Just a few comments. I hope that they will be taken in the spirit that they are offered.
Was not Saddam Hussein a terrible tyrant who killed, amongst his own peoples and foreign peoples, 1-2 million? There were probably a lot of women in black and other mourners then, only they were not talked about or were "highlighted" by the international press.
And was not the Iraqi army a foreign occupation army in re to Iran and Kuwait? That imposes some complexity to refering to Americans as the only occupying power.
This said from an American who is deeply ashamed of his country's actions, who sometimes wishes that he were never born an American, who wishes at times that the earth would swallow him up. Still, this is somewhat different from the attitude of Baghdad Burning, who according to some reputed sources, was a daughter of a functionary of Saddam's regime-something that she does not at all talk about. At least Americans like you and me recognize that we are damned for all eternity, unlike some other peoples who are just as cruel and brutal but, apparently, never seem to engage in any self-recognition or self-knowledge.
I am sorry, but Obama should not be talking about conservative nemes. He should forthrighly say that he will, and should, raise taxes. That is the only way to fund great government programs and get a handle on this fiscal chaos at the same time. Americans are not as anti-tax as everyone says they are-there used to be 90% top U.S. income tax rates. Obama should help the middle-income groups by spending money on them, through universal social services, and not by cutting their taxes.
Sorry but Pravin is largely correct. Bill Clinton did not improve the plight of average Americans very much. At the end of his terms we still no universal social services, income and wealth disparities were becoming huge, big business was basically unrestrained in it's power over the country, and environmental, social, and other problems were still festering. Basically Clinton gets away with it because anybody looks good compared to Bush. That, and women, gays, and minorities are often quite uncritical towards him.
If you want to read a good article online, go to the Dissent weblog and take a look at the piece by Timothy A. Canova, entitled "The Legacy Of The Clinton Bubble." It should raise a few eyebrows.
Re above: It should be pointed out that America makes the lowest tax and spending effort of all the advanced industrialized countries in the world. Indeed, America used to have 90% top income tax rates-under Eisenhower, no less.
As a middle class person I would rather have the government give the money back to me in the form of enlarged and universal social services-a "cradle to grave" welfare state for all Americans, not just the very poor. For all Americans deserve it. That, rather than tax cuts.
I agree with this so much. Reagan only pulled off personal victories in apathetic, low-turnout elections. Only the US Senate went Republican (and that was lost before Reagan left office), the rest of the nation saw secure anti-Republican majorities. If the Democrats had been less conservative or centrist, if the New Left had been more constructive and less nihilist in the 60's and 70's, if both had not neglected the working class so much, Reagan would never have happened.
For my money, Newt Ginrich came much closer (albeit briefly) to a Republican takeover in 1994.
As another AFCSME member, I heartily agree. McEntee and his cohorts have cared very little about anybody but themselves, they have shown little interest about private-sector workers, as shown by their uncritcal support of Bill Clinton and NAFTA. It was nice to see them beaten for once.
I am quite a radical, and would like to support Clinton. I just wish that, in domestic policy, she would break with her husband's rather dismal legacy (NAFTA, huge increase in economic inequality, etc.) and, in foreign policy, break with AIPAC and the Likudnik neocons (bombing Iran, etc.). She is not doing this-why, I do not know. This country is less conservative than is generally thought, and it is only the constant neglect of working-class issues in favor of group causes that keeps getting in the way.
I am sorry, but we desperately need to spend on our grave problems at home. Bonddad is too fiscally conservative, and so is this article.
Why should we-or any other nation, for that matter-be beholden to the financial markets? We are still too strong, and thus can easily manipulate the situation. Or, we can easily solve the matter by restoring high (90%) top income rates and cutting military spending in half. Eisenhower did this.