Debate moderators allowed Giuliani to misrepresent Clinton statement on free markets
SUMMARY: During the October 9 Republican presidential
debate, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and CNBC's Maria Bartitomo did not
challenge Rudy Giuliani's claim that Sen. Hillary Clinton "once
said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America."
In fact, in a 1996 interview, Clinton said she agreed with the quote,
"The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force
in American life in the last generation."
During the Republican presidential candidates debate on October 9, the debate moderators -- MSNBC host Chris Matthews and CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo -- did not challenge former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani after he repeated his claim that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America." In fact, in a 1996 C-SPAN interview, Clinton agreed with author Aren Ehrenhalt's characterization of the "unfettered free market" as "the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation" -- not the "most destructive." Clinton went on to say that the "market is the driving force behind our prosperity" but that it "cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives."
As Media Matters for America previously noted, Giuliani made a similar claim during the May 15 Republican presidential debate -- that Clinton said she "agreed" that "the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America" -- and several media outlets uncritically reported his misquotation. Additionally, in an August 13 CNBC interview, Kudlow & Co. host Larry Kudlow did not challenge Giuliani's assertion that Clinton "agreed with the statement, 'The unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America.' ... That's got to tell you her ideology, right? She agreed with that statement a few years ago."
From Clinton's March 3, 1996, interview on C-SPAN's Booknotes:
BRIAN LAMB (host): There's a quote here. I want to ask you if you agree with this. This is from Alan Ehrenhalt, author of "The Lost City" -- you put it in your book. "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."
CLINTON: I believe that. That's why I put it in the book. I think if you look at the argument we've had in our political life in the last several years, it's been a false debate. We've pitted the government against everything else. Well, I don't believe the government has had as big an impact as commercial television, as a lot of the decisions made in the marketplace about how we're going to pay and compensate people, about downsizing corporations and making workers more insecure. And I just believe that there's got to be a healthy tension among all of our institutions in society, and that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity, our freedom in so many respects to make our lives our own but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well.
From CNBC's coverage of the October 9 Republican presidential debate:
MATTHEWS: Mayor Giuliani, the private equity firms are making billions of dollars. I guess it's a mystery to me, and you could explain this to a New Yorker -- where do these billions of dollars come from? Where were they before? And is there any downside to this amazing bonanza in the hedge fund and the private equity firms?
GIULIANI: Well, I mean, the market is a wonderful thing. I mean, the free market is our -- one of our greatest assets. The leading Democratic candidate once said that the unfettered free market is the most destructive force in modern America. I mean, just get an idea of where that philosophy comes from. The free market is the asset that has allowed us to -- the sky's the limit. The reality is that what we have to do is look at the fundamentals. A president can't be a economic forecaster. The president's not going to be any better an economic forecaster than you are a baseball forecaster. And I'm not a particularly good baseball forecaster this afternoon. So, the reality is, the president has to work on the fundamentals. What are the fundamentals? Keep taxes low, keep regulations moderate, keep spending under control. That's an area where we need a lot of help. And, make sure you do something about legal reform so that our legal system doesn't -- it's 2.2 percent of our GDP [gross domestic product] now is spent on all these frivolous lawsuits. It's double any other industrialized nation. If we don't get control of that, that's another way in which we're going to eat up our future. So, we've got a prospect on the Democratic side of overspending, overtaxing, over-regulating, and over-suing. And I think you need a Republican alternative to that, which is an emphasis on the pillars of growth that I mentioned.
MATTHEWS: Just to test your forecasting ability, Mr. Mayor, will [New York Yankees manager Joe] Torre keep his job?
GIULIANI: God willing. Joe Torre is the best manager in the history of the Yankees, at least in the modern era, so -- and he's my friend.
Needless to say, free market should be supervised and regulated when necessary.
Changing the subject, numerous blogs yesterday lied about the 12 year old boy the Dems. used to promote the SCHIP, but MMFA has nothing about it today. I'm disappointed.
ya but....9/11...
That may well be, but 9/11.
I don't know why they call these shows " debates " ???
They're not debates.
How could they be, when the participants, who are the people whose opinions we seek to hear (and not the opinions of chris matthews and brian williams and others like them), those participants don't even speak to one another, let alone ask one another questions.
They'd have to at least speak to each other, to be considered to be debating.
I think it was Ralph Nader, who observing how the candidates have negotiated the conditions of these supposed "debates" to the extent where none of those candidates are allowed to ask each other questions and address each other directly (which is what defines a debate), he called these things simply "parallel press conferences".
About "free markets": Who knows what genius thought it up, to use the word "free" in this sense, when what is truly (and more descriptively) meant is "de-regulated" or even "unregulated".
It's commercial interests, and whatever political party (R) that represents those interests, they're the ones who are forever seeking to de-regulate or even abolish (unregulate) the regulation of their business or industry. Those regulations serve the Public interest, and the interests of workers and consumers; but to commercial interests they're just considered an obstacle to greater revenues and profits, and so they and they're political representation (R) work overtime and always, toward de-regulation and even to abolish Regulations.
Which genius it was who thought to use the word "free" to describe markets that are de-regulated or unregulated, I don't know. But we don't have to let them force words into our mouths, and dictate the terms of the debate.
Say "de-regulated market" or even "unregulated market", instead of "free market": It means the same thing, but removes the appearance that you are arguing against "freedom" or something "free".
Mrs. Clinton's comment then becomes:
"The unfettered unregulated market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."
It's the same exact thought, except the word "unregulated" is used instead of "free": It seems to be a more accurate choice of words, and maybe more enlightening too, when said that way.
OK, this is complete ratsqueeze! She agrees with the statement, she quotes it in her book, she puts her name on the book. She believes the statement is true. Rudy claims that "she said it" instead of "she believes it". What's the difference? If you asked her to say it, she'd say it loud and proud. MMFA, this is weak. Makes you look desperate.
Destructive, disruptive.....about a dime's worth of difference.
Like....partially destroyed. That's worth at least a quarter. Why should words have different meanings? Let's try "phony soldiers" and "phony soldier." I'll bet a lot of people saw a difference in that one.
You're right. Things like "Stuck in Iraq" should be taken literally, not in any form of context, right? Words are words. Like "WE are the President" should have been taken as meaning that Hillary had already claimed half of the oval office. She COULDN'T have meant anything else, isn't that right? Or do the rules change when a liberal speaks?
What rules?
What liberal?
I hope you aren't talking about the Goldwater Gal.
Actually, Kerry's "stuck in Iraq" comment was ALL about context, since he was talking about Bush through the whole speech.
Kerry didn't bring Bush up 2 minutes later and claim to have been talking about him the whole time...
All change is disruptive of the status quo. The "free market", if ever we find one, is certainly a generator of change.
Not all change is good. Not all change is bad.
Our current version of market is certainly not free of monopoly, nor of Corporate collusion; and thus may itself require change - by mandate of Government I suspect - to ever even approach "free".
Get back to me when the Corporations have been deprived of faus "personhood", immortality, and various "protective" measures limiting a citizen's ability to receive (or even to seek) redress for negligence and even deliberately criminal conduct by those Corporations and their officers.
You'd a thought I had seen enough posts about "FauxNews" to spell "faux", wouldn't you?
'The "free market", if ever we find one...'
Conley, I've got the Republican pissing match on right now, and I've heard the term "free market" about 50 times in the last 10 minutes.
It's one of those phrases that makes confused people feel strong and independent, unfortunately, the "free market" is as imaginary as it is free.
Exactly this country has always had socialism for the rich and markets are protected for powerful interests and subsidies flow to them. In one four year period GM got more than one hundred million dollars for a program to keep jobs in America. During that time period GM sent more than 100,000 jobs OUT of the country
The child's shout of "AMEN" was DISRUPTIVE to the sermon.
The child's shout of "AMEN" was DESTRUCTIVE to the sermon.
The president's optimistic speech was DISRUPTIVE to stock prices.
The president's optimistic speech was DESTRUCTIVE to stock prices.
Yup. Exactly the same meaning, those two pesky words.
To a blithering idiot.
Yup. Exactly the same meaning, those two pesky words.
To a blithering idiot.
And the Republican Party is chock-full of blithering idiots. Take Rino Hunter, for example.....
WZ:
YOU take him. I've got no use for the likes.
WZ:
YOU take him. I've got no use for the likes.
I'm sure Rino Hunter gets taken by every telemarketer who calls, and every salesperson who rings his doorbell. After all, he's bought the GOP propaganda hook, line, and sinker.....
Bush Lies,
Despite your moniker, I'm not going to accuse you of lying. I'll just attribute your misunderstanding to honest ignorance.
There can be a huge difference between "disruptive" and "destructive." The latter is almost universally negative; the former, not necessarily.
Martin Luther King was disruptive in the 1960's. So were the American colonists in the 1770's. So was Jesus Christ circa two millennia ago. None of the three (with the possible exception of the colonists) could fairly be called "destructive."
Do you get the distinction now? If so, we await your retraction of what you posted above. If not...well, there's no excuse for willful ignorance.
"Desperate or accurate". What's the difference?
Desperate = MMFA
Accurate = NOT MMFA
Moron=Bush Lies
Wow! Another unsolicited personal attack from the Almighty Solon. I'm sooooo shocked! Weren't you the one who INSISTED that you only return insults after YOU have been insulted first? Look, little boy, go away and let the big people talk.
I just learned from antoher thread that SOLON's been a liberal fo about thirty years. Go easy on him - thirty years in any prison can not be too easy.
High five!
Gotta be better than your lifetime as a moronic imbecile. Prison? MAN you are stupid
Bushlies, you're far from the first right-winger to post here whining that somebody's insulting you "for no reason".
Unlike hard-core Republicans, some of us have memories that go back more than 10 minutes.You spend a lot of time tossing BS around here, don't cry if a little blowback gets you.
BS is a subjective matter. I could say that everything you say is BS, but I'm subjective just like you. But still, I've NEVER, NEVER called another poster a name. NEVER.
OK, let me clarify that. I've never called another poster an insulting name (i.e. moron, idiot, etc.)
So its ok to call a man TREASONOUS for having the same beliefs most of us do but its just SOOO bad if we point out that makes YOU a moron. Its ok for you to baselessly assert instulting things about this website but we shouldnt call YOU names. IF you want to talk about issues. Do so IF you just want to call names and insult us and the site, I dont CARE if it isnt the same thing as calling an individual a moron. Its the same to me. YOU dont get to make frame this. It isnt UP to you. I know you guys listen to the rightwing bloviators who mischaracterize our beliefs, deride liberals and the like and THINK its all polite. It isnt. If you are talking issues and making points so will I. If you decide what you really want to do is make disparaging remarks then snivel when they come back at you that is fine too. Act like a snivelling little girl. It is all the same to me.
Just doing what YOU did. Turn your argument around. As I said either you are making points or you are making baseless ad hominem type attacks if you decide that is what you are going to do just like the above post, then you can expect the same thing back. I dont care BEANS if you decide YOUR comments werent attacks. The way I see it they are.
Is it just me or does Rudy sound off balance, choppy and generally mentally fractured? Maybe he was just off his game but he comes across as a muddled headed excreter of talking points.
I did not watch the debate though, I'm one of those blue collar Democrats. I was at work while these blowhards promised even greater favors to and for the leisure class.
"Leisure class"? Excuse me while I laugh my butt off. Who, pray tell, are the "leisure class"?
Now that's progress! I figured you would be the type to ask what's a blue collar Democrat?
No, sir. I know what a blue collar "worker" is. A Union member.
Ya know that do ya?
I think you are wrong.
Oh yeah. Leisure class.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
It was dreamed up by a man that said a church was a waste of building space. Enough said.
When in doubt, attack the messenger. Does that sum it up?
Not attacking so much as it is exposing him as a crazy loon.
Only in Republican world a smear is not a smear.
Look, there is no shame in admitting that you have not studied this particular topic well enought to give an educated opinion at this time.
Oh, I admit it was a smear. Damn good one, too. I'm not a Rebublican, though. You know what happens when you ASSume.
OK. Cool. So you resort to smears when the subject matter is beyond your ability to process rationally. Glad this much at least is in the open.
Sorry to attribute Republicanism to your point of view, you just sound so much like a typical Republican that the shoe seemed to fit.
Or yourself as an idiot.
BUSH LIES:
If you were one of the four people named WALTON who inherited $17 BILLION apiece, you'd have an idea what "leisure class" means. It means you didn't have to WORK to make money, and that you have enough money to NOT have to work if you lived seventeen thousand lifetimes.
Here are some ACCURATE quotes from HRC:
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
Karl Marx would be proud.
The troll ,name stealer is back.
Let me try to explain this so that even you can understand..............
THIS is name stealing!
THIS is NOT!!!
Your name is sitting right where YOU abandoned it!
Yes this is name stealing. I can only wonder Why you want to do it???
Don't forget Karl's brothers, Harpo Marx and Marky Marks.
Quotes...this could lead to post that lasts forever.
How about.."We know where the WMD's are, we just can't find them?' Rummy
How about "I think it's also important for the President to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn" Pres Bush talking about the troops, Clinton and war (1999).
"Victory means exit strategy and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is"...you guessed it Pres Bush (1999).
By quoting Sen. Clinton, you have become a mini MMFA...maybe now you will understand this site. Quoting accurately is good. But yours belong over at MRC. This one quotes Conservative mis-information.
Ok, you obviously have me confused with someone who likes the war. The whole ordeal is a quagmire. We've all seen Cheney explaining exactly what would happen to Iraq if we removed Saddam WAY back in 1994. I can't stand this war. I am a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. Bring them home and put them on the border! My only concern is this: We KNOW that there WERE WMD. We KNOW that we DIDN'T find them. My question is: WHERE did they go, and WHERE are they going to show up.
So, as a REAL CONSERVATIVE, my answer is: I'm not risking ONE soldiers life over this. Bring them home and put them along the border, then and only then will we ALL feel safer.
We KNOW that there WERE WMD.
Prove it.
I'm pretty sure that the families of about 800,000 dead kurds will back me up on that one.
Ask them, and then get back to us.
YOU are freaking out. I know about 5,000 dead Kurds at the MOST in Halabja. I know about 800,000 displaced Kurds but no 800,000 Kurds were NOT killed by chemical weapons in Iraq. And Halabja happened in 88. What did we do after that? Gave Saddam a billion dollar loan and sold him MORE precursers for chemical weapons DIRECTLY TO THE MILITARY. Do you EVER know what you are talking about? Or are you restricted by the rules to regurgitating Limborg talking points?
I really don't care about your thoughts on the Occupation. I thought we were quoting people. You threw out accurate quotes..so did I. And the conclusion, nothing.
We know there were back in the 80's. WE have the reciepts. We in no WAY know they had WMDs immediatly before the invasion and only the terminally brainwashed think we do. Especially since both Kay and Duelfer said Iraq hadnt had any real WMDs since the mid nineties.
"We KNOW that there WERE WMD. We KNOW that we DIDN'T find them. My question is: WHERE did they go, and WHERE are they going to show up. "
Let me guess. Iran? Venezuela? What other places might Bush want to invade without a good reason? I guess we will just have to stay tuned to Fox News for developing results.
Iran? Venezuela? I don't really care. As long as it's NOT inside our borders.
Don't worry. They are not in our borders. You know how I know?
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXIST!
(Of course I really shouldn't open up this can of worms. Because we will now hear about this and that resolution and something Clinton said ten years ago...and on and on and on...about how everything points to the "fact" that they were there).
Yeh, we know there were WMD, because we had the receipts.
The cold war is over. YOU could look it up. I know that many conservatives worship at the alter of privelege hoping and praying that if they kiss enough butt they will get a taste. However a whole lot of people besides Karl Marx would agree that government by the FEW, for the FEW and of the FEW really isnt that good an idea. Sure the conformity junkies love the idea but not too many others. On the other hand keep singing the praises of the Plutacracy. See how that works out for ya.
SOLON - you are right. Other people like Stalin, Castro, Chavez, Amin, Clinton, Hitler (oop's.. I said Hitler) :-O
AND most Americans. Dont forget them you know your COuNTRYMEN. Not that many people think that the priveleged few should rule the country for their own benifit
SOLON - I owe you an apology - I misread your previous post. I'll do it for you - I'm an IDIOT, I'm a MORON, I'm a LIBERAL.
See - we can agree on some things.
No need to appologize it happens to us all. I doubt you are REALLY a moron. Dont take me so seriously
Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, Roosevelt (both)...
Oh, so you're going to go into a "context" issue again?
Better get your Rush Limbaugh lies ready again ...
Accurate but totally misleading through lack of context, or by ommission. These quotes are investigated and examined in detail at the Snopes spam reporting site.
www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
Read the headline: "Debate moderators ALLOWED Giuliani to misrepresent Clinton statement on free markets".
What? Were the moderators supposed to have memorized every single Hillary quote prior to the debate? This article is garbage.
Does that mean you are going bye-bye? You have made the defining post. Good night.
MATTHEWS: Just to test your forecasting ability, Mr. Mayor, will [New York Yankees manager Joe] Torre keep his job?
GIULIANI: God willing. Joe Torre is the best manager in the history of the Yankees, at least in the modern era, so -- and he's my friend.
What does that have to do with Americas future Matthews?moron
Ask a New Yorker.
ps. time to change your moniker again. Nobody but you gives a rip.
"We're all friends here. At the end of the day, we're all in an elite little club, we send our kids to the same schools and socialize with each other. If that means that 99% of America is left out because I didn't do my job, well that's life."---MainStreamMedia
Spot on, Eddy. Great post!
A key problem with truely free markets is the freedom to monopolize. In others wortds truely free markets result in unfree markets for anyone not currently in that business who would like to get into it.
It ultimately results in less freedom of choice for the consumer.
Also truely free businesses are not concerned about the common welfare. They can pollute, "lobby" the government into foreign wars to protect their interests, lobby the government into all sorts of things beneficial to their bottom line....but this is not to be opposed by the taxpayer and voter?
Eddy,
Too many generalizations there my friend.
What about all the corporate giving? That seems to run counter to your assertions.
Corporate stock represented the largest category of noncash donations at $13.7 billion or 37.2 % of all contributions last year. (The average value of corporate stock donations was $79,279 per return.)
In 2006, corporate giving last year was $12.72 billion, representing 4.2 percent of all charitable contributions.
Yes, basic economics tells us that the business with the best business plan do their best to gain market share. Sometimes they are so successful they end up as monopolies. Sometimes but not always. I would not categorize that as a key problem.
However corporations main job is to make money for their stockholders. Hopefully those we invest in do well. :-)
And sometimes the greatest financial reward is reaped by simply buying a few (at least lately, Republican) Federal and State officials to ensure that abrogation of laws, regulations, and treaties, is "overlooked". To think, we used to disdain those "Banana Republics" where such practice was open and commonplace. Now they look at us, and snicker up their sleeves at the absolute corruption of this Repugnant mess. I'm just hoping that we can effectively purge the corporatists from government, and that no Repugnant is ever elected nor appointed again until they have cleansed their party and their souls.
Be aware that we are not talking about free trade, but unfettered free trade.
Two different things. Republicans pretend not to know the difference.
Will you partisan hacks stop taking orders from Hillary Clinton.
She is a socialist; what Rudy said is right!!
Help, I don't understand. What is the meaning of partisan hack? Could it be a die-hard Republan or a die-hard Democrat? Explain please.
eg., see Solon's post below.
Or virtually ANY of your posts. I am not partisan. I am not a democrat. I am a far lefty ideologue. NOT the same thing. Perhaps just as bad but not the same
Will you Limborg stop regurgitating the hivemind talking points. You are ridiculous
You must know that the majority of comments on this board indicate a preference for Democratic candidates other than Hillary Clinton.
No, she is NOT a socialist! I am a socialist. She is not! I vote Green, I read the Socialist Worker, I have a picture of Che Guevara on my computer desktop. Hillary is a corporofascist, a right winger, a conservative. She is NOT a socialist! I wish you righties would stop lying about her like that. It's an insult to us real socialists.
I'm still hoping to vote for Gore and sorry you hadn't heard we're taking our marching orders from The Young Turks, at least today. Try to keep up. It all counts
Funny Clinton saying that about unfettered markets running roughshod. She sure didn't seem to mind helping major corporations run roughshod over Arkansas when she was a corporate lawyer. She hasn't minded as a US Senator. Now she's had a change of heart? Heh. She's a two-faced liar trying to con the masses.
Redking, you are my new best friend. I guess nobody remembers her affiliation with the Wal-Mart gang and the MASSIVE amounts of money she made off of them. Now she goes to Union rallies and beats Wal-Mart like a rented mule. She is indeed a hypocrit.
No, she wants to force Wal-mart employees to buy their own health insurance so Wal-mart doesn't need ever provide any. She's still working for corporate profit. And you're not my best friend.
Har! C'mon Redking, take the poor kid out for an ice cream. It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Oh I DEFINITLY remember. I also agree she is a hypocrite. No liberal I know is enamored of her. If she left politics tomorrow I would be ecstatic.
Sad part is that she's the front runner in the Dem polls. Guess that proves that they're not liberals.
They who? voters?
I can't stand Hillary, I agree that she is the corporate candidate.
Unfortunately, it may be that she is leading in the polls on the strength of her namebrand, but I wouldn't go so far as to call Democratic voters conservatives.
I would say that most Democratic voters are desperate to finally put down the Republican revolution and Hillary is viewed as the most likely candidate who can win that peace. Of course she will not be the one to reign in corporate malfeasance or establish the groundwork for a moral economy. She simply projects that image and so far it's working because she has some top-notch marketers calling the shots on her campaign.
Remember that Republicans didn't capture the collective imagination of the people overnight, it took decades of constant attacks on liberal American values. At this point we may have to settle for steady incremental surges leftward until truly leftwing friends of working people, peace and justice candidates emerge who will finally end the conservative occupation of govenment.
Hillary is not the one who will lead us out of this domestic quagmire.
It's us; the citizens. We have to lead.
That's a perfect description of her candidatcy and the reason that she is the "front runner". The political machinations of the of the nexus of the corporate interests and the bosses of the two political parties essentially choose from the candidates and only after Iowa and New Hampshire has their chance to voice their opinion is the entirety of the American electorate allowed to participate. As much as I hate this manipulation of our electoral process I will ultimately vote for the candidate that I think will do the least amount of damage. The system is unfair and it does not operate in best interests of the American people in my opinion. By the time my state holds its primary the candidate I’ve backed is no longer in the race. They were eliminated by Iowa and New Hampshire.
Of course they're conservatives. They vote for the same pro-corporate, anti-human rights PARTY time and time again. What else can they be but conservatives? if they were liberals, we'd see Kucinich get the nomination and Democrats in Congress pulling the plug on Guantanamo and our unconditional funding of Israel. But no, we get Hillary, dead arab children and Bush un-impeached. They're conservatives. Terrified of change, supportive of a criminal status quo. Conservative.
Alright, forget it then. I never believed such a thing as a left wing authoritarian could exist until today.
When have the Democrats ever been left-wing? They support right-wing policies every where you look. Liberals don't support Israel's brutal occupation, they don't support the US Empire, they don't support occupying Iraq, they don't support screwing over the workingman to make the rich richer. Dems are NOT liberals. They do not do liberal things. They do conservative things. They are right-wingers.
Okay, I've got a deal for all you laissez-faire types: no income taxes. All that happens is that we eliminate the limites liability corporation. Which means that when a business fails, anybody owning a share of the company is personally responsib;e for ALL the debt incurred. That means that your liability isn't limited to the price of the stock: if you are a part owner in Enron, your property can be sold, your salary attached until you pay your part of the debt you are morally responsible for.
I mean, isn't it completely unfair that all those folks dealing with Enron owed all that hard-earned money--it just vanishes! And those people who were owners of the compsny, sharing in its profits--don't they have a moral obligation to pay back the money their company owes? Where's the justice in a system that lets corporate owners run up hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and just pfsht! Stiff them, keeping their mansions, yachts, houses, cars and so on? Is that right?
Well, yes, ending that little bit of corporate welfare would pretty well destroy the corporate system. Nobodt would invest , chances would not be taken, growth would not happen. It would be a disaster.
We give welfare to the poor, the sick, elderly and children for the same kind of reason: not because it's 'right' but because it's expedient. The point of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (the reason for the title) is that Smith poointed out that unless the nation as a whole is wealthy, influxes of cash and treasure will do the nation little or no good. His prime exa,ple was Spain: the conquest of the New world brought Spain one BILLION dollars (in 1500's money!) and the result eas that Spain's economy was destroyed.Why? Because, since there was no middle or merchant class (they had kicked the Jews out in 1492), anything the upper nobility wanted, they had to go elsewhere for. The money left as quickly as it came.
An America with a rich upper class and the rest of the people in poverty would turn the US into a place the rich won't enjoy living in. Who would want to live in New York or LA if instead of good restaurants, art galleries and thetre spaces, you had a blanket of favelas like in Rio or São Paolo? Pretty soon the rich would gravitate towards the cleaner, more pleasant, less dangerous, more highly cultured 'socialist'countries of Europe, and America would be owned and ruled by absentee landlords, and money would go out and not come back because, really, can the Americans afford the new fuel cell cars? What's the point in building an orbital tourism? Could the Americans possibly afford tickets? I mean, they're good for wheat and raw lumber and coal, but what's the point in marketing to them?
Welfare makes sense because it increases the wealth of the nation as a whole. More than just capital investment, a safety net enables risks to be taken, just like the limited liabilitycorporation safety net does, even though it costs people their hard-earned money free universal education increases the wealth of America; an interstate highway system ( a bigger socialist endeavor than anything the soviet Union did) increased the wealth of America; minimum wages, workmen's ccompensation, social security and head Start make America a richer nation, since it makes people more secure, more able to move to take advantage of opportunities, and more ready to start families in an uncertain world.
But there are some of you who would rather live in a poor, ugly, miserable, dangerous, disease-ridden, culturally benighted country as long as it's ideologically pure, than to do things that work. Thanks but no thanks.
Great post. Very good point. We are all in this together.
The ultimate libertarian capitalist country is Haiti. No public services....no public roads, no public schools, no public hospitals, no social services. It's the capitalist wet dream. It's also the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, lowest income per-capita, super-high illiteracy rates, extremely low life expectancy, horrible or non-existent infrastructure, very violent, with a government run for, by, and of the handful of wealthy. Haiti, a free market paradise.
And sadly Democrats of a certain variety are complicit with Republicans for creating that mess.
America TODAY is resembling the old feudal fifedoms of the past.
There were "landed owners" with royal titles, Dukes and Earls, Lords, and then there were the serfs, who HAD no land and would NEVER have any land. The "rules" were all rigged to maintain the status quo, with bloodlines determining in perpetuity which few families would be the "haves", and which would be the masses, the workers, the "have nots".
In America, a typical arrangement would be for the factory to be in the big city, near a river usually (to provide transportation for products and raw materials, and also to dump wastes in), and the workers would be crammed into housing projects. The OWNERS lived AWAY from the city, the dirt, the poverty, the disease-promoting conditions. AWAY from the river the factory polluted.
Today we have the "gated communities" which might as well have medieval moats around them, keeping out the riff-raff.
America's rightwing is very nostalgic for this feudal system, which actually dominated most of the history of the "civilized" world. The policies of the Republicans are universal in their twin goals of denying any services or help to "the masses", while clearing away any impediment to the unfettered amassing of great fortunes for the "chosen" few.
The government can go either way. It can work to make a society in which nobody suffers, is ill without help, is homeless ... OR ... it can turn all power and resources of the government into further enriching the already very rich.
A government which has abandoned any pretense of "public good" has NOTHING to do with "free markets", "fairness", or even "fighting communism". There is nothing "free market" about no-bid cost-plus contracts handed out in the BILLIONS. There is nothing "fair" about tax structures rigged to grossly favor the very wealthy. Promoting Plutocracy is NOT the same thing as "fighting communism", although this is the propaganda narrative.
Make no mistake, adopting feudalism is a REGRESSION in political terms. America was and is a grand experiment in governance of, by, and for THE PEOPLE. It can work, and provide a better nation FOR ALL ... and even retain a capitalist structure that enables people to be fabulously wealthy ... or it can regress into a class/caste structure where only the few and elite have any measure of wealth, while the vast majority are mired ever deeper in poverty and dispair.
If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand WHY Rightwing policy would be supported by anyone who is not already rich. I could even understand SELF-LOATHING as a motivation, but what of these people's FAMILIES? By voting Republican, these people are voting to rig the system to ensure a life of desperation and dispair ... where only the very wealthy can have a life worth living. What kind of mental perversion would have a person wish this on their own families? It makes absolutely no sense.
I guess it might be genetic; some may be BORN to be subservient and to prefer domination by their BETTERS, living and dying to serve the elites (NeoCons). And these people would destroy our great nation.
"If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand WHY Rightwing policy would be supported by anyone who is not already rich. I could even understand SELF-LOATHING as a motivation, but what of these people's FAMILIES? By voting Republican, these people are voting to rig the system to ensure a life of desperation and dispair ... where only the very wealthy can have a life worth living. What kind of mental perversion would have a person wish this on their own families? It makes absolutely no sense."---Tex
I used to think voting Republican made no sense for just about everybody back in the seventies when the GOP seemed half-way normal by comparison with todays' GOP.
I've come to realize that they are not voting for something, for somebody. They are voting against something, against the representatives of people they feel have no legitimate say in what goes on here.
But why do this if they end up in worse position themselves? The key is that their relative position is improved. That is to say they will at least be ahead of those they despise and psychologically this is more fullfilling to them than improving themselves by any obbjective measure.