Again, why does'nt he raise income and wealth taxes so as to lower property taxes (and to provide government aid for everybody, not just the poor and the minorities)? He should be a soak-the-rich populist. Otherwise he is a pretty good governor.
I generally agree with these comments but should America be the world's policeman? That can be as bad as supposedly ignoring terrible deeds.
Also, though I don't really like his ideas, what about Mahmood Mandani, James North and their ilk? They are strongly opposed to involvement and say that the cruel deeds have been exaggerated. Just your thoughts on this.
Yes it is nice that the President has condemned this murder. However, if he supports Wall Street solutions to our economic woes while being pro-choice, he will be perpetuating one of the most dubious legacies of the 90's-the socially liberal, economically conservative one.
Sorry but aer'nt the American people rather effectively opposing the imperial outreach simply by not volunteering for it and/or not allowing a draft? That alone makes it all but impossible for America to conquer the world, let alone put down actually rather small insurgencies.
One does not have to like American foreign policy to observe that most commentary on it tend to be in the nature of expressions of spleen than anything else.
Sorry but that is nothing compared to the welfare states of the entire rest of the First World nations. As for helping everybody, what about universal social services, like Social Security? What about national health insurance, instead of just Medicare and Medicaid?
Yes but have people read this piece? He says that he was quite satisfied by the way things were going at the end of the 90's. What does that say about "liberalism" then? Maybe the problem is that too much of the conservatism was accepted, and even strengthened, by the "liberals" then. Maybe we should repeal Ronald Reagan, and not just George W. Bush.
As for the 60's vs. the 30's: the reasons why a backlash happened after the 60's and not the 30's was (1) things were terrible at the end of the 60's, and not at the end of Roosevelt's administration, due to the fact that FDR was more radical than LBJ, who failed to spend enough money and to intervene in the economy more, and so allowed urban and socioeconomic problems to get away from him; and (2) everybody got help from FDR, but only a few groups-the very poor, the minorities-got help from LBJ. The working class in particular was ignored. So, there was less public support, and more public apathy, towards the Great Society than towards the New Deal.
first, was the Clinton era really that good for the middle-income groups, workers and farmers as well as the middle class? Even the commentator above admitted that economic maldistribution grew under Clinton as under Bush, just not so much. All that period had to offer the mass of the population was a whole lot of low-wage, part-time, temporary jobs.
second, if you really want to restore fiscal stability to this country, let's repeal ALL tax cuts, going back to 1964. Let's bring back 90% top rates. Above all repeal Kemp-Roth (1981). Oh, and while we are at it, let's cut military spending to below $200 billion a year.
One sort of believes in balancing values and causes, thus supporting both freedom (being pro-choice) and life (by opposing the death penalty). War falls somwhere in between-with respect to life, one should only use it as a last resort, but with respect to freedom, one should allow when one's freedoms will be destroyed otherwise. It is a rough rule of thumb, but where there are many values, all equally important, someone sometimes has to cleave between positions.
I am sorry but people here are a little too uncritical of the present administration's appointments. Orzag may not be the greatest guy around, particularly when he cuts Social Security. And should'nt we have more economic radicalism, considering the dire straits that the country is in?
I am sorry but why is everybody praising this guy. It is not even clear that the 1979 operation, such as it was, really brought down the former Soviet Union-more probably. it collapsed as a result of it's inherent vices, and would have collapsed anyway, even if Detente (remember that?) had been continued. And will somebody, please, bring out the obvious fact that Brzezinski is more concerned about other nations-above all, Poland-than America, which exists just to serve these other nations. Is this what people want?
Really, Brzezinski should never have held high office in this country, and no one should be listening to him. We should never have broken off with Detente, and our foreign policy does not exist for the sake of other nations, however much they might suffer. The Cold War should never have been continued for the sake of the East European countries, it should have ended after 1962 and the Cuban Missile Crisis, the way John Kennedy wanted it.
I am a supporter of gay marriage and rights, but all the same, what happens if we become good on gay rights and other rights and hate issues, yet bad on everything else, such as social inequality and economic justice? It is too easy to be socially liberal, yet economically conservative. Is Schumer great just because of his gay marriage stance, what about his stance regarding big business and it's oppressive dominance upon this nation? Actually one might even say that this has the air of being a "smoke screen," designed by Schumer to divert attention from questionable other actions.
Also, one is bothered by the often very conservative attitudes on various issues of many LBGT people.