’)Start the wingnut harumphing now.
Michael Moore’s opting to spoof romantic conventions in titling his upcoming documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story,” which addresses the causes of the global economic meltdown.
“It will be the perfect date movie,” Moore said in an announcement Wednesday. “It’s got it all — lust, passion, romance and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day. It’s a forbidden love, one that dare not speak its name. Heck, let’s just say it: It’s capitalism.”
…
The film is described as focusing on “the disastrous impact that corporate dominance and out-of-control profit motives have on the lives of Americans and citizens of the world.”
Hmm. I don’t necessarily consider myself a wingnut, but I do find myself at odds with this kind of stupidity. We’ve managed to organize society pretty well on a profit motive while cultures without such motive seem to be fewer and farther between. Are we really at a political stage where it is just to openly mock capitalism? Are those of us who support capitalism now all wingnuts?
Criticizing the hyper-deregulation, rampant greed, and dire incompetence of Wall Street, the Bush II administration, and the GOP congress ca. 2001-2006 doesn’t necessarily indict all of capitalism
When it’s done right with proper oversight like say, between 1993 and 2000, it’s a system that makes for middle class prosperity and people making the step up from working class to middle class, from middle to upper-middle class, etc.
To put it briefly, we can no longer afford (literally) to have talentless Randian hacks like Alan Greenspan anywhere near the controls of the American economy.
“zadura”,
Michael Moore is acting as a capitalist.
Michael Moore is engaging in capitalism.
Moore has made a LOT of money through capitalism.
Capital was risked and it reaped a reward.
What Michael Moore will be mocking in his upcoming film is predatory capitalism where the few loot the many, which is completely different from the regulated capitalism that works much better for the majority even while providing ample opportunity for the industrious, smart, talented (and even untalented) to become incredibly wealthy.
And there’s a whiff of totalitarian censorship in this statement:
“Are we really at a political stage where it is just to openly mock capitalism?”
Are some really at a political stage where it is okay to imply that nonviolent freedom of expression should be limited?
It’s not like this is one of Rupert Murdoch’s right wing media terrorists using their national megaphone to hint that violence is the solution (O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, et. al.). Murdoch’s thugs are racking up a literal body count.
On the other hand, the last project done by the guy you are criticizing was about keeping Americans alive by encouraging better healthcare in America. (A documentary that made money through good old fashioned capitalism).
http://www.google.com/search?q=Sicko
http://MichaelMoore.com
Jaim, what do you mean about Greenspan? He was in charge of the Fed from during your golden years.
Anyway, I wonder if Moore appreciates the irony of this movie. Should we start a pool to predict the biggest lie in this one?
Shorter Buzz: Michael Moore is fat.
Right wing libertarian Alan Greenspan was at best a fool and more likely a common charlatan.
Greensapn managed to be one of the principle forces that took the most powerful nation on earth and brought it to it’s knees.
Much of the current Republican Economic Disaster has been brewing for 30 years but Greenspan’s cult of deregulation unleashed a tsunami of predators and fools that even Greenspan now recognizes was reckless.
I live in a pretty con town, and when they showed the first trailer for this (I think before Transformers), it absolutely killed. I think I heard scattered applause.
If this is America on its knees, then all I can say is: awesome.
So, Democrats held Congress for 18 out of the past 30 years, including the first 15, yet everything wrong with the economy is the Republicans’ fault? Have the Democrats ever done anything you consider wrong?
Yes, Buzz. They caved on Iraq, amongst a number of things.
As an intellectual exercise my liberal economic experts could you be so kind as to show me the country whose economy you would most like to emulate? Perhaps highlighting the features that make it so worthy.
PD100, what does that have to do with the economy? We’ve spent less on Iraq than we did on TARP.
Right winger “Buzz Killington” asks: “Have the Democrats ever done anything you consider wrong?”
Yes, every time they’ve cooperated with Republicans to enact right wing policies they’ve done wrong.
Of course there is no mention of complete lack of Congressional banking oversight while conservatives were ringing the alarm bells.
But hey! Obama is now at the helm with Barney still at the Head of the banking committee so it’s all good.
“Amused Observer” asks “As an intellectual exercise my liberal economic experts could you be so kind as to show me the country whose economy you would most like to emulate?”
How about the American country of 1946 just before the Republicans took over Congress and started systematically mucking things up for the next 63 years.
We would have universal health care nearly that entire time if the Republicans hadn’t interfered way back then, instead right wing looters and moochers have been extorting US, the American Citizenry, in myriad ways for over 60 years.
But Republicans were bitter that it was the Democratic Party that won World War II and Republicans were even more angry that left-wing policies pulled US out of the Republican Great Depression and have been vengeful about it ever since.
But it wasn’t until that con-artist Hollywood entertainer Ronald Reagan managed to push the Republican’s voodoo economics on US that things really started going bad.
I left out my assumption that that would be the answer. Thanks for confirming.
Newsy, are you feeling well? Between 1931 and 1995,Democratics controlled the House for 60 (out of a possible 64) years.
And if you don’t like Health care in America today, you’ve got noone to blame except Ted Kennedy (who literally wrote the bill back in 1985.) Say, who’s in charge of writing the bill you’re so fired up about today? Hmmmmm….
Doing the same thing again and again and expecting different resuts: there’s a word for that, you know.
Things were horrible in the Carter years before Reagan bailed us of that nightmare. Now Barak Obama is playing ‘Let’s pretend this is Jimmy Carter’s second term’.
Independents are starting to bail. Not a good sign.
Went to the local Drinking Liberally meetup last night where one of the 2 main chapter organizers wasn’t able to be there because, as a professional sound editor, he was out in Michigan working with MM on this movie! Sweet! I wonder if he’ll be able to score us some kinda special premiere tickets or something?
Steve, I was addressing the “Have the Democrats ever done anything you consider wrong?” part.
!
Under Republican Reagan unemployment went up for over a year straight.
Unemployment was specifically correlated with a tax cut.
That’s reality. That’s math.
Which are two things that the right wing has a significant problem with.
Correlation != Causation, and I can’t believe that there’s someone left on this planet who didn’t already know that.
Besides, Krugman’s graph is self-refuting: the recession clearly starts BEFORE the tax cut, therefore it couldn’t have been the chief impetus.
Heck of a job, Newsy!
Reagan’s tax cut is correlated with unemployment.
![]()
Republican President Reagan’s unemployment graph during his first two and half years in office.
Right winger “SaveFarris” pointedly explains that correlation isn’t causation, which doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.
In literally the next sentence “SaveFarris” asserts that a correlation is a causation without any self-awareness.
Classic right winger.
Is right winger “SaveFarris” too ignorant to realize what he’s just done or is right winger “SaveFarris” just pulling the classic right wing con: Lie boldly.
I’ll go with assuming “SaveFarris” is a stupid liar, FTW.
Newsie-
If Reaganomics was so horrible, and tax cuts caused unemployment, why are you so high on what Obama is doing? You make no sense whatsoever, not that that’s any revelation.
I’m gonna have to go with the assumption that you’re just a stupid liar, FTW.
In literally the next sentence “SaveFarris” asserts that a correlation is a causation without any self-awareness.
Wrong again, Mr. Illiterate: I said the cause cannot come before the result, as anyone familiar with the space-time continuum knows.
Better than Reaganomics, what works best is what China is doing. You cant deny the economic expansion there. Power and control concentrated in the hands of a few friends and family of top Communist party members and ultra low wages for the worker… Compare the growth with it’s highly capitalistic neighbor, Japan, which has been relatively flat for many years now. Communism works!
Right wing nirvana: Totalitarian China.
“Power and control concentrated in the hands of a few friends and family of top Communist party members and ultra low wages for the worker.”
Right wingers have been selling out to Totalitarian China for almost 40 years, all the way back to Republican President Nixon.
Hollywood entertainer and sell out Ronald Reagan’s entire global trade initiative was designed to sell out America to China.
Republican’s LOVE dictatorships, that’s why the right wing was so willing to empower Republican Bush with the powers of an Emperor.
“I said the cause cannot come before the result, as anyone familiar with the space-time continuum knows.”
Not if you’re in the reality based community.
Right winger “SaveFarris”: “I said the cause cannot come before the result”, verbatim.
Beyond parody.
Nothing resembles the Five Blind Men Describing an Elephant so much as liberals attempting to theorize. Why? Because Liberalism is what would happen to Mayberry if Aunt Bea were the Mayor: Apple pie every day, til they run out of dough.`
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” either has memory problems or is just being deceitful about the facts.
The REPUBLICAN DEBTOR PARTY racked up the US debts during the last three consecutive Republican Presidencies.
Republican President Reagan more than DOUBLED the US debt.
Between Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush 1 they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.
Republican President Bush 2 more than DOUBLED the US debt again and when you add in everything Republican Bush 2 charged to the Fed, Republican President Bush 2 arguably more than QUADRUPLED the US debt.
It’s the “Two Santa Clause Theory” of “Republican “Economics”".
And now that the only thing that will get US out of the Republican 2007 Great Recession and keep US out of another Republican Great Depression is a massive government stimulus which the Republicans are now saying we are too in debt to afford.
Republicans indebted US systematically over three Republican Presidencies in ways that has damaged America beyond anything all the terrorists in the world could have done.
And now Republicans delusional economic falsehoods are setting US up for a Second Republican Great Depression.
After economic breakdowns, getting capital circulating again is important. You can either encourage spending with tax breaks (slow method), or force spending with borrowing (quick method). I think one works better during optimistic times, the other during pessimistic times.
What’s interesting is the wingnut insistence that temporary forced spending can only lead to permanent socialism. …like if I break my back due to some stupidity on my part, taking painkillers can only lead to heroin addiction.
Anyways, lets see how Michael Moore addresses the conservatives experiments with plutocratic freedoms (which IMO, flies in the face of the founding fathers ‘Rule No 1’ to assure freedom and liberty: checks and balances.)
Say freD,
Any thoughts on how the unprecedented debt load Obama proposes will turn out down the road?
How about inflation, what causes inflation in your view?
Inflation would be a serious concern if we weren’t currently in a deflationary spiral.
But the Republican Debtor Party is who saddled US with the debt.
That’s a factual reality that you are countering with a hypothetical future.
But the Republican Debtor Party is who saddled US with the debt.
Would that be the debt that Bush and a Democrat-controlled Congress doubled from its previous level, or the debt that Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress is now quadrupling from Bush’s level?
That’s a factual reality…
Obviously, you are unclear on the concept of either “factual” or “reality”.
What’s interesting is the wingnut insistence that temporary forced spending can only lead to permanent socialism. …like if I break my back due to some stupidity on my part, taking painkillers can only lead to heroin addiction.
A closer analogy would be breaking your back, taking painkillers to alleviate the pain and then never being able to give up the painkillers.
Yes Dave,
That is the debt in question. Say Dave, any ideas why that might be inflationary in the future?
How about you freD?
the latter debt.
<Any thoughts on how the unprecedented debt load Obama proposes will turn out down the road?
Personally, I would have invested Eisenhower style, into an infrastructure gift that kept on giving. He did highways, which spawned all kinds of opportunities, products… and tax revenue. Cheap domestic electricity might do the same. As for the debt load, I’m not sure if Obama has any choice. The government does not save during good times for the rainy day bad times the way most rational folks do.
I think the reason the Keynesian – Austrian School debate never gets resolved, is because 1. economic conditions are contextually complex, and 2. over time “the experts” tend to get their livelihoods increasingly wrapped around the axle of their theories – they ignore conflicting evidence.
Republican’s LOVE dictatorships
Oh, is that why Obama quickly jumped up to defend Honduran President Manuel Zelaya (Hugo Chavez’s best bud and pal) when he was legally ousted by the Honduras Supreme Court for attempting to illegally bypass their constitution and stay in power for another term? And note that this was after Obama took an entire week to come up with criticism for the theocratic regime in Iran for their sham election and violence towards protesters.
that’s why the right wing was so willing to empower Republican Bush with the powers of an Emperor.
So tell us why the righteous and noble President Obama, once had taken the reigns of power, declined to dismantle any of it and instead decided that he really likes having “the powers of an Emperor” just fine, and in fact, would like to expand them even more (i.e. all the new “Czars” who bypass Congressional oversight, increased control over private business and the financial sector, etc.)?
freD,
Cheap domestic electrical energy would be a win/win, in my right wing stupor I haven’t seen much support for cheap energy of any kind from the Obama administration. Perhaps you could flesh out this part of Obama’s policy that I have overlooked.
Buzz: “Anyway, I wonder if Moore appreciates the irony of this movie. Should we start a pool to predict the biggest lie in this one?”
The biggest lie in this movie will be something a conservative says about it.
A closer analogy would be breaking your back, taking painkillers to alleviate the pain and then never being able to give up the painkillers.
Isn’t that where fiscal conservatism comes in? When was the last time a POTUS tried that? Clinton? Carter? Over the last 30 years (before Obama), why the hell was D doing what R was supposed to do? R has no credibility left here, and D can simply fall back on “Well, that’s what we’re supposed to do, isn’t it?”
As for the debt load, I’m not sure if Obama has any choice.
Of course he has a choice. Even if you ignore the “stimulus” bill for a moment, the budget passed by Congress (and signed by Obama) was chock full of spending increases that can’t be justified in any way as fixing the economy. And despite Obama’s frequent claims otherwise, neither the Cap-and-trade or health-care-reform bills will do ANYTHING to fix the economy.
Obama is ramming through all this excessive spending, regardless of the long term consequences, because he knows that he only has a limited time window in which to operate. By the 2010 midterms, the Dems will no longer control Congress (or at the very least, will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority), and Obama’s ability to get then to rubber stamp his lavish spending sprees will come to a grinding halt.
“Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
“Prices tend to go up when demand from consumers exceeds the normal capacity of producers to supply goods and services.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Inflation
R has no credibility left here, and D can simply fall back on “Well, that’s what we’re supposed to do, isn’t it?”
Which is why all the “change” rhetoric from Dems in the 2006 election and Obama in 2008 was utter bullshit.
“Most Ethical Congress Ever”
“Most Transparent Administration Ever”
As I recall the US debt the day Republican President Bush left office was on Monday, January 20th, 2009 was:
$10,626,877,048,913.08 ($10.6 TRILLION DOLLARS)
That doesn’t include all of the US debt incurred under Republican Bush.
Republican Bush kept a lot of the debt he incurred off the books through a variety of duplicitous means, including not paying for his multiple wars through the regular budget, delaying inevitable costs so they fell on the next President, and siphoning trillions out the back door of the Fed.
By some estimates Republican President Bush incurred as much or even more debt through the Federal Reserve’s back door as is recorded by the US Treasury.
So when right wingers talk about “quadrupling” the debt, they need to be asked first if they are innumerate (a failure to understand math) and then asked if they mean that the current US debt is now magically over $42 TRILLION dollars or that the current US debt is now magically over $84 TRILLION dollars?
(The $84 TRILLION dollar adds in the Fed’s rumored secret debt balance that Republican Bush kept off the regular books [and 'quadruples' all of it].)
Currently the debt is $11,515,064,224,509.82, which is NOT a “quadrupling” of the debt.
Quadrupling would be 400% of what the US debt was under Republican Bush.
Currently the US debt is not even 10% more than what existed under Republican President Bush.
And that could be significantly reduced if Republican Debtor Bush’s tax cuts DURING A TIME OF WAR were rescinded.
But of course right wingers know that.
Right wingers are just lying. It’s all they’ve got.
Obama is ramming through all this excessive spending, regardless of the long term consequences, because he knows that he only has a limited time window in which to operate. By the 2010 midterms, the Dems will no longer control Congress (or at the very least, will no longer have a filibuster-proof majority), and Obama’s ability to get then to rubber stamp his lavish spending sprees will come to a grinding halt.
I don’t know what goes on inside people’s heads – this seems like opinion to me. Maybe somebody else can run with this, unless DSC comes up with backup from centrist respected sources.
Which is why all the “change” rhetoric from Dems in the 2006 election and Obama in 2008 was utter bullshit.
They’re changing back to before Clinton and Carter? In my perfect world, D is government solution everything (including military action), R is government solution nothing (including fiscal responsibility).
They’d make a nice complement. But as things are, D & R are a clusterfuck of shiftng ideolgies.
“Most Transparent Administration Ever”
‘Put nothing in writing,’ Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation
So how’s that “science-based policies” effort going, anyways?
Time to go home? Where’s Dennis? He’s always home. Must be out sick today.
News Reference,
That’s why I grew to really hate them. Theoretically, a good conservative administration and congress would competently fix problems until government was barely needed anymore, like a good doctor, firefighter, boxer, butcher, baker, candlestickmaker…
But every time they screwed up, it seemed like they were trying to get us little people to believe that all government really is evil. But this also sent the message that all leadership, of any kind, big or small, was also evil. And now look at all the cynicism.
Republican Debt:
“Republican President George W. Bush was sworn in on Sunday, January 20th, 2001.
On the following Monday, January 22nd, 2001 the US Debt was: $5,728,195,796,181.57
On the Monday, January 20th, 2009 the US Debt was: $10,626,877,048,913.08″
In right winger’s world, that’s someone elses fault. In right winger’s world it’s always someone elses fault.
And as I said above, That doesn’t include all of the US debt incurred under Republican President Bush.
“As an intellectual exercise my liberal economic experts could you be so kind as to show me the country whose economy you would most like to emulate?”
America ca. the 1990’s, when we had a competent president in charge.
You know what we can all agree on? What type of a country don’t we want to live in?
Easy answer: America ca. 2001-2008 under a moronic GOP president and miserable GOP leadership in Congress (till 2006) when the stock market dropped nearly half of its value, not to mention the fact that we suffered a devastating terrorist attack.
This is the albatross that the GOP has to deal with for the next three or four decades. When you guys have the keys to the car and the house, you fuck everything up. There’s no getting around this: you guys can’t lead, govern, or inspire greatness in our country.
But please, don’t let me keep you from criticizing Jimmy Carter.
Because Liberalism is what would happen to Mayberry if Aunt Bea were the Mayor: Apple pie every day, til they run out of dough.
Frank, no one born after the antebellum era is going to get that.
Here’s a simple fact: if conservatives had their way back in 2006, social security would be in the toilet along with the rest of this mess.
Zython, will you stop pretending it’s a crime to be old. You come off as a disrespectful little snot, and I know you don’t want every one to know that about you.
And another thing my uneducated friend, after the antebellum era would mean 1860 and after, a full ninety years before the advent of the Andy Griffith Show. Not to mention: How do you know what there is to “get” , unless you “get” it*?
Finally, are you implying that I am somehow handicapped by being elderly? Please tell me how that works… I can’t wait to hear that story. If anything, your comments are documented evidence that today’s youth are taking a full 40 years to reach maturity.
* Reruns of The Andy Griffith Show, and Mayberry, R.F.D. are on to this day.
Frank, you forgot to tell us to get off of your lawn.
So Jaim,
The economy you prefer is that similar to what we had with Clinton hobbled by a Republican Congress. Cutting back on welfare, proclaiming the end of big government.
Giddy over the dot com boom and making sound financial decisions because of it. That’s the economy you prefer.
Not Europe, not China, nor the oil rich mid east. Nothing in South America, Cuba is out. Russia isn’t the model you want. No Japan. The best economy is the world has Bill Clinto saying the age of Big government is over. Got it.
Clinton did cut back on welfare. And the increase in the Fed’s size was minuscule compared to how big the Republicans made it from 2001-2006.
Personally I’m all for smaller government, and he did the right thing by reforming welfare.
Why is it so shocking that people like me who want smaller, less intrusive, more responsible government vote Democratic? We certainly don’t (and never will) vote for the GOP, the party that talks about national security but allowed 9/11 to happen, the party that talks about financial responsibility but turned a budget surplus into a budget deficit, the party that talks about small government but adds on hopelessly incompetent appendages like the TSA and the DHS, starts reckless, expensive military occupations but can’t bother to finish them etc., etc.
People under 40 who want smaller, cheaper government vote for Democrats. People who want bigger government and less personal freedom (wire-taps, trying to legislate morality in the bedroom, suspension of first, fourth, and sixth Amendment rights) are free to vote Republican, because that’s what you guys stand for — bigger government, authoritarian rule, and tax cuts for George Soros.
Or were you not in charge of the whole shebang between 2001 and 2006?
That’s the funniest thing about you AO. You talk as if the first half of this decade never happened. But it did, and it’s entirely fresh in peoples memories.
GOP = disaster
LOL Jaim,
You advocate a smaller government at the same time as you advocate government expansion into healthcare, financial regulation, economic stimulus, etc.
As bad as the Republican spending binge was it was smaller than what the Democrats would have done. You have no historical perspective.
Right wing extremist “Amused Observer” has no short term memory.
Republicans VASTLY increase the size AND power of government.
“Jaim” mentions a short list of the Republicans expansion of government both in size AND power: Illegal “wire-taps, trying to legislate morality in the bedroom, suspension of first, fourth, and sixth Amendment rights”….
Republicans also expand the power of corporations while limiting the power and freedoms of the American Citizenry.
Republicans want large government to listen to your phone calls, watch what you download, and track who you associate.
Republicans use large government powers to protect corporations and are currently trying to use government to protect corporate monopolies in the health care industry and protect corporate financial con artists.
Republicans also vastly increase the DEBT of the US government.
That’s been true under the last three consecutive Republican Presidencies as well as every time the Republicans have been in control of Congress.
Republican President Bush increased government debt by trillions at the US Treasury AND Republican Bush also indebted US through the back door of the Fed by trillions of dollars.
There still hasn’t been a full accounting of the Republican Debt through the Federal Reserve but it’s more than the massive debt Republican Bush incurred through the US Treasury and it’s rumored that Republican Bush added more debt at the Federal Reserve than the entire US debt added by the last three Republican Debtor Presidents.
“You advocate a smaller government at the same time as you advocate government expansion into healthcare, financial regulation, economic stimulus, etc.”
Oh contraire, my wing-nut friend. I advocate smaller, more responsible government. The Iraq clusterfuck has actually been more expensive than what it would have costed to provide some sort of baseline public health option to the American people. (In short, provide a public option on par with what US senators get in their health-care to the American people at a reasonable cost.)
Financial regulation? That’s really not that expensive. In fact, it more than pays for itself. The SEC was gutted under Chimpy. Simply hire smart people to enforce existing rules and regulations regarding stocks and securities.
The stimulus bill (and we need another one) was only necessary because you and your party shat the bed. When the economy is approaching a Great Depression level of sickness, you need to spend money to stimulate spending, consumption, hiring, and production.
But like I said, you just can’t avoid the fact that the GOP is the party of failed national security (9/11, two unfinished wars), bigger government (the Fed ballooned under your party), and more intrusive government (rampant violations of the Bill of Rights, continued efforts to tell adults who they can and can’t sleep with or marry).
Your modern GOP: bigger government, more expensive government, failed national security policy.
Like I said AO, there’s a reason younger Americans (the ones who will replace you when you die off soon) will never vote for the GOP. It’s because we want smaller, better, and more efficient government. We got a taste of that under Clinton, and we’re going to complete the deal under Obama.
“As bad as the Republican spending binge was it was smaller than what the Democrats would have done.”
Shorter AO: I don’t do facts, just take my word for it.
Clinton didn’t balloon the Fed, the GOP did. That’s a fact, and it’s one you can’t handle despite all your pathetic efforts.
Take your meds and grab a nap. Matlock is on at 5, gramps.