They haven’t been weakened, they’ve been gutted.
As for Obama, I give you Evo Morales in the New Yorker’s Lithium Dreams
In an effort to salvage this thread, perhaps I can post my interpretation of the issue at the root of adhay’s OP.
Both the Tea Party and MoveOn.org are asking (in the most general terms) why the US government is unresponsive to what looks like colossal fiscal irresponsibility. Their specific complaints/remedies are cast as polar opposites–mainly because they have been co-opted by one or the other of the major political parties–but at heart they are asking similar questions. The conflict between the two is encouraged by a political class who would prefer they fight each other rather than direct their attention at the corporate oligarchy and a (corporate owned) media interested in the dramatic appeal of provocation (since it allows them to sell more product).
I disagree with the “90% corruption” claims, and think that adhay will eventually admit this was a regrettable emotional hyperbole. But I wouldn’t remain fixated on just this point. Also, I think the debate needs to move beyond this (rather obvious) statement of the political reality in the US and onto what can be done about it. If adhay, for example, is advocating that the Tea Party and MoveOn.org should join forces, well, I’d love to see a politically-viable roadmap that shows how. And at some point you have to move beyond vague generalizations like “They’re all crooks” or “Cut government waste” and start looking at the details–these are great rhetoric for stirring up a movement, but they aren’t good guides to policy, and after a time people are going to want a clear policy to rally around or they will grow apathetic or get peeled off by one of the major parties (whose skillful marketing can mold your amorphous beliefs into what they want them to be).
Total transparency is bad because people are idiots
Over here in CA, a new proposition is on the ballot called the “Let Taxpayers Vote Act” or some other such nonsense. Currently, the government here can get into private industries like electricity and change the rates at which power is charged. In Los Angeles, the Department of Power and Water has that authority. This proposition wants taxpayers to be able to vote whether or not DPW can increase our charges. Starting to see the problem?
Who the hell is going to vote for MORE charges? Everyone thinks they’re overcharged! Everyone thinks prices should be lower! Everyone thinks they’re being screwed! If this proposition passes, we’ll never have an increase again, no matter how dire the economic situation is! Imagine if customers at a restaurant can dictate prices. “Why is an Egg McMuffin only $1 and a Filet O’ Fish almost $3? Let’s make them both $1! We don’t care about the economics behind getting those items to our plates, we want cheap food!” Who’s going to vote for higher electricity bills? Even those who can afford it want less expenses.
Transparency like backroom deals are annoying, but necessary. With a guy like Bart Stupak, he may be on the fence about voting for something as important as the Health Care reform bill. Objectively, that is a good bill which will reduce the deficit and help Americans. But Obama had to grease his palm with an executive order to get him to sign it. Why? He knows what’s in the bill, he knows that the Hyde Amendment already takes precedent, so the whole thing was merely political cover (and now he’s decided to quit Congress after drawing his pound of flesh from Obama). So why did he do it? Because people are idiots. There are scores of Pubs who attack Stupak as a “baby killer” even though he has a rather conservative voting record on abortion. They just don’t get it. Because they’re stupid fucking morons.
How much do you know about economics? What about the medical industry? How about environmental regulations, carbon emissions, the foreign policy of Uzbekistan, and the concerns of the constituents of rural Iowa? Do you think that someone on the other side of the country is going to give two shits about fixing potholes in southeastern Tallahassee? I sure don’t! So if the Congressmen who represent that district wants money, I’m going to want my Congressmen to vote NO every single time. And I want that money to fix potholes here. But then those people are now pissed at me. What ends up is that both sides will be pissed at each other and nobody will help anybody out. We don’t need that much transparency. Backroom deals are not all trading hookers and blow, sometimes they are about getting things done for your constituents and sometimes it’s about helping out others so they owe you a favor later on.
I’m not saying make the government opaque. I want transparency more than what we have. But I don’t want total transparency. I don’t want an elimination of all backroom deals because it would make it that much harder to gain support for something if one cannot offer the other side something. Everybody loves pork when it’s earmarked for their own district, but hate it for everyone else. It’s true, that’s how humans are, we’re selfish and stupid.
Obama has been very transparent. Hell, he’s the only president who was ever forced to show his god damn birth certificate to the whole world! And still people bitch! Obama opened up health care debates with the entire GOP that was televised and destroyed them. Guess who will less transparent next time? Obama put entire bills online for people to see their entire contents, but what side was still claiming the health care bill was secret? Obama had a website created for people to see where their stimulus dollars are going, and only because of technical and design issues is that website not completely efficient.
If the tea baggers actually came up with, you know, honest and relevent issues to discuss, Obama will discuss it. Nobody except lunatics gives two shits about where he was born or what religion he “really” is.
Obviously. 
I’d like to see the plan for that one, myself. Given that many so-called sane and educated people in this country think that corporations are entitled to Bill of Rights protection, there’s not much hope.
A start would be (from BG’s cite)
Now I am confused. Is this a big government=bad thread or a corporations=bad thread?
For what its worth, I think there are HUGE differences between the Obama deficits and the Bush deficits.
Obama’s stimulus plan and bailouts, while not perfect, were designed to stimulate spending and prevent collapse of the global economy. Tough decisions made in the face of harsh criticism because someone had to be the grown-up in thye room.
The Bush deficits were driven early on by tax cuts for the rich and a very expensive war in Iraq. Half the money from the Bush stimulus plan didn’t even pretend to be stimulitive (half the Bush stimulus plan went to accelerated depreciation (this has almost no stimulative effect).
I guess the way i see it, Bushw as trying to buy us off with tax cuts and increased spending while Obama is trying to keep us afloat.
Well, no, they aren’t at all.
Not to overgeneralize, but Tea Baggers seem to be very concerned about the deficit because it will hurt the country by driving us into the hands of China, forcing taxes higher, making interest rates go up, etc. They also believe that spending on programs like health care are not only political anathema, but they make the deficit worse with all those associated problems, etc.
I think MoveOn/progressives are very concerned about the fairness of Bush’s tax cuts, which in their/my estimation very much favored tax breaks for the rich at a time of fiscal peril. I believe the concern about the deficit is more like it is a bad thing that came of an unfair/bad policy of cutting taxes.
Now, if you don’t bother to examine either of those statements very closely, they may sound very similar: deficits are bad. But I believe that the fundamental disagreement of the group is that Teabaggers believe deficits are terrible, therefore support spending cuts; but MoveOn feels that supply side tax cut policies are terrible, and therefore hate the deficits that they created.
Furthermore, the solution to the issue is diametrically opposed to each other. Teabaggers want more tax cuts, MoveOn wants tax increases on the rich. MoveOn wants more spending on health care and education, Teabaggers want to demolish the Department of Education and other government intrusions into local or family affairs.
None of this has jack-all to do with corporations gaslighting either group.
Another thought: if there is a similarity between the groups, it is that they both want to use populism to get their message across, and find corporations a convenient boogeyman. That’s a very superficial bit of common ground.
Can’t BOTH be bad?
I think large groups of people (i.e. - government and corporations) are not good for the overall well being of people in society. I think keeping everything smaller and more local would be best for everyone. Not that it is going to happen.
I have been thinking a lot about this recently, htough. I always described myself as libertarian, because i do not like big government. I also do not like big corporations. I also do not like big religion. Obviously, as humans we have a tendency to band together, but I think the more we can limit the size of those groups, the better off we would be…just my 2 cents.
I agree with pretty much with everything you’ve said except this last bit. If “gaslighting” means corporate fucking of the electorate with their SCOTUS given dicks, it has jack-all to do with it.
Let me clarify. This is a govt must regulate Capital thread. Capitalists, historically, have installed and regulated govt. These days, animated corporations are their legal face. It’s past time for a change.
Not to the taxpayers and their grandchildren.
Anyone who advocates increasing consumption of finite resources in the face of our inevitable global melt-down is a corporate hack.
Yep, Punch and Judy with a vengeance. I love the drama, don’t you?
What “inevitable global melt-down”?
You’re an oxymoron? That’s nice.
The problem with fringe political parties is that their followers think that if the Republicans get 10,000,000 votes, the Democrats get 10,000,000 votes and the Libertarians get 10,000 votes, the result should be that all three parties get an equal share of the government.
Adhay, the reason Nixon won in 1972 was because 47,168,710 people voted for him. George McGovern got 29,173,222 votes. John Schmitz got 1,100,868 votes. Linda Jenness got 83,380 votes. Benjamin Spock got 78,759 votes. And John Hospers got 3674 votes.
Now I look at those numbers and think there’s a good reason why Nixon became the President. I can’t see any reason to change the system so that John Hospers can become President instead with less than four thousand votes.
I am curious how you think a government that governs over 300 million people across 3.5 million square miles would be “small”.
I believe this is a naive view that does not take into account that 90% of getting anything done is usually a result of comprimise, dealmaking, coercion and incentives.
Perhaps if you define “corruption” as “anything I disagree with”.
Bolding mine.
[SIZE=2]Except that this keeps getting proved wrong everytime a small group of motivated one-issue voters conspire to take over local elections. We see this often when conservative groups hijack local and school board elections to pass nutjob agendas or fringe groups like the FLDS groups take over towns and vote as a bloc to get ‘thier’ people into positions of power. Local control will always be subject to tyranny of the minority who are motivated to take over the system.[/SIZE]
And you are due a dollar in change. Here’s new one, hot off the Fed’s presses.
Yes, a responsible govt would be waking the electorate to the fact that we are moving into Peak Oil and there’s going to be whole lot of personal adjustments that must be made, better sooner than later. A responsible govt would be encouraging communities to invest in local greenhouses so that when the price of gasoline spikes for good and cheap food prices at your local Safeway are a thing of the past, folks will be feeding themselves and be getting to know each other. Damn Socialists.
A responsible govt would also encourage communities towards getting off the grid and becoming reliant on alternative energy and would facilitate their installing of advanced technology while it’s cheap, locally powered wifi, for example. A plus, a reduction of our carbon footprint.
Sounds to me like “a responsible government should ignore what everyone else says and just listen to what I say.”
It appears your version of smaller government only has room for one person.
No, that’s “corporatism.” Everything wrong with anything is the fault of corporations.
It rained today? Corporations polluted the sky. I ran out of Cherrios? Corporations are making the boxes too small. I can’t tell the difference between the political views of right wingers vs. left wingers? Corporations did it.
Along with some friends who recognize the value of cooperation flavored with competition rather than those who laud of an endless diet of competition however rationalized.