2004

[catscradle]

I've signed up to volunteer for Dennis Kucinich for the 2004 election. Over the past 5 months I've been studying this guy and I'm very impressed with him. He's got a long track record for standing up for what he believes in - I'm sold on him as the only viable choice for the democratic party. And when all is said and done, how the hell can he do worse than George II?

I recommend at least looking over his website:

DENNIS KUCINICH: THE PROGRESSIVE CHOICE: http://www.kucinich.net/

As a candidate for President, I offer a different vision for America, one which separates me from the other candidates. I am the only candidate for President who will take this country away from fear and war and tax giveaways, and use America's peace dividend for guaranteed health care for all, ending health care for profit. I am the only candidate who will stop the privatization of social security and bring the retirement age back to 65.

As President, I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, restore our manufacturing jobs, save our family farms, create full employment programs, create new jobs by rebuilding our cities and schools. As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.

This is a grassroots campaign to take back America. Join me from your cities, your towns, your farms and your campuses. (Presidential Debate, ABC News, 5/3/03) 6/10/2003

Comments

[thebratqueen.livejournal.com]

Dude, he had me at "repeal patroit act".

Although admittedly I'm sad Hillary's not running. Not because I'd be that gung-ho for her as a concept, but because she was the only one I could picture actually galvanizing enough people to get off their asses and VOTE in the 2004 elections.

OTOH now that I think about it, who's to say that the horror of having a woman in the White House wouldn't galvanize the jackasses who voted for Dubya in the first place, so maybe I should be glad.

Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

Just for the sake of curiosity, as US is not my country (smile)

I know that US budget deficit is high. I wonder how he is going to pay for social security by cutting taxes. Spending less money in wars might be a way, but US influence in the rest of the word is mostly based mostly on its military power, so I wonder if that can really be done.

The federal government had a budget deficit for fiscal year 2002 of at least $147 billion, compared with a surplus of $172 billion a year earlier. Democrats in Congress argue that new tax cuts, on top of those cuts enacted in 2001, will make the deficit worse. The administration contends that new tax breaks enable businesses to invest more in their operations, which will speed recovery and ultimately increase tax revenues.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-12-10-econ-team_x.htm

Also with aging population the olde fellows must be an increasing percentage of the population. That places a huge burden on those who actually work, because national social security is paid by them.

Privatization of social security when it comes to health care is a bad thing, I agree, but returning to the previous schemes is in general not possible (I am speaking here in a general way, I know more about US budget deficit and balance of payments than about the socials ecurity system).

Re: Curious

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

I know that US budget deficit is high. I wonder how he is going to pay for social security by cutting taxes. Spending less money in wars might be a way, but US influence in the rest of the word is mostly based mostly on its military power, so I wonder if that can really be done.

I'm no economist in the slightest, I don't know how it is all proposed to be done, honestly. Clinton did it in the 90s, and Bush blew our surplus to hell and back through tax refunds to the upper middle class and the rich and then by spending it all on the war machine. Perhaps Kucinich would follow a Clinton model on that - I don't know. With how huge the deficet is as the moment, I think all we can do right now is manage it better and then go from there.

Though I can say with the billions being spent on war and terror by our government, a pretty huge chunk of it might be there. Kucinich is also pretty dedicated to altering our status as a military power and changing to an influence dedicated to preserving the peace.

As for social security privitization - this isn't the first time he's dealt with a privitization situation.

Kucinich first came to national prominence in 1977 when he was elected mayor of Cleveland at age 31; the youngest person ever elected to lead a major American city. In 1978, Cleveland's banks demanded that he sell the city's 70 year-old municipally-owned electric system to its private competitor (in which the banks had a financial interest) as a precondition of extending credit to city government. Kucinich refused to see Muny Light. In an incident unprecedented in modern American politics, the Cleveland banks plunged the city into default for a mere $15 million. Kucinich lost his re-election bid in 1979. Fifteen years later, Kucinich made his first step toward a political comeback, winning election to the Ohio Senate on the strength of the expansion of the city's light system which provides low-cost power to almost half the residents of Cleveland. In 1998 the Cleveland City Council for honored him, "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system."

Basically, in hindsight, he did the right thing. Cleveland pulled out of the crisis far better off than they were before. While he lost the mayor election, 15 years later the people realized it was the best thing he could have ever done and he was vidicated by a huge political comeback in the early 90s.

Can he present a workable social security plan? I don't know. I guess we'll soon see, if he hasn't drafted a plan already.

Right now I'm more drawn to his commitment to repealing the Patriot Act, restoring US civil liberties, his commitment to peace and human rights towards all people in the world, and his getting us the hell out of the middle east.

If we can stop hurting people, maybe then we can concintrate on healing ourselves. . .

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Hillary lost me completely when she supported the war with Iraq. And there are a few other things that irked me in the past few years about her. . . I think she could have been a lot more if she set herself apart from the old democratic regime more.

Getting people off their asses to vote? I think it can be done if the people see that there is a real *choice*. Gore's down fall - even though he actually won, lets face it, the margin was pretty flimsy - was that he agreed on more points with Bush than disagreed. There was virtually no freaken difference. People literally flipped a coin if they went out to vote at all.

Kucinich is a choice - if he could win the democratic primary, then there's a good chance people will see they have a choice and go out to vote.

The problem with Kucinich is that he's very much grass roots. That translates to - no money. He refuses to take big corporate money, so he relies a lot on his eloquent speaking ability (which is rather phenomenal if you've ever heard him) and volunteers - he just need to make it to the primary to get enough money from the Dem party to run an effective campaign against Bush.

Re: Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

I'm no economist in the slightest, I don't know how it is all proposed to be done, honestly. Clinton did it in the 90s, and Bush blew our surplus to hell and back through tax refunds to the upper middle class and the rich and then by spending it all on the war machine. Perhaps Kucinich would follow a Clinton model on that - I don't know. With how huge the deficet is as the moment, I think all we can do right now is manage it better and then go from there.

Being an economist makes me think about the way to pay things first, so sorry for the professional bias. Also South America, for good or bad, is in the US influence area. There is a say: If US sneezes we'll catch pneumonia.

The problem with social security systems is the aging population in developed countries. What worked when there was a larger percentage of the population working doesn't necessarily work now. What is the retirement age in US?

Kucinich is also pretty dedicated to altering our status as a military power and changing to an influence dedicated to preserving the peace.

That alone makes me like the guy.

"In 1998 the Cleveland City Council for honored him, "having the courage and foresight to refuse to sell the city's municipal electric system."

What changed between the two elections? I hope I'm not asking too many questions. The debate about privatization is quite lively all around the world.

If we can stop hurting people, maybe then we can concintrate on healing ourselves. . .

I can see the appeal of the guy. I just wish the people who honestly seek a better world had very good plans because if he wins the election he will surely oppose powerful people's interests, and they would love to see him fail. That is politics, after all.

Re: Curious

[vasiliki.livejournal.com]

If we can stop hurting people, maybe then we can concintrate on healing ourselves. . .

Amen.

Re: Curious

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Being an economist makes me think about the way to pay things first, so sorry for the professional bias. Also South America, for good or bad, is in the US influence area. There is a say: If US sneezes we'll catch pneumonia.

Oh, I understand that completely - and I do think if the US reprioritizes, the economy is going to recover. Right now the US is operating under Reaganomics, which proved to be a failure in the 80s. Bush is currently giving tax refunds to anyone with kids that make $28,000 or more a year. The more kids you have and the better income, the more money you get back.

This doesn't work in boosting the economy, simply because he's giving the money to people that are going to save rather than spend. If you give the money to the poor and lower middle class, they're going to spend it - there's little choice, they have to spend. The rich are going to save or invest and that's not going to do *anything* to help the economy.

With a democratic president, you're not going to have these emense tax refunds for the well off while simultenously building up a massive military and war machine. So that right there is going to help with how the problem is going to be fixed. It may not be the total fix, but it's a damn good start.

What changed between the two elections? I hope I'm not asking too many questions. The debate about privatization is quite lively all around the world.

Basically what changed is that while the city experienced the huge debt for not privitizing, the next few years saw a lowering of the electic bills, where as those in areas where it was privitized saw a huge raise in price. They were momentarily thrown into debt, but the long term effect proved to be far more rewarding. He was recognized for being responsible for that.

I guess privitizing would seem to be benificial if you have a lot of competition - however, the US systems seems to be disregarding their anti-trust laws that are suppose to guard against monopolies.

Right now the phone companies out west are completely out of control. They're nickle and diming the consumers to death with services they aren't even telling the customers that they're getting. My $25 dollar phone service is actually costing me $37 a month. Back east my mother gets more features for her $25 and when she gets the bill it's actually $25. But they get away with it - they have no real competition - just in a few small areas.

The media monopoly laws were just relaxed this month. A company may now own up to 40% of the media in any form. It's been dubbed as the media gold rush. Where already they say the media is owned by 5 corporations, in the next few years there will probably be only 3 that control everything.

I can see the appeal of the guy. I just wish the people who honestly seek a better world had very good plans because if he wins the election he will surely oppose powerful people's interests, and they would love to see him fail. That is politics, after all.

I know - and it remains that even if he does fight for and gain all that he claims to stand for, other forces are going to try to show how bad those things are, whether they are or not. The bottom line will always be how much he does in favor of the people, and whether or not they can see what he's doing for them.

Re: Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

This doesn't work in boosting the economy, simply because he's giving the money to people that are going to save rather than spend. If you give the money to the poor and lower middle class, they're going to spend it - there's little choice, they have to spend. The rich are going to save or invest and that's not going to do *anything* to help the economy.

You know that is the Keynesian argument and I agree with it for the most part. I am sort of a Keynesian myself. Savings are important in the long run, though, while giving the money to those who spend it reactivates the economy. But that is only the trigger that starts it all. Once people start to spend, unless there is more production in a reasonable period, inflation arises. There is a trade of between inflation and unemployment and fine tunning policies were meant to prevent economy from either hight unemployment or high inflation. In economics there is no easy recipe. Any policy has its limits.

I guess privitizing would seem to be benificial if you have a lot of competition - however, the US systems seems to be disregarding their anti-trust laws that are suppose to guard against monopolies.

Privatization can be done in some areas, and it can be good in some cases. Competition is not necessary for it. It's more a problem of efficiency and/or budget.

The media monopoly laws were just relaxed this month. A company may now own up to 40% of the media in any form. It's been dubbed as the media gold rush. Where already they say the media is owned by 5 corporations, in the next few years there will probably be only 3 that control everything.

And why are they relaxing monopoly laws?

I know - and it remains that even if he does fight for and gain all that he claims to stand for, other forces are going to try to show how bad those things are, whether they are or not. The bottom line will always be how much he does in favor of the people, and whether or not they can see what he's doing for them.

It's like walking on a thin thread. Doing things for people it's okay, but it doesn't guarantee things are being done the right way - if there is such a thing. The key is not taking any policy to extremes. Economy at least doesn't work like that.

Re: Curious

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

But that is only the trigger that starts it all.

Very agreed. But our current president thinks it's the only way as this is the second tax refund he's given in three years. My point was that if he was going to do it at all, he had to give to the right population - not the population that was going to sack it away in investment and savings. I don't think he should have done it either time. He's not looking to any other economic solution to this resession.

Privatization can be done in some areas, and it can be good in some cases. Competition is not necessary for it. It's more a problem of efficiency and/or budget.

I don't agree with this in the US - at least not under a conservative influence were everything becomes deregulated. Our companies tend to screw the consumer over for profit if they can get away with it. Long term investment doesn't seem to be the goal in our system any longer - it's all take the money and run NOW. =/

And why are they relaxing monopoly laws?

It's always been a conservative agenda in this country. Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Collin Powell, is the head of the FCC and decided to relax the % of what a single corporation could gobble up in terms of the media - why? Probably because the big corporations are where the political parties get all their main contributions from. Politicians are own by them. Plus, you control the media and you control public opinion.

In terms of other monopolies - republicans have long believed that the government should stay out of the market completely and let corps do as they please - that means deregulation.

It's like walking on a thin thread. Doing things for people it's okay, but it doesn't guarantee things are being done the right way - if there is such a thing.

No, but it's all the people are going to look at in the short term.

Re: Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

I don't think he should have done it either time. He's not looking to any other economic solution to this resession.

I don't think your president is being Keynesian at all. Keynesian would be to give it to those you call the right people.

Long term investment doesn't seem to be the goal in our system any longer - it's all take the money and run NOW. =/


That is too bad...

In terms of other monopolies - republicans have long believed that the government should stay out of the market completely and let corps do as they please - that means deregulation.

Yeah. From what I know of republicans they don't seem to be the smartest people when it comes to economics.

No, but it's all the people are going to look at in the short term.

(nod) That is also bad. I am not a Friedman fan, but I agree with him that there is no thing like a free lunch. Everything we get has to be paid for in the end.