America's decade of reverse-nation-building at home

Discuss

42 Responses to “America's decade of reverse-nation-building at home”

  1. JonCarter says:

    He says, “Suspend progressive taxation so that the wealthiest pay less proportionately than the middle class.” Now that is just plain silly. The federal tax system is one of the most progressive in the world. Those who receive dividends from corporate profits are actually double-taxed.

  2. Brainspore says:

    The saddest thing about the last decade is how so many of the measures taken to “defend” our nation have curtailed the things that make it WORTH defending.

  3. RevWubby says:

    Step 5: Treat all who point out any problems with Steps 1-4 as enemies to the state.

  4. Jonathan Badger says:

    I’m not sure where ELD gets the idea that “That humans can act against their own interest, whereas corporations cannot act otherwise than in their own interest”. I agree fully with him that it is silly to consider corporations as people, but *plenty* of corporations act against their own interest. In this sense at least, they resemble people. Just like people, they may mistake what their own interest is.

    • Brainspore says:

      I’m not sure where ELD gets the idea that “That humans can act against their own interest, whereas corporations cannot act otherwise than in their own interest”.

      I think he means that you or I can make decisions intended to serve the greater society even if they hurt us personally (say, by voting for a tax increase in order to help the poor). By contrast, a corporation is beholden solely to its shareholders. In many cases the law actively inhibits corporate responsibility.

  5. Shinkuhadoken says:

    What took centuries to build has been torn down in little over a decade. Well played, neocons. Well played.

    Under President Romney, Canada may have a refugee crisis on its hands. At least until the US invades.

    • chgoliz says:

       It’s taken a lot longer than a decade to get us to this point.  We’re only now starting to lose the villains engaged during Nixon’s tenure.

  6. Tim Warris says:

     “Under President Romney, Canada may have a refugee crisis on its hands. At least until the US invades.”  I’m from Canada, and I have some bad news for you….

  7. Finnagain says:

     Nice RW talking point you got there.

  8. kairos says:

    It’s typically pernicious (esp. of the increasingly Pravda-like NYT) that the rise of the security state is consolidated into a pseudo-chronological position implying that responsibility for it ends with the Bush administration, after which it becomes essentially a self-maintaining brute fact. Which, of course, it is – but in that sense, it had already been so long before 9/11 or the Bush administration, and has much less to do with ‘conservative’ ideology or partisan electioneering than with the economic logic of power.

    One finds no real ‘who’ or ‘why’ here. The ‘why’ is foreclosed by the framing ‘what,’ the (still bullshit!) narrative of a fall from exception: clearly, evil arises so that the good may be tested, and tested, we have been found wanting. The intimately related ‘who’ is left to partisan hints and nods, a conveniently dangling pointer to siphon attention back to the shadowboxing game of elections and ideology.

    I would have expected better of (E.L.) Doctorow.

  9. Ito Kagehisa says:

    It occurs to me that I’ve just always assumed Everett Doctorow was your dad, Cory.  Thanks for the correction!

  10. failquail says:

    Sad to see just how much of that applies to the UK too :(

  11. Well, anti-unionism has been going on a lot longer than the past 10 years.

  12. sic transit gloria C.F.A. says:

    “Deregulate the banking industry so as to create a severe recession in which enormous numbers of people lose their homes and jobs.”

    Er, wasn’t that Clinton? Not that Bush did anything to correct the problem in eight years.

  13. BombBlastLightingWaltz says:

    The terrorists win. Nice agenda America. Fait money never wins anything.

  14. Aloisius says:

    Oh good lord the distortions and hyperbole in in this article are epic. I think it is wrong when the right-wing does it and I sure as heck won’t put up with it when the left-wing does it.

    If you’re a justice of the Supreme Court, ignore the first sacrament of a democracy and suspend the counting of ballots in a presidential election. Appoint the candidate of your choice as president.

    Did I miss something or did the Electoral College not elect Bush? I mean literally, the actual electoral college delegates. Because as far as I know, they always have the power to override the Supreme Court and elect whoever the hell they want.

    The fact is, even if it was Gore, we’re still stuck with a guy 50% of the districts dislike. Though one could hope that at least Gore would have read memos.

    Suspend progressive taxation so that the wealthiest pay less proportionately than the middle class. See to it that the wealth of the country accumulates to a small fraction of the population so that the gap between rich and poor widens exponentially.

    I had no idea we moved to a flat tax system! Goodness! And the gap widened exponentially too! That’s awful. At this point, the rich must now have 30000% of all wealth if it widened exponentially.

    By cutting taxes and raising wartime expenditures, deplete the national treasury so that Congress and state and municipal legislatures cut back on domestic services, ensuring that there will be less money for the education of the young, for government health programs, for the care of veterans, for the maintenance of roads and bridges, for free public libraries, and so forth.

    The majority of the deficit is caused by being in a recession. The tax cuts made things worse, but shrinking the tax base by 15 million while increasing spending to cover people who are out of work, bankrupt, without insurance and hungry. But that’s what is *supposed* to happen. If you’re deficits don’t go up in a recession, you’re doing it wrong. The war, as expensive as it was, still doesn’t compare to the effects of the recession.

    I can’t even continue. The sad thing is that there are plenty of good points here, but the author has completely discredited himself by playing fast and loose with the truth.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Did I miss something or did the Electoral College not elect Bush?

      Apparently you missed quite a bit. The Electoral College elected Bush because he got Florida’s votes. He got Florida’s votes because the Supreme Court actively prevented Florida from doing an appropriate recount as per Florida’s own electoral rules.

      • Aloisius says:

        AFAIK, the Supreme Court cannot force the actual delegates to vote any particular way. They can call a race however they like, but that only controls how the states direct the electors to vote, not how they actually vote. The electors could have easily ignored the Supreme Court and voted for anyone.

        In fact, in 2000, the elector from DC refused to vote for Al Gore even though she was pledged to do so.

        • DrunkenOrangetree says:

          The electors’ autonomy was never a factor in the 2000 election.

          And are you seriously maintaining that we have a progressive tax system in the US?

          And you’d better look up “exponential.”

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          AFAIK, the Supreme Court cannot force the actual delegates to vote any particular way.

          They forced a recount to be stopped.  Florida then followed its own law regarding delegates.

        • chgoliz says:

          I think the point is that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did because they knew what Florida electors would do afterward.

          If the Florida electors had stated in advance – similar to your example of the one from DC – that they would vote for Gore no matter what, the Supreme Court would probably have done things differently.

Leave a Reply