As loyal partisans of Spartakusbund, we have nothing in principle against government ownership of industry, nor against government subsidies to for-profit companies. Today's quandary: are the Big-3 auto companies for-profit companies?
I'm no auto aficionado. I've owned three cars in the past 20 years, so feel free to correct what follows. I know you will.
In Washington D.C. it is said that personnel is policy. Personnel are being selected by the Obama Administration as we speak. Policy is being made, right now. It is not too early to discuss Obama's policies. I'm getting daily emails from the new model Obama Democrats, asking for more old-fashioned money. I'd like to see some changes at the top, rather than a cavalcade of Ye Olde Tyme Democratic Hacks.
If President O wants to keep the base fired up, he needs to elevate some new people. The incoming crowd we've seen thus far is going to wilt enthusiasm faster than Harry Reems contemplating Ann Coulter.
The general confusion about just what socialism is and isn't seems pervasive. In the mouths of the dumb Right it has become a political cuss-word.
The ordinary meaning is when the Gov takes ownership of the "commanding heights" of industry. (Not my preference, by the way.) That's the definition children should be learning in the schools. Obviously that is not the Obama program. To the contrary, one of his missions will be to unwind the Bushists' embrace of the financial system, where just who is f**king whom is an abrasive topic of debate.
If you watch the video, you readily see that we could be in much worse trouble. At any rate, both of these can be true at the same time:
1. Public opinion is mired in center-right ideology.
2. President O can lead the nation to progressive policies.
Isn't this strange. Maybe you have to be old to appreciate it. Fasten your seatbelts, now the fun begins.
For auto workers the Bush cavalry is on the way, except they are years too late. The latest shoe to drop is George Bush's rejection of a potential merger between GM and Chrysler. Coincidentally the merger is said to be a threat to many workers in Ohio and Michigan, since it could mean the closure of plants in those states.
Ought the Federal government keep its nose out of the declining U.S. auto industry? Will the new program for fuel efficient vehicles be sufficient? I'd say no to both.
What is best in politics? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentations of their women . . . I'm like a kid waiting for Christmas, wondering what's in those packages under the tree.
Not to count any unhatched chickens, but I'd like to gently remind all you Obamaniacs that the Democratic candidate is running on tax cuts, enlarging the military, expanding the invasion of Afghanistan, and sustaining the grip of private insurance companies on the nation's health care system. Our likely Secretary of the Treasury and economic policy czar is Larry Summers, who to the best of my knowledge has never worn love beads. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, may stay on for a bit. Obama is running as the competent Republican. No doubt, a competent Republican is better than an incompetent Republican, especially if he or she happens to be a Democrat.
Now that we're entering the Golden Age of Obamanian Socialism, we (you, actually) need some instruction on the concept of redistribution. The word is being thrown around loosely by addled minds on both sides of our political divide. As the only representative of the Spartacusbund on this hopelessly moderate web site, the task of providing enlightenment falls to me.
First we should note that our hero Karl Marx did not dwell on redistribution as an ethical policy to advance equity. For him the distribution of income over classes -- what most economists call the functional distribution of income -- was an analytical aspect of the laws of motion under Capitalism. Sure Marx supported obvious reforms such as a progressive income tax, but that was a subordinate feature of his work. Redistribution from rich to not-rich is a liberal and populist trip.
. . . [E]conomic freedom. . . . Freedom for men to choose their own callings, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, freedom of private enterprise that does not injure others. . . . A large number of the men administering our preparedness program do not believe in this freedom. With a long war--and it will be long if we put our boys into it--then their methods with the inevitable debt, inflation, unemployment and demoralized agriculture will make us over into State Socialism, probably under some other name. -- Herbert Hoover, 1941
Someone, I forget who, once said the history of the world is the history of class struggle. In the current politically morbid period, where the predators and the stupids have unearned market power in the marketplace of ideas, the history of the world is the history of class struggle over taxes. But maybe not for long.
That would be guys like this who can afford to buy businesses that stand to earn over $250,000 annually, but decline to do so because they would face a higher marginal tax rate and not be compelled to provide their employees with health insurance. Because they'd rather be doing this.
Picture Larry Summers trying to keep Phil Gramm from poking his eyes out. The Washington Post tells the story of the bipartisan quartet who thwarted attempts by Commodities Futures Trading Commission Chairman Chairperson Brooksley Born (pictured) to regulate derivatives: Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Arthur Levitt, and Phil Gramm.
It is derivatives and other upchucks of The Free Market in finance that have transformed the mortgage crisis into a world-historic giant honking financial crisis. If you allow that the Clinton Administration was composed of Democrats, about which reasonable people may disagree, then it's a bipartisan accomplishment. One of the fruits of "The New Democrats."
"That one." (Rehashing the conflicts of the '60s, for your Internet pleasure.)
(Hey, it's my day off.) You might not have known, the worldwide financial crisis was caused by black folks trying to buy homes, abetted by those dangerous ACORNs*:
"Republicans have also attempted to link the organization to the current financial crisis. On Friday the McCain campaign posted a Web video that accused ACORN of "bullying banks" and "forc[ing them] to issue risky home loans. The same types of loans that caused the financial crisis we're in today."
Before I start, I want to say that if there was one bit of advice I could give Barack Obama for the final debate, it's to note that Gabby Hayes does not understand that the current economic mess is not a consequence of corruption. His simple-minded, self-righteous clichés are not the change we need. On the corruption front, the problem is not the violation of laws. The problem is what is legal. End of advice.
Hey all you media people -- David Broder, Brian Williams, Jim Lehrer -- who think the candidates are now obliged to detail a medley of painful spending cuts and tax increases, will you please shut your stupid face? You have no idea what you are talking about.
