It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ConservativeJack
Dow's down 650 points tonight.
What's President elect Obama going to do? Print dollars? Heat up the printing presses, we have a lot of bills to print!
I hope people can put rabid partisanship aside (you can still be for or opposed, just not rabidly so) and seriously discuss this historic presidential transition period and the first 100 days out from there....
.... I am just going to try and keep this on as much an even keel as possible... I know you and others are conservative, that's why I extended an invite just as I did for liberals here... I want this to be a place where we can discuss the unfolding Obama administration without the rancor I have seen on a lot of threads... if we can keep it that way we will all learn and benefit.
Originally posted by nyk537
A lot of those corporations have left and gone overseas because it's cheaper to do business there. We in America have made it far too difficult for businesses to succeed. We have imposed numerous burdensome regulations and environmental standards on them to make it hard for them to operate efficiently.
For example, IBM, General Motors, and Sony have established manufacturing plants in Mexico, and some of these have created severe environmental problems. At least 10 million gal (38 million L) of the factories' raw sewage is discharged into the Tijuana River daily. Because pollution threatens San Diego beaches, most of the cleanup is paid for by the United States and California governments.
Environmentalists worldwide are calling for a strengthened United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to enact sanctions and keep polluters out of the Third World.
The communities are left thirsting as Coca-Cola draws water from the common water resources. Its operations are polluting the scarce water that remains.
The Coca-Cola plant in Mehdiganj enjoys heavily subsidized electricity and is accused of spewing toxics into surrounding agricultural fields as well as causing serious water shortage as a result of its operations. We have a report from Mehdiganj.
In yet another community, this time in Kudus village in Thane district, villagers are forced to travel long distances in search of water which has dried up in their area as a result of Coca-Cola's operations.
Factory related pollution is the number one source of pollution in the United States. Factory pollution accounts for more than half the volume of all water pollution, as well as for the most deadly of pollutants. More than 365,000 manufacturing factories consume vast quantities of fresh water to carry away wastes of several different types.
This waste water from industrial factories is discharged into lakes, oceans and streams, which eventually disperse the polluting effluent substances. The United States Environmental Protection Agency stated in 1996 to Congress that about 40% of the country’s surveyed rivers, estuaries and lakes were too polluted for such elementary uses as swimming, fishing and drinking water supply.
We have imposed numerous burdensome regulations
Paulson spared no one in his criticism Thursday of the excesses of
deregulation that has now created the worst global financial crisis in a
generation, threatening the health of the U.S. economy, the savings of
millions of Americans, and the survival of some of the biggest financial
institutions in the world.
As part of a speech on his economic platform, Obama depicted the current economic crisis as a consequences of deregulation in the financial sector. "Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," he said. "Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one—aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight."
On June 22, 1969, an oil slick and debris in the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, Ohio, drawing national attention to environmental problems in Ohio and elsewhere in the United States.
This Cuyahoga River fire lasted just thirty minutes, but it did approximately fifty thousand dollars in damage -- principally to some railroad bridges spanning the river. It is unclear what caused the fire, but most people believe sparks from a passing train ignited an oil slick in the Cuyahoga River. This was not the first time that the river had caught on fire. Fires occurred on the Cuyahoga River in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952. The 1952 fire caused over 1.5 million dollars in damage.
The Bhopal disaster was an industrial disaster that occurred in the city of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, resulting in the immediate deaths of more than 3,000 people, according to the Indian Supreme Court. A more probable figure is that 8,000 died within two weeks, and it is estimated that an additional 8,000 have since died from gas related diseases.
The incident took place in the early hours of the morning of December 3, 1984, in the heart of the city of Bhopal in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. A Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, exposing at least 520,000 people to toxic gases. The Bhopal disaster is frequently cited as the world's worst industrial disaster. The International Medical Commission on Bhopal was established in 1993 to respond to the disasters.
During the night of December 3rd 1984, large amounts of water entered tank 610, containing 42 tonnes of methyl isocyanate. The resulting reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200°C (400°F). The MIC holding tank then gave off a large volume of toxic gases, forcing the emergency release of pressure. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines. A mixture of poisonous gases flooded the city of Bhopal. Massive panic resulted as people woke up in a cloud of gas that burned their lungs. Thousands died from the gases and many were trampled in the panic.
Theories for how the water entered the tank differ. At the time, workers were cleaning out pipes with water, and some claim that because of bad maintenance and leaking valves, it was possible for the water to leak into tank 610. UCC maintains that this was not possible, and that it was an act of sabotage by a "disgruntled worker" who introduced water directly into the tank. However, the company's investigation team found no evidence of the necessary connection.
Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York, United States of America (USA), which became the subject of national and international attention and controversy following the discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste buried beneath the neighborhood. It officially covers 36 square blocks in the far southeastern corner of the city, along 99th Street and Read Avenue. Two bodies of water define the northern and southern boundaries of the neighborhood: Bergholtz Creek to the north and the Niagara River one-quarter mile (400 m) to the south. The south shore of the Niagara River in this area is Grand Island.
Image of the Love Canal.
The Niagara Falls School Board chose to construct a school on a known retired toxic waste dump, and the City of Niagara Falls permitted the building of homes and rental units on this property. The development released the chemical waste, leading to a public health emergency, an urban planning scandal, and a finding of negligence by the former owner. In the words of a state health commissioner, "Among its legacies, Love Canal will likely long endure as a 'national symbol of a failure to exercise a sense of concern for future generations.
OK I will bite. I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected. While the people don't have a direct say who is in cabinet under either system at least under the Parliamentary system voters can weigh up how they think shadow minsters would actually do in government or more specify cabinet.
Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by grover
OK I will bite . Admittedly I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I will still respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected.
Right wing pundits can comfort themselves with the fantasy that America is a "center-right" nation but it just ain't so. In fact, all of the polls show that the November election represented a complete repudiation of right wing Bush-Cheney top-down economics and their Neo-Con foreign policy. Over 80% of voters indicated they wanted fundamental change. The polling shows massive majorities in favor of policies that would guarantee health care for all. It shows overwhelming support for policies that give tax relief to middle income Americans and increase taxes on the wealthy. Polls show complete rejection of neocon notions about "preemptive" war and unilateralism. And Americans strongly favor bold government action to stimulate the economy - not the failed laissez-faire economics that have lead to the current economic meltdown.
The fact is that normal people have supported policies like health care for all and bottom up economics for decades. They've known for years that economic policies that have lowered their incomes and siphoned off all of our growth to the top 2% were not in their interest. Now the market collapse, potential bankruptcy of the country's biggest firms, and obvious failure of Neo-Con foreign policy have finally forced even the country's punditry and
Not only have "center-right" policies proven themselves a complete failure, their intellectual and moral basis has collapsed. How many more bailouts does someone need before he stops believing that the unfettered "free market" will always lead the "private sector" (meaning those who control giant corporations and Wall Street Bankers) to act in the public interest. How many times can corporate CEO's emerge from their private jets with tin cups in Washington before people begin to question the "center-right's" claim that the private sector is inherently more efficient that the public sector. Let's face it, it's getting pretty tough to justify why Wall Street's "masters of the universe" deserve to be paid hundreds of millions of dollars while middle class incomes tank; or why a CEO should make more money before lunch on the first day of the year than his minimum wage worker makes all year long.....
..... Barack Obama will not govern from the "center right", but he will govern from the "center". That's not because he is "moving to the center". It's because the center of American politics has changed. It has moved where the American people are. It once again resides in the traditional progressive center that has defined America's promise since Thomas Jefferson penned its founding document over 200 years ago.
Well ya know that's a funny thing because while more people (roughly 35% vs roughly 20%) identify themselves as conservative, people tend to agree with liberal policies (domestic anyway) over conservative ones by a significant margin. This is why the Republicans basically refuse to run on policy issues and instead wrap themselves in the flag and attack their opponents characters. They know that if they run on the issues they lose hence the comment from the McCain camp that they had to change the subject because if it remained the economy, they lose.
Originally posted by xpert11
I am biased because I live in a Parliamentary democracy but I will still respectfully say that I don't like the idea of cabinet minsters being appointed rather then elected .
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by grover
Your linked article talks about conservative vs liberal ideologies and the popularity of each. That's fine.
The article then goes on to use that to explain why Republicans can't run on issues. This is not fine.
Republicans haven't ran on Conservative issues since Reagan.
perhaps it should be said that not all on the right are conservatives in the classic sense which you and I have discussed before but should be more accurately described as nihilists in that they negate anything that does not agree with their views.
For the record a true conservative is someone who is not against change per say but rather is someone who would rather that change be taken slowly and judicially with a focus on preserving what we already have.
Any society that embraces change for change sake ultimately loses all authenticity and ultimately its reason for existing.
Taken in this light you can be a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative but the likes of ann coulter, michael savage and mush loosebowels have nothing to do with these fundamentals but rather negate anything other than their exalted opinion of their opinions.....
..... the Republican party abandoned its principles in its embrace in the late 60's of the racist elements of the old south (coming from there I know), religious funnymentalism and dumping Main street for Wall street. Small business, which is the real backbone of our economy is not the same as big business and their interests are often polls apart.
As for the Democrats they abandoned their principles in their abandoning of the working class for big business money and in a blind push to a middle that the opposition had no intention of meeting.
As a consequence the Republican right came to dominate the party over its moderate and liberal branches in an unholy alliance between religious extremism and big business and the Democrats essentially neutered themselves by trying to become conservative lite in order to compete, or so they thought.
Consequently the Democratic failure was not in their ideas but in their push to become conservative lite they deprived voters what they really want more than anything else... real viable choices... in short why bother voting for them when all they are trying to be is a watered down version of conservatism?
The way I have been phrasing it lately is that I have no faith in the Democrats but I have less faith in the Republicans.....
..... Paul Krugman in his book "The Conscience of a Liberal" makes the distinction by describing it as movement conservatism which Source Watch defines as:
Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the "conservative labyrinth," and common to all its elements is a theology of "free markets," an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.
These are not the same thing... one is an ideology of caution and the other a framework in essence of the pillaging of America.
The BIG lie of movement conservatism is that it represents the other. It does not.
At its heart movement conservatism is a form of fascism as defined by Mussolini as:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
And as such is antithetical to the American ideals.
It is movement conservatism at its most greedy and crass that brought us the whole financial mess that we are living through now and the vehicle for doing that was the Republican party and its allies in the Democratic party... at no point did either represent the interests of the American people.
It is this movement conservatism and its stranglehold on the Republican party that I take umbrage to.....
..... More from source watch about Movement Conservatism:
The G.O.P. was once a respectable political party, giving voice to cautious citizens who saw much to protect in the affairs of the nation. The Democratic Party offered a forum for less sanguine citizens to disagree and seek reform, and in the healthy conflict between the two a robust democracy served the nation well.
Neither party was rigidly ideological, driven passionately to impose a set of beliefs, as the Taliban, say, imposed Islam in prewar Afghanistan. Both parties respected democracy.
Except in their Orwellian rhetoric, the Republicans no longer do, and the G.O.P. has withdrawn from serving the nation at large. About 25 years ago it became the political arm of "Movement Conservatism," and today it promotes not the general welfare but the commercial interests of corporate enterprise...
...Taking shape in the late '70's, Movement Conservatism became a sort of economic Taliban, absolutist in conviction, righteous, and anxious to impose its ideology on the American people. It found its vehicle in the presidential candidacy and election of Ronald Reagan, and over the next eight years Movement Conservatism and the Republican Party came to be coterminous.
There was little resistance. Since the Republican Party traditionally has been the party of commerce and finance, Movement Conservatism had only to sell an appealing ideology to a receptive constituency. As the pursuit of "free markets" came to mean "corporate well being," the transaction was consummated. The Republican Party took on the ideology, and also assumed a commercial function: marketing public policy as a product. It became the G.O.P., Inc., and forfeited its role as a party of the people.
President Reagan's agenda came almost whole-cloth from the Heritage Foundation. His massive tax cut slashed current revenues, but Reagan shoveled trillions of dollars to corporations in the defense industries anyway. In so doing he added twice as much to the national debt as all his predecessors combined, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter.
This was the first shot from the most vicious and despicable weapon in the arsenal of Movement Conservatism: pile more and more indebtedness onto future generations so that debt service increasingly forecloses public expenditures for anything else. The stupendous deficits of George W. Bush preordain a starving public sector for decades to come.
In 1988 the Democrats learned how effectively corporate financing can facilitate television-based campaigns. A lot of money can make Willy Horton a household name. And so by 1992, dominated by the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democrats veered sharply toward the center, seeking corporate financing for the Clinton campaign. Clinton delivered, enthusiastically embracing "free trade," a global version of the free market fantasy. The Democrats were flirting with their own transformation to corporate status, and they continued in 2000, running free-trader Al Gore and Joe Lieberman, once chairman of the DLC.
Ralph Nader's Greens couldn't see much distinction between the G.O.P., Inc., and its Democratic emulators, and they high-centered the election. The Supreme Court, sporting a couple of Movement Conservatives on the bench, did the rest.
Some Democrats today are openly critical of a centrist, corporate-friendly stance for the party. Others still cling to it: the threat remains.
It is more than anything Movement Conservatism that has fostered the poisoning the well as it were of honest and open political discourse with loaded hate filled rhetoric to convince people to essentially vote against their own best interests....
“Immediately after I become president, I’m going to confront this economic crisis head-on by taking all necessary steps to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.”
Plagued by rising unemployment, falling tax revenue and increased demand for state services, the nation's governors met with President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden on Tuesday to press for federal money to ease their fiscal strain.
As the credit market shut down at midday Monday, Massachusetts was unable to borrow the final portion of a $400 million loan from Wall Street investors to make quarterly aid payments to cities and towns and had to dip into its own funds to make up the $170 million shortfall.