Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/30/2004 5:05:19 PM EST
The optimism lefties are famous for on full display. Warning, utter gibberish ahead:



The great days of the United States of America are over. Nothing will bring those days back. It's too late. The damage has been done. There is no possible political, military, or economic solution. The general prosperity of the Fifties and Sixties (as opposed to the one-sided prosperity of the Nineties) is irretrievable. The capacity of the U.S. to lead the world has been drained. The only question is how America will decline – gracefully, clumsily, or tragically? Will we decline with our Constitution intact? Will our decline make us more tolerant and interesting, or meaner and more dulled? Britain declined drastically between 1914 and 1950, yet still produced great literature and a leader of the caliber of Winston Churchill. France declined just as badly, yet still had the cultural power to produce influential art and philosophy. Europe as a whole declined during the 20th century, but retained the intellectual vitality to reinvent itself for the 21st and become another kind of power. How will America decline? At this moment in history, that is the important question: How will America decline?

Look briefly at some specifics of the Situation:

China has become a manufacturing colossus while our factories are gone or going, for keeps. Our agriculture is on welfare: 18% of U.S. farm income comes from government subsidies; what happens to U.S. agriculture when we're too broke to sustain such subsidies? China invests vast sums a year in its infrastructure, on all levels, from cultural and educational institutions to grand construction projects; we're spending comparable sums futilely in Iraq while our infrastructure, on all levels, crumbles. We're fighting for oil in the Middle East; China is in negotiation with Russia to have oil piped through its backdoor – while, through its front door, it has a sweet deal with Australia for natural gas (while we spend millions "defending" Australia against – China!). We've allowed our corporations to become non-national entities. Not only are they financing the rise of China, moving our manufacturing to China or to its sphere of influence, but through off-shore tax havens and the like these so-called American businesses contribute next to nothing to the only entity empowered to ensure our domestic tranquility: the federal government. As to our heavily indebted federal government, its solvency is now supported mostly by Asians buying our bonds. Why do they buy our bonds? Because the American consumer is still the engine of world prosperity. How is this possible? Because of credit cards and the like. Without the American way of credit, we'd be in a depression. The paramount fact: The United States (as opposed to its nominally American corporations, which demonstrate no allegiance) is now important economically only because of its citizens' consumption. That consumption is fated to decline while in the near future – maybe five years, maybe 10 – China will prosper enough for its 1.3 billion citizens to become significant consumers. There are so many of them that they don't have to consume as much as we do to become the world's economic engine; if, individually, they consume merely one-fifth of what we do, they will surpass us in buying power. When that happens, China and Southern Asia can support their own growth and will have no more use for us. Then they need not defeat us militarily. They have merely to stop buying our bonds. Or even to threaten to stop buying our bonds. America will have the choice of being either severely destitute or following China's lead – perhaps both! That is the Situation.

To cope with the Situation, each of the five men mentioned in the first sentence of this column has had, beneath his pointless rhetoric, a plan.

George H.W. Bush tried to proclaim a "new world order." The U.S. still had enough credibility, manufacturing clout, and consumer strength to lead and control the big changes that were afoot – or so Bush the First hoped. He temporarily secured both our oil dominance and our world leadership. But he couldn't be honest with our childish voters about the Situation, so he was accused of not having the "vision thing," though in fact he did. He lost his moment and his momentum, and America lost its last chance at dominance. (Do not take this to mean that I approved his policies. He sold out the American worker in order to retain American world clout. I'd rather we not be dominant. I'd rather we grow up.)

Bill Clinton knew the score. He opted for a relatively soft landing. His plan: Let the corporations have whatever they want – given the makeup of Congress and the immaturity of the American voter, they'd get it anyway (so his thinking went); serve big business, but keep the American way of life more or less viable. Thus his priority was to balance the budget. I hate the way he balanced it; for instance, with a double-digit lead in the polls in '96 he cut school lunches for impoverished children to appease the right. Clinton knew that our middle class is small-of-heart and run by fear, and that they care nothing for the suffering of others as long as they're taken care of. He balanced their budget. But say this for him: His goal was that America decline gracefully, retaining most freedoms and some privileges. With a balanced budget America wouldn't be beholden to creditors, and would retain its agriculture and much of its powerful consumer value. China would dominate the 21st century, but would still need the U.S. as a junior partner, as the U.S. needed Western Europe in the last half of the 20th century. With their combined power, China and America could stabilize the world. So Clinton hoped. Not an entirely ignoble plan.

George W. Bush sees things differently: America may be lost, but the American elite must still call the shots on the world stage. Screw the middle class as well as the poor, bankrupt the government long-term for power short-term. His goal: a military solution. A missile shield would allow us to dictate to China and Europe; even a fake missile shield might be a playing card. Find any excuse to root the American military in the Middle East. Its oil would be under our command, while a poorer America would swell the ranks of our "volunteer" forces. Gut the Constitution's checks and balances, for belief in raw power admits no checks and balances. Iraq is a mess? Inconvenient, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the American military is committed to the Mideast. That keeps everybody off balance. With everything so crazy, China will hesitate, Europe will hesitate, and the American elite will have enough time to move entirely off-shore, and then – screw America too, who needs it? How will America decline in the Bush plan? Precipitously, but the elite will still be the elite. That's all Bush cares about.

Ralph Nader says to the Situation: "End corporate welfare!" His stance was barely viable in '96, when I voted for him, but now it's '04 and the damage has been done. Corporations don't need us anymore, yea or nay. Their profits are ultimately Chinese. Nader can't fix that. His plan is politically unfeasible and economically outdated.

And John Kerry – he's like one of those damaged but functioning Mars landers. Clinton's soft landing is no longer possible, but bumpy is better than a crash. Given the Situation, make things as bearable as possible. That's Kerry's real policy: Salvage what's salvageable. His goal is straight from Mars: a damaged but functional landing. It won't be pretty but it might work, and when all is said and done we might yet have a functioning Constitution. With that, we can pick up the pieces of what's left of America. Which is still something worth fighting and voting for.

www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-10-29/cols_ventura.html
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:15:21 PM EST
Sorry, but your post servilely underestimates the creativity, resourcefulness and economical sprit of the United States.

You're looking at this as if we were stagnate when we are dynamic. Old industries and technologies die off only to be replaced by new ones. There are a thousand samples of new markets opening up because of one small idea. As long as we are free to create, inovate and explore we will not be beat.

Have you ever read James Burke's books? The show Connections is a good one to watch.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:18:21 PM EST
He makes some good points in the second paragraph. The rest is just liberal rhetoric.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:21:03 PM EST
Once again the libs believe that George Bush is a world controller, and is responsible for everything that happens in the world.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:53:22 PM EST
yeah yeah, the fucking sky is falling.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:02:58 PM EST
I remember reading similar jeremiads in the 1970s- we were done for, we were finished, bla bla bla. Then Reagan came around.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:11:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By 95thFoot:
I remember reading similar jeremiads in the 1970s when Carter was President - we were done for, we were finished, bla bla bla. Then Reagan came around.



They are gearing up for Kerry's expected presidency, a/k/a "Carter's Second Term."

I personally think the problem will be solved if we keep electing conservative presidents and discover a useful product that can be made cheaply from the bodies of dead Chinese soldiers.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 6:38:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Ralph Nader says to the Situation: "End corporate welfare!" His stance was barely viable in '96, when I voted for him,



Figures...that's all I needed to know.



Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:08:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 7:09:24 PM EST by copenhagen]
They sadly under estimate US agriculture. A very large percentage of US agriculture receives no government aid. Talk to a few ranchers there is no government money going there way. US agriculture is the most efficient in the world. We have depressed markets because our government has a cheap food policy.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:11:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Ramjet:
Sorry, but your post servilely underestimates the creativity, resourcefulness and economical sprit of the United States.



+1
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 7:14:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
They sadly under estimate US agriculture. A very large percentage of US agriculture receives no government aid. Talk to a few ranchers there is no government money going there way. US agriculture is the most efficient in the world. We have depressed markets because our government has a cheap food policy.



Also US agriculture supports the whole world, without it the world would starve.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:26:22 PM EST
AMEN
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:34:11 PM EST
Let the sky fall - I know that ultimately - we are probably f##ked - and I can thank Uncle Sugar for training me for that day....
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:49:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
--snip--
...and discover a useful product that can be made cheaply from the bodies of dead Chinese soldiers.



Soyrent Green?
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:41:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By raven:
The optimism lefties are famous for on full display. Warning, utter gibberish ahead:



The great days of the United States of America are over. Nothing will bring those days back. It's too late. The damage has been done. There is no possible political, military, or economic solution. The general prosperity of the Fifties and Sixties (as opposed to the one-sided prosperity of the Nineties) is irretrievable. The capacity of the U.S. to lead the world has been drained. The only question is how America will decline – gracefully, clumsily, or tragically? Will we decline with our Constitution intact? Will our decline make us more tolerant and interesting, or meaner and more dulled? Britain declined drastically between 1914 and 1950, yet still produced great literature and a leader of the caliber of Winston Churchill. France declined just as badly, yet still had the cultural power to produce influential art and philosophy. Europe as a whole declined during the 20th century, but retained the intellectual vitality to reinvent itself for the 21st and become another kind of power. How will America decline? At this moment in history, that is the important question: How will America decline?

Look briefly at some specifics of the Situation:

China has become a manufacturing colossus while our factories are gone or going, for keeps. Our agriculture is on welfare: 18% of U.S. farm income comes from government subsidies; what happens to U.S. agriculture when we're too broke to sustain such subsidies? China invests vast sums a year in its infrastructure, on all levels, from cultural and educational institutions to grand construction projects; we're spending comparable sums futilely in Iraq while our infrastructure, on all levels, crumbles. We're fighting for oil in the Middle East; China is in negotiation with Russia to have oil piped through its backdoor – while, through its front door, it has a sweet deal with Australia for natural gas (while we spend millions "defending" Australia against – China!). We've allowed our corporations to become non-national entities. Not only are they financing the rise of China, moving our manufacturing to China or to its sphere of influence, but through off-shore tax havens and the like these so-called American businesses contribute next to nothing to the only entity empowered to ensure our domestic tranquility: the federal government. As to our heavily indebted federal government, its solvency is now supported mostly by Asians buying our bonds. Why do they buy our bonds? Because the American consumer is still the engine of world prosperity. How is this possible? Because of credit cards and the like. Without the American way of credit, we'd be in a depression. The paramount fact: The United States (as opposed to its nominally American corporations, which demonstrate no allegiance) is now important economically only because of its citizens' consumption. That consumption is fated to decline while in the near future – maybe five years, maybe 10 – China will prosper enough for its 1.3 billion citizens to become significant consumers. There are so many of them that they don't have to consume as much as we do to become the world's economic engine; if, individually, they consume merely one-fifth of what we do, they will surpass us in buying power. When that happens, China and Southern Asia can support their own growth and will have no more use for us. Then they need not defeat us militarily. They have merely to stop buying our bonds. Or even to threaten to stop buying our bonds. America will have the choice of being either severely destitute or following China's lead – perhaps both! That is the Situation.

To cope with the Situation, each of the five men mentioned in the first sentence of this column has had, beneath his pointless rhetoric, a plan.

George H.W. Bush tried to proclaim a "new world order." The U.S. still had enough credibility, manufacturing clout, and consumer strength to lead and control the big changes that were afoot – or so Bush the First hoped. He temporarily secured both our oil dominance and our world leadership. But he couldn't be honest with our childish voters about the Situation, so he was accused of not having the "vision thing," though in fact he did. He lost his moment and his momentum, and America lost its last chance at dominance. (Do not take this to mean that I approved his policies. He sold out the American worker in order to retain American world clout. I'd rather we not be dominant. I'd rather we grow up.)

Bill Clinton knew the score. He opted for a relatively soft landing. His plan: Let the corporations have whatever they want – given the makeup of Congress and the immaturity of the American voter, they'd get it anyway (so his thinking went); serve big business, but keep the American way of life more or less viable. Thus his priority was to balance the budget. I hate the way he balanced it; for instance, with a double-digit lead in the polls in '96 he cut school lunches for impoverished children to appease the right. Clinton knew that our middle class is small-of-heart and run by fear, and that they care nothing for the suffering of others as long as they're taken care of. He balanced their budget. But say this for him: His goal was that America decline gracefully, retaining most freedoms and some privileges. With a balanced budget America wouldn't be beholden to creditors, and would retain its agriculture and much of its powerful consumer value. China would dominate the 21st century, but would still need the U.S. as a junior partner, as the U.S. needed Western Europe in the last half of the 20th century. With their combined power, China and America could stabilize the world. So Clinton hoped. Not an entirely ignoble plan.

George W. Bush sees things differently: America may be lost, but the American elite must still call the shots on the world stage. Screw the middle class as well as the poor, bankrupt the government long-term for power short-term. His goal: a military solution. A missile shield would allow us to dictate to China and Europe; even a fake missile shield might be a playing card. Find any excuse to root the American military in the Middle East. Its oil would be under our command, while a poorer America would swell the ranks of our "volunteer" forces. Gut the Constitution's checks and balances, for belief in raw power admits no checks and balances. Iraq is a mess? Inconvenient, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the American military is committed to the Mideast. That keeps everybody off balance. With everything so crazy, China will hesitate, Europe will hesitate, and the American elite will have enough time to move entirely off-shore, and then – screw America too, who needs it? How will America decline in the Bush plan? Precipitously, but the elite will still be the elite. That's all Bush cares about.

Ralph Nader says to the Situation: "End corporate welfare!" His stance was barely viable in '96, when I voted for him, but now it's '04 and the damage has been done. Corporations don't need us anymore, yea or nay. Their profits are ultimately Chinese. Nader can't fix that. His plan is politically unfeasible and economically outdated.

And John Kerry – he's like one of those damaged but functioning Mars landers. Clinton's soft landing is no longer possible, but bumpy is better than a crash. Given the Situation, make things as bearable as possible. That's Kerry's real policy: Salvage what's salvageable. His goal is straight from Mars: a damaged but functional landing. It won't be pretty but it might work, and when all is said and done we might yet have a functioning Constitution. With that, we can pick up the pieces of what's left of America. Which is still something worth fighting and voting for.

www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-10-29/cols_ventura.html




Once again, the power of libbies (especially AUSTIN TX libbies) to FAIL economics is staggering...

They think the power of a company is in it's least skilled, most numerous employees, and so they feel that we are 'losing something' when we export production (but keep management & operations) to other countries...

They look at China and complain about the 'rise', when most of that 'rise' is financed by American corporations, who actually OWN a good part of the rising Chinese economy...

They complain that Corporations don't pay taxes, ignoring the fact that Corporations NEVER EVER PAY TAXES ANYWAY, and were it not for these 'tax shelters', WE would be paying said taxes thru higher product prices...

Now, this guy sees 1/2 of the elephant, so to speak, when looking at neo-conservative international policy (which I fully support) - that we desire to force absolute American dominance, by military solution if needed. However, he immediately falls into the Marxist class-warfare bullshit, and starts crying about the 'elites', 'middle class', and 'poor', ignoring that by fighting to keep America #1, we make it possible to maintain the standard of living for ALL... Quite simply, GW refuses to 'accept' the liberal's 'Inevitable fall of America', but rather has decided to fight any such decline tooth and nail...

Peace had it's chance, peace failed....

'Si vis pacem, para bellum'
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 8:44:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By copenhagen:
They sadly under estimate US agriculture. A very large percentage of US agriculture receives no government aid. Talk to a few ranchers there is no government money going there way. US agriculture is the most efficient in the world. We have depressed markets because our government has a cheap food policy.



A good portion of all US farm subsidies are paying the farmers NOT TO GROW CROPS so that they will not flood the market & depress the price of food...

We have, quite plainly, too many farmers, and the Government (thru subsidies) is keeping the laws of economics from rectifying this & driving un-needed farmers out of farming....
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 9:43:09 PM EST
You guys allways miss the part above the bad fucking news!!! Raven didn't write it just did what he hated Imbroglio for doing(just a cut and paste)!

Raven cut this shit out!!!

I know you could be more original than that!!!


Bob
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 9:47:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 9:48:15 PM EST
The great days of the United States of America are over. Nothing will bring those days back. It's too late. The damage has been done. There is no possible political, military, or economic solution.


This may be correct
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 9:49:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/30/2004 9:50:18 PM EST by The_Groovinator]
edit - OH never mind... it was a stupid joke anyway.
Top Top