose to let them drop. Instead, create the conditions you want without depending on policy to make it happen.

+1 What I consider to be the great progressive actions of the "modern" age were only put in place after something like a river catching fire again and again and again, or a book being written about slaughterhouse conditions, or people taking to the streets to demand equal treatment by the law.
I'm at the point now that while I will happily be honest and say I lean more toward the left than to the right, anyone who talks about the problem being "them," instantly loses my confidence. Party lines are arbitrary apart from establishing someone to scratch your back.
That said, while I'm frustrated with Democrats for their usual crap, I'm more frustrated with Republicans for not owning theirs in the current state of economics. Maybe if they were more concerned with having answers instead of making Obama look bad (which I believe is somewhat the natural result after gaving so much "political capital" and pissing it away like they did...and they did).
I own the fact that I'm an ignorant citizen catching only glimpses of the truth, and hope for a reasonable retort rather than the condescending crap I almost always see. I saw a great discussion on The Daily Show with the former head of NPR (a republican if I recall correctly) that actually made me like what I saw a republican say. It was refreshing, because I don't often actively like what I hear.

[David Orange]

""There are many people still (rightfully) angry that no one in the Bush cabinet paid any price for their actions, much like many of us are angry that no one from Wall Street has paid a price for the financial meltdown. But don't hear Obama mention Bush by name, usually using the generic "Republican administration" to reflect on the 8 years prior to his presidency. There is almost no effort in the national debate to talk about Republican-incurred Debt and deficit under Bush. Enough. Let's discuss George W. Bush and why we're dealing with such large numbers in the first place. Here's a few facts to begin with:

Bush's Republican administration increased the federal budget by 104 percent.

In his last term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending by 48.6 percent.

130 current members of congress voted to increase the debt limit under Bush.

President Bush promised to pay off the national debt in his first address to Congress in 2001: "At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history."

What really happened: Debt held by the public increased from $3.5 trillion to nearly $6 trillion and gross federal debt rose from $5.6 trillion to nearly $10 trillion.

Two wars (and yes, Obama has continued to add to their initial costs), a Medicare prescription drug plan and multiple tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. ALL on the national credit card, making up the bulk of our issue with the debt and the deficit. And though it's Obama's to deal with and clean up, it was Bush's to start. So was TARP. And so was the housing bubble and Wall Street meltdown, which were already crashing when Bush left office. The housing problem is one of the biggest drags on our economy and though Wall Street has miraculously bounced back to business as usual, the housing market has stayed on the floor, like an anchor on our economy.

""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/bush-debt-ceiling-_b_913789.html

[dps]

Just yesterday, I was talking with a friend about how the wealthy slave-holding Southern landowners were able to talk the poor, landless, non-slave-owning peasants of the South into fighting the Civil War to uphold the rights of the wealthy against the good of their own families. Those are the Bush voters of 2000, the Republican voters of 2011.

Actually the Democratic Party has roots with the "wealthy slave-holding Southern landowners"who enslaved the blacks and tried to prevent their freedom and right to vote during and after the Civil War.

dps

[genin]

I look a the endless conflicts between democrats and republicans the same way I used to look at my friends parents when they fought. Each would say horrible things about each other, which were usually true, and yet each person thought THEY were right and the other was wrong. Meanwhile I looked on at the both of them and thought "Both these people are morons."

The political and economic system in America has gone from a farce, to a running joke, to now what is just plain shameful. I mean think about the "hanging chads" incident in Florida in 2000. Remember when Al Gore came on TV and pretended to be our president? And at the same time the internet bubble bursts, Greenspan talks of "irrational exuberance", and the stock market implodes. This is also amidst numerous instances of corporate malfeasance personafied by the Enron debacle and continuing on for the next ten years with other companies like Worldcom and even individuals like Bernie Madoff who continued to fleece Americans through complex financial scams. Then you have the bank crisis, which actually went hand in hand with the real estate slump we've been stuck in for the last few years. And the war....that's a whole nother ball of wax.

[jester]

Bring back Ronald Reagan!!

http://www8.georgetown.edu/centers/cndls/applications/posterTool/data/users/59376.jpg

[dps]

Or his little buddy.

http://disruptthenarrative.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/georgebush-missmeyet.jpg

dps

[jester]

Or his little buddy.

dps

Senior was his little buddy not Junior!!

-

[James Davis]

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. " - B. Franklin

All of this started quite a while ago. People of both major political parties are constantly lobbying to retain their favorite government program, while crying about everyone else's. Whether it be Medicare, or Oill industry tax breaks, everyone's pointing the finger at someone else and crying foul that they have an unfair advantage. Ever since the income tax was voted in, it's been used by both major political parties to benefit their friends and bludgeon their enemies. I'm not a tall guy, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous that the tax code printed and stacked beside me is taller than I am. Every time lawmakers "give" us some new and wonderful government program, you'll notice two things: The language of the bill is written in the most complicated language that they can come up with, and the lawmakers themselves are exempt from participation in the program. They vote exemption for themselves because they know the true purpose of the program is vote buying; any benefit to taxpayers is just a byproduct. Our leaders have for decades been doing the same thing Bernie Madoff did. He's in jail. His investors are broke. The Feds are still in control, and we have a "lock box" full of IOUs where our Social Security money should be.

That's the truly ludicrous part of this whole deal; the fact that none of this stuff is paid for. We're in debt up to our noses, and lawmakers still look no further than the next election when making their decisions about the future of our nation. People are still contacting their representatives and making demands about what is to be done with money that other people have earned. Nobody wants to give up the "easy money" flowing down from Uncle Sugar. It's all paid for by debt, and China won't keep funding our crap forever. Our children are going to have to pay in the future for what we refuse to live without now. When I look at my kids, I do not feel OK about this.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. " - B. Franklin