|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: Obama obliterates the Left |
 |
|
Obama`s Emerging Legacy: Wars, Bankers and For-Profit Healthcare
Posted: 2009/06/26
From: Mathaba
The first Black president has racked up some impressive victories. Barack Obama has quarantined single-payer healthcare advocates, crushed dissent against the war in Congress, and transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history. Not bad for just five months in office.
�At some point in the near future Barack Obama will become inextricably associated in the public mind with Big Capital � and deservedly so.�
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
�The 'Obama Effect' has led to the near-total collapse of the Left.�
As of this writing, the Progressives for Obama website still exists, a relic of Left delusion that should have died of embarrassment months ago. Barack Obama has, indeed, grown in the presidency � but not into the FDR-like figure of his leftish supporters� imaginations. Nor has his presence in the Oval Office served to spur Blacks and progressives to dramatic action, creating the �push� that Left Obamites had predicted would allow their champion to act on his more �liberal� instincts. Quite the contrary. The �Obama Effect� has led to the near-total collapse of the Left� both its white and Black wings � and made the nation safe for rule by finance capital and militarists.
The military, finance capital and healthcare corporations (insurers are a branch of finance capital) are winning every important battle because, on fundamental issues, President Obama is on their side. It is he who crushed the anti-war bloc in the US. House; who silenced and marginalized single payer advocates, while fawning over health profiteers; who engineered the greatest transfer of wealth in human history to bankers, leaving them free to once again ruin themselves and the rest of us.
So let us give President Obama his due. He not only smashed the Left opposition, he humiliated them.
�The Congressional Black Caucus can claim only eight members worthy of the label, 'progressive.'�
There is no longer an anti-war bloc in the U.S. Congress. It began to evaporate when Obama took office. The Out of Iraq Caucus has dissolved. The Progressive Congressional Caucus cannot find a mission. And the Congressional Black Caucus can claim only eight members worthy of the label, �progressive.� The list of CBC members among the 32 Democrats that voted �No� to Obama�s $106 billion Iraq and Afghanistan war request is so short, it can be taken in at a glance. Here are the few, the brave:
Barbara Lee (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), Diane Watson (CA), John Lewis (GA), Donna Edwards (MD), John Conyers (MI), Keith Ellison (MN), Donald Payne (NJ).
more at link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:29 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| BAR executive editor Glen Ford |
Hmm...When I first read that, I hazarded a guess that BAR referred to the American Bar Association.
But it's not. In fact, BAR refers to the Black Agenda Report (www.blackagendareport.com), an interesting outfit indeed. When I went to the "About" section, it gave me spiels about "Black Radio" and Darfur. Not that those are not interesting topics, but it had jack all to say what the Black Agenda Report was all about. It's quite interesting to see someone firing off at Obama from the get-go:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/theobamapresidency/2009/01/200911917451334647.html
while clothing himself as representing an entire ethnicity.
Well, really, it's not interesting. It's laughable. Presumptuously comic.
In any case, we have this:
| Quote: |
Barack Obama has quarantined single-payer healthcare advocates, crushed dissent against the war in Congress, and transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history.
|
I.
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama has quarantined single-payer healthcare advocates |
Right. He's trying to handle healthcare without breaking a campaign promise not to levy further taxes on those making less than $250,000. The single-player plan doesn't fit into this at all. At the same time, you can't just pull the rug out on the HMO's that screw Americans daily and suddenly have universal healthcare. Canada and the UK established their systems with distinctively smaller populaces, both in regard to America and their current populations.
Bottom line: Single-payer healthcare is made more feasible by the reforms proposed by Obama. Single-payer healthcare was not promised by Obama. George W. Bush had jack to propose.
II.
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama crushed dissent against the war in Congress. |
Here, very simply, Obama has a campaign promise to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to the point of there not being an ongoing conflict there. He will swing in 2012 if he doesn't come through on this. He's still requesting money because the plan wasn't to suddenly cancel these conflicts on his inauguration day.
Bottom line: A lot of anti-war proponents are watching and waiting. His actions thus far do not contradict his position before election. Moreover, he didn't create this mess.
III.
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history. |
As it occurred during the election, this is a bit out of the spectrum of campaign promises. I'm not really inclined to defend this. The bailout money adds to a deficit that I'm glad has finally become a concern. I think the first question is: Was there, in the last quarter of 2008, an imminent wholesale US economic collapse? If so, what do you do under such circumstances? It seems the options are a) buy time or b) just let it happen. That leaves us in a situation of great speculation about both what was going to happen and what should be done.
In any case, it seems that Glen Ford is conflating money with power. Is Obama giving bankers more power? I don't think so.
Bill Clinton remains the only president to attempt to balance the federal budget after Reagan established the GOP template for pretending there was no budget.
Bottom line: It does seem that the overhaul is postponing the inevitable. If a massive financial collapse is inevitable, then perhaps fair warning is a good thing and talk about the dollar returning to a gold standard falls right along the lines of single-payer health insurance. How that's going to be accomplished is far more meaningful than just saying it should happen. Bonus points for not triggering a full-on economic collapse.
To sum up, is it true that Obama has destroyed "The Left"?
Well, "The Left" will be around as long as "The Right" is. You can't have one without another. Their definitions depend on one another.
Ultimately, though, I welcome the departure of truther-types from the camp. They've been nothing but a liability. Given that "The Left" has been destroyed, I think we know where they're headed.
Coolio.
One thing is for sure: some dude claiming to represent the "Black Agenda" flingin' poo that doesn't quite pan out (See bacasper, torture claims) will not, really, pan out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Nowhere Man covered this really well.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
He's trying to handle healthcare without breaking a campaign promise not to levy further taxes on those making less than $250,000. The single-player plan doesn't fit into this at all. At the same time, you can't just pull the rug out on the HMO's that screw Americans daily and suddenly have universal healthcare. Canada and the UK established their systems with distinctively smaller populaces, both in regard to America and their current populations.
Bottom line: Single-payer healthcare is made more feasible by the reforms proposed by Obama. Single-payer healthcare was not promised by Obama. George W. Bush had jack to propose. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Here, very simply, Obama has a campaign promise to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to the point of there not being an ongoing conflict there. He will swing in 2012 if he doesn't come through on this. He's still requesting money because the plan wasn't to suddenly cancel these conflicts on his inauguration day. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history. |
As it occurred during the election, this is a bit out of the spectrum of campaign promises. I'm not really inclined to defend this. The bailout money adds to a deficit that I'm glad has finally become a concern. |
100% correct again.
Actually, I can't add to any of these, as I'd be just redundant. Nowhere Man hit all three with 100% accuracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
Nowhere Man covered this really well.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
He's trying to handle healthcare without breaking a campaign promise not to levy further taxes on those making less than $250,000. The single-player plan doesn't fit into this at all. At the same time, you can't just pull the rug out on the HMO's that screw Americans daily and suddenly have universal healthcare. Canada and the UK established their systems with distinctively smaller populaces, both in regard to America and their current populations.
Bottom line: Single-payer healthcare is made more feasible by the reforms proposed by Obama. Single-payer healthcare was not promised by Obama. George W. Bush had jack to propose. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Here, very simply, Obama has a campaign promise to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to the point of there not being an ongoing conflict there. He will swing in 2012 if he doesn't come through on this. He's still requesting money because the plan wasn't to suddenly cancel these conflicts on his inauguration day. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history. |
As it occurred during the election, this is a bit out of the spectrum of campaign promises. I'm not really inclined to defend this. The bailout money adds to a deficit that I'm glad has finally become a concern. |
100% correct again.
Actually, I can't add to any of these, as I'd be just redundant. Nowhere Man hit all three with 100% accuracy. |
From just where are you getting your "correctometer?"
Obama initially promised to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2009. Then he changed that to within 18 months of election. That doesn't look like it is going to happen either.
"100%" has been debunked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
Nowhere Man covered this really well.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
He's trying to handle healthcare without breaking a campaign promise not to levy further taxes on those making less than $250,000. The single-player plan doesn't fit into this at all. At the same time, you can't just pull the rug out on the HMO's that screw Americans daily and suddenly have universal healthcare. Canada and the UK established their systems with distinctively smaller populaces, both in regard to America and their current populations.
Bottom line: Single-payer healthcare is made more feasible by the reforms proposed by Obama. Single-payer healthcare was not promised by Obama. George W. Bush had jack to propose. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Here, very simply, Obama has a campaign promise to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to the point of there not being an ongoing conflict there. He will swing in 2012 if he doesn't come through on this. He's still requesting money because the plan wasn't to suddenly cancel these conflicts on his inauguration day. |
100% correct.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Barack Obama transferred more money to the finance capital class than at any time in planetary history. |
As it occurred during the election, this is a bit out of the spectrum of campaign promises. I'm not really inclined to defend this. The bailout money adds to a deficit that I'm glad has finally become a concern. |
100% correct again.
Actually, I can't add to any of these, as I'd be just redundant. Nowhere Man hit all three with 100% accuracy. |
Obama has done nothing he promised. Saying he's on course to do it by 2012 is meaningless, it's all a lie.
Empty promises and blatant lies aside, here's what's already, actually happened so far under Obama's tenure:
- the handing out of $13+ trillion (and counting) tax dollars to Wall street, no strings attached, and zero accountability, while giving the Fed even more power.
- allowing the dismantling of the manufacturing sector to continue, including GM (former largest employer in America) and Chrysler to go bankrupt, while the Wall street jackals come in and sell them off to overseas firms.
- expanding the war into Pakistan (courtesy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's new advisor), setting the stage for future conflict with Russia and China.
- Ramming suicidal climate bills through (cap-and-trade, sweeping new taxes on every facet of life, which will devastate our already depressed economy).
Obama is turning out to be the most disastrous president ever (as if Bush wasn't horrible enough). He is a Wall street puppet, traitor, whose agenda is nothing short of the destruction of the Republic so the bankers can turn it into a police state and tax the life out of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Obama has done nothing he promised. Saying he's on course to do it by 2012 is meaningless, it's all a lie.
Empty promises and blatant lies aside, here's what's already, actually happened so far under Obama's tenure:
- the handing out of $13+ trillion (and counting) tax dollars to Wall street, no strings attached, and zero accountability, while giving the Fed even more power.
- allowing the dismantling of the manufacturing sector to continue, including GM (former largest employer in America) and Chrysler to go bankrupt, while the Wall street jackals come in and sell them off to overseas firms.
- expanding the war into Pakistan (courtesy of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama's new advisor), setting the stage for future conflict with Russia and China.
- Ramming suicidal climate bills through (cap-and-trade, sweeping new taxes on every facet of life, which will devastate our already depressed economy).
Obama is turning out to be the most disastrous president ever (as if Bush wasn't horrible enough). He is a Wall street puppet, traitor, whose agenda is nothing short of the destruction of the Republic so the bankers can turn it into a police state and tax the life out of us. |
The handing out money to Wall Street unchecked was the Bush plan. An emergency plan in the middle of the campaign.
The involvement in Pakistan...I wouldn't say Obama lied about that. I think anyone who was following politics already knew that Obama wanted to decrease presense in Iraq, and increase presense in Afghanistan...which also meant the Pakistan border as well.
I know a lot of people around here watch FOX news...and just assumed Obama was going to come in and end war and make us all vulnerable, but that was never a campaign promise. He's actually doing what he said he would be doing with that.
The WALL Street stuff is directly connected to Bush being in office. Obama didn't campaign on the fact he was going to just start giving money to Wall Street. The GM debacle has been another debacle, but one that was going to occur no matter what. All of these financial/economic ones would have occured had McCain got elected as well.
If Ron Paul (no shot in hell) had been elected, then all of these industries would just die, and we'd have to start from scratch. In many ways that needs to happen to make our sick government well again, but would also come at a much quicker 'death blow' to the American people directly. But as it is, its just a slightly slower 'death blow', but a death blow nontheless.
It has a lot less to do with Obama suddenly getting the Presidency, and a significant connection to the way the country has been run for the last 8 years and all of the accumulative affects from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Obama is turning out to be the most disastrous president ever (as if Bush wasn't horrible enough). He is a Wall street puppet, traitor, whose agenda is nothing short of the destruction of the Republic so the bankers can turn it into a police state and tax the life out of us. |
I think Bush43 was the worst president ever. (OK, maybe up there with U.S. Grant.) It is mind-boggling to think Obama may outdo him.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 3:23 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
The handing out money to Wall Street unchecked was the Bush plan. An emergency plan in the middle of the campaign.
The involvement in Pakistan...I wouldn't say Obama lied about that. I think anyone who was following politics already knew that Obama wanted to decrease presense in Iraq, and increase presense in Afghanistan...which also meant the Pakistan border as well.
I know a lot of people around here watch FOX news...and just assumed Obama was going to come in and end war and make us all vulnerable, but that was never a campaign promise. He's actually doing what he said he would be doing with that.
The WALL Street stuff is directly connected to Bush being in office. Obama didn't campaign on the fact he was going to just start giving money to Wall Street. The GM debacle has been another debacle, but one that was going to occur no matter what. All of these financial/economic ones would have occured had McCain got elected as well. |
Dude, I strongly recommend you stop thinking of the Republicans and Democrats as really distinct from each other... they both answer to the same masters (the international bankers). Nearly all the candidates from both parties are members of the same elite think tanks (especially the Council on Foreign Relations).
| Quote: |
If Ron Paul (no shot in hell) had been elected, then all of these industries would just die, and we'd have to start from scratch. In many ways that needs to happen to make our sick government well again, but would also come at a much quicker 'death blow' to the American people directly. But as it is, its just a slightly slower 'death blow', but a death blow nontheless.
It has a lot less to do with Obama suddenly getting the Presidency, and a significant connection to the way the country has been run for the last 8 years and all of the accumulative affects from it. |
Well assuming Ron Paul did what he said, then yes he would let the companies collapse. This is free market economics, the way it's supposed to be. Anyway, I would't really mind bailing out GM (considering much of the fault lies with unequal trade arrangments with Asian countries who put tariffs on American cars), as we need as many manufacturing jobs in America as we can get at this point; but the banks contribute nothing whatsoever and just suck the life blood out of the economy. The zombie banks (and the Fed) actually deserve to be put to death at this point (and all those in charge sent to jail), not given trillions of dollars and free reign.
I agree the 'deathblow' is probably unavoidable at this point, but the depression will only be defeated and mitigated by killing the banks. This is also the only way we will get to keep our country sovereign... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:10 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Dude, I strongly recommend you stop thinking of the Republicans and Democrats as really distinct from each other... they both answer to the same masters (the international bankers). Nearly all the candidates from both parties are members of the same elite think tanks (especially the Council on Foreign Relations). |
I know exactly what you mean, but coming off of 8 years where about half of the American populace seemed to think of Bush as Jesus incarnate and loved everything he did, and than you see Obama get in, who is basically continuing those policies, and they see him as the devil incarnated. Well, it's disturbing how many Americans are just simply being manipulated.
All the same people who loved that Republicans were for finance (someone has to make money to trickle down) and all for war (someone has to kill the muslims), are suddenly STRONGLY AGAINST IT if someone is Democrat and does the exact same thing.
My personal politics aren't democratic or republican, I do support getting Osama Bin Ladin and never supported the debacle of Iraq. But now suddenly all of those who LOVED being in Iraq and wanted to be there for 100 years are suddenly yelling 'we're doomed, we're financially bankrupt, Obama did this! If only McCain was doing the 100 years in Iraq instead, we'd never be going bankrupt! Oh my god!'
I think the U.S. is just as fucked as the next guy, and I do think a Ron Paul would have helped clean it up, but the choices were between McCain's 100 years in Iraq and do nothing policies, or Obama's finite timeline in Iraq and pump money into alternative energies as a way to ween ourselves of oil. Of course I'd choose Obama.
If Republicans had put Ron Paul up for office, I am really unsure how I would have voted, but being a fiscal conservative (and a bit of a social 'who gives a *beep*', I'll admit that - strong libertarian leanings), my fiscal conservative side would have won out.
However, when Republicans selected 100-years-in-Iraq-McCain and whatever that Palin mystery choice was...I think it was pretty clear Obama was the better one.
Honestly speaking, there aren't any fiscal conservatives on either side any more, and Republicans have a proven track record to spend significantly more and do significantly less for the American people. So we were basically fucked either way.
At least if we're going to get fucked either way we go, at least under Obama, the U.S. will start to be an international leader in green technologies and alternative energies, and actually have industries here at home once again. Of course it would have been 10000000 times better to have done 8 years ago prior to blowing every last dime and all the dimes of the next large numbers of generation in Iraq, but what'r'ya'gonna'now about that now? Screwed either way after Bush, no surprise there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| BAR executive editor Glen Ford |
Hmm...When I first read that, I hazarded a guess that BAR referred to the American Bar Association.
But it's not. In fact, BAR refers to the Black Agenda Report (www.blackagendareport.com), an interesting outfit indeed. When I went to the "About" section, it gave me spiels about "Black Radio" and Darfur. Not that those are not interesting topics, but it had jack all to say what the Black Agenda Report was all about. It's quite interesting to see someone firing off at Obama from the get-go:
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/theobamapresidency/2009/01/200911917451334647.html
while clothing himself as representing an entire ethnicity.
Well, really, it's not interesting. It's laughable. Presumptuously comic. |
On what side of the bed did you wake up today? So you scoured that website to find something, anything to discredit it, and the best you came up with is to attack the messenger?
FYI, Glen Rutherford is an black journalism icon. He was the first Black man to host a non-gospel television show in the Deep South. He began on James Brown�s Augusta, Georgia radio station WRDW, in 1970 � where �The Godfather of Soul� shortened Glen�s surname to �Ford.�
In 1977, Ford co-launched, produced and hosted �America�s Black Forum� (ABF), the first nationally syndicated Black news interview program on commercial television. ABF made Black broadcast history.
Regarding Obama, Glenn Ford confessed that it was easy for even himself to get caught up in the kind of �Mecca for African Americans� that was this day of Inauguration for a black president. Then, Mr. Ford gave his concerns about President Obama�s plans and speech.
Presumptuously comic? What you wrote certainly was.
NM, you know I have had the utmost respect for and indebtedness to you, especially since NORTHWOODS, but this latest contribution and the previous one trying to paint Ron Paul as some typical Republocrat have got to be the lamest ever to come from your fingertips. I am really worried about you. Sudden personality changes can indicate serious organic brain prodromes. Are you OK, or what gives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:36 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Dude, I strongly recommend you stop thinking of the Republicans and Democrats as really distinct from each other... they both answer to the same masters (the international bankers). Nearly all the candidates from both parties are members of the same elite think tanks (especially the Council on Foreign Relations). |
I know exactly what you mean, but coming off of 8 years where about half of the American populace seemed to think of Bush as Jesus incarnate and loved everything he did, and than you see Obama get in, who is basically continuing those policies, and they see him as the devil incarnated. Well, it's disturbing how many Americans are just simply being manipulated.
All the same people who loved that Republicans were for finance (someone has to make money to trickle down) and all for war (someone has to kill the muslims), are suddenly STRONGLY AGAINST IT if someone is Democrat and does the exact same thing.
My personal politics aren't democratic or republican, I do support getting Osama Bin Ladin and never supported the debacle of Iraq. But now suddenly all of those who LOVED being in Iraq and wanted to be there for 100 years are suddenly yelling 'we're doomed, we're financially bankrupt, Obama did this! If only McCain was doing the 100 years in Iraq instead, we'd never be going bankrupt! Oh my god!'
I think the U.S. is just as fucked as the next guy, and I do think a Ron Paul would have helped clean it up, but the choices were between McCain's 100 years in Iraq and do nothing policies, or Obama's finite timeline in Iraq and pump money into alternative energies as a way to ween ourselves of oil. Of course I'd choose Obama.
If Republicans had put Ron Paul up for office, I am really unsure how I would have voted, but being a fiscal conservative (and a bit of a social 'who gives a *beep*', I'll admit that - strong libertarian leanings), my fiscal conservative side would have won out.
However, when Republicans selected 100-years-in-Iraq-McCain and whatever that Palin mystery choice was...I think it was pretty clear Obama was the better one.
Honestly speaking, there aren't any fiscal conservatives on either side any more, and Republicans have a proven track record to spend significantly more and do significantly less for the American people. So we were basically fucked either way.
At least if we're going to get fucked either way we go, at least under Obama, the U.S. will start to be an international leader in green technologies and alternative energies, and actually have industries here at home once again. Of course it would have been 10000000 times better to have done 8 years ago prior to blowing every last dime and all the dimes of the next large numbers of generation in Iraq, but what'r'ya'gonna'now about that now? Screwed either way after Bush, no surprise there. |
I agree with most of what you say, except for the last part: I think the bottom line is that the banks have conned the public over the past century or so (since the Fed was established) and built up our economy on a gigantic ponzi scheme. There is really no getting around that awful fact -- the ponzi scheme must fail, period. However, a leader with backbone and integrity, who actually cared about America and its people, and about building a better future, would allow the ponzi scheme to collapse and take every necessary step to cut the losses and move forward in the most proactive way possible.
Unfortunately, the bankers will not give it up, instead they are throwing down the gauntlet, basically declaring war against the Republic. In that case, McCain might have been a blessing in disguise, as most people would be against him from the get go and the revolts would start sooner. With Obama (basically a demagogue), many people will remain deluded until it is too late. This is Obama's very purpose.
As for the "green tech" and jobs stemming from it, I wouldn't hold my breath. All we're liable to see is a ton of taxes, covering every facet of our lives (as they see fit, after passing the last emissions bill in congress) and zero benefit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
As for the "green tech" and jobs stemming from it, I wouldn't hold my breath. |
Please, don't hold your breath. The "green jobs" push a fiction from the minds of people who do not understand what actually does create jobs and what kind of policy facilitates it.
| Quote: |
| Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403012.html
The west is drunk on myths and fables. There will be no 'green jobs' revolution. And the longer/farther/harder the state pushes the green jobs lie, the higher and higher unemployment will go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
My bad for not finding the page.
| Quote: |
| On what side of the bed did you wake up today? So you scoured that website to find something, anything to discredit it, and the best you came up with is to attack the messenger? |
On the other hand, I discussed his arguments point-by-point. You seem only to have found time to talk about me.
Fancy that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:14 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
My bad for not finding the page.
| Quote: |
| On what side of the bed did you wake up today? So you scoured that website to find something, anything to discredit it, and the best you came up with is to attack the messenger? |
On the other hand, I discussed his arguments point-by-point. You seem only to have found time to talk about me.
Fancy that. |
I can respect a man who can admit when he's "bad."
It is harder to respect a cherrypicker. You ignored the three preceding paragraphs in which I answered your point about Glen Ford and focused on the last one about you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| My bad for not finding the page. |
Yet, you are still going to stand by your lambasting of Ford and me?
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| One thing is for sure: some dude claiming to represent the "Black Agenda" flingin' poo that doesn't quite pan out (See bacasper, torture claims) will not, really, pan out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
