Nader: Conscience of the Democrats!

anneshirley

Now that we know the nominee of the Democratic Party, I am starting this thread for the very few of us, regrettably, that don't feel either party will do what's necessary to help the poor and disenfranchised in this country. Have any of you noticed that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans ever speak about the poor--it's always the middle class.  Apparently, there are no poor people in this country, but I diagress.  I had a long dispute with myself whether to vote Green (two women are running) or for Nader. The polls indicate that Nader has the greater chance of reaching 5% this year, which means in 2012 his party would get matching federal funds, and he is also the anti-corporate candidate, even more so than the Green Party, so I'm giving my money, and probably my vote, to Nader.

My views (and Nader's) are so opposed to those of the Frick and Frack Parties (not sure which is Frick and which is Frack) that I doubt I'll get many posters on this thread, but if you do want to post, I'd request that you avoid personal attacks on the candidates (and me, of course) and stick to positions, and I hope, facts.  Beyond these two rules, it's an open thread.  Everyone is welcome to post, and obviously disagreements are welcome.  Isn't that why we read political threads!  

anneshirley

Yesterday, I watched Bill Clinton speak at the Democratic Convention and, as happens at times with Bill, I got caught up in the moment.  He is, as so many have said, the greatest natural politician of our time. It was similar to what happens to me when I go into a Catholic Church, as I did often when my mother was still alive.  The incense (just heard it causes cancer, which I find an interesting metaphor) and atmosphere would always grab me and I'd find myself praying even though I no longer believed.  But the feelings the incense evoked would quickly dissipate when I walked out into the sunshine and the other me, the rational one, would emerge.  Well, today I'm back to normal, particularly when I remembered that this is the same Bill Clinton with a rumored 90 million in his joint bank account. 

The other day I was watching the Convention and admiring Hillary's bright orange pants suit against her blonde hair--she looked terrific, and also Michelle's hair, until I realized that the hairdressing costs for Hillary, Michelle (and Nancy) would probably pay the heating fuel this winter of some of our poorer families in Downeast Maine.  An article last year in the Times indicated that many of them, after spending a lifetime working in canning factories, live on $500 a month or less.   These are not people who have spent their lives on welfare (which Republicans like to suggest is the reason for most poverty).  They labored all their lives at physically debilitating jobs and have nothing to show for it but even greater poverty. Are the Democrats any better?  They certainly have the sound bites but if you look at the record they're not. And the reason, as Lynn on the Hillary thread suggested, is corporate greed.  The Democrats are caught in the money net too.  Many people have called Ralph Nader the Conscience of the Democratic Party, and it's true.  He reminds Democrats that they have not kept faith with the people they claim to represent.   So, throughout the rest of this election season, I'll represent the third way on this thread, which means that since Nader is prevented from getting into the debates by the networks and by the Republicans and Democrats, I'll tell it from his perspective pointing out the hypocrisy of both parties.   

anneshirley

Dan Abrams on MSNBC had Nader on this morning.  It showed up Abrams in a way that nothing else has since I began watching his cable show. His sole purpose it appeared was to insult Nader.  The only topic he permitted was that of "spoiler."   He gave Nader no opportunity to discuss his platform, but instead used the time they had together to insult him.  What I did enjoy at the end was when they shook hands and Nader called Dan "Adam."  It was so evident  that Abrams was shocked that Nader didn't know his first name.  I wonder if Nader has yet to buy himself a TV? What Abrams said at the end was particularly telling. He said something along the following line.  Well, if you don't know the name of the person interviewing you that's probably why you haven't gotten any press.  Well, sorry Adam (oops, Dan), this isn't about you, or Ralph.  It's about the problems in this country.

NoH8

how many slights are ya gonna take at me, anneshirley. You've already made it abundantly clear that you disagree with having a thread that doesn't tear Obama apart. I think there needs to be more than two political parties, but I also think that Nader needs to see the forest through the trees for this election. I fear more ill adivsed wars if Nader gets his way...

anneshirley

How, in heaven's name, is this about you???  And yes, I totally disagree with the concept of a thread that pertains to be political yet only permits praise of its candidate while repeatedly trashing other candidates, their families, and posters who disagree with you or your candidate. I have no doubt that all who read these threads got a belly full of your opinion of Cindy McCain, a woman who in many ways deserves more praise than either Hillary or Michelle, for her work with children and for adopting a child in need, something neither the Clinton's or the Obama's have done.  I have stayed away from the Obama thread as requested, and I have no problem with you or anyone else posting here, but please focus on the issues, not on the people.

There are so many things happening now in this world that demand discussion, yet almost none of them are ever touched upon, either on your thread or the Republican thread.  Why would, or should, any of us care about the candidates' looks or the looks of their spouses--they're all good looking anyway, and who cares? 

We now have two nominees, neither one of which has been honest about the current Russia/Georgia dispute, neither one of which is honest about the energy problem, and on and on and on.  I intend to talk about these things on this thread, and if I find one candidate more lacking than the other I'll say so, if I find both candidates lacking, I'll also say so, and if either of the nominees has what seems a reasonable plan to me for bringing about real change, not rhetorical change, I'll also say so. And hopefully, I'll convince a few to vote for Nader, so we can finally have a third party that gets matching federal funds, the only way in this country unless the candidate is a billionaire, that a third party can grow.

You think there needs to be more than two political parties but not this year!  Amy, think about what you're saying. You're suggesting that we need more than two parties but only in the years when we're not in crisis.  Isn't it the opposite? 

And when, by the way, have we not been in crisis?  Before the abolition of slavey? Before women got the vote? Before the Voting Rights Bills of 64 and 65? Before and during Vietnam? Before equal opportunity laws were passed?  Before when?  We're always in crisis, and maybe that's because we live and die with these two parties.  Well sorry Dan (and Amy), this isn't about you.  It's about the problems in this country.  

mke

When I first came to Canada it seemed kind of odd to have a variety of political parties and the parlimentary system certainly was strange, but multiple parties do have their advantages.   There are 4 main ones, Conservative, Liberal, New Democratic and Bloc Quebecois, plus the Green party is coming on strong.   It makes it harder for one political persuasion to ram legislation through because the others can always gang up on the ruling party.  It seems to promote consensus more.   Plus there is less of the us or them mentality.

NoH8

 You're right, this is about problems in the country and you detract from that when you make passive aggressive remarks about people. Not every thread is going to be exactly the way you want it to be and if you can keep your anger focused on what needs to change in society, rather than how you would like individuals who post here to change, you'd probably get more done, even if you don't think some of us measure up to your ideals.

I think the country would be better off with several parties, not just two, Canada and other countries have the right idea, I'm not willing to support that on the back of a historical candidate that I think can change not only the country, but also our place in the world and bring it back to civility.

anneshirley

Well, Amy, that's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being passive-agressive. Just read your post aloud to my husband who thought it very funny, and added, "I wish!" referring, of course, to the passive bit.  But if you define "passive" as not hurling personal insults at the world, I'll take it, and thanks. 

There's a great quotation that I'm always reminded of when I listen to the Obama network scream, "Yes, we can!" referring to change. It's from "The Leopard," by Lampedusa, "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."  I recommend the book highly; its themes echo those in our current election.

Thanks mke, and you're right about the "us vs. them" mentality. 

shokk

Anneshirley I don't understand your hatred of Corporate America................if you don't mind me asking who publishes your books?..........Is it a Publishing House?............I know you may publish your own but that is rare..........Our Country is 232 years old...............there are countries around this world that have had civilizations for 5 thousand years and yet they still wipe their asses with their left hands.........I don't understand why you think we should be the beacon light for the whole world............that we somehow are falling short of our responsibilities............we are still evolving..........and doing a pretty dang good job of it.  Are we prefect?  Of course not but there sure are a lot of people that struggle and save and do everything in their power to get to this country and to become American Citizens.............there are people on the left that for some reason just refuse to acknowledge what a great country American is compared to some many other places...........just think if you were a woman some where in the middle east.......do you think for one moment that you would even have the success that you have here in America?.......ok I'm not done.........I will be back...............Shokk

anneshirley

Shokk--far too much there for me to address at once, so I'll stick with corporate America on this post.  I have nothing against corporate America.  After all, I worked for many large corporations and did rather well until I retired and began writing. I have an independent, although highly successful, publisher.  One of the conglomerates has offered to buy her out, but she has refused, mainly I believe--we didn't discuss this--so she can keep on publishing the types of books that she thinks makes her company unique.  The company has a reputation for publishing "literary" mysteries and not turning out junk--I suppose this sounds a bit like I'm praising myself, but that's not my intention.  If one of the giants were to buy her out, I might be out or, more likely, some of her better writers who don't write potboilers, and so don't make the really big profits that the new conglomerates expect of their authors. Which gets me to my main point.  I dislike corporate America when it uses its money and power to try and influence things beyond its rightful sphere, which is providing good service and a good product to its customers while making a reasonable profit for its investors.  Corporate America in the last few decades has forgotten its first role and is only focussed on its second, profit.  Why even call it corporate America, as it has no interest in advancing the cause of this country or its people, which is no doubt why in the end China will eat us up! 

shokk

Anneshirley do you write to make a "profit"...........I think I understand writers......most writers I believe write because they must...........it's like breathing for them.......my oldest daughter is a writer......she writes constantly about everything............but would you keep writing your stories if they were for you only?...........most writers are story tellers..........but certainly after having a successful life in Corporate America writing (and being a very good writer is what I hear through the grapevine) and being a successful writer must provide you with not only the joy of doing something you must love but having a comfortable financial life in your golden years.........should you be ashame of that.........of course not.........and if you want to spend your money that you earned to send to the Democrat Party or the Green Party or what ever you choose to spend your money that you earned doesn't the same apply to Corporate America........if they are going to back a Political Candidate that wants less Corporate tax why shouldn't they back that candidate.........what in the world is wrong with profit?............how can big corporations stay in business if there is no profit?.......and who is to say how much is to much...........if a Corporation runs a clean and slick business..........and do a good job then why shouldn't they make as much profit as possible and providing jobs for hundreds if not thousands of people depending on their size..........I just don't understand why Corporate profit is so disgusting.......Shokk 

anneshirley

Shokk--please note that I said corporations have two reasons for being, to provide good service and a good product and to secure a profit for its investors.  But I also said a "reasonable" profit.  Actually, I could make far more money writing if I wrote potboilers (and I'm very capable of doing it from a writing perspective but not from a moral perspective).  It's important to me that I write novels that I think provide something that serves the public good, if even just entertainment on a rainy night, and I also try never to violate my own principles in creating my characters.  Of course, you can't stay in business if you don't make a profit and I wouldn't publish my novels if I didn't get paid.  Many years ago, a friend and I, both academics at the time, decided to write a romance novel for money only.  Somewhere in the third chapter, when my friend had our heroine's breast heaving under her thin silk blouse, I could see Jane Austen shaking her head in disgust, and I stopped. Well, unfortunately, too many corporations these days have their heroines' busts heaving under their thin silk blouses, and the public is the loser.  Think of all the drugs that have been recalled lately, in many cases because the companies falsified their records or didn't do sufficient testing to be sure their products were not harmful, and all for profit.  Or the drugs that when their patent is up, produce the same drug under a different name--like Nexium for Prilosex.  I could go on,  but I won't.  Profit is not disgusting; profit for profit sake is!

And about corporate America contributing to campaigns.  I don't think that any campaign should get money from private sources, including from me.  Too much opportunity for unfair influences, but since that's the way we work, fine.  We have limitations on private and corporate American, but the latter in particular goes around the block to influence elections, usually through lobbyists.  In that respect, both McCain and Obama recognize the evil of lobbyists, and then, of course, they both violate their own standards.  Can you imagine what peaceful lives we'd have if the two parties could only use government money and were restricted to a short campaign.  Such joy, not having these interminable campaigns.  So back to Europe again.  They've managed fairly well restricting their campaigns in time and money--but even there, there's always a back door as I noted when we live in Italy. But they're trying; we're not!  Obama and Clinton between them spent more than a billion dollars.  It's disgusting! 

shokk

Anneshirley how do you define "reasonable"...........it is very difficult for anyone to make a profit for profit sake............unless they are say into mail fraud.........most companies (Corporations) do provide a good service and/or product..........otherwise why would they even be created?.........isn't these products and services what this country was founded on?..........Lumber, steel, coal, paper, electricity, oil, gas, textile goods, food........the list could go on and on..............and yes pharmaceutical..........and yes there are some bad people that do bad things but every morning I get up I am thankful for the pharmaceutical companies that provided my chemo,,,,,,the medical companies that provided my radiation machine, for the medical companies that provided my surgeon with the tools to cut my tumor out of my breast and I am really thankful  for the pain killers that I had after surgery to allow me to get out of bed and go and do my job..........so again I just don't get it.............Shokk

anneshirley

I can't go into them all, but many of them, particularly steel and textiles, are not supporting the people in this country as they did previously, and it's for profit. How many steel workers do we have left in this country?  Think of the scares we had concerning toys from China. Most of the toys are coming from there because companies get higher profits and also because they have fewer regulations--more regulation, less profit.  And more deaths of children.  Of late, it's become a matter of getting a higher and higher profit each year, which is why so many companies are moving overseas.  They did very well here, but not happy with, say 20% profit, which is a low profit for pharmaceuticals, they are going for the huge numbers.  And your drugs are less safe, and that's because of profit.  It's not that difficult for companies to make a profit for profit sake, since they also spent huge sums of money marketing the product.  I throw up the glitz of the Democratic Convention this year as an example.  They have some good ideas but they know that glitz, and pandering, work, so they go for the glitz and the pandering.   They promise, as do the Republicans, the world, which none of them can deliver, yet Americans keep believing and never hold any of them to the fire.  This is rambling but what I'm saying is that until Americans demand more from corporations and their politicians, nothing will change.  And thank God for men like Ralph Nader who point this out to us every four years, so of course everyone hates him!  Except me, of course.

And as I wrote on another thread, I expect more from those who should know better (the U.S.).  I hope I never reach the point where I accept something only because it's American.  I expect the best from those who have the best. 

shokk

Actually Anneshirley I do not hate Ralph Nadar..........I do not like his political leanings but one of my all time favorite cookbooks is one that Ralph Nadar did with his mom and her being Lebanese so of course its old family Lebanese recipes...........and yes we do expect the best of America but then we must expect the best from ourselves because we are the cells of this country..........and every morning when I get up out of bed and look over at my alarm clock that is running on electricity and hit the snooze.......when I get out of bed and go use the restroom and flush the toilet........when I walk over to the sink and brush my teeth...............when I look into the bathroom mirror to see how old I look today...........I am thankful that I am an American..........when I walk into the kitchen and pour myself a cup of coffee that is waiting on me because I can program my Mr. Coffee to start brewing before I am even awake........when I open my refrigerator and get my fresh cream for my coffee, when I walk back into my den and sit down at my computer and check my email, bc.org and the other sites that I visit.......I am proud to be an American...........when I turn on FoxNews I am proud to be an American...........when I go to take my shower and have high pressure and clean hot water I am proud to be an American......when I apply my makeup and dry my hair I am proud to be an American and proud to be a bc survivor because my hair is back and long enough to dry and style..........when I get dressed into clean clothes that I have washed in my American made washer I am proud, when I put on my shoes that I wish had been made in Italy I am still proud to be an American and when I walk out my front door and get into my American built car I am very proud to be an American.........and when I get to my job I am thankful as a 51 year old woman that has cancer and other health issues that I have a pretty good job and I am grateful that I live in this country and that I am a proud American...........Shokk

shokk

Anneshirley I do believe the reason that the steel industry and textile left this country is because of the environmental movement........both businesses do produce very bad byproducts..........making steel is a filthy business and there is no way they could comply with the American standards for air quality...........don't you think that it would be a lot more profitable for them to stay right here and make steel then having to make it in China and then transporting it back here?............Shokk

AnnNYC

AnneShirley,

Here's why I think politicians don't speak much about the poor:

The Republicans don't think government should be in the business of helping the poor, period (private charity, "thousand points of light", etc.).  That's the most charitable way of putting it -- I know Republicans who are truly kind and concerned people who DO privately help the poor, and then there are others who think poverty is a sign of character flaws that don't deserve to be rewarded -- and then of course I think there are some classic sweatshop types who profit by maintaining poverty as it ensures an incredibly cheap labor pool, but I know not everyone believes there are such boss types anymore...  Anyway, bottom line, Republicans think poverty is not the government's problem, so of course they're not going to talk about poor people in an election year.

Except... that back in the days of Reagan and earlier, any kind of assistance to the poor was demonized ("welfare queens," "welfare Cadillacs")... So...

Democrats talk about the poor at their peril, because Republicans had managed to convince a sizable part of the barely-scraping-by middle class that their economic enemies WERE the poor! That it was "welfare spending" that was hurting the middle class!  When really, so much more has been spent on -- oh, the S&L bailout of 1988, brought to you by another Bush son, to the tune of $1.8 billion...

So, if anyone is likely to help the poor, I believe it's the Democrats... but the more they talk about it, the less likely they are to be elected.

JMHO

shokk

Oh Ann how did you figure it out........I absolutely hate poor people..........when I go to my GOP meetings we talking and ridicule poor people............if it weren't for the poor people of this country just think how WONDERFUL America really would be?...........Never mind what is filed every year with the IRS about whom gives more to charity.......register Republicans or register Democrats........look at Obama and how much he has given to charity in the last 6 years..........yes you got us...........we are horrible money grubbing science hating poor people hating Bible thumbing Conservative ass holes.............Shokk

AnnNYC

Shokk, did you miss the part where I said: "I know Republicans who are truly kind and concerned people who DO privately help the poor"

???

That was just about the very first thing I said in my post.

You know, there are a lot of Republicans in my family, and I was a Young Republican for a minute in high school -- but that was in the 60s, when there was a lot of wholesale party-switching going on.  My mom and dad, NYC Mayor John Lindsey, and me, and Hillary Clinton(!)... all switched from Republican to Democrat.  Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms... switched from Democrat to Republican.

Anyway -- as I said, I know lots of Republicans who are kind people who privately help the poor.  Including my grandparents, may they rest in peace.

So -- please -- I took great pains to illustrate different motives, and to point out that the bottom line is the Republican belief that it's not the business of government to help the poor.  I think that's a valid statement, and not a hateful one.  I just happen to disagree -- I think government can shape the society economically.  I'm more of a "Keynesian."  I think FDR was a great president, and I think the high income tax on the very highest tax bracket that was in place from FDR through LBJ brought a great deal of prosperity to many in this country. I think if the U.S. provided more social spending FOR ALL in terms of child care, health care, job security, etc (along the lines of Social Security) we would all be better off and there wouldn't be so much pitting "the middle class" against "the poor."  Which does happen.  Not all Republicans do it -- but Ronald Reagan did, and that's what I meant, and I thought that's what I said.

shokk

Ann don't you think that there are Democrats that think that poverty is a sign of a character flaw that doesn't deserve to be rewarded?.........and I don't know anyone that thinks welfare is a reward.......I have never ever heard anyone say that except for you right now.............I think that people can quickly become dependent on welfare and I think there are some people that abuse the welfare system..........it was originally set up to help people to get back to work.........not to live on it...........there isn't enough money for a person to really live on welfare...........jmo.......Shokk

Anonymous

Ya know, the Kennedys are dems.  I like to think about Cindy McCain who owns "how many houses?".  Her dad came back from WWII, scraped together $10,000 (that was a lot of money back then..and still is to us), built a beer factory and wasn't a bootlegger, or a Nazi lover.  That's what we call "Capitalism."  How in the world can we put a cap on making profits?  I gripe just like everyone else about the prices of this or that.  But I'll be damned if all of this is Bush's fault, or the repubs fault.  Let's see what the Dems to if, God forbid, they win the WH.

anneshirley

Shokk--actually, I did read a week or so ago that because of the cost of fuel, we are starting to make more steel in this country because we're losing the savings in the shipping costs.  Interesting! 

Don't you think that other people around the world get up in the morning and are proud of whatever country they live in?  They are, very proud, and they do the same things you do every day--their washing machines are actually better than ours, at least the German ones are and far more energy efficient.  I don't direct this at you, but I am puzzled why Americans assume that they are the only ones who love their country.  I've lived abroad, in Italy and in Spain, and I can assure you that Italians and the Spanish are as proud of their countries as we are of ours.  I'd like to see us stay proud, which for me gets harder each year that Bush stays in office. (Oh, and the food is so so much better, particularly in Italy!  And the shoes, and the fabrics!)

Ann--I agree with what you wrote, but that's where I am so disappointed with the Democrats, because they let the Republicans push them into this denial.  They are once again letting the Republicans set the tone of the election and when the Republicans set the tone, Democrats lose.  Let's give Bill Clinton his due; he set the tone when he ran and he won.  First time was easier because of Pirot, but he also won the second time.  And if the polls are correct, he would have won a third time as well.  Gore actually chose Lieberman as a way of making a point that he wasn't Clinton with his alley cat morals, since Lieberman took it upon himself to lecture Clinton on his morals, and Gore also refused to let Clinton help him win.  (And that sure says something about Gore's lack of judgment--talk about pay back!)  If Gore had accepted Clinton's help, Gore would have won--so let's stop blaming Nader folks.  It was another case of letting the Republicans set the tone.  Instead of staying firm on "it's the economy, stupid," Gore let the family values thing take over.  So, it was Gore's own bad judgment and Bush Senior's cronies on the Supreme Court that gave the election to the loser.. 

I know the Democrats are more likely to help the poor but only when they have the courage to stand up for their beliefs.  I really did think last year that Obama might be original and sincere, but when he did his turn to the right I knew he was just another politician, and one with a very thin resume. 

Nader will never win an  election but if at some point he can draw enough votes, he can force the Democrats to incorporate some more Nader policies into their platform.  Nader, like Hillary, is for "universal" health care, for example.  And there is no single domestic policy more likely to help the poor than giving them better health care. (I'm counting on boring everyone with my cry for "universal" health care to the point you'll all promise to agitate for it, just to shut me up.)

As an aside, most Americans actually think they're middle class even those who are not.  It reminds me of something my husband always comments on about this country, that everyone's child is at the top of his class. He's usually very polite but he did once tell a friend who was bragging about her child, that in his country, where they're not so advanced, they still have a bottom as well as a top.   (Remember Elain's Top of the Muffin!) 

I knew this Greek Temple thing was going to come back and haunt the Democrats!  Obama wouldn't risk demanding mandated "universal" health care, yet he risks the election to grandstand in front of a temple.  Someone in that campaign should be fired! 

anneshirley

Shirley--you have a very short memory.  The Dems had the WH for eight years and we were much better off when they did, and we also were better off when FDR took over from the Republicans.  You can go into denial however much you want, history refuses to cooperate.

Paulette531

Shokk...you are absolutely correct, there isn't enough money to live on welfare which is why they abuse the system by selling drugs, shacking up with someone who helps support the household (not reported of course), working for cash, and the list is endless. I suppose I will be attacked for those statements, don't really care. I worked in that system and saw the abuse from generational welfarers with zip desire to do anything else.

Low income housing is built for the poor...but it is never built in Hyde Park or Hyannis Port, it is usually built in middle class neighborhoods so we have to deal with the trash and crime that comes with it...I always find that amazing. But oh how they want to help the poor, here's an idea build some low income housing next door to you in Hyde Park and you in Hyannis Port (and you know who you are). Yep...here's to you Dems!

I do not hate poor people, I hate the rich people who keep them in a welfare system because if they would get rid of the system people might have to actually get educated and become productive and work for a living but then if they did that, they might also become Republicans and who would vote for their captors? Interesting the way that works! If I keep you in a never ending cycle of poverty and toss you a few tidbits every few years, you think I am doing something for you and I can remain your democratic hero! Pshaw! 

Bren-2007

Wow!  I'm a little lost here, but enjoying the conversation.

I can only speak from personal experience.  My 32 yo, highly educated son, is a Nader man.  Amazes me sometimes.

I believe there is quite a difference between corporate America and CORPORATE America.  Small and mid-sized corporations are great, keeping the economy rolling along and Americans employed.  The CORPORATE giants, in my opinion, run the globe and it has nothing to do with capitalism.

I live in a very poor area of VA.  The main industry is, or was, furniture.  Stanley, Bassett, Broyhill, etc., and was the main employer.  These are big corporations, not corporate giants.  They kept this region alive.  But, then "someone" decided it was cheaper to log the wood here, then ship it to China for the furniture to be constructured, then ship it back here for retail sale.  The corporate office for Bassett furniture is still here, but that's going further south to North Carolina as well.  There is one small factory left here. 

So, all those folks who lost there jobs had to do what .... find another job in a factory ... where?  They are unskilled labor, except for various processes of assembing furniture.  On the other hand, if you have a degree in social services, you've got it made here.  That's the big business around here ... working at the Free Clinic, the County Health Department, Social Services, Unemployment Services, etc.  I guess that's what passes for capitalism in my area. 

I don't know "who" is responsible for this mess.  Just that it's a sad state of affairs.   

shokk

Anneshirley what makes you think that I don't think that other people are proud of their countries?......I never said that........my question is why aren't you proud of YOUR country?......Why is it that no matter what goes on here is not enough for the Democrats?........Why is it that no matter how much money we spend it is never  enough.............It's like living with Joan Crawford..........no matter how much this country does it's never good enough, never the right thing, always suspect......always some sort of alternative motive...........doesn't matter that we are the most generous country in the world..........it's just never enough......never good enough.......always room for improvement.......never satisfied............imo........Shokk

shokk

Anneshirley your memory is very short and all during the Clinton years he lost both the houses to the Republicans and all of his policy during the 90's was Republican based including welfare reform............so when you Democrats want to wave the 90's prosperity in Republican faces it's because of us that the 90's were so good...............Shokk

anneshirley

Well this thread is moving along; I guess we owe it to Nader, always a controversial figure!

So Shokk, of course I'm proud of my country.  It's one of the things that goes with the territory of being human; we congregate in like groups and tend to push others away for our own protection.  So, when I'm in Europe and someone criticizes the U.S. I bristle, even when I try not to.  (Funny story about that, but I won't diagress this time.)  

But the thing that drives me nuts in this country is all the flags (and in my town there's one hanging every few yards or so, seriously!) and the never-ending my country tis' of thee stuff.  Hey, we're all Americans, so it seems highly suspicious when we have to advertise it to each other.  It's almost as though we feel we have no good reason to be proud, so we have to remind ourselves every other minute that we should be proud, which doesn't happen in other countries. I'm always more critical of people in my family, mainly because I expect more of them.  It's a Irish trait, I believe, to be critical of one's own, and so long as it doesn't go to extremes, it's a good trait, I think.

Speaking of which, I really liked Obama's refusal to wear a flag pin, and I loved the reasons he gave, and then of course, he capitulates!  And you all know how I hate capitulation! LOL

Oops, just caught that "most generous country in the world."  Sorry Shokk, just not true.  We're somewhere between 10 and 20 (don't have time to look it up but I've published it on other threads.  I believe Sweden, Norway, Denmark, one or all of those are in the top for generosity.  I'd be very proud if I were they--they are extraordinarily generous and we, alas, don't come close. 

BinVa--you make an excellent point and not one that I disagree with at all.  Smaller companies almost always take more pride in what they produce; they want to make a profit but they also take great pride in satisfied customers, but as you say there are fewer and fewer of them in our country, because they sold out for profit, and now the company no longer serves its customers and the community in which it's located.  But how many times can you argue this.  When it's too late to change things--and it's about there now,  these discussions will be academic, and won't that be a shame. 

Paulette--not to start a fight, and there's certainly some truth in what you write, at least in your first two paragraph, but you take it to such extremes that it's impossible to discuss intelligently.  I agree that welfare for life serves no one, neither the people on welfare nor the state, but your reason for its being is false and I'm not going to set out, because it would take pages to do so, how the welfare state came into being.  But you might remember that it was a Democrat that effected more changes to the system than any Republican administration (and frankly I disagreed with some of the changes and still do).  And let me remind everyone here that when I spoke of the poor at the beginning of this thread, I was speaking of people in Downeast Maine who worked in canning factories eight and more hours a day until retirement and many of them are living on $500 a month.  And we can blame that on the minimum wage.  So why don't we discuss how any one can possibly live on the minimum wage, or why they should even try! And after that we can discuss John McCain's active role in keeping them on the minimum wage.

Paulette531

Anne...did anyone ever tell you that it appears as though you don't discuss, you lecture! You constantly criticize the way people say things, or what they say or how it is said and then your lecture starts! Sometimes when I read your stuff I think "yikes this woman is so morose is anything ever right in her world!" Like with the canning factory...did you run into someone today who told you about their retirement and this got you on the minimum wage kick?

Setting that aside, how much do you think the minimum wage should be? Maybe a better system should be whoever is working, no matter what they do, no matter what their education, and no matter what they went through to get that education (so they wouldn't be working in canning factories, not that there is anything wrong with that) we should all just make the same wage, maybe that would be better. 

Oh and Anne...I know how welfare came into being!  

anneshirley

Paulette--I wrote a response and it disappeared, and now I plan to watch the convention, so I'll repost the part on the minimum wage tomorrow.

On general tenor of your post, let me say that I never criticize how people say things; that would  be rude, and I spent too many years correcting grammar, spelling, and syntax (and hated it) to ever want to do it again.  Of course, I comment on (and criticize) the content of what people post.  We're having a political conversation here.  And you're as aggressive in putting your views forward as anyone else on these threads, perhaps more than most and for sure equal to me.

But I'll get to minimum wage tomorrow. And, yes, I did speak to someone today who can't make ends meet, someone who worked all her life and can't heat her house this winter, and it makes me angry. So shoot me, I have a heart. 

And a p.s.  These are your words in the post that I responded to: "I suppose I will be attacked for those statements, don't really care."  But you must care, or why get angry at me for responding in kind.  And that doesn't mean that I don't want you to post here, as I enjoy hearing other views and some times (although it may not be readily apparent) I actually change my views based on what someone else has posted.

Paulette531

Anne...I'm not angry with you and what you wrote, I was merely pointing out and maybe I should have said, in my opinion you lecture, I actually enjoy some of your stuff but to me you appear so morose...anyway. And as far as the lecturing comment I made, maybe it is because you were a prof and lectured...people still say I act like a PIC (person in charge, I was in management on a supervisory level). Ah, my psychic abilities are working! (your having spoke to someone today who can't make ends meet)! You know, I am kidding. Agressive, no, assertive, yes I am very much so. Though according to our resident psychologist I am passive/aggressive so we have that much in common! LOL! I am most assertive when I have experienced what I am writing about and know it up one side and down the other. I tend to think of aggressive as getting into a real down and out match, name calling and getting personal etc. By definition: Passive: not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling, not involving visible reaction or active participation, inert or quiescent. Aggressive: characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing, making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive, vigorously energetic, esp. in the use of initiative and forcefulness. Assertive: confidently aggressive or self-assured; positive: dogmatic. So, yeah, I will stick with assertive! And Anne, I would actually put you in the assertive catagory as well!

I am truly curious what you think a minimum wage should be and why. I think this came up before with Grace.