What's a commie pinko liberal to think?

ah crap (0.00 / 0)

soapblox doesn't let me edit the poll text.  I was trying to type 'kewl'  anyway, I'm probably somewhere between kewl and he was a fascist.  But, that might be where my idealism comes out regarding the things he could have/didn't accomplish.  yeah yeah I know, hampered by a BJ scandal and a minority in the house.

---

by: johne @ Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 23:32:09 PM CDT

I won't forgive (0.00 / 0)

Clinton for Nafta and GATT. Ever. I don't care about the BJ.

---

by: EMRosa @ Mon Aug 29, 2005 at 23:56:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how liberal am i... (4.00 / 1)

I've said this once, and I will say it again.  The foundation of my beliefs comes from the beginning of Karl Marx's communist manifesto.  To paraphrase:

The history of all societies is the history of class warfare.

And I know what side I'm on.

War perhaps is not necessary, but a military is.  I think our military wastes a shit ton of money, but I see no problem in funding research and development of better "defense" technology.  If you don't have a means to defend yourself, someone else will attack you.  That's just the way it is.  

Don’t forget—we also need our weapons if we ever have to exercise our second amendment rights the way the founding fathers truly intended--when their comes a time for us to disband our political allegiances.

Whether you choose to believe it our not, the uber-wealth are in an all out battle against the rest of us now to maintain their wealth.  They don't want to share.  And the beauty of a republic (or democracy) is that we've created an entity capable of regulating the super wealthy to do what is in the best interest of us all.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 00:45:53 AM CDT

Ummm, which Clinton? Or should we split the difference? (0.00 / 0)

Ditto above on Billary, plus I won't forgive him/her for "welfare reform" which like TABOR never accounted for the effect of multi-year recessions by balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

I think your take is more pragmatic progressive, johne.

I'd say the shorthand test of whether you're a commie pinko liberal — did you support Kucinich during the primaries?*

*disclaimer: I was a Kucinich constituent when I lived in Ohio. He's is not the next coming of Paul Wellstone that many well-intentioned folk tried to believe him to be. He's just another political hack with a schtick that really wasn't all that liberal expect the wacky Dept. of Peace proposal.

em dash outs herself! Take that NRO!

---

by: em dash @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 00:55:03 AM CDT

Kucinch was my second choice (0.00 / 0)

when it came to voting time, though first choice in my heart.  However, I tried to get everyone i knew in Ohio (where I was at the time) to vote for Edwards since it was a Kerry v. Edwards thing at the time.

I don't really know what I think about Edwards, I just remember seeing his speech for the first time on C-Span, and I was moved so much, I went to the computer a gave $50 to John Edwards.  So, in the Ohio primary, I voted for Edwards.

Just so you know, I don't think there is anything we need more than a Dept. of Peace.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 00:58:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kucinich, first in your heart? (4.00 / 1)

Ewww, pacified. There's an ointment for that, I'm sure.

My friend, you don't know Dennis, like I know Dennis. He's not what he seems. If I was still in OH-10, I'd be waging serious consideration to challenge him in the primary. The west and southsides of Cleveland deserve better representation than that do-nothing, camera hog.

I'd say that the US could use a "Dept of Peace" philosophy in the State Dept, foreign aid programs, etc., to counteract the imperialists that seem to be running amok in the Bush Administration.

But a department, per se? Nah. I'm too much of a budget hawk to go along with that.

em dash outs herself! Take that NRO!

---

by: em dash @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:10:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

damn you em (0.00 / 0)

i'm just writing what I hope you want to read!  and you always seem to make me question the underlining "goodness" any politician is trying to express.  Damn you!

I just want a government that looks out for the working folk... who puts the people before the wealthy.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:33:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

who did you want for Pres in 04? (0.00 / 0)

dean?  edwards?  clark?

curious.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 01:34:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There was a survey (0.00 / 0)

During the primary that matched you up with the primary candidate depending on how you answered issue questions.  I was best matched with Kucinich.  However, I was vying for Dean.  I saw him speak a few weeks ago.  While it was a short speach mostly meant to rile the crowd up, it was exactly what I wanted to hear, and was a very succinct summary of what Democrats stand for.  If people aren't hearing it, it's not for lacking of 'screaming'

---

by: johne @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 07:25:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know what? (4.00 / 1)

I hate Clinton for the BJ.  GATT, NAFTA and welfare reform, well, I was against them at the time, but I'll have to admit that life DID get better for people at the lowest end of the economic spectrum under Clinton.  Unemployment was so low employers had to be afraid for a change.  (Just so you know, being anti-free trade technically makes you a conservative, not a liberal.)  The fact that he created an atmosphere of sexual harassment in the White House is unforgivable, especially considering all the positive things he did for women.

I'm anti-war.  Gandhi said that yes, the war was used to defeat Hitler, but non-violence would have worked as well--which is true, and arguably could have worked better.  Do we need a military?  Yes, but we need to scrap all the stuff that tempts us to use it abroad in places we have no business.  And we should treat our volunteer soldiers as if the were precious, providing them sufficient body armor, working equipment, veterans benefits for the disabled and psychological counseling for all.

Fiscally, I'm a hawkish conservative--making government justify its expenditures, taxing only when necessary and stopping deficit spending.

But here's where I'm at my most liberal: Kids.  We need to provide every kid a roughly equal opportunity to succeed through sufficient educational expenditures and by taxing (heavily) assets passed between generations.  People who make it based on their family's status and then pretend they have "earned" the right to what they have make me sick.

---

by: Ralph @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 09:36:35 AM CDT

fiscally (0.00 / 0)

That sounds like very sound policy.  I'm not really sure what the difference is between a fiscal liberal and conservative.  That is, other than one side wants to fund as much as possible (not sure about deficits), and the other extreme wants absolutely no taxes, everthing's mine, mine, mine!  The preccccciousssss!  

So, in that case, Ralph I'd say you're right in the middle.  
I'm probably right there with you, but firmly believe that helping those of least means is a noble cause.  Besides, helping people to help themselves lowers crime, raises property values, and well, makes me feel good.  I don't think we should tax people to the breaking point, or spend money we don't have to do it.  But, if everyone (companies included) really did pay their share we could do a lot.  

---

by: johne @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 11:18:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

companies don't pay tax (0.00 / 0)

because the thinking is, if you charge a company tax, they will just pass the price of that tax along to consumers, or pay their employees less, etc.

that's the conventional wisdom I've been told on why corporate income collections are so low.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 11:25:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

Everyone forgets that the original reason for corporations was to avoid liability.

If I wanted to set up a company called Skateboards of Death, but didn't want to get sued by the parents of deceased teenagers, I would incorporate in order to create an artificial entity to absorb my liability (they could sue the SoD, inc., but not Ralph.  Or if I didn't sell any skateboards and had to go bankrupt, the business went bankrupt but not me.

The idea was that the taxes were worth the protection or that a rapidly expanding corporation could use profits to fund further expansion without paying taxes on the expansion.

And at one time marginal tax rates for successful corporations were 75% or more.

With time, the tax code has eroded this tax liability and now more than 60% of corporations pay no taxes at all--and don't forget, every time George & Company cut taxes at the federal level, they cut taxes at the state level because states base their income taxes on the federal government.

John:  I mostly agree that I would be a moderate, but Keynsian monetary policy is a liberal policy, no doubt about it.  Keynsians aren't afraid of running a deficit.  (And, yes, that means that George Bush is a kind of Fiscal Che Guevarra in terms of a liberal-conservative spectrum.)

---

by: Ralph @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 11:44:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ack (4.00 / 1)

Whose life was made better and how? Do you have evidence of this, because all of the economic studies I have seen have shown otherwise? I'm not trying to be snotty, I really want to know.

Was life better for the indigenous people of Chiapas? (Remember the Mexican market crash and the U.S. billion dollar bailout?) Was it better for the environment, with restrictions to protect it thrown out by the WTO as a "barrier to free trade"? Was it better for the sweatshop workers in the new EPZs? And even if we keep it to America, was it better for national sovereignty and democracy, which can now be overturned by trade bureaucrats? Were good jobs actually created? Are we really better off than ten years, or twenty years ago?

These are questions that need to be asked. And when I look at the answers, and look at Seattle and Quebec City and Cancun, I come to the conclusion that GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA are not good for anyone but the rich profiteers.

I'm talking about people here, not numbers. Just because unemployment is down, doesn't mean people are better off. If you look at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, retail jobs and menial service jobs are in the majority. And growing. Indecently, they also pay the least.

And I suppose the definition of being "anti-free trade" depends on what you mean by free trade. If you mean the corporate protectionist free trade that is now the underpinning of globalization, then yes I am against free trade, and obviously not a conservative.

I you mean free trade that makes global human rights as a priority above any thing else (IE. People are more important than profits}, then I am for it, and those against it are the true protectionists.

Can ya dig it? :)

I must admit I don't know much about the whole BJ trial, but how did Clinton create "atmosphere of sexual harassment"? Does the fact that he got his knob polished degrading to women? Or that he abused his power? Or something else?
I don't follow.

---

by: EMRosa @ Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 21:39:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton (4.00 / 1)

He had sex with a subordinate in his place of business.  That's an atmosphere of sexual harassment.  It doesn't matter if its consensual or not.  It creates an atmosphere where others in the office feel that that is the way to get ahead.

NAFTA:  Unemployment dropped throughout Clinton's presidency.  Real incomes went up for the lowest quintile for the first time in 40 years.  The deficit was eliminated.  Interest rates went down.  College was more affordable.  Home ownership went up.  Fewer people were on welfare.  Inflation was non-existant.  All in a period when other western economies were caving in to the global economy.  Yeah, I think the poor were better off under Clinton.

What Mexico did to the Zapatistas can hardly be blamed on Clinton.  And to be honest, it's not really my business what foreign countries do.  Sorry, but it ain't.  America first, last and always.

---

by: Ralph @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:18:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ah crap (0.00 / 0)

I agree with both of you.

---

by: johne @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 09:44:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm (0.00 / 0)

No pun intended I'm sure, but I couldn't help but laugh out loud. I see what you're saying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Clinton is just as bad a Bush. What you haven't showed though, is how did NAFTA help the economy? Couldn't all those good things, if they actually happened, be because of circumstance. Like say, a short-lived a technical boom?

And some more questions: Just because incomes go up, does that mean people are better off? Couldn't it just be enough for other rising costs (not inflation per se, but health care and debt)? College was more affordable? For who, and all colleges or state colleges? Couldn't the reason why fewer people were on welfare be because it was so privatized in the 90's and less people qualified?

And you forgot the most important thing: debt. This whole country runs on it. We have to look at the big picture when discussing the economy, every thing relates to something else.

Can't be blamed on Clinton?  If my six year old memory  serves me right, the Zapatistas revolted because they claimed that NAFTA was a death sentence to indigenous people. Clinton was the one that pushed for GATT and NAFTA, which were by the way, pet projects of George H.W. Bush. And then Mexico suffered massive economic fall out, which we had to pay for, because of NAFTA. (And somewhat because of the IMF, which Clinton also supported.)

It's funny that you say it's not your business, because I think many Americans would like to know if their government is funding para-military troops, or privatizing foreign country's public spaces to quash democratic indigenous movements.

It's my business when other human beings are suffering, particularly because of my government's actions. I suppose that's where me and you differ greatly. A good human being is a good human being. And I care about them equally regardless of national origin. But even if I was to believe the whole America first attitude, you have to realize that this country influences and interferes with almost every country on the globe. Even Haiti can't escape. Everything that goes on outside of our borders has to do with us, and can greatly effect us. It's done in our name.

---

by: EMRosa @ Wed Aug 31, 2005 at 18:46:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Under Clinton... (0.00 / 0)

Incomes increased.  Inflation didn't.  That means real income growth.  Not much argument that these two conditions existed and there's no alternative to real income growth.  Life for the working poor was better under Clinton.

NAFTA as a death sentence to indigenous people is hyperbole.  I'm not denying they said it, but I'm not smart and I need someone to explain how something can be bad for US workers and bad for low-wage international workers at the same time.

Yeah, Mexico had a hard time.  Clinton bailed them out and things got better.  I'm sorry about the Zapatistas, but if you think Clinton gave Fox a bunch of guns and told him to go down and suppress those Zapatistas as a threat to globalization, that's a little much.

---

by: Ralph @ Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 17:55:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While (0.00 / 0)

I was mostly happy with our political situation during Clinton's presidency I must admit that I made only a passing attempt to follow politics then.  As an aside, for me Bush really has been a uniter.  He is the reason I've really started to pay attention and get involved.  As in united against him!

Anyway, while I laud President Clinton for many things, I don't know how much of the economic situation was thanks to him.  We finally had the culmination of a lot of computer technology finally reaching the mainstream.  We also had massive spending on Y2K implementation.  Finally VAX, COBOL, and Fortran programmers were needed again.  Talk about job security!  Perhaps I'm underestimating the influence a president has over the economy, but really those other factors were huge for the '90s.  Maybe I'm missing something.  This relatively young engineer only knows so much.

---

by: johne @ Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 23:49:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well don't look at me (0.00 / 0)

I was five when he was elected first. I can only read books!

---

by: EMRosa @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 12:09:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a primer (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Ralph @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 14:58:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reply (0.00 / 0)

But you haven't considered my question, what about debt and health care costs rising? And I'm not denying that conditions have gotten worse under Bush, what I'm saying is NAFTA had nothing to do with the "boom" in the nineties.

I don't understand what kind of parallel you're trying to make. Here’s an example of how it can be bad for both: Company A shifts all its higher paying manufacturing/white collar jobs to a country where they can exploit other workers for dismal wages. While the people in the United States that used to have the job, are left to hawk Company A's products in retail for lower wages. Company A wins, everyone else looses.

Things got better? No they didn't. Mexico is fighting major urban sprawl, environmental poisoning, maquiladoras, and military confrontations. I didn't say that Clinton wanted the Mexican government to kill the Zapatistas directly in some nefarious plan for world domination. What I'm saying is that he oked funding for par-military troops that had no real distinct purpose but to oppress other people. Thus, I would say he is partly responsible. Just like Bush is for what he chooses to fund.

---

by: EMRosa @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 12:06:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the only way Mexico can be helped (0.00 / 0)

is if America actually enforces it's labor laws.  If we start busting companies for hiring Illegals, and make it so they don't make money by using their cheaper labor.

The only reason people come here is because they know they can get jobs, and that America doesn't enforce it's laws.  This drives down wages for everyone, and makes everyone suffer more.  Americna, Mexican, even the kids in Asia making our clothes.

The debt was doing fine under Clinton.  If Gore would have been annointed president by the SCOTUS, we'd probably have about 1/4 of the outstanding debt of this country paid off by now.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 12:21:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I remember hearing about enforcement of those labor laws under Clinton.  They weren't going after the employees.  They were going after the employers.  That's completely stopped now.

---

by: johne @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 12:45:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe for America (0.00 / 0)

That might help the Immigration problem here, but how would that address the labor policies in Mexico, where companies exploit workers? The companies will be, and are, the ones making money by using cheap labor here and abroad.

How does immigrants coming to here drive down wages for Asians and others? I don't follow. The reason companies can go to different parts of the world and set up sweatshops is because of governmental agreements with the companies to abandon all labor standards, in what are called Export Processing Zones.

Or, in the case of Central America and Mexico, because of free trade agreements that restrict what labor laws governments can make. Such laws that protect the workers are seen as "barriers" to free trade.  Even labor abuses take place in Saipan, an American territory.

What people don't seem to get about NAFTA and GATT, is that they diminish our country's ability to create labor laws and environmental regulations. If we do, then another country who is a member of the WTO and does not follow such regulations can challenge us in secret court proceedings. If they win, we have to cancel the law.

It should probably be noted that when I talk about debt I mean personal debt.

---

by: EMRosa @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 13:00:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Labor laws in Mexico (0.00 / 0)

are Mexican problems!  ok, now that's not a good answer.

The only way I see this workings is we have to forbid US companies from doing business with people who do not comply with the labor standards we demand.  That's the only way.

Illegal immigrants drive down wages for everyone everywhere because capital doesn't have to pay labor as much.  All the construction jobs used to be decent paying jobs, but now they only pay $10/hr under the table to illegals.  It's a race to the bottom piting workers against workers, and whomever is willing to work for least (and be exploited the most) is where the jobs go.  And if I was getting paid $20/hr to do the same job, and these illegals come in and do it for $10, I'll have to take a 50% pay cut to do the same.

Same with textile workers (if there are any left) here in America.  To stay in business and compete with the no-labor law regions of the world, they have to cut their wages to match.  That's how it hurts everyone.


SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 13:08:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

labur (0.00 / 0)

And how would we enforce countries all around the world to comply with the standards that we can't even implement here? The NLRB is a joke. I know of a couple of ways, but I’d like to hear your approach.

---

by: EMRosa @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 17:13:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

can't we prevent American companies (0.00 / 0)

from doing business with companies who don't meet our standards?

That's the only way.  If our gov't says "for you to do business with Americans you must meet X, Y, and Z".

If that is not possible, I'm just not sure.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 at 17:24:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In an ideal world… (0.00 / 0)

yes. But the U.S. is fettered by NAFTA and cannot make such regulations. One way different activist groups have gotten around this is by influencing local governments and governmental entities to agree to not buy their products from companies who abuse workers.

For example, I'm working with a group that is trying to get Denver Public Schools to agree to not buy their clothes from sweatshops. Such an agreement is called a sweatfree policy, and they have been implemented in Los Angeles and other city governments. If you'll recall, CU Boulder students went on a hunger strike last Spring to get the college to adopt a sweatfree policy.

The ways such policies are implemented, is that a trusted independent monitor, hired by the entity, actually checks out the factories to make sure rights are being upheld. If the companies contracted out by the governmental entity refuse to allow monitoring at any time then they will lose their contract. An example of an independent monitor is the Worker's Rights Consortium.

---

by: EMRosa @ Mon Sep 05, 2005 at 23:28:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I never expected such a discussion with something that was more of a stream of consciousness blog.  I'm no writer by any means.  My wife hates it when I ask her for help updating my resume. Anyway, there was a question I was trying to get across and I don't know that I quite did it.  I guess the poll question really set the tone of the piece and that's what set up  the president discussions.  
What I was hoping to get is what is the definition or description of the ultra left wing liberal?  Is it sabotaging logging efforts and setting lab animals free?  What else?  In this I am trying to figure out in the grand scheme of things where I and others fall.  For me, I think the best understanding is of where does the left margin sit?

Yes, perhaps I should have just posed that question, but as I said, I'm not much of a writer. ;-)

---

by: johne @ Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 23:43:18 PM CDT