Considering that I am both doing NaNoWriMo AND have just moved, I don't have time right now to formulate my utter (although predicted) disappointment in Obama's cabinet choices, especially his economic choices. Instead I'm offering my dear readers (are there any really??) a smattering of articles that might give some insight - especially for progressives who think Summers & Geithner are good choices (and I'm not even taking into consideration the fact that Summers thinks that women just aren't good at science):
About the Advisory Board - Paul Krugman's suggested picks. Why oh why Paul won't you do it??
Return of Wall Street Hustlers - Think that Rubin & Clinton aren't partially responsible for this economic mess? Think again.
State Banks Could Solve Financial Crisis - why not get the good part of 'socialism' (i.e. control) instead of the bad (i.e. the debt)?
Surprise! This Bank Refuses Fed Bailout - See? Integrity is possible.
Obama's Wall Street Woes - I don't agree that there is any evidence that Obama "gets this" but I agree that he "seems perilously close to following the same course as Bush in the banking bailout" (which is to say the same course ALL presidents have been following for the past 28 years).
That's just a smattering. Also, take a peek at some quotes from On the Wealth of Nations, Book 1. Not quoted is the part where Smith argues that corporations which take government subsidies will soon spend all their time and energy getting free money and not actually do anything else.
Even the Wall Street Journal called this crisis "Minsky's moment," so why aren't we putting post-Keysians or, hell, even a Keysian into positions of power? Hello?
Just for FYI --
Banks panics in the US:
1819
1837
1857
1873
1893
1907
Great Depression
80s & 90s Savings & Loans Crisis
1987 Black Monday
Tech Bust of 2000/2001
2008
Hmm ... seems like there is a large period missing from this list? 1945-1980? And yet, New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America gets prominent billing in the Union Square Barnes & Noble. Seriously? Yes, America was so damaged by the New Deal that we became a singular super power and the most prosperous country in the world until Milton Friedman came along and made that same argument - and we are currently seeing just how well THAT worked out.
Well this went longer than planned ...
Showing posts with label politicians - bill clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians - bill clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Why I'm Voting for Nader
I thought I'd start my election '08 blogging off with why I'm voting for Nader. True, I'm a little late on the uptake - in more ways than one. Firstly, I've been meaning to write this post for some time but haven't had a chance until now. Secondly, I didn't vote for Nader in 2000 or 2004 so why, - you might ask - in 2008, would I vote for him?
Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.
Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.
The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."
Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.
So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.
Up until this election, I have essentially been a single issue voter. That issue, of course, being abortion. (In fact, I refused to vote for my local assembly person because he is anti-abortion. Instead, I wrote in "Ficus" - wink, wink, Micheal Moore.) I got my election guide from Planned Parenthood and voted down the line.
Adam and I have attended two Nader rallies so far this year and he talked about me - well, me as in the prototypical single issue voter. He brought up a good point. If I vote for a politician based on one issue and I disagree with said politician on other issues 49% of the time, have I really voted for someone who represents me? Have I performed my civic duty? In an election where there is a candidate, albeit an unlikely one, who I agree with more than 50% of the time (way more in fact), the answer is a resounding NO. The answer is no because I am against: NAFTA, torte reform, restrictions on abortion, corporate welfare, energy trading, media consolidation, FISA, welfare to "work"; I am for: universal single payer health care, new deal-style regulation of financial markets and utilities, small business, small farming, increased car efficiency standards, public transportation and works ... just to name a few.
The second reason I'm voting for Nader and perhaps the most resounding one for me is this: the democrats will never move further to the left (or even just not toward the center!) unless I prove to them that I am willing to not vote for them; prove that they are not entitled to my vote. As Eugene Debs said "It's better to vote for someone you believe in and lose than to vote for someone you don't believe in and win."
Lastly, what have the democrats done for me lately? Let's see: they voted for the war in iraq, they voted for the Patriot Act, they voted to renew FISA, welfare to "work" happened on clinton's watch, etc etc. It's nice to blame Bush and Cheney for all of this - and they deserve A LOT of blame - but they couldn't have done it without democrat support.
So that's it. My mind is made up. As you can see, it really has less to do with Obama or even Nader than it does with a deep desire to see our country be great again. That, my friends, is real patriotism.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Green on Gore ...
Harsh words from the Green Party directed at leftist Gore supporters ...
It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.
The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.
Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.
The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.
None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.
Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.
Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."
In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.
It was under the Clinton/Gore administration that Depleted Uranium weaponry was first authorized. It was under was the Clinton/Gore administration that 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi children died from the sanctions, which is still a greater death toll than the Bush administration, although the Bushies are catching up quickly.
The Clinton/Gore administration first authorized "extraordinary rendition" and signed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which has further consolidated the corporate media, which is, in my opinion the biggest risk to democracy we face today. Let us also not forget "Welfare Reform" and the "War On Drugs", both an attack on poor people. Clinton/Gore again.
Then let us not forget that Gore actually won the 2000 election and instead of standing up for those who voted for him, including the 90,000 illegally purged from the voting rolls, Al Gore told the Congressional Black Cacaus to "sit down and be quiet", as noted in the Michael Moore movie Farenheight 9-11.
The WTO protests of Seattle in 1999 were targeting the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration. This includes signing up for NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the IMF, massive give-a-ways of public land to the Mining Industries and of large tracts of our forests to the Lumber Industries.
None of this was mentioned in his cute little film. Instead of targeting the corporate responsibility for the crisis of global warming, he tells us what "we little people" can do. Buy a Prius, change a light bulb etc, not what General Motors should be forced to do. Just us "little people" changing bulbs etc. He also obviously did not target the policies started under his vice-presidency. No talk of NAFTA or corporate globalization in his movie.
Al Gore is a well packaged, corporate friendly "environmentalist." Al Gore is a "green-washed" corporate prostitute who has been green-washed just as surely as British Petroleum or any other corporate polluter. My fullest apologies to prostitutes for comparing you to Al Gore.
Now that is really an "inconvenient truth" and I can guarantee that this is something you will never hear from the Sierra Club, Dennis Kucinich or any of the local versions of him here in Minnesota. That is another "inconvenient truth."
In other words, wake up people. Pay attention to the actions instead of the words. You are being lied to, again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
