In his inaugural address, George W. Bush accomplished two things. Judging from the accolades, he successfully branded his administration—“freedom” is its name. And in freedom’s name he laid out an agenda borrowed from the libertarian right—the establishment of an ownership society: In America’s ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (40)Page 1 of 1 pagesI do not understand the liberals contempt for the idea of an ownership society. By saying that you are against an ownership society - control of YOUR OWN money and finances I get the idea that those on the left while being of good intent I am sure seem to imply that the government knows what is best. I keep getting the idea of big brother knows best from all of this.
I don’t think anybody wants to get rid of social security. I just believe that the idea of giving a lifetime of savings for retirement to the government to “hold” until your reach retirement age is , well for lack of a better term on my part, dangerous.
I would like to know beacuse I am not entirely informed on this but does the money we pay now- all our social security “ taxes” go into some form of seperate account that the government has- does it go into the general fund so to speak to be drawn from for government spending . what happens to the money we all pay weekly to the government?
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 12:41 PM Honestly...I don’t know if your an idealist or simply devoid of any concept of the way the REAL world works.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Jan 31, 2005 at 1:46 PM Reddog--Answers to questions regarding how Social Security is financed can be found here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
The economist Dean Baker also explains both how it works and how “the crisis” we’ve been hearing so much about is much inflated in a previous article:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1738/
Thanks for reading.
Posted by Brian Cook on Jan 31, 2005 at 2:49 PM Liberals do not have contempt for the idea of an ownership society. The contempt is for the dishonest way that the phrase is used to win support for a plan that will help wall street a whole lot more than it will help main street.
Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Jan 31, 2005 at 6:06 PM having a grandfather that lived thru the depression I am also not fond of investing on wall street. I think investing in Main street is a lot more practical. But I am also apprehensive of letting either dems or repubs have control over it too. Nither has a good history of living within their means.
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 6:49 PM I is not a good idea to provide money to people who have not worked as hard by taking from those who have worked. This only gives people an opportunity to squander their own money knowing that it will be given to them by the good government who takes care of them. Not everyone will try to get out of bed if they are being catered to. However there are some who are not as fortunate or strong. There should be a way to give all old people a chance to have social security through as an incentive.
Posted by Melinda Bluemling on Jan 31, 2005 at 7:03 PM I have always thought that only folks who really needed it should collect social security- folks who are disabled and older folks who really need it. The chief exec of some big company worth millions and other folks who are more than set fianancially for retirement should not have to collect it. But even tho they are rich they still payed into the system so it just becomes another tax. I don’t know what the answer is. We do need to help folks who truly need it but......
Posted by reddog on Jan 31, 2005 at 7:21 PM Melinda B has a point regarding the effects of rewarding lack of effort, although SocSec is intended more to prevent squalorous lives for people whose ability to work their way to prosperity is finished. Intentions aside, though, it’s the real effects of the ‘ownership society’ on quality of life that count. One big question is, without a growing number of prosperous jobs in the economy, how many will be able to buy into the ownership society at all?
Posted by Kuya on Feb 1, 2005 at 2:20 AM Ownership of what property?
One’s toothbrush, shoes, golf putter, etc., etc.
Or the tools of production and the raw materials to use them on to produce the necessities of life. These are entirely two different types of property.The first type above, personal property, is not the crucial issue. It is the second type, productive property, that is crucial--the only one that makes it possible to get personal property--without it there is no personal property.
Productive property is mainly, almost totally, owned by small number of people or in some countries state owned and controlled by a small group of people but in either case not the vast majority, the useful producers, the working class.
While the blabber goes on about “Ownership Society,” mergers and acquisitions in the billions of dollars goes on fast and furious, concentrating the ownership of the means of production into the hands of fewer and fewer people. They get the prime stake and workers get the meat scraps--more production less pay.
The first order of the day is to expose the dishonesty being shoved off on the working people. The push for a “Ownership Society” is nothing but an outrageous scam.
For want of something better, here is one aspect to deal with workers’ dilemma:
http://socialismmarxdeleonforarealunion.org/Socialism_For_A_Real_Labor_Union_.ht tml
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 1, 2005 at 8:00 AM Not only devoid of a sense of reality...but devoid of intelligence and plain old good manners too.
You have my sympathy.
Have a good day, reddog.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 1, 2005 at 2:16 PM How about providing a sample of “intelligence.”
As to “good manners,” what, am I to be, subject to the old school child discipline, “To be seen, not heard.”?
I just got off reading news about the Russian and Chinese political states, get that, “political states” concocting a witches brew of mutual state ownership (communism). While Americans were dancing in the streets celebrating the death of socialism (bogus socialism) and the embarking of capitalism in Russia and China, Real Union Of Social Science didn’t hold its breath and here it is, they are still at their old games.
And, while American workers are stretching their dollars buying stuff at Wal Mart, Communist China gets their cut out of the action and goes shopping for goodies in the Russian State military goods store.
Maybe one of these days Americans might wish Iraq was their only headache.
Considering that the American public is asleep at the wheel, I am not in the mood for any well wishing “good days,” thank you.
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 1, 2005 at 2:46 PM please point out to me in my last two posts where I demonstrated any lack of manners lib but proud?? You have attacked me from the first post where I simply asked a question I did not know the answer to. You are such a judgemental snot .
Posted by reddog on Feb 1, 2005 at 4:32 PM reddog
Who did you direct your post below to. If it wasn’t me then I plead guilty of mistaken identity. If not, then I maintain my statement. My original post was directed to the subject of the leading article, not you. In either case, your name calling is trash.
Don
Your post:
Not only devoid of a sense of reality...but devoid of intelligence and plain old good manners too.
You have my sympathy.
Have a good day, reddog.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on February 1, 2005 at 3:16 PM
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 1, 2005 at 5:23 PM Donald-my apologies. my post was not directed to you ay all but to liberal & proud who demeans and harrasses me on every post. You are correct the name calling is trash but liberal& proud aggrevates me to no end. I may be rather conservative in my views but I come to this site in the interest of discussing ideas and in most instances even those that disagree with me keep the denigration to a minimum lib and proud and matilda are two exceptions who i should not lower myself in responding to their mean spirited attacks...once again my apologies.
Posted by reddog on Feb 1, 2005 at 6:29 PM reddog
Your appology is gracious accepted.
I should appologize too becuae I made an assumption about your post. I did try to back track on the previous post but I couldn’t detect anyone else that you might be referring to.
I am relived that I came to my senses before it got blowen way out of proportion.
Thanks
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 1, 2005 at 6:37 PM FDR saved capitalism from itself. Without regulation, the collapse was inevitable and catostrophic, as it was described in the “Crisis of the Old Order” by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The so-called “free-market” dominated by the then dirty word “speculator” caused cyclical crashes almost every generation from the earliest days of our Republic. From the Mississippi Bubble to the Panics of 1873 and 1893 to the mini recessions and then to the Great Depression our people suffered greatly at the hands that controlled the means of production. Though America was nominally a religious and conservtive society through out its pre-Crash history, the greatest social gains came out of the collapse. Through the great works of the New Deal and the unprecedented leadership of franklin Delano Roosevelt. Speaking of leadership, James MacGregor Burns called FDR the Soldier of Freedom and Conrad Black re-affirmed that name as he called him the Champion of Freedom forty years later. What I am trying to say is that FDR really gave people freedom, economic freedom of the level playing field. Today, as in 1929 fewer people own more of America than ever. Is that g-ddamn freedom? The right-wing would love to go back to the days of their hero Big Bill McKinley. The social safety nets mean nothing to them. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps. After hearing this moronic troglodyte rail against Social Security, the regulators, the safety nets and the liberals calling for Uncle Joe from the grave, I am sick.
Rave on you lunatics of the right, just wait until the next merger and series of layoffs!
The “Forgotten Man” of the 30’s was you! rjg
Posted by RJG on Feb 1, 2005 at 8:22 PM Call me old fashion, or maybe, new fashioned, but I believe it is in people’s nature to want to work. By work I mean be productive, contribute to society and make a better life for themselves. It is not however in people’s nature to want to be exploited by other people. Therein we have a dilema.
Conservatives who usually say the poor don’t want to work are really saying the poor don’t want to work in bad conditions and with low pay for ME.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 1, 2005 at 11:18 PM Reddog, my attacks on you are not mean spirited. I just truly believe conservatives are stupid, dishonest and troubled people.
If you showed any true humanity or intelligence the ‘attacks’ would cease immediately.
Murder is wrong. George W. Bush has blood on his hands, and you support him. Protecting the vulnerable is the responsibility of all people. Bush cares only for the already wealthy.
I am glad I get under your skin, and my spirit is actually one of love and empathy. I just hate the hateful, and conservatives are just so very full of hate for there fellow human beings.
Murder is wrong.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 1, 2005 at 11:29 PM One factor that encouraged FDR to introduce experimental and even radical changes to American social and economic practices was the sense of crisis that built up before his election (and which contributed to it). The Hoover administration had made some efforts to repair the effects of deflation and to revitalize the economy, but it became clear to millions that his tactics weren’t playing out. He was attached to the assumptions that he had been raised with, and even though there had been previous ‘depressions’ with their own awful consequences, still those assumptions remained. I would not want to scrap all of those assumptions, by the way, for instance the idea that true prosperity is not a right but must be earned, however it would have to be coldly assessed whether the conditions are in hand to reward ethically pursued ambition, hard work, efforts to learn and be creative, etc. If they aren’t, the question is, who could help restore or establish them? As well, what are those people actually doing in terms of bringing about those conditions or, perhaps inhibiting them? Philosophy counts because it drives behavior, and once that’s addressed, it’s about clear, verifiable information about what’s really what. And as for election outcomes, that’s what should really inspire votes, especially votes against an incumbent, firing v. rehiring officials who have the power to help make it possible for hard work to pay off but who do not.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 2, 2005 at 12:02 AM Seems like the “red herring” diversionary tactics never lose their effectiveness.
The slogan, “Ownership Society,” is nothing new. The Eisenhower administration touted the same notion only it was called “People’s Capitalism.”
From the day that humans set on this earth, the only means of survival was to apply labor with the use of tools on raw materials to convert them to useful goods. Today, the tools are production are owned by a tiny group of people. There is no let up to process of less and less people owning owing and share of the means of production. And the only time the vast majority, the working class get access to those tools for a meager wage is when the capitalist class can make a profit on workers’ labor.
It just isn’t going to change until the working class does something about it besides listening to slogans.
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 2, 2005 at 2:42 AM Matilda wrote : “Reddog, my attacks on you are not mean spirited.”
Well that’s good to hear. Perhaps instead of attacking reddog, you can stick to attacking his opinions (same to reddog, by the way)? (I find namecalling of any sort to be at best distracting and poor manners.)
“I just truly believe conservatives are stupid, dishonest and troubled people.”
Hmmm, are you young (under 25, say)? It is often said that to be conservative when young is a sign of a hard heart, and to be liberal when old is a sign of poor thinking. . . Personally i don’t subscribe to such sayings - i find them to be overly simplistic. I prefer understanding the complexity of issues over the concept of being “right” or “wrong”. Setting up ones intellectual opponents as straw men only sabotages the exchange of ideas.
“I am glad I get under your skin, and my spirit is actually one of love and empathy.”
Good for you! But i fear your writing does not convey the real Matilda.
“I just hate the hateful, and conservatives are just so very full of hate for there fellow human beings.”
I find this to be like saying “blacks (or whites or gays or Christians) are just so very full of hate for there fellow human beings”. It is a very broad sterotype. While it may make it easier for you to negotiate the complexity of the world, it is not in fact very accurate.
“Murder is wrong.”
Something everyone here can agree upon!
But, alas, “murder” is such a poorly defined word. Is it murder to execute a prisoner? To abort a baby? To begin a war such as the one in Afghanastan? Or Iraq? (While some may be able to go throught the above list and check off NO or YES, again, to me at least, the (rhetorical) questions above are meant to be thought provoking, best answered with discussions and poorly suited to YES/NO answers).
Posted by myTake on Feb 2, 2005 at 10:46 AM Thank you myTake. I am sorry I reduced this forum to fighting with Matilda. I find you as a voice of reason. I really have no hate and I am sorry i took the bait. Yes I agree murder is wrong.
Posted by reddog on Feb 2, 2005 at 10:51 AM myTake, the difference between being Gay or Black and being conservative is that conservatism is a choice, and an extraordinarly damaging one at that. Christianity is a choice also, and its interesting that the two groups that are making the most trouble in this country, and the world, at the moment are conservatives and christians. Not name calling, just fact.
The christians of course, like the muslims, split into two types, the moderate (read liberal) practioners, and the fundamentalists. I suppose you could say the same for conservatives, but anyone who voted for Bush in this election, or supports his actions, puts themselves firmly in the camp of the ‘fundamentalists’.
I confront reddog, and others, for a couple of reasons. One, because by often repeating the rebulican party line so perfectly they make a great foil off of which I can crystalize my own opposition to such things. Two, because reddog in particular demostrates a certain mind set that I feel it is very important to expose. I make no apology for my language, and I never sink to his depths (see ‘Gay Matrimony’ article).
I’m not into pretend civility. All this ‘I’ll talk to you because your being moderate’ nonsense is, I think, pointless. This is not a game. Conservatives in power at this very moment are torturing and killing people by proxy, and drawing up plans to invade further countries.
I think a lot of people in this country have truly forgotten the difference between right and wrong. I mean really forgotten.
My spirit is one of love and empathy, and I do not have to prove that to anyone. If you have really read any of my posts you will see a person deeply dedicated to the rule of law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think modern conservatism threatens all of these things.
One of the great misconceptions about liberals is that in teaching tolerence we have to somehow put up with violence, oppression, or just outright nonsense. Tolerence is a two way street, and if someone is breaking the rules then all bets are off.
In other words I wouldn’t take part in a ‘polite’ debate with a Nazi on the legitimacy of the Holocaust. In the same way I cannot bring myself to grace conservatives with a ‘polite’ debate about the pros and cons of gay bashing, or the rights and wrongs of an unprovoked invasion of another country that results in thousands of deaths.
This should be self evident, but is obviously not.
Whatever conservatives used to be in the past, they are now extraodinarily anti-social people in terms of their core convictions. They come onto this site, occasionally civil, often ranting, sometimes contradicting themselves, hoping I think to muddy the waters of genuine debate.
Personally, I cannot relax and enter into real disscusions with like minded individuals when the likes of ‘reddog’ are hovering around. I’m sure he would be pleased to hear this, unfortuantely it is the truth. Most of us here would, I am sure, love to become more engaged in the creative activity of formulating how best to remove these right wing extremists from power. That’s kind of hard to do when you have a robot (yes I called him a robot, ooohhh) like reddog talking gibberish, interspersed with nonsense.
Conservatives have a total right to be here, it is after all a public forum. So I will carry on, exposing and contradicting this strange and obnoxious world view when ever the urge grabs me.
Finally, myTake. Murder is not a poorly defined word, not in legal terms anyway. I define it as the premeditated killing of one human being by another, including as the result of criminal neglegence. I believe too that all ‘executions’ are in fact murder, whether they involve someone having their head chopped off in Saudi Arabia, or receiving a lethal injection in Texas.
I do believe however that killing in self defense is permissible, and that trial by jury should decide the matter if circumstances are in any way ambiguous.
I know people are immediately going to say ‘what about abortion’? Well, I believe that abortion up to around three months into a pregnacy should now and forever more remain legal. I think there are important benifits to abortion and I do not believe that at the three months stage the foetus has attained any sort of meaningful consciousness. I know this is debated, it’s just my opinion.
As for seeing things in shades of grey this is all I have to say. Some shades of grey are almost black, while others are almost white. Seeing the shades of grey in a situation is not at all the same as sitting on the fence.
In other words, although my attitude towards conservatives is sometimes communicated in black and white language, I do not put the horse before the cart. There is no prejudice involved in the true sense of the word, no pre-judging. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, is in my opinion such a dark shade of grey, that it might as well be black.
myTake, I think you would define murder pretty quickly if it was your family shot and killed at a check point. I think you would define it pretty quickly if your baby died for lack of fresh water or medicine as a result of your country being invaded. I think you would define it pretty quickly if a bomb fell on your house killing your husband or wife.
America started a war of aggression, but was not facing an impending attack by Iraq. Bush and the senior neocons share complete responsiblity for everything that has happened since. They are murderers.
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Feb 3, 2005 at 6:08 AM Matilda wrote: “the difference between being Gay or Black and being conservative is that conservatism is a choice, and an extraordinarly damaging one at that.”
Being black is clearly not a choice. I don’t think there is any compelling evidence that being gay, Christian or conservative is *completely* determined at birth. “Gayness” in fact is a modern concept (the ancient Greek boys were taken by the older Greek man as lovers).
But certainly choice of religion is strongly influenced by where one is born. If you are born in the middle east, you are likely to be Muslim. This, of course, has nothing to do with genes, but just the culture one is raised in.
“but anyone who voted for Bush in this election, or supports his actions, puts themselves firmly in the camp of the ‘fundamentalists’.”
This puts the number of fundamentalists at roughly 50% of the voting public.
“I confront reddog, and others, for a couple of reasons. One, because by often repeating the rebulican party line so perfectly they make a great foil off of which I can crystalize my own opposition to such things.”
This seems potentially useful, especially if both you and the person you are corresponding with are doing the same thing. Sharpening ideas thought debate can be both fun and enlightening (which is why i come here, btw).
“I’m not into pretend civility.”
Most civility is pretend, isn’t it? After all, if you are with friends and everyone agrees, then there is no need for civility. . .
“All this ‘I’ll talk to you because your being moderate’ nonsense is, I think, pointless. This is not a game.”
I agree. I simply do not respond to posts that are too lacking in rational thought.
But this IS just a game, or so it seems to me. Nothing we do here affects policy (i am making the assumption that no significant policy makers are reading this). In fact, if we are to “accomplish” anything, it is via the presuasiveness of our arguments - which only “works” if they initially disagree with us. . .
“Conservatives in power at this very moment are torturing and killing people by proxy, and drawing up plans to invade further countries.”
While i understand what you are saying, they are attempting to “fix” the problems of the world. One could make similar statements during any war in history. . .
“I think a lot of people in this country have truly forgotten the difference between right and wrong. I mean really forgotten.”
I don’t believe this, but i tend to be optimistic. It seems to me that the problem is in defining “right” and “wrong”. For example, is the death penalty right or wrong? Abortion? Privatization of SS?
“My spirit is one of love and empathy, and I do not have to prove that to anyone.”
I am pleased that you have such a spirit. I truly wish you peace and harmony.
“If you have really read any of my posts you will see a person deeply dedicated to the rule of law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
My reading of posts is sporadic. But i will take you at your word.
“I think modern conservatism threatens all of these things.”
I understand. Myself i sit on a fence, wondering if inactions are worse than actions. To me it often appears that there a no good choices to make. For example, leaving Sanctions in place on Iraq very well might have resulted in even more deaths than the war (or not, but still many deaths). Taking them off may have allowed Saddam to get back to his insane attempts to build up his offensive capabilities (or allowed him to re-attempt to decimate his own people). Invading might fracture Iraq, the Middle East and perhaps the world. Yet we must choose which course of action to pursue (even if it is to do nothing).
“One of the great misconceptions about liberals is that in teaching tolerence we have to somehow put up with violence, oppression, or just outright nonsense. Tolerence is a two way street, and if someone is breaking the rules then all bets are off.”
I am more in favor of the MLK Jr and Ghandi style of protest via non-violent means. But this requires lots of people who agree with ones point of view AND at least some who will actively work for change.
If 10% of the public was really against something (the war, abortion, WalMart) AND willing to demonstrate against it, things would change. However a small vocal minority has little influence and is thus subject to extreme frustration.
“In other words I wouldn’t take part in a ‘polite’ debate with a Nazi on the legitimacy of the Holocaust.”
Me either. But neither would i take part in a debate about whether the moon is made of green cheese.
“In the same way I cannot bring myself to grace conservatives with a ‘polite’ debate about the pros and cons of gay bashing, or the rights and wrongs of an unprovoked invasion of another country that results in thousands of deaths.”
These issues are much less cut and dried in my world view (i am assuming that gay bashing included being against redefining the word “marriage”?).
“This should be self evident, but is obviously not.”
This is because opinions vary.
“Whatever conservatives used to be in the past, they are now extraodinarily anti-social people in terms of their core convictions.”
I think you are misunderstanding conservatives. But i think you are really saying that the “policies” enacted by conservatives are, essentially, “evil” in your opinion? If so, there is a great deal of variety of opinion here.
“They come onto this site, occasionally civil, often ranting, sometimes contradicting themselves, hoping I think to muddy the waters of genuine debate. “
This fits the pattern of both conservatives and liberals here. Or so it seems to me.
“Personally, I cannot relax and enter into real disscusions with like minded individuals when the likes of ‘reddog’ are hovering around.”
This may be a key part of the problem. You wish to debate nuances perhaps with those who are generally on your “side”, but kibitzers come in and move the argument all over the map?
“I’m sure he would be pleased to hear this, unfortuantely it is the truth.”
The truth is always good to hear, especially when phrased in a productive way. Thank you.
“Most of us here would, I am sure, love to become more engaged in the creative activity of formulating how best to remove these right wing extremists from power. That’s kind of hard to do when you have a robot (yes I called him a robot, ooohhh) like reddog talking gibberish, interspersed with nonsense.”
I don’t think you can fairly characterize reddog as a “robot”. This seems the equivalent of dehumanizing your opposition, much as one does in war. I don’t see it as useful or desirable.
Perhaps you should ignore posts that you see as merely gibberish or nonsense? (FWIW - i do.)
“Conservatives have a total right to be here, it is after all a public forum.”
I find forums to be more interesting when multiple points of view are debated. Without conservatives, this would not be the case (but even with them, the animosity between them and some of the liberals ends up degrading the conversation into personal attacks).
“So I will carry on, exposing and contradicting this strange and obnoxious world view when ever the urge grabs me.”
I applaud your wishing to champion your point of view. However, i think you are caricaturing the opposing side. . .
This may be far afield, but i find that if i can’t argue both sides of an argument, i am missing something. And that this deficiency will ultimately weaken my ability to argue my own side as well. . .
“Finally, myTake. Murder is not a poorly defined word, not in legal terms anyway. I define it as the premeditated killing of one human being by another, including as the result of criminal neglegence. I believe too that all ‘executions’ are in fact murder, whether they involve someone having their head chopped off in Saudi Arabia, or receiving a lethal injection in Texas.”
I did not mean to imply that murder is difficult for you to define. Rather i meant that murder is difficult for a society to define (eg, your definition of murder is at odds with the Texas/US definition).
“I know people are immediately going to say ‘what about abortion’? Well, I believe that abortion up to around three months into a pregnacy should now and forever more remain legal. I think there are important benifits to abortion and I do not believe that at the three months stage the foetus has attained any sort of meaningful consciousness. I know this is debated, it’s just my opinion.”
Thank you for sharing. Your thoughts meet one of my (somewhat factitious) criteria for being a good compromise. It would make both sides unhappy (abortion proponents wanting complete and unfettered access at all stages of the pregnancy, abortion foes wanting the life made by fertilization to be sacred at conception).
“As for seeing things in shades of grey this is all I have to say. Some shades of grey are almost black, while others are almost white. Seeing the shades of grey in a situation is not at all the same as sitting on the fence.”
I suppose we can only report what we feel as individuals in regards this. I find that little is black or white in the world we live in.
“In other words, although my attitude towards conservatives is sometimes communicated in black and white language, I do not put the horse before the cart. There is no prejudice involved in the true sense of the word, no pre-judging. The invasion of Iraq, for instance, is in my opinion such a dark shade of grey, that it might as well be black.”
I understand what you are saying.
In my mind, the invasion of Iraq was grey and the non-invasion of Iraq was just slightly less grey (i was against the war, before it started, but only by a little). But once the war began, it seemed to me we had to just make the best of it.
“myTake, I think you would define murder pretty quickly if it was your family shot and killed at a check point.”
I am sure you are right. But if my son had a suicide belt on (or was standing next to a person who did) i would assign responsibility to him, not necessarily the actual shooter.
“I think you would define it pretty quickly if your baby died for lack of fresh water or medicine as a result of your country being invaded.”
Or being under sanctions? Or being ruled by a madman?
“I think you would define it pretty quickly if a bomb fell on your house killing your husband or wife.”
You are right.
But certainly my overall feelings would be influenced (probably after a grieving period) by why the bombs were going off. Were they to free a country or to attempt to hold one hostage? The elections in Iraq make me think that at least some Iraqis feel that way. . .
“America started a war of aggression, but was not facing an impending attack by Iraq.”
This is true. Even the Bush administration said that there was no imminent threat.
“Bush and the senior neocons share complete responsiblity for everything that has happened since. They are murderers. “
I understand your thoughts. But i disagree. I think the situation in Iraq was horrible before the war - really a situation with no hope whatsoever. The situation there now is bad, but with a glimmer of hope that Iraq can be governed by Iraqis.
Anyway, thanks for your response Matilda. This post has become far longer than i intended. . .
Posted by myTake on Feb 3, 2005 at 9:16 AM jeez my take ya sound like you just came from a friggin rainbow festival or some other new age stroke fest.Glad you massaged poor waltzin matilda’s offended liberal sensibities.
that is the problem you all have - you don’t know the difference between right and wrong or what the hell you even believe in. so you attack Mr. Bush mindlessly. I hope is does come down to a vietnam style war again because this time we are not gonna let the left and the media lose the war for us. You are all communists plain and simple and an enemy ( not enema relax motilda) of this country. have a nice day pinko
Posted by reddhorse on Feb 3, 2005 at 10:31 AM myTake on February 3, 2005 at 10:16 AM Reply to Matilda
“I understand your thoughts. But i disagree. I think the situation in Iraq was horrible before the war - really a situation with no hope whatsoever. The situation there now is bad, but with a glimmer of hope that Iraq can be governed by Iraqis.”
People have a right voice viewpoints but along with that is carried the responsibility of being informed. Unless the conversation deals with common everyday personal matters. Not so with matters that our country.
The American public’s consensus on Iraq is almost split down the middle. Why? Because the media mixes so much fiction with the facts on Iraq until finally fiction takes on the quality of facts. The public responds to it like it does to commercials selling different laundry detergent or cigarettes. If there were only two brands, it is most likely the preference of the people would be split almost down the middle.
Some of the facts on Iraq: The land that is included in Iraq was once divided up into tribal territories. The consolidation of these tribal lands was forcibly integrated into the Iraq nation by western imperialism. After, there were years of struggle for nationalism. Finally, with more intervention from the West, Saddam Hussein was installed as the head of the secular state. As with all other third world countries, the West and the East (Soviet Union) intervened by building up military power--in Iraq’s case, trading weapons for oil. The US supplied both Iran and Iraq, each one ruled by a bloody dictator with the Shah of Iran being disposed later. Then the US meddled in these countries by stirring up the Iraq/Iran war with the infamous shaking of Saddam’s hand by Donald Rumsfeld. Finally, the dictator gets too big for his britches for the US and it is decided to dispose him. Just like the dictator, Diem, we supported in South Vietnam. When he got too big for his britches, the US disposed of him also. In each case, it was not because these dictators were bloody tyrants against the people in their country but because they broke the rules of the ball game with the US.
I may have missed something in this saga but I don’t recall the American public being asked whether the US should help install Saddam Hussein into dictatorial power and load him up with weapons and cheer him on in his war with Iran. So, suddenly the American public is asked to comply with the US attacking Iraq. Why? Did Saddam suddenly become a bloody tyrant?
If the American people want to get oil to produce gasoline for their SUV’s by any means, “the end justifies the means,” then why not say so and stop beating around the bush. If might is right then say so.
Those who get it in the neck on either side of any battle front is the working class. Russian workers were sent to fight and die in Afghanistan. American workers are now sent to fight and die in Iraq. Workers in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed and maimed fighting workers from foreign land. Did any of them really ask for it. Not only is the working class compelled to toil for meager wages, they are compelled or cajoled into fighting the wars of the ruling class.
Think, just for minute, about those who are the mouthpices of the capitalist class, the Senaters, those who are supposed to represent the people who almost all belong to the working class. Everyday they strut around in Congress spouting off about looking out for the people’s needs, while they themselves are locked into a $2,800,000.00 dollar (2.8 million) retirement that they haven’t paid one red cent for. Was the working class asked to pay their representatives such a generous sum while barely scraping on the Social Security allocated by Congress
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 3, 2005 at 1:01 PM reddhorse on February 3, 2005 at 11:31 AM
“have a nice day pinko”
I suppose you never purchase “pinko” merchandise, right?
I will give you one guess, much of it is produced by labor getting paid by the going rate of $24 per month, get that, not per hour or per week, but per month. And their bosses are “pinkos.” And their “pinko” bosses take the cash which is their cut out of the action by exporting merchandise loaded to the gills in one after the other, of the biggest container ships in the world unloading at US ports, and go on a shopping spree to Russia, a place infested with “pinkos,” to buy all kinds of military goodies. Sunburn missiles for instance, the same ones ending up in Iran.
Just like Iraq, where American soldiers are getting chopped up with weapons and ammunition previously sold to Iraq by the US, our American dollars end up in Russia in trade for Sunburn missiles that end up in Iran. If the US goes to war with Iran maybe “gong ho” US soldiers will find out what a “pinko” is when a Sunburn missile jams up their butt. All bought by American dollars in exchange for “pinko” merchandise. Go ahead, tell me all about “pinkoism.”
Wal Mart and Microsoft goes to the bank with the loot dealing with the “pinkos” and American soldiers from the working class get their butts shot off.
No thanks.
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 3, 2005 at 1:26 PM pinko you are probably too you and uninformed to know but pinko in my day meant red commie- ooops you know what it is because you are one.
Nice thoughts there donald- wishing harm on American servicemen - too bad sedition and being a traitor are not firing squad offenses anymore beacause you and ted kennedy and pelosi and kerry and matilda and most of the us press and most of the democrats would be facing one for your obviously traitorous views. like I always say liberalism is a mental disorder....
Posted by reddog on Feb 3, 2005 at 3:54 PM ss would be alright if the government would keep their hands off it. They keep borrowing from the fund and don’t put the money back, the first pres. that borrowed from it was nixon, now bush is paying for the war. Bush is spending more money than he is taking in from taxes. Sounds just like the problem their are having with ss. There is 3 things that must be done 1. print more money 2. raise taxes 3.cut spending. It’s reganomics all over again. I am glan the rep.were more interested in clintons bj than there are about running up the debt. Bush can blame the next 4 years on 9-11 like he did with the first 4 years. This will play right into hilary’s hands.
Posted by brian on Feb 3, 2005 at 4:24 PM Posted by reddog on February 3, 2005 at 4:54 PM
reddog
Do you know what trading with the enemy means. Do you know how the Vietnam came about getting US made 50 caliber machine guns. Do you know how Americans got slaughtered by 50 caliber bullets. Do you know that having a 50 caliber machine gun is no good to fighter unless he has a plentiful supply of ammo so where did the ammo come from.
So I protest about supplying the enemy and you accuse me of wishing harm on American soldiers. Get real.
Do you know that about 15 US companies sold crowd control equipment to Stalin. Do you know that the US grain embargo on the Soviet Union was a joke because it didn’t include existing contracts which were honored by the US meaning no grain shipment was interrupted and when the embargo was lifted new contracts were made. Do you know also that during that embargo, about 30 US companies were in the Soviet Union building a coal transfer station near the ocean north of Japan to ship coal to Japan to smelt steel to produce the Hondas and Toyotas exported to the US.
If there is a dire need to combat “pinkoism” in the US I wouldn’t want to be on your side because you seem to not have a clue about what is going on.
If you want to match an expose by you on “pinkoism” with one by me, I am ready to go anytime, provided that it be posted here all to see.
I spent two years in the military in South Korea and from all the information I gathered, the only reason the North Koreans got to the South for the start of the Korean War is because the US let them.
Don’t accuse me of wishing harm on Americans. If I would have had anything to say about it, the North Koreans would never have made it across the boarder
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 3, 2005 at 4:44 PM I thank you and applaud you for your service to this country sir. i thought at first that you were one of the hard line liberals just mindlessly attacking me. Many of them here DO wish harm on our soldiers on the front lines and apologize sincerely for any misunderstanding about the pinko remark.
I was referring to the fact that after I got out of the service at the end of ‘Nam that commies were refered to as commie pinkos. i do in fact know about 50’s and their insatiable appetite for ammo- without ammo we used to call the gun a stick.
No I am not familiar at all with “pinkoism” that you refer to. I know that international trade sometimes causes harm back to the originator tho. But other than that I am uninformed.
once again sir no disrespect to you intended and thank you for your time in uniform.
Posted by reddog on Feb 3, 2005 at 6:26 PM I would like to respond to Melinda’s concern about “giving money to those who have not worked as heard...”
Three things: first, “as hard as who”? Do you think that a person who for instance works in a retirement home as a caregiver does not work as hard as does say an insurance broker? If “working hard” is the ticket to prosperity in your simple slogan, the bed pan changer should probably receive greater rewards than the insurance broker. I’m not trying to diss brokers, just using them as an example. The difference of course is the value added to the consumer of the workers’ services. Yes, the disabled or feeble person in the bed’s life is enhanced by the caregiver, but she or he (most often she) cannot reward that person much.
The buyer of insurance values the peace of mind it gives enough to pay handsomely for the broker’s services. The economy doesn’t really reward “hard work”; it rewards “smart work”. And the truth is, only about half the population can really do smart work. You may be one of the blessed half, but it doesn’t mean you have a better character than a 90 IQ caregiver who really serves her or his charges. The oppoosite is very probably true.
Second, Social Security payments are based on average lifetime earnings. Yes, a person becomes eligible for disability and a minimum retirement pension after ten years of contributions. But the minimum amount is about $700/month, way below the poverty line, especially for a senior citizen with heavy medical expenses. To receive a non-poverty level Social Security check a person has to work in a relatively well-compensated skilled blue collar or white collar job for at least forty years.
The people who designed Social Security weren’t financial idiots; they recognized the time value of money which is why they mandated that benefits advance with average wage levels, rather than inflation. Sure, a worker’s early contributions are tiny, but they compound for more than forty years; if the worker had compensated work as a young person they might compound for fifty years. A little bit of money compounded even at 3% for fifty years grows into a sizable sum. That’s why having a job that maxes out the contribution limits late in one’s career doesn’t really add much to the benefit. It’s an entire life’s earnings that matter.
Third, if you stop transfer payments you risk slow strangulation of the economic engine that powers America: consumerism. Before the adoption of “welfare” this nation and others of the industrialized advanced economy suffered periodic economic catastrophies. Bubbles, crashes, panics, depressions, “permanently high plateau"s tumbled after one another like the children in a Jane Austin novel. The percentage of the 18 to 65 year old population engaged in work has fallen by two percent since the plunge in 2001, and it shows no signs of resurgence. Increasingly average Americans are competing against people in the rightward first or second standard deviation in China and India. They not only work for less, they do it smarter.
This is an economic fact of life and it is not possible to stop the hemorrhage of good jobs overseas completely. But it can be ameliorated by sensible social-economic policies to enhance people’s skills and augment their native intelligence. But all that costs money and involves “giving money to people” who might not work as hard for a while as they hone their skills.
So I would hope that while you can certainly point to many anecdotes of “welfare queens” and “disabled bums” you can recognize that the majority of people helped by government programs are simply less fortunate than you. Either they are not as smart, they came from a disfunctional family and didn’t have the fortune to meet that “angel” who inspired them to change, or they have a physical or mental disability of some sort that prevents their full development as an economic citizen.
To deny this is to deny decades of honest social research and the plain as the nose on your face success of European and Canadian societies which value community and take care of their own. And it’s frankly not very Christian, either.
Posted by anandakos on Feb 3, 2005 at 9:31 PM Good points and well put if I may say so. What the country needs is a lot more people with at least that much understanding.
Don
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 4, 2005 at 5:47 AM Looks like the discussion of “Ownership Society” has reached the end of the line.
No consensus of opinion has been reached.
Tell you what, the neocons always arrive at a concessus of opinion, that’s what they get paid for by the capitalist class.
Do you think workers (workers other than the neocons, the boot lickers for the capitalist class) would arrive at concessus of opinion if they were paid by some mysterious source. It would have to be mysterious because there is no profit to be made by serving the interest of the working class. And as you know, profit is the driving force of capitalism.
So it appears from all intents and purposes of this discussion forum, workers as a class are going to stand still for the latest capitalist grand scam, “Ownership Society” just like they sucked up the grand scam under the Eisenhower administration, “Peoples Capitalist.”I am looking for some real brothers and sisters in the labor movement. Anyone out there somewhere?
Don, Coordinator of Real Union Of Social Science, a real union if there ever was one.
Posted by Donald J. Donaker on Feb 5, 2005 at 7:18 PM A true libertarian places as much value on individual as commercial liberty. Bush is not a true libertarian but a fascist. He wants to expand commercial liberty and power while diminishing individual liberty. This a recipe for fascist totalitarianism where the people serve the interests of the corporations regardless of any other considerations or “corporate slavery.”
Posted by bushisalyingsob on Feb 7, 2005 at 12:31 PM “Ownership” society, Red Dogg ?????
You are against a woman owning her body but you
want Wall Street to own our social security ???
You are against aborting UNBORN fetuses but you
are for WAR, which is the ultimate form of mass
murder ? Talk about stinking, twisted, ugly, brainless little hypocrites !
You have not ONE intelligent on any forum on the
ITT board yet ! You are like your NAZI heroes,
Michael Savage and Russ Limbaugh, you are a big,
obnoxious conservaturd loudmouth with bad BO.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 3:24 PM In sentence five of my above posting I left the
word “made” before ONE and the word “argument”
after INTELLIGENT.
Posted by Michael Hardesty on Feb 8, 2005 at 3:28 PM hardesty you old socialist wordmonger - you are at it again with your convolute thinking. still can’t get over the fact that Bush won can you? sticks and stones hardest will break bones your words just make me laugh. where doi you get this stuff - the ted kennedy charm school? Oh no you think I have BO? what the hell are you five years old or something? And all this talk about nazi’s is really hurting my feelings man- quit before I tell your mommy. You libs- progressives- socialist- commies all resort to the Nazi monniker when you know your arguments are hollw- which they always are. I know you hate the ownership society- you socialists always want to steal from people to further your stupid idea of social(ist) justice. Abortion is murder- women have no constitutional right to commit murder- if you don’t want kids don’t screw around if you cannot figure that out then give it up- if you can’t do the time- don’t do the crime.
You say I have no intelligent posts on this forum- check in the mirror pal- all i hear is the typical liberal whine- Nazi-Bush- Nazi Rush- Nazi this Nazi that. anybody that does not adhere to your convoluted and hypocritical political correct thinking is a Nazi- whaaaa.
The time is coming and soon that your type will be purged from American soil. As a matter of fact with all this Nazi talk concentration camps for liberals is starting to sound pretty good. Shut the F**K up you commie swine and go to canada or france or somethin like that this is America and liberals like you time is up- game over puke- you lose.
Posted by dog day afternoon on Feb 22, 2005 at 5:05 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Joel Bleifuss
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
