The W
Views: 98528281
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.07 2128
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - As if there were any questions of Dean's rather liberal credentials....
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (38 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2481/4700
EXP: 21452241
For next: 384421

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#1 Posted on 19.11.03 1327.35
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1327.35
....comes this little ditty straight from the horses mouth. Of course, the brain attached to that mouth really doesn't even seem to understand the issues....

* * * * * * * * *

Dean Calls For New Controls on Business
Democrat Seeks 'Re-Regulation'

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 19, 2003; Page A09


HOUSTON, Nov. 18 -- After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "re-regulation" of U.S. businesses.

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

He also said a Dean administration would require new workers' standards, a much broader right to unionize and new "transparency" requirements for corporations that go beyond the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley law.

"In order to make capitalism work for ordinary human beings, you have to have regulation," Dean said. "Right now, workers are getting screwed."

In a speech here Tuesday night, one mile from the Enron Corp. headquarters, Dean sought to place this idea into a new and broader campaign context: a "new social contract for the 21st century" to restore public trust in corporations, national leaders and U.S. military might. Dean blamed President Bush for eroding the public's faith in these institutions with his policies over the past three years.

"At Enron, those at the top enriched themselves by deceiving everyone else and robbing ordinary people of the future they'd earned," Dean said. "The Bush administration is following their lead."

Dean has excited core Democratic voters with a relentless assault on corporations and the rich, and he is moving quickly to stake a position as the candidate with the boldest plans for tempering the influence and power of U.S. businesses. If the economy continues to rebound, Democratic strategists say, Dean's proposal may offer a way for the party to frame the debate over jobs, income and fairness.

Dean said in the interview that "re-regulation" is a key tool for restoring trust. In doing so, he drew a sharp distinction with Bush, an outspoken advocate of free markets who wants to further deregulate media companies and other key sectors of the economy.

Dean also continued his clear break from Clinton's "New Democrat" philosophy of trying to appease both business and workers with centrist policies. Earlier in the campaign, Dean reversed his prior support for Clinton's free-trade agreements with Mexico, Canada and China.

Many Republicans typically characterize looser rules and mandates on business and trade as key facilitators of economic growth.

While Bush eventually backed new regulations for, among others, the accounting industry in the wake of the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals, his administration has rolled back environmental and workplace regulations many Democrats want restored. Bush is fighting some in his own party to loosen the rules for media ownership. "I certainly would reverse media deregulation," Dean said. "I would go back to the limitations on how many stations you can own in a given market."

Virtually all Democratic candidates are making the fight against corporate influence a centerpiece of their campaign. The latest example: Every Democratic presidential candidate save Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has come out strongly in opposition to the GOP deals on energy and Medicare, and has criticized them as gifts to big Republican corporate campaign contributors. Yet, Dean appears to getting the most traction on this front.

Voters are clearly hungry for government efforts to force better corporate behavior, especially with scandals hitting such industries as mutual funds and accounting, pollsters say. At the same time, they are unlikely to accept the price spikes that Republicans and some Democrats warn could accompany some new regulations.

Dean, who talked at length about the historical ebb and flow of regulation, said there is a "danger" to pushing his re-regulation movement too far. But under Bush, "deregulation has increased the corporate power enormously," he said.

As governor of Vermont, Dean advocated deregulation, angering some environmentalists. But the events of the past two years have convinced him deregulation is to blame for many of the nation's problems.

"California is proving it does not work," he said. "I think the reason the grid failed is because of utility deregulation."

Promote this thread!
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 162/2697
EXP: 8834475
For next: 154344

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#2 Posted on 19.11.03 1336.22
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1337.08
Grimis, the real point isn't Dean's philosphy (which 25 - 30 years ago would be considered moderate), but that people will listen. Business got there wish and much was deregulated. What they showed was their inability to control themselves. They turned out to be greedy bastards who had little or no moral compass. Gordon Gecko lives and shows little proclivity to become an honest member of the community. The inertia of big corporations needs a brake since they are unable to be honest without help. I would love to see a poll on where CEO' of major corporations rank in terms of honesty and ethics compared to politicians, lawyers, and car salesman.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1894/3273
EXP: 12701471
For next: 389882

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 144 days
Last activity: 144 days
#3 Posted on 19.11.03 1507.50
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1511.14
Well here ya go, most honest to least honest (IMO):

1) Car Salesmen - They're trying to make money, you're trying to save money. It's a game. They mostly try to take advantage of your lack of knowledge, rather than loopholes in the system. If you come prepared, you shouldn't lose big. And you can always go buy a car from someone else.

2) Politicians - Without a certain degree of honesty, none of 'em would hold a single office. Sure, some of them are really shady bad people, but the media roasts a few every year for the public's entertainment. The only bad thing, is that some politicians are in such a position of power, that they can really screw things up. But whenever that happens, does it really come as a surprise?

3) Big Business - They're trying to make money. You're trying to save money. Instead of making a better product, they raid/takeover another company to make sure that their product is still the best. Instead of dealing honestly with you, they buy politicians so that the laws favor them. They say that if you're rich, you can get away with murder in this country. Well, Big Business is rich, but they act on a much larger scale than OJ Simpson.

4) Lawyers - They're lawyers. They have dedicated their lives to screwing people in one way or another.

-Jag

You have to wonder how long that interview was if it was done around midnight. Some of these statements might be long on conjecture, and short on fact.
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 297/836
EXP: 1568018
For next: 9537

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2483 days
Last activity: 2369 days
#4 Posted on 19.11.03 1723.19
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1723.27
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Lawyers - They're lawyers. They have dedicated their lives to screwing people in one way or another.

Ya know, for a post inwhich you tried to debunk myths about professions, you sure make a brash generalization about one group of people. You know a lot of lawyers are forced to work for free when their clients simply cannot pay them. Lawyers give up time with families and friends to work from the early morning till dinner time, and then go back to work after that. Lawyers get bugged all the time when clients call them at their homes for legal advice. Lawyers have to deal with threatening messages on their home message machines from shady people. Lawyers have to deal with more than you know.



(edited by CRZ on 19.11.03 1714)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 166/2697
EXP: 8834475
For next: 154344

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#5 Posted on 19.11.03 1733.42
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1736.16
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    Well here ya go, most honest to least honest (IMO):

    1) Car Salesmen - They're trying to make money, you're trying to save money. It's a game. They mostly try to take advantage of your lack of knowledge, rather than loopholes in the system. If you come prepared, you shouldn't lose big. And you can always go buy a car from someone else.

    2) Politicians - Without a certain degree of honesty, none of 'em would hold a single office. Sure, some of them are really shady bad people, but the media roasts a few every year for the public's entertainment. The only bad thing, is that some politicians are in such a position of power, that they can really screw things up. But whenever that happens, does it really come as a surprise?

    3) Big Business - They're trying to make money. You're trying to save money. Instead of making a better product, they raid/takeover another company to make sure that their product is still the best. Instead of dealing honestly with you, they buy politicians so that the laws favor them. They say that if you're rich, you can get away with murder in this country. Well, Big Business is rich, but they act on a much larger scale than OJ Simpson.

    4) Lawyers - They're lawyers. They have dedicated their lives to screwing people in one way or another.

    -Jag

    You have to wonder how long that interview was if it was done around midnight. Some of these statements might be long on conjecture, and short on fact.


Jag, not bad, in fact great. I wish I could disagree about lawyers and I am sure there are some very decent ones. But man, the ones I have had to deal with are slimy.

And Bush better watch out. I heard Dean interviewed on NPR last night and if he stays on message, he could give W some real trouble.
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1896/3273
EXP: 12701471
For next: 389882

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 144 days
Last activity: 144 days
#6 Posted on 19.11.03 1741.13
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1741.14
Eh, I'd say that several people would argue that Big Business isn't as bad as it seems, so I thought my gross generalization of lawyers wasn't too far out with the rest of my post.

I will agree with you, there are good people who practice law. Lots of 'em. And yes, I never said lawyers were lazy, because they definitely put a lot of work in. I guess my bitterness towards those who practice law stems not so much from the evil lawyers (and I've met my share) but from all the people (read: corporations) that a protected by them and allowed to fuck with me. Ack. I think I've lost my tangent here.

Anyway, I apologize for my gross misrepresentation of lawyers. However, at most I could bump them up and put CEOs below them in my trust.

-Jag
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 258/274
EXP: 298481
For next: 9632

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3851 days
Last activity: 3796 days
#7 Posted on 19.11.03 1758.28
Reposted on: 19.11.10 1759.01
Of course, the brain attached to that mouth really doesn't even seem to understand the issues....

Oh, I think Dean understands the issues just fine, like for example the giant fallout over various enormous mutual funds bilking their owners that's a huge issue for a lot of middle-aged Americans facing retirement these days, which directly ties to his argument for "re-regulation".

(Which incidentally is a HORRIBLE name for it. "Fair markets" would be a much better sell, but he's stuck with "re-regulation". Pity.)

That's just the tip of the iceberg, of course. You could tie in most of the major accounting scandals of the last four years, FCC deregulation and media monopolies (you know, that what is opposed by eighty percent of the country), most of the environmental scandals during the same time period - there's plenty of ammunition for Dean on this one.

But you just go on claiming he "doesn't understand the issues" - it's obvious what's really going on is that he understands them just fine, and that his conclusions differ from yours.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 145

Posts: 2458/6719
EXP: 37438367
For next: 165805

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on 19.11.03 2306.48
Reposted on: 19.11.10 2307.35
There were questions about Dean's liberal credentials? The guy's a Democrat, for cripes' sake. What did you expect?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2482/4700
EXP: 21452241
For next: 384421

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#9 Posted on 20.11.03 0609.41
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0609.41
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    There were questions about Dean's liberal credentials? The guy's a Democrat, for cripes' sake. What did you expect?
I agree, but it's the Democrats saying how much of a moderate he is because he balanced the budget and think he's a cook on guns...
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 22/2159
EXP: 6295653
For next: 97146

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 20.11.03 0749.09
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0749.35
Although that said, it's only people on the right that stigmatized the word liberal. Well, and Dems who live in fear of being called it by the right (who were the ones who stigmatized it in the first place, so it's a vicious circle).

If we're apt to making sweeping generalizations here, Republicans are very very good at taking one word and sledgehammering it until it has no meaning. On that note, kudos to President Bush for taking the word "freedom" and perverting it to the point whre it means nothing. It's one thing to use it to explain a cause, it's far another to use the word "freedom" like using "God did it" to explain the holes in Biblical continuity.

And it's the same two words over and over again...freedom and evil. It's like geopolitics dumbed down to a 3rd grade level.

One last thing, how well is deregulation of buisness working right now? This is no different than a 17 year old who's given a midnight curfew and keeps coming home at 4 a.m. Either as a parent they need to be grounded or you risk having your balls as an enforcer cut off.

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 168/2697
EXP: 8834475
For next: 154344

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#11 Posted on 20.11.03 0835.30
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0836.50
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      There were questions about Dean's liberal credentials? The guy's a Democrat, for cripes' sake. What did you expect?
    I agree, but it's the Democrats saying how much of a moderate he is because he balanced the budget and think he's a cook on guns...


This is what I brought up in previous post regarding parties. Gentleman (and ladies), you can say all you want how much of a liberal he is but he isn't. By your definition of liberal, FDR has become a communist.

BlanketJackson is right. I hope that sooner or later, hopefully sooner, that the Dem's who are liberal stand up and are counted. Liberal is not a dirty word and neither is conservative. What is dirty is the attempt to turn this into a monolithic society where liberals are branded with a scarlet L and labeled as traitors and unpatriotic because they don't agree.

It is also reprehensible for Dem's to characterize rep's as uncaring bastards.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2483/4700
EXP: 21452241
For next: 384421

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#12 Posted on 20.11.03 0908.02
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0908.05
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    By your definition of liberal, FDR has become a communist.
Well, if the shoe fits....
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2510/5402
EXP: 26992789
For next: 139215

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 20.11.03 0926.20
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0927.02
You mean big business might not act in the best interests of the public?! I'm so stunned I can barely click on the link in my signature quote to go make another small contribution to Dr. Dean.

I'm not sure this is the election year where you want to be the candidate of mega-business. Methinks the populace might be well-inclined to listen to someone who says "maybe someone should keep an eye on these people to make sure that they at least say 'thank you' after screwing us all over."
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 23/2159
EXP: 6295653
For next: 97146

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 20.11.03 0951.33
Reposted on: 20.11.10 0951.33
    Originally posted by spf2119
    "maybe someone should keep an eye on these people to make sure that they at least say 'thank you' after screwing us all over."


Or at least buy dinner first [i.e. protect employees whose retirement portfolios get obliterated]
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 170/2697
EXP: 8834475
For next: 154344

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#15 Posted on 20.11.03 1126.34
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1127.38
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      By your definition of liberal, FDR has become a communist.
    Well, if the shoe fits....


Well, it doesn't. Politics and the acts of our government don't exist in a vacuum. Whether you agree or not what FDR did in the 1930's was in response to circumstances. Yes he stepped over the line, but son of a bitch, the Supreme Court said no. He tried to pack the Supreme Court and it backfired. Like all people in power, it went to his head but our system worked. Much of what he accomplished is still reaping benefits for our society today. That doesn't make him a communist any more than the idiots who try to portray conservatives as facists.

As far as Dean goes, I don't know if I support him or not but I do know that I don't want another four years of Republican happy land and their attempts to help me. If big business doesn't want to be regulated, try acting responsibly when you are given the chance. They haven't and don't seem to ever be disposed to act correctly.

Ask all the people whose retirement investments tanked with the accounting messes. Ask the retired employees who find themselves screwed out of their retirement incomes and/or health care benefits. I think Dean will resonate with them. Ask all those who signed good faith contracts and have been laid off or had large salary reductions while management reaps large bonuses and reports record profits.

Regulations regarding business and labor practices came about for a reason. Goverment has gone too far in may cases but that doesn't mean we should give them a free hand.

I always chuckle when Rep's and their business pals talk about free markets, etc, and then place quotas and tariffs on everythng in sight. It's not free market and it's not conservative.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2484/4700
EXP: 21452241
For next: 384421

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#16 Posted on 20.11.03 1138.08
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1139.37
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Well, it doesn't. Politics and the acts of our government don't exist in a vacuum. Whether you agree or not what FDR did in the 1930's was in response to circumstances. Yes he stepped over the line, but son of a bitch, the Supreme Court said no. He tried to pack the Supreme Court and it backfired. Like all people in power, it went to his head but our system worked. Much of what he accomplished is still reaping benefits for our society today. That doesn't make him a communist any more than the idiots who try to portray conservatives as facists.
So let me get this straight, if Bush stopped the write of habeus corpus, dissolved Congress and instilled martial law, he would not be a fascist because it was a response to circumstances.

FDR was a socialist at best, a communist at worst. The furhterst reaching expansion of government in our history, creating a bunch of alphabet soup organizations, many of which that were not needeed, all of the on questional constitutional grounds, most of them still existing today. He plunged the nation farther into the depression by trying to spend our way out of it. The court-packing scheme was a thumb to the eye to our sepeartion of powers because it coerced the Judiciary Branch to do what the Executive Branch wanted it to do.

FDR's presidency was a disaster before World War II, and the only reason people think he's swell now is because he was a left-winger and because we won the war. The war is the only thing that brought the economy out of the depression. The alphabet soup agencies was ther first modern example that proves government cannot spend its way out of a depression and that Americans will allow their rights to be pissed on if they're told that it's good for them.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 24/2159
EXP: 6295653
For next: 97146

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#17 Posted on 20.11.03 1151.39
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1153.03
One of these days you need to figure out that this partisan shit means very very little.

That is all.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 726/1084
EXP: 2425344
For next: 36520

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2933 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#18 Posted on 20.11.03 1206.02
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1208.43
    Originally posted by Grimis
    FDR was a socialist at best, a communist at worst. The furhterst reaching expansion of government in our history,


Arguable, as many Presidents, and everyone since, has seen an expanse of the national government.


    creating a bunch of alphabet soup organizations, many of which that were not needeed, all of the on questional constitutional grounds, most of them still existing today.


Again, arguable. Which ones are so un-needed? And what's left?


    He plunged the nation farther into the depression by trying to spend our way out of it . . . FDR's presidency was a disaster before World War II, and the only reason people think he's swell now is because he was a left-winger and because we won the war. The war is the only thing that brought the economy out of the depression. The alphabet soup agencies was ther first modern example that proves government cannot spend its way out of a depression and that Americans will allow their rights to be pissed on if they're told that it's good for them.



This is just plain wrong. Unemployment shrank and GNP grew during the first few years of the New Deal, followed by the recession of 37-38, where it didn't get nearly as bad as it was 5 years before. 1939 saw recovery beyond those before the recession, then WWII came and basically created zero-unemployment. To say that the New Deal somehow hurt the country more is just flat out wrong.

Edit: Fixed the quote (missing "]") -Keeper

(edited by Keeper on 20.11.03 1314)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2485/4700
EXP: 21452241
For next: 384421

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#19 Posted on 20.11.03 1232.17
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1239.14
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Arguable, as many Presidents, and everyone since, has seen an expanse of the national government.
I'm not aguing that point; the point that I was trying to make was that FDR sent us whizzing down the slippering slope of the nannystate..

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Which ones are so un-needed? And what's left?
The most famous boondoggle being a little thing called the Social Security Administration. Then therre is the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is still around that was a government-owned monopoly power company until deruglation.

The Agriculture Adjustment Act program still pays farmers not to grow crops.

Don't forget that FDR took us off of the gold standard too...

As far as unneeded back then? How about the Works Progress Administration, a federal jobs program designed to build things like Camp David and the Golden Gate Bridge. Of course, mainly they employed artists and built things nobody needed. Or the Civilian Conservation Corps, a Government sponsored environmental lobby.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    To say that the New Deal somehow hurt the country more is just flat out wrong.
Not really. The fact of the matter is that the New Deal promoted the idea of profligtate government spending and the nanny state. Nor did it ever help unemployment and did cause the 37-38 mess. The only government works program that picked up the economy? The war.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 727/1084
EXP: 2425344
For next: 36520

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2933 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#20 Posted on 20.11.03 1245.58
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1246.21
Then why did unemployment drop considerably in the years before WWII? Why did the economy decide to get better on its own right about the same time New Deal legislation went into effect? Yes, WWII helped the economy, but you are just ignoring the fact that the New Deal programs did in fact help end the depression, and put the country on the road to recovery.

Are you saying that we should still be on the Gold Standard? America's prosperity would be nowhere near where it is today if our currency were still tied to a commodity. And it was still loosely tied until Nixon ended it.

You named 3 agencies that are still around out of a dozen that were crated. That doesn't seem like a very big deal to me.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: States Rights?
Next thread: Wait...I thought the Democrats were the party of Tolerance
Previous thread: from "The West Wing" to real life
(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - As if there were any questions of Dean's rather liberal credentials....Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.275 seconds.