Of course they don't..... they think Obama is here to save

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060523153709990005&ncid=NWS00010000000001

ALL who will need it in the next four years. That would be everyone who feels duped for having voted Obama in. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

In the words of Yogi Berra: 'It ain't over till it's over.' There will be another election in four years.

We gave Carter - the 1-term wonder - a chance and he wrecked the economy. Reagan fixed the economy (with tax cuts) and bankrupted the USSR out of the arms race. There could be no more stark example of socialism vs free-market economics.

the trouble, let me be the first to accuse you of being a racist, a paranoid, a nasty, hateful person (did I miss anything?) for bringing up all these facts about the president and the party who only have your best interests in mind. How dare you say these things when our brave president is trying his very best to fill your gas tank and pay your mortgage. You should be ashamed.

See? Now nobody else has to break a sweat typing furiously to put you in your place. I'm sure we all feel much better now.

It looks like our wonderful govt is thinking about another stimulus -- remember those tax rebates we got back in the spring of this year? It was $600 an individual and $1200 a couple. The govt doesn't want to do quite the same kind of stimulus as last time because -- get this -- 80% of the Americans who received it used it to either pay down debt or bolster savings. Here's what they want the new stimulus to do:

�The extension of unemployment benefits and possibly food stamps from 39 to 52 weeks.

�A boost in infrastructure spending, despite the problems of getting the money to work quickly.

�Some relief for state and local governments facing tighter budgets because of lower tax receipts and rising Medicaid costs.

God forbid we give something to the middle class -- let's extend the food stamps and boost the "infrastructure spending" -- what is that anyway? I'm guessing it's a way to line the pockets of the suits even more. When is it going to end?

From time to time in human history, there occur events of seismic significance, when one orthodoxy is overthrown and another takes its place. Today, the scale of the global financial crisis demands that we re-evaluate the economic policy and philosophy that brought us to this point.

George Soros has said that "the salient feature of the current financial crisis is that it was not caused by some external shock. ... The crisis was generated by the system itself." He is right. The current crisis is the culmination of a 30-year domination of economic policy by a free-market ideology that has been variously called neo-liberalism, economic liberalism or economic fundamentalism. The central thrust of this ideology has been that government activity should be constrained, and ultimately replaced, by market forces. In the past year, we have seen how unchecked market forces have brought capitalism to the precipice.

Instead of distributing risk throughout the world, the global financial system has intensified it. Neo-liberal orthodoxy held that global financial markets would ultimately self-correct - the invisible hand of unfettered market forces finding their own equilibrium. But as economist Joseph Stiglitz has caustically observed: "The reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is not there."

Just as it fell to Franklin Roosevelt to rebuild American capitalism after the Depression, and to the American Democrats, strongly influenced by John Maynard Keynes, to rebuild postwar domestic demand, to engineer the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and to set in place the Bretton Woods system to govern international economic engagement, so it falls to a new generation to reflect on and rebuild our national and international economic systems.

If centrist governments are to save capitalism, they must face three challenges. First is to use the agency of the state to reconstitute properly regulated markets and to rebuild domestic and global demand. With the demise of neo-liberalism, the role of the state has once more been recognized as fundamental. The state has been the primary actor in responding to three clear areas of the current crisis: in rescuing the private financial system from collapse; in providing direct stimulus to the real economy because of the collapse in private demand; and in the design of a national and global regulatory regime in which government has ultimate responsibility to determine and enforce the rules of the system.

The second challenge for social democrats is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. As the global financial crisis unfolds and the hard impact on jobs is felt by families across the world, the pressure will be great to retreat to some model of an all-providing state and to abandon altogether the cause of open, competitive markets both at home and abroad. Protectionism has already begun to make itself felt, albeit in softer and more subtle forms than the crudity of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Soft or hard, protectionism is a surefire way of turning recession into depression, as it exacerbates the collapse in global demand. Social democracy's continuing philosophical claim to political legitimacy is its capacity to balance the private and the public, profit and wages, the market and the state. That philosophy once again speaks with clarity and cogency to the challenges of our time.

A further challenge for governments in dealing with the current crisis is its almost unprecedented global dimensions. Governments must craft consistent global financial regulations to prevent a race to the bottom, where capital leaks out to the areas of the global economy with the weakest regulation. We must establish stronger global disclosure standards for systemically important financial institutions. We must also build stronger supervisory frameworks to provide incentives for more responsible corporate conduct, including executive remuneration.

The world has turned to co-ordinated governmental action through the Group of 20: to help provide immediate liquidity to the global financial system; to co-ordinate sufficient fiscal stimulus to respond to the growth gap arising from the global recession; to redesign global regulatory rules for the future; to reform the existing global public institutions - especially the International Monetary Fund - to provide them with the powers and resources necessary for the demands of the 21st century.

The IMF's governance arrangements must be reformed. It is only reasonable that, if we expect fast-growing developing economies such as that of China to make a greater contribution to multilateral institutions such as the IMF, they should also gain a stronger decision-making voice in these forums.

The longer-term challenge for governments is to address the imbalances that have helped to destabilize the global economy in the past decade: in particular, the imbalances between large surplus economies such as that of China, Japan and the oil-exporting nations, and large debtor nations such as America.

The magnitude of the crisis and its impact across the world means that minor tweakings of long-established orthodoxies will not do. Two unassailable truths have already been established: that financial markets are not always self-correcting or self-regulating, and that government can never abdicate responsibility for maintaining economic stability.

For governments, it is critical that we get it right - not just to save the system of open markets from self-destruction, but also to rebuild confidence in properly regulated markets, so as to prevent extreme reactions from the far left or the far right taking hold.

Governments must get it right because the stakes are so high: There are the economic and social costs of long-term unemployment; poverty once again expanding its grim reach across the developing world; and the impact on long-term power structures within the existing international political and strategic order. Success is not optional. Too much now rides on our ability to prevail.

He figures he can win on the Dem ticket because PA has turned Dem. Well, I have news for him.....I doubt it. He only won by a couple votes in the last election because of Pat Toomey running against him. He will definitely lose this election.

I always split my ticket and I usually voted for him, but no more. I don't care what party anyone is affiliated with; but, to me, he is a traitor and that's someone else who is not needed in the Senate.

To those who vote straight party, open your eyes. They are only out for themselves (but is that really news to anyone?)

As posters have said before, we have to educate the people who don't watch/investigate/read up on the candidates running to make sure we vote the best candidates for the job...those who value the constitution, listen to their constituents (which is hard), and vote for the good of the country. Get rid of the a-holes who are in there. We really need to clean house this coming election.,

you didn't answer mine. Where did you hear that the U.S. doesn't make vaccines? Or is it merely more conservative fiction? Because it's simply not true.

You're talking about all this as if it's a leisurely endeavor that isn't time sensitive. I'm talking about protecting my family and your family from a potential bio terror attack using smallpox.

And you're right. No response is necessary at all because you haven't said anything worthy of one.

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.

I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.

Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.

I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!

The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.

So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.

Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.

Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.

Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.

P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.

Of course they don't..... they think Obama is here to save

What government must do to save capitalism

Related Articles