Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Krugman: Losing Our Country

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> Well, you can blame Democrats for some things, but the things Krugman 
> is talking about are being driven by Republicans.  Who wanted to 
> massively lower taxes for the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans?  That was 
> the Republicans.

Indeed. Not a good thing but not very significant.

> Who wants to dismantle Social Security?  Republicans.

As it should be. I'm a socialist and even I can see that social 
security, as implemented in the US, is horrible and should be gotten rid of.

> The postwar boom and end of the Great Depression are due to ... guess 
> ... Democrats - Roosevelt and Truman presided over that era.  And our 
> most economically successful period in recent years?  Clinton was 
> President.

At least Democrats like to take credit for those booms although oddly 
enough they seem unable to maintain them.

Clinton was definately a losser. He takes credit for economic explosions 
that had little to do with him - since they were caused by decades of 
research that eventually had widespread adoption as the Internet and 
creating a massive economic boom as new markets are created. Then he 
lets them go totally out of control which later leads to a collapse. 
Does he care? Hell no. His two terms are used up. Blame the collapse on 
the Republicans and wait for his wife to try to run for President. 
Pretty sly.

> But lets just pretend they're all a like and vote at random.  Or, we 
> can do what you do and not vote at all.

While you meanwhile vote while looking through rose (or Roosevelt?) 
colored glasses.. voting for exactly the kinds of people this country 
needs to get rid of I expect. If you really think that either one of the 
major parties is any better than the other then you're sniffing glue. 
Republican politicians are dicks. So are Democrats. Frankly I'd much 
rather vote for you then any of the people actually on the ballots. I 
think you'd do a good job and listen to my arguments even if totally 
insulted by them. I can't say the same for any mainstream canidates of 
any major election recently.

If you're Democrats really wanted to fix the problem they'd make an 
effort to push canidates forward for election regardless of their 
financial status. I haven't seen their party looking for intelligent 
poor people to elect as much of anything. Guess that shows a lot right 
there.

I think a couple smart steps to economic reform would be to A) make it 
totally illegal to profit from your political career, B) illegal to 
bribe or threaten anyone in government to vote your way, and C) create a 
new part of congress that pulls represenatives from diverse ranges of 
incomes as was originally inteded. One of the reasons we pull 
represenatives from diverse areas of the country is to try to get a 
diverse set of represenatives. Rich people, middle class people, poor 
people, farmers, engineers, business men, and blue collar workers. A 
little of everyone. But politicians have pulled so many strings that 
this isn't going to happen anymore. Coupled with the ease by which 
people can travel these days it pretty much undoes most of that 
diversity. Who cares if your from Palm Beach, Florida.. you can still 
run for election in a poor area of New York you've never set foot in 
anyway. Just buy a house in the general area and redraw the lines so 
that your house falls within the area that the poor people live in. 
Presto you are sure to win the election as you're the only one in the 
area that has an advertising budget. Both parties play that game a lot.

--
Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion