Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (85895)	10/6/2011 2:15:47 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

of 84261 A question for the Workers World Party member that made this sign This is the second guy I've seen pictures of with this Workers World Party sign: (This one by way of The Atlantic, the previous one from Reason) Those look an awful lot like capitalist shoes from New Balance, a corporation with over $1.6 billion in revenue last year [pdf]. Those are capitalist khakis. Ditto the polo shirt, bag, hat, crocs, rubbish bin, as well as the printing press which made that sign and the paper mill which made the card it was inked on. Even the very asphalt this man slumbers on was created by capitalism. I'm willing to bet almost everything else this guy finds useful is similarly the product of capitalism. So this raises the question, if capitalism doesn't work, what does? Because I don't see anyone carrying this sign clothing themselves in the output of marxism, or anarcho-syndicalism, or stalinism, or workerism, or fascism, or chavismo, or mercantilism, or maoism. How am I supposed to take seriously this man's desire to end capitalism if he won't even give it up himself? ~ ~ ~ PS That Atlantic piece describes the Tea Party thus: The Tea Partiers' anger is directed squarely at the U.S. government. It began due to dismay at the bailouts and the massive Obama stimulus package. The Tea Party wanted less government interference in the economy. The two big, ground-up politics movements du jour, one on the Right and one on the Left (though we should see if this Occupation last more than a fortnight before considering it to be in the big leagues) both claim to have an opposition to bail-outs at their core. Interesting symmetry there. Of course I think that's only superficial symmetry. (Which is still interesting, just in different ways.) I don't really believe that the Occupation opposes bail-outs. Not in general anyway. You don't see them demanding GM and Chrysler return their money. I haven't seen any of them so much as mention Solyndra. Most of them are calling for new hand-outs to businesses, as long as they're in the "green energy" or "infrastructure" fields. That doesn't seem very principled to me... southbend7.blogspot.com

To: stockman_scott who wrote (85895)	10/12/2011 12:24:32 AM
From: koan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Good old E.J. Dion. Yes, we need to move to the left. As I have said a million times, Obama was facing the great depression and he had Stiglitz and Krugman at his beck and call. And he picked Summers and Geithner. He also picked the guy who let summers and Geithner in over Goolsby. Those are facts not political conjecture. I always thought it was weird Rahm, Gibbs and Obama told we liberals to quit whining. And the public option was slow played. And imagine what we could have done with the trillion dollar extension of the bush tax cuts!? Millions of infrastruture jobs for years.