World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

Anyone follow The Onion? I think anyone can agree on this clip.

Having followed the reignited discussion on US politics and the state of the country, does anyone believe (from both sides of the spectrum) that this could be a time and a situation in which a third Party would emerge?

Would it be a welcome development?

Would it be a necessary development?

Has it ever happened before in the history of the US, can it ever happen?

It would take someone with widespread popular ideas based in honesty, political skill and stamina, with a boatload of money (Michael Bloomberg type). Even then, the odds, and the rules, are so stacked against it happening. Congress protects Congress, the establishment protects the establishment, more than anything else.

Many times people have tried to run, most successfully in recent years is Ross Perot in 1992. Rich, had great ideas, but more than a little too edgy for most people. Lots of third party candidates have emerged, but often from other parties. The Bull Moose party, the Whigs, etc.

I personally would welcome a third and fourth party. or even would like a NO party system. At the very least when running for office in primaries and general elections. Many city mayors are like this.

 

[Anonymous]

Having followed the reignited discussion on US politics and the state of the country, does anyone believe (from both sides of the spectrum) that this could be a time and a situation in which a third Party would emerge?

Would it be a welcome development?

Would it be a necessary development?

Has it ever happened before in the history of the US, can it ever happen?

If any third party comes forward and gets any traction it will be far right...anti immigrant, pro corporate, nutty religious fanatics...just an offshoot of the republicans...

Or maybe it will be liberatarian...who are pretty much hardcore republicans anyway...republicans who want to smoke weed and snort coke out of hookers a-holes...

The idea of a middle class workers party, not in the sense of pure socialism...but just folks who have actual productive jobs and are sick of money running everything...who want more unions and say, who want to bring jobs back to the country and build our manufacturing base...or changing how money and power buys political power in this country...and god forbid, provide an actual social safety net for the things to do happen in life...like sickness, job loss, more fair wages for people (i.e livable wages)that ain't gonna happen...

 

[titan_90]

If any third party comes forward and gets any traction it will be far right...anti immigrant, pro corporate, nutty religious fanatics...just an offshoot of the republicans...

I thought that was the current Republican party

 

[Anonymous]

I thought that was the current Republican party

Of course you are right Titan...but you already see this happening...repugs who feel their party just ain't right ENOUGH...it's like a criminal gang getting angry at the boss: "hey, we can steal so much more...let's take this shingding over"...

This wrecking crew would have been hung from the cherry trees by the founders...actually, their ilk were...they have just managed to regurgitate themselves and rise again...

Scott, by the way, you're point about corporations and their essence being NOT to create jobs...as if that is some sort of self evident truth...is the reason why the founding fathers originally banned corporations...and as money leaked thru they then limited their legal status to one natural generation (about 25 years...at which point they had to be disbanded...this, in order to kill inheritance weath and thus power which was seen as dangerous to democracy).

 

[Anonymous]

Of course you are right Titan...but you already see this happening...repugs who feel their party just ain't right ENOUGH...it's like a criminal gang getting angry at the boss: "hey, we can steal so much more...let's take this shingding over"...

This wrecking crew would have been hung from the cherry trees by the founders...actually, their ilk were...they have just managed to regurgitate themselves and rise again...

Scott, by the way, you're point about corporations and their essence being NOT to create jobs...as if that is some sort of self evident truth...is the reason why the founding fathers originally banned corporations...and as money leaked thru they then limited their legal status to one natural generation (about 25 years...at which point they had to be disbanded...this, in order to kill inheritance weath and thus power which was seen as dangerous to democracy).

I wrote what I wrote because it is not self evident, at least to some.

I'll take you at your word regarding the Founding Fathers. My question is, so what?

Is it somehow unfair for a business owner or farmer to want to pass on their sweat equity to their heirs? Is it more fair for the govt to confiscate that sweat equity? I think the Kennedy family (among millions of others) would have a problem with this.

One would think that workers in this country would want a thriving business environment in this (and any) country. I mean, look at Detroit. You think those workers are better off with a thriving auto industry, or one in tatters?

And BTW, there is so little difference between the parties nowadays that what you write about one likely applies to the other.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a fun article on Capitalism by Walter Williams.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3186

"Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires."


Who the heck is Walter Williams??

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

 

[CentralCaliBike]

A plan that works all over the rest of the civilized world.

But if health care is a universal right - you should make sure that no one in the entire world has any more or any less. Also, I think it remains to be seen whether the other nations can afford their health care. I remember a taking some classes from a political science professor from England who was so happy to move to the United States where he could actually by a car and drive it - two doctoral degrees in England got him a place to stay but nothing else - in addition, he was not enthusiastic about the health care that he received there either.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yeah, to use the free will his Father gave them. Jesus did try to appeal to their humanity to do the right thing. He laid out a very stark choice. . Guess what this says about the ones who didn't hear Christ's message. The ones on your side whose deaf ears Christ's message fell upon continue to proclaim the loudest that they are devout Christians. Their leaders start illegal discretionary wars saying the "higher" Father told them to do so. You apparently don't understand irony.

Christ also said, "The poor you will have always". He clearly stated that being poor, and all that comes with it will be around until a new world (one that man is not able to make on his own).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

You're quoting Newt Gingrich? That's beyond funny.

A guy with a PhD in Modern European History who is a prolific author on non-fiction book relating to history seems to be someone with a certain amount of credibility about things of a historical nation.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well, we've had 30 years of voodoo economics and it hasn't happened yet.

Your whole philosophy as well as that of most conservatives is based on selfishness.

Our form of government enables individuals to attain great wealth and for them to protect it. They're going to be taxed on their income. The selfish are going to be screaming bloody murder like spoiled children and this is something that will never change.

Odd how most self described conservatives won't even consider fighting in all these crazy wars they're fierce advocates of.

Things were going ok until the Clinton administration felt that that it was not fair for people without the economic base could not purchase a home. The Clinton administration began forcing loans to people who did not have the ability to repay them - in order to make the first year or two of payments they created exotic loan programs which resulted in loans that included no down payment, no interest (or even increasing principal amounts since the loans did not always require you to pay the full interest amount every month).

 

[Anonymous]

my gosh Scott...is there anything a capitalist can not do? Let me learn the lessons you spout about the wealthy....I see now I have gotton it so wrong...if only I had known I should thank them every time I have had to take antibiotics...god damn man, you swallowed the pill...

Here is a fun article on Capitalism by Walter Williams.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3186

"Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man. Capitalists seek to find what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible. Here's a question for us: are people who by their actions create unprecedented convenience, longer life expectancy and more fun available to the ordinary person, and become wealthy in the process, deserving of all the scorn and ridicule heaped upon them by intellectuals and politicians? Are the wealthy obliged to "give something back?" For example, what more do the wealthy discoverers and producers of life-saving antibiotics owe us? They've already saved lives and made us healthier.

Despite the miracles of capitalism, it doesn't do well in popularity polls. One of the reasons is that capitalism is always evaluated against the non-existent utopias of socialism or communism. Any earthly system pales in comparison to utopias. But for the ordinary person, capitalism, with all of its warts, is superior to any system yet devised to deal with our everyday needs and desires."


Who the heck is Walter Williams??

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

 

[CentralCaliBike]

But you could apply that to many things. The financial bailouts for example. Farm bills? How about defense spending for war?

But I do not believe that Christ suggested the individual pay for financial bailouts, farm bills, or defense spending - seems that his comment was, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Laughable. Really.

You may want to look at who actually pays the taxes in this country.

Those who will scream the loudest will be those who lose their entitlements because there is no money left to pay for them.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Largest peactime expansion of our economy ever (probably gets too much credit for that considering how far Carter had run the country into the ground). Presided over the fall of Soviet Russia thus winning the cold war without firing a shot. Was probably the last President who could actully work with Democrats and Republicans in a bi-partisan way.

I voted for Reagan twice.

Edit: I voted for Reagan only once as I was not old enough to vote in 1980.

I voted for him twice (made voting age by about three weeks) - Of course I also voted for Ross Perot twice as well.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The UK, Germany, France, Slovakia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico (all with current justices on the ICJ) all seem to agree on the abolition of the DP. Who would have thought the US would be in agreement with Russia and China on a 'right to life' issue.

Mexico had the death penalty on the books as recently as 2005 (when they were suing the United States using the ICJ) for putting their citizens on death row. When it was pointed out to them that this might be a problem they took it off the books - I understand, from talking with a fairly high ranking Mexican official, that there is a rising demand for a re-institution (and actual implementation) of the death penalty given the exploding homicide rates in Mexico.

 

[Anonymous]

my gosh Scott...is there anything a capitalist can not do? Let me learn the lessons you spout about the wealthy....I see now I have gotton it so wrong...if only I had known I should thank them every time I have had to take antibiotics...god damn man, you swallowed the pill...

You see, this is how we debate. I put forth an argument, cite really smart people to support my position and you call me an idiot.

Well done.

 

[Anonymous]

I voted for him twice (made voting age by about three weeks) - Of course I also voted for Ross Perot twice as well.

So Clinton being elected (twice) was your fault.

 

[Anonymous]

A guy with a PhD in Modern European History who is a prolific author on non-fiction book relating to history seems to be someone with a certain amount of credibility about things of a historical nation.

The really fun part was I was quoting an author who was ripping Gingrich.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Having followed the reignited discussion on US politics and the state of the country, does anyone believe (from both sides of the spectrum) that this could be a time and a situation in which a third Party would emerge?

Would it be a welcome development?

Would it be a necessary development?

Has it ever happened before in the history of the US, can it ever happen?

I would be grateful for a third party in with the fundamental ideals that Ross Perot had - however, I did not see him being able to deliver even when I voted for him since he did not have a majority (or even a significant minority) of politicians backing his play. A third party would make things a little interesting only if it was large enough that the other two had to come to them in order for the votes to pass economic and social laws. The chances of a third party developing are better now than they have been for the past several decades since we are at a point of economic destruction - only when there is no chance for the current system to survive will the voter start looking for a solution that has escaped the current party ideology. What is required to recover is something neither party is willing to put forward since it would mean going against their voting base (which are primarily the entitlements of low paid and non-workers, as well as major corporate welfare recipients) by cutting back on all forms of entitlements and growth from a position of hard work and innovation.

 

[Anonymous]

This is a really interesting essay on the concept of 'Social Business'. Maybe a workable solution? Maybe full of it? What do you think?

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Microfinance/Making-Capitalism-Work.pdf

 

[ChrisE]

So Clinton being elected (twice) was your fault.

Yes, and I bet you suffered royally financially in the 90's under Clinton, and you did much better 2000-2008.

And, getting control of the debt was just torture, huh? Scott, I'm sure you will find some link that proves that was all just terrible.....

I never will figure you guys out.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

So Clinton being elected (twice) was your fault.

Pretty much

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The really fun part was I was quoting an author who was ripping Gingrich.

I caught that later - just thought it was interesting that someone would rip a guy with fairly good grasp of history as somehow being ignorant about history.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Interesting postings while I was out riding today - on a side note: great weather for riding here in the Central Valley.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, and I bet you suffered royally financially in the 90's under Clinton, and you did much better 2000-2008.

And, getting control of the debt was just torture, huh? Scott, I'm sure you will find some link that proves that was all just terrible.....

I never will figure you guys out.

You are probably correct. Don't worry, it's not fatal.