Comments on: Show and tell: New Party newspaper

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:12:56 +0000

Evan
Yeah it could be. People go back to a more “normal” life when they don’t have excess money. I read on a blog that during the Great Depression the health of the average American actually improved.
If you saw how fat many Americans have become over the last 10 years it’s pretty obvious that a severe recession might do the same thing again. A few less trips to the restaurant each week isn’t going to hurt. 😎

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:54:32 +0000

Drowssap,
RE: Music & Economy. You know, I think it happened in your country too in the early 80s when Detroit’s auto industry collapsed and people took to going to parties where DJs were playing the new techno music. In times like these, people go back to what makes them connect and think about the future.

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:00:50 +0000

Legolas Economic dips in Britain correlate with release of AC/DC albums

By: Warren

Warren — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:03:14 +0000

Thanks for this Scott.
I think this may be another way of avoiding something that is vague. I posted recently that New Party endorsed candidates had to sign a contract saying they committed to an active relationship with the party.
Also, I am not sure I agree that the New Party was not about public control of production. I am researching this a bit more before I post on it but I think there may be some fudging here.
Also, some would say with reason that universal health care could be a public control of means of production. Would private insurance still be available in their scheme?

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 06:54:57 +0000

More information regarding the New Party from the right leaning Politico.com Here.

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:29:34 +0000

Jayhuck
2007 Federal Budget, $2.7 Trillion
Social Security, 21%, $581 Billion
Medicare & Medicaid, 21%, $561 Billion
Defense, 20%, $549 Billion
Other Discritionary, 18%, $493 Billion
Other Mandatory, 11%, $309 Billion
Interest on Debt, 9%, $237 Billion
We are in two wars and the Defense budget is only 20% of the total. Paulson’s $700 Billion Bailout program is larger than any single expenditure in the entire Federal Budget.
All I’m saying is that our Defense Budget is only $549 Billion out of $2.7 Trillion.

By: Holden Magroin

Holden Magroin — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:27:16 +0000

Ann,
Yes…but in Clintonian terms, it depends on what the phrase “defend our Country” means. The Pres as commander in chief of the military can direct them to do what he or she wants. But only Congress can declare war and fund it. According to the war powers act the President can immediately send out the troops if we are attacked. But if he or she sends the troops out to, oh, I don’t know, topple a dictator or prevent soviet hegemony or stop a genocide or make sure the spice will flow, he or she only has 60 days until congress has to ratify it with either a declaration of war or authorization to use force. So what constitutes a defense of our country? If a stateless entity declares war on us, where do we send the troops? What happens if your intelligence tells you you need to act before something really bad happens? What if the intelligence turns out to be wrong or incomplete? What happens when we send the troops, and we don’t fund them? What happens when you vote for something, and then vote against it?
The Pres. (or rather the adminstration) also does other things like negotiate treaties (which the Senate must ratify) and appoint judges, officials and cabinet members, many of which, of course must be okayed by Congress…

By: Mary

Mary — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:48:38 +0000

We the people may vote a person into an office. What he/she does when he/she gets there is something entirely different than for what we voted.
Why do we have representatives when the internet allows us to proactively review policy, legislation, etc… within minutes? Can we now begin to have the people voting (not voting for reps to vote/gamble their careers/ make backroom deals/and trade horses) on our own behalf.

By: Ann

Ann — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:15:50 +0000

Holden Magroin,
Isn’t the only decision a president can make unilaterally is to send our armed services out to defend our country? Everything else goes through the channels you just noted and in the order you noted. That is why it is crucial “we the people” choose our representatives and senators CAREFULLY and then there still isn’t any guarantee they will “represent” what they promised us when they wanted our vote.

By: Holden Magroin

Holden Magroin — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:39:42 +0000

Keep it up everyone. The fact that people argue over which party is to blame just plays into “their” hands. All spending bills start in the House of Representatives (there’s an oxymoron!) and laws are passed by Congress. Presidents don’t make them, they either have to sign the whole bill or not. Bush didn’t cause our fiscal situation by himself. He couldn’t have. Switching out a Republican administration for a Democratic one is just turning over to the other side of the same coin. Oh, they want us to think they are different, but they are not. They may favor different special interest groups but the bottom line is that they are all about getting and keeping power and our money. The real struggle is between ordinary citizens and the political class, and so far we are losing.
The solution?
Well, to begin with, unfortunately we can’t do what Shakespeare suggested and kill all the lawyers, but we can not vote for them. So I have been going around telling everyone to not vote for lawyers, or as they should be known, LIEwyers.