Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

[Mashuri]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Suggested reading for EJ.

[metalman]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

It seems we have two trains a runnin'....

The Democracy Train: the first nationally-important election discloses, in spades, the widespread 'dissatisfaction' of the electorate. Many here on the 'Tulip put faith in a Throw the Bums Out movement and are rightfully encouraged by this election result.

Then there's the Oligarchy Train: See the post, Hudson: FIRE Power Grab, for details on the disenfranchised end around in process.

[necron99]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

EJ's post inspired me to ask a fundamental question which I have put over in the "Rant 'n Rave -- Political Abyss" section.

Fundamental Question: Why do Americans "blame the bankers less for buying the favors than they do the politicians for selling them" ?? I'm not disputing the fact, EJ is clearly correct. I'm just wondering, why do we think this way?

[jtabeb]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

EJ's post inspired me to ask a fundamental question which I have put over in the "Rant 'n Rave -- Political Abyss" section.

Fundamental Question: Why do Americans "blame the bankers less for buying the favors than they do the politicians for selling them" ?? I'm not disputing the fact, EJ is clearly correct. I'm just wondering, why do we think this way?

Umm bankers get to create unlimited amounts of FIAT Credit maybe?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

I'm not sure if there is a legal precedent that could be used (i.e. use the courts to force the change)

Wouldn't that just make the courts more politicized?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

If the debate falls to a single thing that needs changing more than anything else, then the best would be to impose true, free market rules on all financial instruments. I have for some months now been able to keep this point in view, on The Times, London web site as reader comments. This was one of my first posts there, last September:

From The Times, September 11, 2009

:p:p
The man who fuelled Lord Turner’s attack on the City:p:p

Sorry, Chris, but the formatting of your post renders it too difficult to attempt reading.

Two basic problems:

1. The :P paragraph markers (are these some Microsoft Word remnants) turn into dual smiley faces: :p:p
2. I can't tell whose quoting what and or responding to which.

P.S. -- I guess you were quoting an early post of yours, so perhaps chose not to fix the formatting in order to provide a faithful quote. Whatever, it's still "formatting challenged."

[Marek]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

EJ's post inspired me to ask a fundamental question which I have put over in the "Rant 'n Rave -- Political Abyss" section.

Fundamental Question: Why do Americans "blame the bankers less for buying the favors than they do the politicians for selling them" ?? I'm not disputing the fact, EJ is clearly correct. I'm just wondering, why do we think this way?

Great question. Perhaps because we are very cynical about our government but idolize success in business?

[Chomsky]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

EJ's post inspired me to ask a fundamental question which I have put over in the "Rant 'n Rave -- Political Abyss" section.

Fundamental Question: Why do Americans "blame the bankers less for buying the favors than they do the politicians for selling them" ?? I'm not disputing the fact, EJ is clearly correct. I'm just wondering, why do we think this way?

Couple reasons I can see right off the bat. The public has no control over the bankers, but it does elect the politicians, and thereby expects more from them and feels all the more spurned when they curry favor for special interests. Also, the politicians sell out for SO LITTLE compared to what the bankers get in return, which makes the sellout seem all the more craven.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

THIS artcile should be required reading for all politicians of all stripes...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...elowLEFTSecond
JANUARY 21, 2010, 2:00 P.M. ET.
The Fall of the House of Kennedy
The battle over who defines the work and institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.
By DANIEL HENNINGER..
.
Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts will not endure unless Republicans clearly understand the meaning of "the machine" that he ran against and defeated.

Yes, it is about a general revulsion at government spending, what is sometimes called "the blob." But blobs are shapeless things, and in the days ahead we will see the Obama White House work hard to reshape the blob into a deficit hawk. Unless the facade is ripped away, the machine will survive.

The revolt against the machine began with voters' 2006 ouster of the Republican majority in Congress for making a mockery of fiscal rectitude. An angry electorate then swept Barack Obama into office. Now Mr. Obama is saying voters elected him on the same wave of anger that elected Scott Brown. Sorry, but Messrs. Obama and Brown are not surfing in the same political ocean.

The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers' National Education Association.

They broke the public's bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss.
The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions. This tax-and-spend milieu became the training ground for their politicians.

Until the Obama exception, the only recent Democrats electable into the presidency had to be centrist Southerners little known to the country. Every post-Kennedy liberal who tried, failed, including Teddy.

What an irony it is that in the same week the Kennedy labor legacy hit the wall in Massachusetts, the NEA approved a $1 million donation from the union's contingency fund to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. It is this Kennedy legacy, the public union tax and spend machine, that drove blue Massachusetts into revolt Tuesday.

Yes, health care was ground zero, but Massachusetts—like New Jersey, like California, like New York—has been building toward this explosion for years.

According to a study done for the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth, spending in specific public categories there skyrocketed the past 20 years (1987 to 2007).

Public safety: up 139%; social services, 130%; education, 44%. And of course Medicaid Madness, up 163%, before MassCare kicked in more Medicaid obligations.

But here's the party's self-destroying kicker: Feeding the public unions' wage demands starved other government responsibilities. It ruined our ability to have a useful debate about any other public functions.
Massachusetts' spending fell for mental health, the environment, housing and higher education. The physical infrastructure in blue states is literally falling apart. But look at those public wage and pension-related outlays. Ever upward.

Enter the Obama administration, the first one born and raised inside this public bubble, with zero private-sector Cabinet members. Act one: a $787 billion stimulus bill, which they brag mainly saved state and local jobs. Then came the six-month odyssey for Obama's $1 trillion health-care bill, dripping with taxes. Independent voters felt like everything was being sucked into a public-sector vortex.

This is why New Jersey's Chris Christie won running on nothing. It's why in California Carly Fiorina is within three points of Sen. Barbara Boxer. It's why the party JFK enabled, "the machine," is hitting the wall.
.
There's no way out for these Democrats. They made a Faustian bargain 40 years ago with the public unions. For the outlays alone, they'll get some version of the Obama health-care bill. They'll also go to the same old "populist anger" well.

Scott Brown's victory has given the GOP a rare, narrow chance to align itself with an electorate that understands its anger. Now the GOP has to find a way to disconnect from a political legacy that smothered governments at all levels and is now smothering the Democratic Party

[Chris Coles]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Sorry, Chris, but the formatting of your post renders it too difficult to attempt reading.

Two basic problems:

1. The :P paragraph markers (are these some Microsoft Word remnants) turn into dual smiley faces: :p:p
2. I can't tell whose quoting what and or responding to which.

P.S. -- I guess you were quoting an early post of yours, so perhaps chose not to fix the formatting in order to provide a faithful quote. Whatever, it's still "formatting challenged."

Wriggly, you are correct to so comment. But I spotted my error immediately and went back and removed all the Word rubbish. I can see the post as I left it after revision. Is it at all possible you need to refresh the web page.

Chris.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

THIS artcile should be required reading for all politicians of all stripes...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...elowLEFTSecond
JANUARY 21, 2010, 2:00 P.M. ET.
The Fall of the House of Kennedy
The battle over who defines the work and institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.
By DANIEL HENNINGER..

What is most interesting about this is that we have seen the same thing here in the UK. If there is one aspect that stands out to my way of thinking, it is that these public "servants" cannot be fired. They seem, certainly here in the UK, to have created a working environment where they grow continuously. There is no inbuilt balance to control their size.

The whole thing is totally out of control.

But that leads to another part of this debate. The Republicans, as also the Conservatives here in the UK, are still closely aligned with the systematic rape of personal finances by the FIRE economy. In which case, everyone is trying their best to find an alternative, independent candidate and the existing "Party" structure is thus always suspect.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Wriggly, you are correct to so comment. But I spotted my error immediately and went back and removed all the Word rubbish. I can see the post as I left it after revision. Is it at all possible you need to refresh the web page.

Chris.

The rubbish is still there, sorry. I'll respond further by private message with more details. No need for me to further derail this thread topic.

[jk]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

EJ's post inspired me to ask a fundamental question which I have put over in the "Rant 'n Rave -- Political Abyss" section.

Fundamental Question: Why do Americans "blame the bankers less for buying the favors than they do the politicians for selling them" ?? I'm not disputing the fact, EJ is clearly correct. I'm just wondering, why do we think this way?

bankers are known profit seekers. politicians are supposed to be working for the public.

[jpatter666]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Wouldn't that just make the courts more politicized?

Ummmm.....more than they are now??? Figure they are already there, might as well try to use it for our benefit.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Why Scott Brown won - Eric Janszen

Sorry, Chris, but the formatting of your post renders it too difficult to attempt reading.

Two basic problems:

1. The :P paragraph markers (are these some Microsoft Word remnants) turn into dual smiley faces: :p:p
2. I can't tell whose quoting what and or responding to which.

P.S. -- I guess you were quoting an early post of yours, so perhaps chose not to fix the formatting in order to provide a faithful quote. Whatever, it's still "formatting challenged."

Now I "Get it". Try it now. Apologies everyone.