http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Op-EdCommentaries/200805100334

I was raised to believe in the promise of America. My grandfather was a factory worker, and my father served in the Navy and started a small business. My mother had a difficult childhood, but provided a loving home for our family and while she never got to attend college, she was determined that her children would. I have had every opportunity in life because of their hard work and sacrifice.

I was raised to believe in the promise of America. My grandfather was a factory worker, and my father served in the Navy and started a small business. My mother had a difficult childhood, but provided a loving home for our family and while she never got to attend college, she was determined that her children would. I have had every opportunity in life because of their hard work and sacrifice.

I carry with me not just their dreams, but the dreams of people like them all across our country: people who embrace hard work and opportunity, who never waver in the face of adversity, and who work day and night to make a better life for your children.

For the past seven years, I know so many of you have felt invisible to our president - holding your breath at the gas pump and the grocery checkout line; wondering what you’ll do when health insurance disappears when a job does; seeing your loved ones who served our country in war ill-served when they return home.

I am running for president to stand for you and fight for your dreams and your future. I am running to give every child and every family the same opportunities and blessings that I had.

With two wars abroad and an economic crisis here at home, the stakes are higher than ever before. We need a president who knows how to make this economy work for middle-class families again and who is ready on day one to be commander in chief and keep our families safe. If you give me the chance, I will be that president.

We’ve heard more than enough speeches and we’re looking for more than promises. It’s not enough to just say you’re going to solve our problems; you have to know what it takes and have what it takes to deliver solutions. And you have to get the job done. That is exactly what I’ll do as president.

I’ll deliver solutions to create good jobs. Jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, 21st-century manufacturing jobs, jobs in new clean-energy industries.

I’ll deliver solutions to provide relief from high gas prices and end our dependence on foreign oil. I’m the only candidate who will provide commuters, truckers, business owners and families relief at the pump by making the big oil companies pay the gas tax instead of hardworking West Virginians.

I’ll deliver affordable, quality health care for every American, no exceptions, no excuses. I’m the only candidate with a plan that won’t leave anyone out. And I won’t hesitate to stand up to the drug companies and the insurance companies; it’s nothing I haven’t done before.

I’ll deliver solutions for our economy. I’ll end $55 billion in special breaks for the corporate special interests and give middle-class families $100 billion in tax cuts to help pay for health care and college and save for retirement. I’ll get tough on China for breaking trade rules and I’ll only sign trade agreements that are good for our workers and our economy.

Finally, I’ll end the war in Iraq and start bringing our troops home as quickly and responsibly as possible. And when our troops come home, we’ll serve them with the same devotion that they served us.

Accomplishing all of this won’t be easy. But if there is one thing you know about me, it’s this: I don’t back down from a challenge. I’ll be there for you long after the speeches are over and the cameras are gone, and I will never stop listening to your voices and standing for your families.

We know the stakes in this election are high and the challenges great. But we also know the possibilities are endless with the right leadership. It is up to us to roll up our sleeves, start solving our toughest problems, and start delivering on the promise of this great nation that we love.
================
Clinton is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.
=================

http://flags4hill.com

It’s not a game, Matt. While you study economics from the confines of Vermillion, the theories you learn force millions into poverty all around the world. It’s a form of structural violence. It’s all too real to millions…

“I’ll respond to that point-by-point.”

Attempt to respond is more accurate…

“First of all, I’m not backpedaling on anything regarding ANWR. It was a joke. If you can’t understand sarcasm, that’s your problem. From now on, I’ll write **JOKE—-JOKE** on either end of my jokes so you can see them clearly. About ANWR. Let’s drill it. NOW. Let’s boost our national production to buy us time for when we can produce an efficient clean energy.”

Good job disregarding the articles I left you to read. You didn’t respond to any of the estimates that ANWR would only decrease imports by 4% over a 20 year span. The fact that you admit we need a different energy supply calls into the question the logic of destroying one of the last remaining pristine wildlife areas in the United States to simply “ease” the transition to different energies. Seems to me that we could transition without drilling in ANWR… And even this disregards consumption habits which is at the heart of this matter, but that’s a whole nother argument…

If you environmentalists had done something productive on Earth Day rather than play music and protest Hyperion, (like donate money to green research), we might be a wee bit closer to that goal.

This is your fundamental flaw, you view everything as a commodity and anything that isn’t is worthless…I’ll get to this later…

“NEXT, you apparently do not understand the phrase “free market.” In current New Keynesian economics, the sort that influences geniuses like Greg Mankiw (who writes the econ books USD uses), the theory is that a basically free market with little government intervention is preferred over state run and entirely free. Some government intervention is desired because there are such things as market failures. Government exists to correct these market failures. Nothing more.”

You’re right, I don’t understand what a free market is…I haven’t seen any proof that it exists. The government intervenes into the economy all the time. Sometimes helping Big Business, sometimes not, that’s what I’m contending. Politicians get bought out by campaign contributions, both Dems and Reps, and while they worry about votes, they worry a lot more about getting the money to generate those votes. Now this is where it gets hazy for me. So you defend the government correcting market failures for large business conglomerates, but not for the common folk as indicated by your next passage?

“I assert that YOU’VE been duped. I don’t trust many politicians. They lie to get votes. For instance, the business about bailing out people who were stupid enough to get variable rate loans. Politicians want those people to vote for them. Politicians tell the people that it’s not their fault. It’s predatory lending that’s the problem. Bull. The problem is stupid people. No bailouts for a-n-y-o-n-e.”

Have you ever spoken to anyone that has worked at a place like Premier Bank Card? Hmm…No bailouts for anyone; isn’t that a market correction by another name? So if you don’t believe in bailouts for anyone, that you disagree with the geniuses that write Econ books for USD?

“Next, so RCP is generally pro-free market? Who isn’t? Economists generally agree that free markets are the best way to organize economic activity. Where have you been since Adam Smith, Mike? I’m fairly certain no one has come out with a better economic system, so please, enlighten us. And now you’re pulling the classic “rich people conspiracy” theory.”

Maybe the reason why the theory is classic is because its been going on so long. Read Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri. With its own set of flaws, I think this is a more accurate picture of what is really going on in the world. But let’s look at what Milton Friedman says on this subject himself. In Capitalism and Freedom he said, “Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersal of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power, and in this way enables the one to offset the other.” Separates economic power from political power, huh? How? Ever heard of Pete Ricketts? Also a U of Chicago alum. Just an example of money trying to influence politics…He ran for Senate in 2006. According to his own spokesman, his net worth is between 45-50 million dollars. His daddy, Joe, was founder of Ameritrade. When was the last time we had a president not worth millions? To think that economic power doesn’t translate into political power in this country is naive at best…

If you understand supply and demand, you understand that there really is no such thing as price gouging. Seriously, Mike, do you honestly think that a gas station owner should keep his prices static even when demand increases drastically while supply decreases drastically? That is engaging in charity, and business should not be forced by the government to engage in charity. You’d be telling the business owners that their right to sell their goods at whatever price they choose is taken away, and that they must lose even more money than they are already losing, right?

I guess this is where we differ. Yes, I think the gas station owner should have kept his prices static. The short-term decrease in supply wasn’t indicative to long-term trends. And even if you argue that the ability for him to generate income was hampered by the loss of consumers to his business in the long-term (ie…no one was going to be in NO anymore), than we get into how many disadvantaged people would have benefited verse the number of gas station owners in NO who would have benefited. Just a guess, but I bet there are way more poor people who would have benefited from affordable gas than there are gas station owners who really needed their extra profit margins to flee NO. Someone in that equation could have lived without the increase in profits. He/She was profiteering off disaster, and I understand that to a capitalist, the idea that monetary gains might not be worth the social cost seems ridiculous, but that’s where I stand. There’s more to life than money, and there’s definitely more to life than making money at the expense of everyone else.

Also, if I had my way, there would have been no federal help for NOLA and the other regions. As you saw, and most likely summarily blamed on Bush, the government is disastrously inefficient in doing most anything. The first responders to the area in the aftermath of Katrina were private organizations. They do things quicker and more effectively than any bloated bureaucracy that you offer.

Well, maybe if the director of FEMA had more experience than running an equestrian society, they would have been able to respond a bit quicker. And as Bush appointed Mike Brown…seems like it’s his fault, yeah…

“Next, don’t put words in my mouth. You’re playing a game of spin and you’re going to lose.”

You pick that up from O’Rielly? Cut off my microphone too!!!

“Drilling in ANWR won’t do anything to prices.”

Interesting, b/c the syntax of your “joke” that appeared in the volante seemed to indicate that drilling in ANWR would alleviate high prices. Now you admit it wouldn’t. I don’t care how you try and weasel your way out of what you inferred. Regardless of what your “joke” really meant, I’m not sure what “I’d shoot a caribou myself if it meant $1 gas” could mean other than a poor attempt to insinuate that tapping ANWR would reduce prices.

What it will do is keep oil supplies steady, buying us time to create some miracle energy source. Also, “big bad terrorists?” I don’t even want to know the underpinnings of this comment.

Keep oil supplies steady, huh? Until another rebellion in Nigeria, or another car bomb in Baghdad sends the price speculators bonkers and gas prices go even higher. Oh, and the underpinnings of those comments are referring to the “otherization” that our “free market” society creates. Read a book that someone from the Econ department hasn’t required you to read. Try Giorgio Agamben or Michael Foucault…

Record profit margins for oil companies? You mean the same oil companies that are creating jobs and increasing the wages for those jobs by 8% from a year ago?

Not sure where the statistics come from, but I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Where does most of that 8% jump come from and go to? The minimum wage jump have anything to do with that? And are huge increases in CEO pay counted in those figures? But hey, you’ve convinced me. “Joke” I can’t wait till I get my oil refinery job at Hyperion. “Joke” (Thought I’d throw our universal symbol for sarcasm in there so you aren’t confused).

Also, if people want to stick it to oil companies, why don’t they buy stock? Then, they’ll receive part of the money from these record profit margins.

More proof you have no idea what its like to be poor. Poor people don’t have money to invest in the stock market. They have to buy bread for their children, and braces without health insurance (thanks free market). Also, take a look at this article from MSNBC that explains how Oil Companies drive up the price of stocks. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/)

Also do you realize how insanely expensive it is for oil companies to operate? These profits are run right back into the companies to fund things like R&D. In fact, the average profit margin for the S&P 500 is 8.5%, while the oil companies is 9.7%. What does this mean? This means that the profit margin is slightly higher than other industries’. According to an interesting article from CNN, just like the government shouldn’t rescue ignorant borrowers, Katrina victims, and Bear Stearns, the government shouldn’t punish successful businesses.

BTW….according to that MSNBC article, profits for oil companies in 2005 were 8.7%, so in 3 years they’ve jumped an additional 1% while prices have gone even higher for consumers…Between 2002-2005, that 8.5% really meant profits of $125 billion for the 10 ten oil companies. Yep, they’re feeling the squeeze too?!

“Finally, Mike, it behooves you to get your facts straight about Milton Friedman. In your rush to slander a Nobel Prize winning economist, you didn’t do your research. Good job cutting and pasting from a Wikipedia article– and only those sections that made Friedman look terrible. Of course, you didn’t add the whole story.You didn’t mention that Friedman was never an advisor to the Chilean government. You never mentioned that The Chicago Boys were the ones doing all the advising. They were Chilean nationals who were schooled at the U of Chicago. That’s not Milton Friedman.”

But he did teach at the University of Chicago, and the Chicago Boys followed his economic map. More to the point, his notion that a free market increases comparable amounts of political freedom didn’t come to fruition in Chile and is being challenged by countries like China today, where a liberalization of the economy has not translated into political liberalization as well. I commented above on Milton’s theories. I think he has a simplistic understanding of how the world works. His theory didn’t pan out and when liberal groups finally won in Chile, he tried to take credit for the works of movements that you solemnly mocked in your article that started this debate.

In sum, Mike, I criticized Earth day because it’s stupid. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s just a day for people to feel like they’ve made a difference. It’s a day on which they can brag to their friends about how much they care for the Earth. Puh-leeze.

This is really the point of this discussion. I feel bad that you don’t understand the importance of symbols. But I guess it’s not surprising. Anything not tied to the dollar is relegated as inconsequential by your lot. First and foremost, Earth Day raises awareness. Which is important considering the other side of the argument (I mean you) lies about environmental issues (ie ANWR decreases gas prices) in your attempt to belittle our movement(Earth Day article). Capitalists see everything by its value—“What’s most profitable for me.” I fundamentally disagree with the culture it promotes because if it is more profitable for someone to die than live, than there ya go, we know what competitive capitalism, or the free market, or w/e catchphrase you use would say. It reinforces class-base prejudices with overtones of racial antagonism (ie Katrina). When you look at life through the lenses of environmentalism, you see yourself as being part of a global community rather than competing in a culture where there are winners and losers. It’s all those “hippie” ideals you just can’t stand, and what I imagine prompted you to write your volante article on Earth Day in the first place. Environmentalism promotes empathy. Your ideas promote apathy. You tell me which is better.

Remember, the only thing you have to lose Matt is your chains…