Leftist Shock Doctrine

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Toro, Mar 15, 2009.

  1. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,782
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,112
    Naomi Klein wrote a book (riddled with simple errors) arguing that right-wing politicians not only exploit but some times welcome wars and catastrophes - think Iraq and Katrina - to impose suposedly unpopular policies on an unsuspecting population entitled [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0676978010/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237118673&sr=8-1]"The Shock Doctrine."[/ame]


    It should be noted that certain American politicians have recently been wanting to exploit the financial crisis to advance an agenda, but they are not on the right.

    JohanNorberg.Net

    Just for the record.
     
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Come on Toro, no mainstream American politician is going to do anything other than support and defend capitalism. The right wing Democratic Party may whimper about better regulation (pussies) but they are not going to try and do anything other than timidly try to bolster regulation. They will be frightened off from that task and they will pretend to institute reform.

    The GOP is irrelevant because they're still trying to work out if they should appeal to the supporters of God or Mammon so they're out of the picture.

    The GOP are not in government, they're not capable even of giving a policy position, they're in complete disarray. Bobby Jindal anyone? The Democratic Party is saving capitalism by default.

    Capitalism, as you know, has built within it the boom/bust cycle and occasionally the big one (is Kondratiev still acknowledged or has he been pooh-poohed?) will come along as it has now. But the Dems aren't socialists, much to the disappointment of those who froth at the mouth when they hit the keys, so capitalism will be healed this time around.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I note there were thousands and thousands of earmarked projects going to a whole lot of states run by Republicans.

    Who is exploiting this crises, again?

    Everybody in a position to do so, obviously.
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,902
    Thanks Received:
    15,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,046
    You know, frequently I've considered the thrust of your posts to be an attempt to validate the left. Now I have to reconsider, and perhaps find that you are closer to the center than I am.

    BTW, that is meant as a compliment. No bull.
     
  5. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Center?? You're about as big of a centrist as RGS!
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,902
    Thanks Received:
    15,697
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +25,046
    My poor dribbling friend. I did not say that I was a centrist. When ever a label is necessary I have always claimed to be a proud Conservative.

    Yesterday I suggested that the Chocolate Soldier Ray have his attendant read and interpret my posts for him. If he has the time he might do the same for you.

    Let's review: I stated that, contrary to my previous opinion re: the big bull, I now see him as more centrist than I usually am. Get it?

    You see, usually my posts are rebuttal of those of the left-wing losers on the board, so I am forced into what seems a more right-wing stance.

    You're welcome.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  7. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,782
    Thanks Received:
    11,059
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,112
    Generally, the right wants less government interference in the economy whereas the left wants more. Regardless of whether the Democrats are "right" on some global political spectrum - they are "left" on the American political spectrum - the policy responses to the financial crisis of the Democrat party is for more government involvement in the economy, not less.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    I have never bought into the idea that Democrats are Socialists or that they want to be Socialists. However, their belief that government can do more for society than society can do for itself is leading to larger and larger government. At the same time, Republicans of late have been a part of this thinking as evidenced by the expansion of government under Bush. Now we see the Dems pushing for even more government involvement.

    What we must now ask ourselves is how much do we want the governement to grow? Since the 1960's, federal government spending has totaled approximately 20% of GDP, give or take a few points up or down. All of a sudden, this spending is jumping to nearly 26% of GDP and may well be headed to 30%. To make matters worse, spending for SS, Medicare, and Medicaid has built in increases that cannot be changed without revamping those programs completely. At the current rate, government spending on these entitlement programs alone will increase government spending to 40% of GDP by around 2075. If we increase current spending from 20% to 30%, that would push government spending to over 50% by 2075, and this is with the assumption that we actually pay for some of this and don't continue borrowing to pay for it all.

    Now, to make matters even worse, healthcare spending continues to rise. Currently, we spend nearly 17% of GDP on healthcare. However, there are estimates that at the current rate of growth, healthcare spending will increase to over 45% of GDP itself by 2080. Ezra Klein: Health Economics Archives

    The bottom line is that we are faced with a situation where we must make some drastic changes. First of all, healthcare spending must be brought under control. Even if we control the spending, healthcare costs will still increase due to our aging population. The question is by how much do we allow that spending to increase. Secondly, borrowing by the federal government has to stop, as the cost to service that debt will begin growing exponentially if we don't. This means we will be facing higher taxation, whether we like it or not. There is no scenario in which we will be able to continue paying lower taxes over the long term. And the sooner we understand this, the less it will cost us in the long run.

    The solution is to revamp SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to revamp our entire healthcare system where costs will be somewhat contained. Secondlly, discretionary spending must be cut where possible. Cuts in discretionary spending will be minimal as it's just not that big a part of the budget. Delaying payments for SS and Medicare until age 70 would be a big step in the right direction to help reduce some of the increases being faced for those programs. Last of all, taxes must be increased to the point that this can be paid for as we go, and so that the debt is eventually reduced as a percentage of GDP. That is the absolute most important part of the solution. If the debt continues to grow, the interest on that debt will eventually cost us more than all federal programs combined. In other words, it will bankrupt us.
     
  9. garyd
    Offline

    garyd Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    401
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Ratings:
    +401
    To be sure the American left is only as far left as they can go and still win elections. That doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer to go much further left only that those in power are realists enough to understand that you can steer the ship of state unless you have your hands on the wheel. And if they tried to move as far left as the radicals in thier own party desire they'd soon find they have no power and not near the majority they thought. It remains ionteresting and instructive to note that Obama's Democratic congress is held in far lower public esteem than is currently Obama himself.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    Right. Because everyone knows that the federal budget is written by state governors. :cuckoo:
     

Share This Page