“Mitt Romney would love to have Hillary on the other side of the ticket. Romney's biggest problem will be energizing the right wing base in a general election. Joe Biden won't do it. Hillary on the other hand will guarantee that every right wing nut comes out and votes for the Republican candidate.”
Calvin Watlington on Dec 29, 2011 at 00:48:46
“If we are energized and vote they won't have enough wingnuts to win an election.”
mcartri on Dec 29, 2011 at 00:43:15
“Putting Hillary on the ticket would do for the right wing base what Romney putting Sarah Palin on his ticket would do...Lose the election for sure.”
“Ironically, money has destroyed the Republican Party by creating a new media-political complex (Murdoch, Rove, Palin, Huckabee, Cain, et al.) who make so much money off the campaign process that they do not even care if their party loses. Why spend any time and effort actually building a party with a rational platform, when you can make millions of dollars -- even hundreds of millions of dollars -- running a bizarre reality TV show called the Republican Presidential Debates?
“The US remains one of the most efficient economies in the world in large part because government invested in infrastructure during the late 19th and most of the 20th century. The railroads, roads, power grids, power plants, water systems, and other basic infrastructure that makes our economy efficient was built with direct and indirect government subsidies. Our choice today is either (a) invest in the next generation of infrastructure that will make us even more efficient (such as renewable energy with ZERO ongoing fuel costs), or (b) cut indiscriminately and become less efficient than the competition.
“The fundamental problem with the US economy is that corporations and financial institutions do not believe they have any obligations to their workers or customers. Ask any American CEO who his boss is, and 99% of them will tell you that they report to the owners (i.e., shareholders). While we have taken this as an accepted fact, it is not the only legitimate answer. German corporations are required to have workers representatives on their supervisory boards. In fact, workers representatives often account for 33% to 50% of the total membership of corporate supervisory boards. As a result, German CEOs report not only to shareholders but to their workers. The Germans are also facing competition from China, but their unemployment rate is nowhere near what the US unemployment rate is. Why? Because German corporations cannot just export jobs to increase profits, they must figure out how to compete while preserving and protecting German jobs.
“Nice looking page on your Website. The Germans believe in taking-care of their people first, unlike the corporate attitude here. The republicans are using the high unemployment number as a political tool to keep the president from being re-elcted.
We have to let the corporations know that we will appreciate them hiring Americans to get the Recovery going:
“Precisely. That so much American capital flows out of our country to create jobs in China, a country that combines the worst of COMMUNISM and the worst of CAPITALISM, just makes my head spin when I hear Americans fulminate against SOCIALISM and COMMUNISM, and wave the flag of FREEDOM and HUMAN RIGHTS. If COMMUNISM is so terrible and HUMAN RIGHTS so precious, it would only follow that we'd maintain a trade embargo against China like we have against Cuba.... But all that matters is profit, not people..."Free" markets without a humanistic component will devour us all, the wealthy included.”
“We're building a pipeline from Canadian tar sands because the supply/demand curve has made that very dirty, difficult to reach oil economically viable. The Saudis are planning nuclear plants, solar farms, and wind farms because they know that even their reserves won't keep up with demand once the world gets out of this lingering no-growth recovery. The fact is: Building, operating, and maintaining sustainable energy infrastructure will be the biggest source of jobs for at least the next 50 years. We can either lead that movement or drift into third-world status.
“You are definitely on to something here. Our system of overlapping and often contradictory government incentives has gotten so complicated that we no longer know the true cost of anything we buy. If we knew the true cost of fossil fuels, then energy efficiency technologies and renewables would be much more competitive.
“If you throw in cancer from polution and the majority of the military budget to keep the oil flowing it comes to about $10.00 a gallon.”
MendingFences on Sep 26, 2011 at 17:56:39
“It would be great to have straight up honest competition of ideas to see whose idea is better! Agreed. How about we allow states to try competing technologies without the Federal Government's picking of winners and losers? Almost sounds like we will employ the Tenth Amendment here. I'm liking it!!”
“We are not faced with a binary choice here. The issue is not either reduce the deficit or help the poor. Nor is this a zero sum game. We simply need a more intelligent allocation of resources. We can start by shifting half of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend on wars to fund the education of young people who live in poverty or are part of the vanishing middle class. Over the long term, this will reduce poverty and make our economy more competitive.
“America, as well as most of the developed world, does not have an educational crisis, they have a job/balance of trade crisis.
Simply put, we allow the failed world(a/k/a the developing world) to export their unemployment in exchange for cheap goods domestically, and access to foreign markets. On the surface the access to foreign markets seems to be a good thing, WRONG.
All it means is that American(or European) companies will be the ones selling foreign produced goods back to the people who produced them - great for corporate management, and marketing firms, bad for everyone else.
Until the balance of trade issues are resolved, nothing will make a dent in the poverty/unemployment numbers.”
HenryMiller on Sep 14, 2011 at 09:46:00
“We don't we start by shifting half of the hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend on wars back into the wallets of the taxpayers who provided all those hundreds of billions of dollars in the first place?”
GlennWatson on Sep 14, 2011 at 09:28:58
“And then we lose wars.”
catzoned on Sep 14, 2011 at 09:00:32
“I agree and we also need to retrain unemployed of all ages into work that is not outsourced.”
“At some point one of two things will happen. Either we will wake up and realize that we have been living unsustainable lifestyles on borrowed money and prices kept low by externalizing the true costs, or we will ignore the facts and keep going until the crises force us to change. Smart people and societies always take the initiative and control their destinies. Dumb ones wait until it is too late. Will we be smart or dumb?
“Attention from the media would be great, but the issue is what economic policies should we pursue. We currently have economic policies that promote lower prices and higher consumption, with the result that we consume twice as much energy and food as the average German. Neither our energy consumption nor our food consumption creates jobs or makes us any happier than the average German. To the contrary, excessive and wasteful consumption ultimately makes us unhappy, unhealthy, and insecure -- and our obsession with ever-lower prices leads companies to cut jobs here or export them to other, lower-wage countries. If we want jobs, then we need to reverse all of our economic policies that promote consumption and reconfigure them to promote exports. Which means very significant changes in our lifestyles of excessive and wasteful consumption.
“John, The US economic system is based on consumption.
If the "Consumer" is spending our economic system tells us that is good.
This short-sided economic system can not be sustained.
As you noted, the damage to the quality of life is very great.
We need a values adjustment.
If money / profit is always our greatest value; we have and will pay dearly.”
“Great post. We definitely need nuclear power, and we need it to be safe. Redundancy in our nuclear power back-up systems is a good place to start. Anyone who has worked with stand-by diesel generators knows that they are not 100% reliable. The thought that our nuclear plants must rely on them as the sole source of power when external power to the plant is lost is, well, frightening. Thanks for pointing out this and the other problem areas in our current nuclear program.
“Not at all opposed to more drilling here, as long as we recognize the limitations and diversify into other sources as well. Oil is priced in a global market with the price controlled or at least heavily influenced by a cartel. If we exploited all known reserves in the US, we would not break their pricing power. The only way to break their pricing power is to diversify our energy sources, so that oil must compete with our own domestic production and with nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc”
“I can understand why conservative white males might resist believing anything promoted by their nemesis Al Gore. But do they really want to continue sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country to buy oil from people who hate us, instead of creating jobs and energy security here at home? Do they really want to give up potential leadership in new sustainable energy technologies?
“I'm all for creating energy security here at home. How about drill here, drill now, pay less? Am I right in thinking that you would oppose that form of energy security, howleygreen?”
TraceyES on Aug 3, 2011 at 20:47:05
“"But do they really want to continue sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the country to buy oil from people who hate us, instead of creating jobs and energy security here at home? Do they really want to give up potential leadership in new sustainable energy technologies?"
No, see...if you keep your eyes closed, deny the things you don't like and keep chanting "USA! USA!" then we'll always be the greatest country in the world, even without actually having to do anything to deserve that title. It's the white male Conservative way of solving things, apparently.”
“America became the greatest economy in the 20th century because we built more miles of railroads, roads, telecommunications lines, and electric grid than the rest of the world combined. That infrastructure made us the most efficient economy. (Yes, your iPad got to your home over those roads and is functional because of our telecoms infrastructure. But today much of that infrastructure is a century or more old. If we want to prosper in the 21st century, then we need to build more sustainable energy (i.e., no ongoing fuel costs) than the rest of the world combined.
“We are in the post-consumer economy. The baby boom that created ever increasing demand for everything from disposable diapers to cars to homes to fast food to pharmaceuticals is over. If we want growth, we will find it in Asia. We need to develop and dominate the industries (sustainable energy is a major one) that will meet exploding demand in that region of the world.
“This is news? Instead of guessing what our Secretary of State's next job might be, we should be concerned about what is going on in Asia right now. China has been throwing its weight around in the South China Sea and is about to launch its first aircraft carrier. We no longer have bases there. This could be the start of the greatest shift in global military power ever.
“Wrong John......Hillary knows that this AC is strictly for defense, so we have nothing to worry about. Also those centrifuges that the Bush people wanted to keep outta Iran are now trippling their nucklear material production......so it goes to show you one bunch of these money stealing SOBs is just as bad as the other......Nobody knows whats going on in the world and nobody really cares either!”
“Every time gasoline prices go up, some politician calls for an investigation into possible price fixing. The agencies comply, and sometimes they file lawsuits. One lawsuit after the Arab Oil Embargo in the 1970's called the "in re petroleum antitrust" cases lasted almost 20 years, after which there was a settlement that was barely newsworthy.
Instead of grandstanding, our politicians should understand that the economic structure of our energy markets is broken. We need fundamental change, not another investigation that will get buried under tons of legal briefs.
“Cut the defense budget. Invest half of what we save into renewable energy -- thereby creating jobs in the near term and creating competitive advantages (no fuel costs for decades to come) in the long term.
Renewable energy is simply not economically feasible. So, instead of paying down debt you would have this country flitter away the remaining money on an eco-dream? Until renewables get even remotely cost competitive with fossil, forget it.
You can have a nice eco-friendly powered world, or you can have jobs and food. You can't have both right now.”
Dana1982 on May 10, 2011 at 09:59:48
“We should just eliminate the defense department. By showing other countries that we will eliminate our defenses they will then eliminate their defenses as well. It's better to spread love and peace to other countries then to arm nations and bomb them.”
“We need to make distinctions between government spending and government investments. Trillions on war is spending that will never give us a long-term return. Building a new, 21st century, renewable energy infrastructure is investing that will give us jobs in the short term and competitive advantages for decades.
“Not just energy infrastructure; all infrastructure.
In protecting our descendants from debt, we are depriving them of modern usable roads, bridges, railroads and tunnels (Gov. Christie). Meanwhile, in the not too distant future, the Chinese will be competing against our children and grandchildren while having the unfair advantage of the best and newest of everything. They will have the economic growth that will generate the wealth to pay for all those new things. Our heirs will have infrastructure from the last time someone had a good idea...the New Deal.”
MichaelPetty on Apr 27, 2011 at 01:34:43
“But the former benefits the congressional military industrial complex, the latter would only benefit the 98% majority of Americans.
As long as America allows a fascist government, defined by Mussolini as a corporate government, there will be no benefits for the 98%.”
“In his famous speech the night before he was assassinated, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord." That sense of fearlessness and confidence has always been found in our greatest leaders. It gave them the courage to stick with their moral and ethical judgments in the face of adversity and even the threat of death.
The problem with America today is not that we have become immoral or unethical. It is that we have become afraid. Afraid of terrorists. Afraid of illegal immigrants. Afraid of competition from India and China. Afraid of economic uncertainty. And in our fear, we have lashed out at our problems like animals backed into a corner.
The fact is, we are still an incredibly strong and talented nation. Stronger and more talented than just about any other nation on earth. We need to regain the strength of confidence in ourselves. Only then will we have the confidence necessary to act with the courage of our convictions.
“Very well said. I am afraid that history provides a poor picture for our future because of the fear you identified. When great nations have become fearful they have turned inward, turned on themselves, became paranoid. They waste their resources and capital on bloated militaries. They lose sight of the values that made them great. On that gloomy note I will say I have not given up hope.”
“We need to distinguish between spending and investing. Paying for wars is spending. Building sustainable energy power plants that create jobs now and renewable energy for 50 years or more is investing. We need much more of the latter, and much less of the former.
“We need less entitlments that are eating up our budget. War is declining as a % of our budget. Entitlements need to be cut so we have invest in the future.”
blueshield on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:09:42
The economic driver is consumer spending, and the middle class is the engine of the economy.
Hurt the middle class as is happening, and the economy will sputter.
Eisenhower understood that - he raised taxes on the wealthy to 90% to pay down the debt in four years, while expanding entitlements and investing in American infrastructure. The combination created the prosperous middle class and American prosperity that we enjoy today.”
PinkysBrain on Apr 12, 2011 at 12:06:06
“Investment should be the domain of private sector. Look what a boondoggle ethanol turned into when the government dumped a ton of money into it. Then we realized that it is corrosive, can't be piped, and drives up food prices. Mistakes like that happen so much more readily when using "public" funding.”