Log in

View Full Version : The U.S. Constitution, Capitalism vs. Communism, the 2008 U.S. and Partisan Politics


mark f
02-05-09, 02:53 AM
Note: It should say "the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and Partisan Politics

First off, I do make some political comments here and there and probably enough for you to either write me off as an extremist wacko or as somebody "bought and sold in the marketplace". In general, I do look at politics as a "way of life" but it's really something fluid and not set in stone. This is one of the reasons why I'm so disappointed (albeit highly entertained) when I listen to U.S. "talk radio". Since Obama won the election, you have the exact same Conservative commentators saying almost exactly the same thing as they did when Bush was President, but now it's prefaced with "We're conservatism in exile. Hopefully, we'll [Vocal conservatives] survive before we all get audited and/or hauled off to jail or the U.S. ("the Greatest Nation that God ever put on the face of the Earth") gets turned into a Commie Dictatorship by Premier/King Obama." I'm telling you the truth that this is not an exaggeration. Now, I want to tell the people who I haven't already turned off that I'm open to all sides of the equation. I hate the idea that somebody knows all there is to know and that they can never learn anything, especially about "politics", but it fits with movies too. Think about it. Somebody says this is the way it is and it'a always been that way. Well, even if they're correct (about whatever they're babbling about), if you find something they say or the way they say it objectionable, then you are locked into something resembling partisan politics.

Wow! This is already really boring, but what I'm trying to get at, and forgive me if this is beneath the intelligence of most of this board (I actually believe it is, but it's still all over the radio, TV and internet), but I'm interested in the fact that conservatives claim they believe in Liberty. You know, the kind of Liberty mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The kind of Liberty which was refused by our government to women and racial minorities for years. In fact, it was often denied to poor white trash males if it possibly could be. The only reason I'm mentioning "Conservatives" now is because ever since my truck started eating certain of my musical choices, I've been listening to Conservative Radio. I believe in listening to both sides and hearing them speak, repeatedly, over a stretch of time. You cannot say that you understand what someone believes by reading a few paragraphs or listening to a very embarrassing gaffe, but you can understand them if you listen to them day-in and day-out Thay's why I'm posting this pointless post. Actually, I'm hoping I say just enough and yet not quite so much that I get the attention of anyone with a mind who finds themselves to be a political being, and I would hope that that's everyone, especially since the average I.Q. of MoFo members has to be off the chart compared to other sites. :cool:

You see, my curse is that I can see different sides of the same question, but the reality is that people have to work together, so describing FDR or Ronald Reagan as some form of messiah doesn't work with me. It cannot be all black-and-white, and that's why I would hope that people would be able to take the most complimentary aspects of differing economic principles and blend them together. Once the results may be able to be construed, then we can tweak them to work even better. I have to admit that this concept may have never been applied before, but I'm pretty sure it has. The second Continental Congress found that it had to "rationalize" the idea of Slavery with the beautiful words "All men are created equal". It was a bitter fight, but the side of the slaveholders was upheld, and of course, almost a century later, it led to the Civil War. It took another century to enforce similar laws through "the Land of the Free". The Constitution of the U.S., which seems to be imbued with countless Godly intonations by certain Conservatives, never once mentions God. This doesn't matter to me, but the implication that if you're a Liberal, you're a Godless, anarchistic Communist and if you're a Conservative, you're a God-fearing, patriotic Capitalist is an insult, not only to me, but to everything the Freedoms that some people rail on and on about have to offer to any and all Americans, regardless of their "race, religion, creed, color, or opinions".

Crap! I haven't even gotten to why I started this post, and I'm starting to wonder if any of our non-American, maybe-Commie (not a slur) family will follow along with this train of thought. Theoretically, the semi-collapse of the U.S. economy is responsible for the semi-collapse of the world economy, and things are likely to get worse before they get better. Now, U.S. conservatives will tell you that Jimmy Carter was the instigator of this collapse over 30 years ago. Apparently, Carter, when he wasn't trying to screw over America in other ways, instigated a law where banks were encouraged to give loans to lower-income families to help them follow their "concept of the American Dream". Now, I don't especially recall the housing market or the banks undergoing a meltdown during the Carter presidency, even if things were pretty screwed up. Luckily for me, my father was my employer during the time, and even if I was so poor, I rarely paid taxes (remember, I'm an over-educated, underachieving bum), I don't recall our family "suffering" at all under the Peanut Farmer Prez. The next brick in the Conservatives' cornerstone is that Clinton supposedly strengthened Carter's regulations that families should be able to afford a home. I'm quite sure that no one ever said that you have to give POOR people loans to buy RICH people's mansions, and I'll assure you that never happened. Even if real estate had increased in value from Carter to Clinton, it was still affordable for lower-income people to pay off loans in all but the most-ridiculously overpriced areas of the U.S. There are trailer homes and other cheap housing, especially in certain parts of the country. To imply that Clinton, about a dozen years ago, is "mostly" responsible for the housing and bank meltdown which has occurred in the last two years is not even worth that much scrutiny. It implies that everything which has happened since has occurred in some form of vacuum, even though with the internet boom everything is usually available before it actually IS available! HA!

Anyway, all this huffing and puffing is leading up to why America is in the situation it is today. I don't believe it has anything to do with the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but those could may well be contributing factors. Does it have to do with a corruption of Capitalism? This is something I find interesting. I realize that real estate prices fluctuate especially based on where you live. But I live in California, and real estate prices are obscene compared to most anyplace else. Now, what sets these "obscene" prices, even now as they sink in the quicksand? Is it just supply and demand, or is there something inherently flawed in the current Capitalist society which makes it just too easy for everybody to take a slice of the pie until the pie is long gone and worth far less than any outside observer could possibly imagine?

This is probably the ultimate "Shut up, Mark!!" of all-time. Please forgive me.

Ðèstîñy
02-05-09, 03:30 AM
You want this . . . The U.S. Constitution, Capitalism vs. Communism, the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and Partisan Politics

You have this . . . The U.S. Constitution, Capitalism vs. Communism, the 2008 U.S. and Partisan Politics

It's stopping me here . . . The U.S. Constitution, Capitalism vs. Communism, the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

Sorry! There is obviously a limit to thread titles.

mark f
02-05-09, 03:47 AM
Yep, it's my fault for being so full of it... :yup:

7thson
02-05-09, 06:55 AM
This is probably the ultimate "Shut up, Mark!!" of all-time. Please forgive me.


Shut up Mark!!!
We think too much alike, and I really hate arguing with myself.;)

All kidding aside: the haves' like capitalism, the have-nots dislike it.

Great post Mark - I will be back to respond when I can do it justice.

Sir Toose
02-05-09, 11:56 AM
Wow you went to a lot of places there, Mark. :)

I used to be quite caught up in partisan politics until I realized that it's a game. Who the players are is fodder for another thread, but I realized that in order to effectively lead any game you have to have a polarization of 'sides'. No one who is rational can distill their body of thought down to one of two choices in any complex situation, but that's exactly what politics in the US is designed to do. Have you noticed that the 'Us against Them' mentality starts first and speaks loudest within the confines of the US versus some other outside source (cold war, etc)? Divide & conquer. If you show me a staunch Republican or a committed Democrat I'll show you a crazy person (or at least one who is un/under educated). Reason meets in the middle. Trouble is, too many people believe what they're told and too few bother to pick up a book.

Media, right or left, capitalizes on the dichotomy of American politics. What better way to get ratings than to show nutballs from either side who don't mind the single minded associations (for whatever reason) at complete odds with each other? They're both arguing from one polarized side or another about topics that are gray at best. No one can be proven wrong at the end of the day which is great because it keeps 'we the people' confused and at odds so we just keep paying our taxes out of frustration of dealing with the whole mess.

Bottom line for me about it is that it matters not who is in the White House. They're all playing the same game and so are we. Change? What a laugh!

I'm not even going to pretend the knowledge to answer your questions regarding the economy. The Federal Reserve was privatized in the 30's to prevent further crashes, so the tale goes. To me, that game was about the rich maintaining wealth. With all of the web of confusion around it I can only say ... look who's on the board. These folks appear to control the money. They tell the media a recession is coming. The media tells us a recession is coming. We stop spending money because we fear a recession and that causes a recession. It's all such smoke and mirrors and it's not transparent to anyone (well almost anyone). We base our lives around collecting some paper that represents some mineral that someone in history deemed valuable. Is this what our purpose is? Is all of our beautiful complexity really only suited to this purpose? It's sickening. We're missing the bigger picture.

Anyway, I got up on my soapbox.

I rambled around your post a bit but didn't answer anything. Thanks for making me think though!

Golgot
02-05-09, 01:37 PM
To imply that Clinton, about a dozen years ago, is "mostly" responsible for the housing and bank meltdown which has occurred in the last two years is not even worth that much scrutiny.

Heh, fair play - i'd imagine there's been plenty of time for rejigging laws during the Bush primacy, for a start. But if you did want to scrutinise it a bit, i flagged up this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=493902&postcount=37) tasty econ-post on the Fanny & Freddie thread, which seems to debunk the claim pretty stunningly.

Anyway, all this huffing and puffing is leading up to why America is in the situation it is today.

Tackling that, sah, would require spilling a whole lotta link ;)

(Altho as it happens... i did have a brief go at such a thing on that selfsame thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=470754&postcount=35) - before inevitably wondering off into the sunny lands of my own prejudices ;))

Swedish Chef
02-05-09, 01:54 PM
I say we have Keith Olbermann & Christopher Hitchens fight Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh in a Tag Team Deathmatch and whoever wins gets to run America for a year.

Then we'll see who was right.

Golgot
02-05-09, 02:11 PM
Can't we just get Hitchens to waterboard himself (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808) again? I'd pay the entry money ;)

(Wait a minute - is Hitchens considered 'Liberal' in the states then?? Or just another generic shouty man?)

Yoda
02-05-09, 02:14 PM
Heh, fair play - i'd imagine there's been plenty of time for rejigging laws during the Bush primacy, for a start. But if you did want to scrutinise it a bit, i flagged up this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showpost.php?p=493902&postcount=37) tasty econ-post on the Fanny & Freddie thread, which seems to debunk the claim pretty stunningly.
Sorry I never replied to that -- I'll take this post as a reminder and try to do so shortly. Suffice to say, I think there's some major holes in the article.

Swedish Chef
02-05-09, 02:17 PM
Can't we just get Hitchens to waterboard himself (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808) again? I'd pay the entry money ;)

(Wait a minute - is Hitchens considered 'Liberal' in the states then?? Or just another generic shouty man?)

I was actually semi-tempted to put that Hitchen's waterboarding vid on the top of my favorite movies of 2008 list, but I resisted. And I'd say he's more hated in the conservative community than the liberal one, but he may very well be universally, equally hated, yes.

Golgot
02-05-09, 02:22 PM
but he may very well be universally, equally hated, yes.

It does seem to be one of his talents ;)

Sorry I never replied to that -- I'll take this post as a reminder and try to do so shortly. Suffice to say, I think there's some major holes in the article.

Heh, cool, would be interested to hear :) (Foraged around at the time but didn't find any killer blows in the comments and the like)

Sedai
02-05-09, 03:13 PM
Um, why is there an Ad for "Barack the Magic Negro" at the top of this page?

Zoinks...

Yoda
02-05-09, 03:21 PM
Good question. I'll see if I can find out which domain it's coming from and block it.

Harry Lime
02-05-09, 03:32 PM
"There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight"

mark f
02-05-09, 04:00 PM
My entire opening rant was about why the real estate and bank meltdowns happened just recently. What was different about the last couple of years from the times that Carter and Clinton were pushing for trying to get people into homes? Looking at it coldly, I decided the major difference was the ungodly inflated prices of housing and the seemingly-underhanded ways the banks and lenders were using a sort of "bait-and-switch" technique to be able to get under-earning people into houses now when they knew full-well that when the balloon payments came, there was no way to pay them. I just find it difficult to believe that all this is because of some liberal, "socialist" agenda to try to share the wealth. It seems that whatever the total true causes are that the capitalist system of allowing the buyers and sellers to determine the market value was somehow corrupted by the big dollar signs flashing in everybody's eyes. I certainly believe that capitalism has helped America grow bigger and stronger, but these bankruptcies and failures seem to be just as much about ethical bankruptcies as they are about lack of money and poor credit. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around. Oh well, live by the sword, die by the sword.

John McClane
02-05-09, 04:13 PM
Capitalism is good. Ultra big, unwatched capitalism is bad.

Sir Toose
02-05-09, 04:28 PM
I just find it difficult to believe that all this is because of some liberal, "socialist" agenda to try to share the wealth. It seems that whatever the total true causes are that the capitalist system of allowing the buyers and sellers to determine the market value was somehow corrupted by the big dollar signs flashing in everybody's eyes.

I think you're right. The differences between liberals and conservatives aren't that great when you strip the labels away and stop listening to the demonizations of either one.

And greed is most often the cause of any ill.

Harry Lime
02-05-09, 04:31 PM
The man in the middle picks the pockets of liberty,
While the ones on either side, sing songs of destiny.

Golgot
02-05-09, 04:54 PM
My entire opening rant was about why the real estate and bank meltdowns happened just recently. What was different about the last couple of years from the times that Carter and Clinton were pushing for trying to get people into homes?

The causes of bubbles can pre-date their subsequent bursting by a long time tho, no? On those grounds we can't just look at the current situation to explain crashes but should look back at the foundations of the problems too.

And if we're taking the housing market as the central 'bubble', then we've gotta go way back past Clinton et al it seems. Housing has perennially been seen as a safe bet (which meant it was probably inevitable that people would bet to much of the farm on it eventually, as it were ;). Classic conditions for a bubble, it seems).

Looking at it coldly, I decided the major difference was the ungodly inflated prices of housing and the seemingly-underhanded ways the banks and lenders were using a sort of "bait-and-switch" technique to be able to get under-earning people into houses now when they knew full-well that when the balloon payments came, there was no way to pay them.

But have those practices really been that distinct/exaggerated in the past few years? (And if so, is it just part of an ongoing trend - in which case we have to forage back again. The 'brief history of finance' post i linked to earlier has a good layman-friendly breakdown of multiple regulation/deregulation events which have contributed to the current situation, starting way back with the '29 crash ;)).

Plus did a lot of these individuals really know 'full well' there was a liquidity problem? Some of them certainly did and passed the problem on - but a lot of them seem to have wanted to believe, or genuinely have believed, that 'securities' like the much-maligned CDSs etc were genuine 'A grade' solutions to the problem.

I just find it difficult to believe that all this is because of some liberal, "socialist" agenda to try to share the wealth. It seems that whatever the total true causes are that the capitalist system of allowing the buyers and sellers to determine the market value was somehow corrupted by the big dollar signs flashing in everybody's eyes.

Pinning it all on on a 'socialist agenda' is standard partisan flag-burning of course. But blaming greed for the whole affair -to paraphrase something i read somewhere- is like blaming gravity when you fall over. Greed is a given, and not just in the markets. We've gotta look at the details.

From my slightly-read/non-expert position, it seems that government-backed 'subprime' mortgages/loans (dating back to F&F) have at the very least made speculators feel safe in over-risking when it comes to housing, as they saw it as not just safe generally, but backed by government bucks.

And if we wanted to target a 'recent' 'rightist' failing, we could perhaps look at Greenspan etc blocking attempts to have CDSs more strongly regulated (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/magazines/fortune/varchaver_derivatives_short.fortune/index.htm) (NB this piece on CDSs also seemed solid & informative to this layman - worth a read :))