so you think it is ok for the president to have the authority to label a 6 year old kid, living in manhattan, as an "enemy combatant" and scoop him up out of his house and take him overseas (to who knows where) without giving him the right to seek habeus corpus relief???? how is that constitutional?? please do not become a lawyer if you think this is ok.
the torture argument is minor in comparison but still just as shocking. we, as americans, are going to approve of basically any form of torture that does not leave visible scarring. proud to be an american?
Just because something "can" happen, doesn't mean it "will" happen. Commentators on the left make this type of speculative argument and then out of the other side of their head argue that the risk of terrorism is speculative. This is not the first time that there has been a restriction on civil liberties durring a war. But, if you resist every effort to prosecute this war successfully, and then there is, God forbid, another attack in the United States, then you are really going to see some curtailment on Civil Rights.
agreed. detainee bill silently passes....outgoes due process rights via habeus corpus and we now are officially recognizing torture as a means of "spreading democracy".
maybe sabadabada can drop some science on why all this is kosher under the constitution and the geneva convention.
1. The Court was specifically denied jurisdiction over cases involving Guantanamo Bay prisoners by the legislature, but heard the case in violation of that.
2. The decision was in part based on an Article in the Geneva Convention that was not only not agreed to by the United States but specifically rejected.
3. The caselaw that Hamdan is based upon supports the denial of habeus corpus to enemey combatants captured on the battlefield. The implications of Hamdan are that any prisoner no matter where they are captured is somehow entitled to the same rights of due process as an American citizen arrested in the United States. Was that a response?
This bill proposes that any "prisoner" (no definition of that term), no matter where they are captured (i.e, picked up off the street) is somehow an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield (see your point #3). Your six year old nephew would fit the definition if our government scooped him up overseas and labeled him an "enemy combatant". It is completely arbitrary. Bush can call anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and immediately take away their right to habeus corpus. It is a fucking disgrace. Senator Specter, a republican and head of the judiciary committee, had the balls to call this bill out as being a slap in the face of the constitution.
And we haven't said one word yet about how they tip-toed around torture. I think under FDR the Court established that it was within the power of the executive to define someone as an enemy combatant. If you recall, he went ahead and hung the German spies that were picked up on Long Isalnd, and told the Court he was going to do so regardless of how they ruled.
One of those prisoners was, in fact, an American citizen who had moved to Germany and the Court found that this was not an obstacle to him being labled an enemy combatant also.
As for torture, the Geneva Conventions are full of vague language like "affront to dignity" and the like, I see no problem with wanting to define these terms and do it broadly. When did our enemies ever abide by the articles of the Geneva Conventions, the Japanese tortured and killed hundreds if not thousands of American POW's, the Germans shot them at the Battle of the Buldge, the North Koreans and the Vietnamese didn't abide by it, and the terrorists certainly wont. So this whole argument that it puts our soldiers in danger is pretty weak. Since you wrote a coherent response, I will reply.
As to the FDR court ruling, didn't you just discount rulings by that court as "old" the other day?
I did not know about the hanging of spies, including US citizens during WWII. I'd like to see more info on this.
I guess your point is that the hanging of a US citizen as an enemy combatant is a good thing. I disagree. I do not believe that the outrages of the past, justify the current outrages.
The language of the Geneva Conventions have been defined both in international and US law. The new bill does not define those terms, it redefines them to allow torture.
I agree with you that the argument that it puts our soldiers at risk is weak. What about the argument that it is immoral to torture another human being?
Do we really want American citizens working for the US Government to be committing torture? Is that the country we want to live in? Do you want to live next door to someone who is a professional torturer?
so you think it is ok for the president to have the authority to label a 6 year old kid, living in manhattan, as an "enemy combatant" and scoop him up out of his house and take him overseas (to who knows where) without giving him the right to seek habeus corpus relief???? how is that constitutional?? please do not become a lawyer if you think this is ok.
the torture argument is minor in comparison but still just as shocking. we, as americans, are going to approve of basically any form of torture that does not leave visible scarring. proud to be an american?
Just because something "can" happen, doesn't mean it "will" happen. Commentators on the left make this type of speculative argument and then out of the other side of their head argue that the risk of terrorism is speculative. This is not the first time that there has been a restriction on civil liberties durring a war. But, if you resist every effort to prosecute this war successfully, and then there is, God forbid, another attack in the United States, then you are really going to see some curtailment on Civil Rights.
i.e. "Do what we want right now or you are REALLY going to get it the next time a terrorist attack happens*
* And please ignore the fact that we've created a great big terrorist factory in Iraq (we think that's irrelevant....)"
This comment is going to sound both naive and cynical but I think America has a lot lower to drop before it hits bottom (despite appearances otherwise). Not that I don't find the erosion of civil liberties a concern in time of war (both sides of my wife's family were interned during WWII, feel me?) and while I think the Iraq War is a disaster in every sense of the word but to me, the bigger problems looming go beyond this administration.
the bigger problems are the ignorant people across the us who put these selfish idiots in office. o-dub, i respect your point of view, but you always seem to pop up in these political threads like the friendly guy who tries to break up a fight between two of his friends. sometimes you have to take sides because there really is a line in the sand. just because the press isn't putting out daily front page stories of how the conservatives have been wrecking our county, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. think of what you are saying in terms of the widening economic gap in our society. now take a look at the long standing republican "let these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps" mentality and contrast it with the democratic "lets try and even the playing field so 50 years from now things might be different" viewpoint. there are hundreds of issues in which the dems and gop are like night and day. i guarantee you that the problems you are most concerned about have been drastically worsened by the bush administration.
I assume were talking about the infamous 'torture' bill which explicitly prohibits torture and 'rides roughshod over the geneva convention' by only affording its protections to those whom the geneva convention itself specifies as being eligble for them.
This comment is going to sound both naive and cynical but I think America has a lot lower to drop before it hits bottom (despite appearances otherwise). Not that I don't find the erosion of civil liberties a concern in time of war (both sides of my wife's family were interned during WWII, feel me?) and while I think the Iraq War is a disaster in every sense of the word but to me, the bigger problems looming go beyond this administration.
the bigger problems are the ignorant people across the us who put these selfish idiots in office. o-dub, i respect your point of view, but you always seem to pop up in these political threads like the friendly guy who tries to break up a fight between two of his friends. sometimes you have to take sides because there really is a line in the sand. just because the press isn't putting out daily front page stories of how the conservatives have been wrecking our county, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. think of what you are saying in terms of the widening economic gap in our society. now take a look at the long standing republican "let these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps" mentality and contrast it with the democratic "lets try and even the playing field so 50 years from now things might be different" viewpoint. there are hundreds of issues in which the dems and gop are like night and day. i guarantee you that the problems you are most concerned about have been drastically worsened by the bush administration.
HUGE
B/W The Iraq war is getting to be a bigger (and deadlier) disaster with every passing day.
so you think it is ok for the president to have the authority to label a 6 year old kid, living in manhattan, as an "enemy combatant" and scoop him up out of his house and take him overseas (to who knows where) without giving him the right to seek habeus corpus relief???? how is that constitutional?? please do not become a lawyer if you think this is ok.
the torture argument is minor in comparison but still just as shocking. we, as americans, are going to approve of basically any form of torture that does not leave visible scarring. proud to be an american?
Just because something "can" happen, doesn't mean it "will" happen. Commentators on the left make this type of speculative argument and then out of the other side of their head argue that the risk of terrorism is speculative. This is not the first time that there has been a restriction on civil liberties durring a war. But, if you resist every effort to prosecute this war successfully, and then there is, God forbid, another attack in the United States, then you are really going to see some curtailment on Civil Rights.
it is amazing that a law student would think the Constitution provides our president with the un-checked authority to sit down and write a list of American citizens who will not have the right to be heard in an american court of law. maybe this "will" happen to you and then you might understand the importance of civil rights.
please stop with "during a war" talk. this bill has nothing to do with war as it gives the prez the ability to designate someone as a wartime combatant, regardless if the "combatant" is a hot dog vendor in Central Park.
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
I had a convo just the other day with a dude I know who's a republican. He made some good points and I could see where he was coming from on some things. I think it's good to talk to people with a difference of opinion about what's going on to get a more informed viewpoint. You have to look at both sides of every argument.
yeah, there must be some f-- upped sh-- going on there if he was so quick to resign. What is it with those congressional pages that Congressmen can't resist?
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
And according to Census ACS data estimates through 2004, the current administration is accelerating income inequity. I don't think you're going to brush off Census data as partisan, are you?
The class divide in America has been stretching for at least 30 years now and shows no signs, whatsoever, of abating. That's never good for any society, especially since the middle class has been trending towards vanishing lower rather than rising higher.
I don't think this is true. If you want to argue the point though, you made it, so you go find the statistical eveidence that this is in fact happening.
Ok, sure. The claim is hardly controversial. Most economists or sociologists who study social stratification keep watch on this data all the time. Here's a smattering of both journalistic and academic research that all repeats the same point - the gap b/t rich and poor has increased since the 1970s.
I avoided drawing from sources that I thought might be too likely to be skewed by ideological factors (though of course, that potential for bias exists anywhere) so that meant no analysis from either left-leaning or right-leaning organizations.
For those who are lazier, here's a few newspaper articles that tackle the same issue. Most of this stuff isn't available full-text online without an account so I just copied and pasted in toto:
USA Today Jan 23, 2003
WASHINGTON -- The gaps in wealth between the rich and the poor and between whites and minorities have grown wider, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday in a closely watched report that also showed a broad increase in stock ownership in the USA.
The difference in median net wealth between the 10% of families with the highest incomes and the 20% of families with the lowest incomes jumped 70% from 1998 through 2001, the Fed said in its consumer finances report, which it conducts every three years. The gap between whites and minorities grew 21%.
The wealth gaps between races and income levels had shrunk slightly from 1992 to 1995 but had also risen by double digits in the 1998 report.
Economists and government officials use the study to evaluate trends and to set policy. Its release comes as the debate heats up over President Bush's plan to stimulate the economy. The centerpiece of Bush's proposal is the elimination of taxes paid by individuals on stock dividends. Democrats say that would be a handout to wealthy Americans.
"I'm sure the president's critics will latch onto this," says Steven Wood, president of Insight Economics, a California consulting firm. "The real beneficiaries of the significant economic expansion (in the 1990s) were already highly skilled, highly paid individuals. They've just become wealthier and wealthier."
The widening of the wealth gaps can partly be attributed to the fact that lower-income and minority families are less likely to own assets -- including homes -- that have increased in value in recent years, Fed Vice-Chairman Roger Ferguson said late last year.
Details from the study:
* Median net worth for all families rose 10% to $86,100 in 2001 from 1998 and was up 41% from 1992, the Fed said, calling the gain "striking." Noting the sharp drop in stock prices last year, Fed economists estimate the net worth likely fell 6.3% through October. Despite the decline, wealth was still higher than in 1998.
The median is the point at which half of the numbers are above and half are below. Net worth includes the value of stocks, retirement funds, homes and other assets minus all outstanding debts.
* Net worth for the lowest income group, whose median pre-tax income was $10,300 in 2001, rose 25% to $7,900. Net worth for the top 10% of household income, with a median income of $169,600, rose 69% to $833,600.
* The median income for all families rose 10% to $39,900 in 2001.
* Median net worth for whites rose 17% to $120,900 but fell 4.5% to $17,000 for minorities.
The report also found that nearly 52% of families held stocks either directly or through plans such as mutual funds or 401(k)s in 2001, the Fed said. That was up from 49% in 1998, and it was the highest level since at least 1983, when the Fed began its survey.
The biggest gain in asset ownership was in direct stock holdings. The percentage of families who owned individual stocks rose 2 percentage points to 21% from 1998 through 2001.
"You've had an equity culture developing. Equity has become a normal part of investing, just like putting money into savings accounts," says James Spellman, spokesman for the Securities Industry Association. He says his group conducted a study that showed similar results.
The Fed interviewed 4,449 families in the second half of 2001 to produce the report.
One thing to stress in the above piece is that the Fed is focusing not just on income but on WEALTH since, as the study suggests, those with wealth are poised to gain more wealth through investments whereas those without savings won't benefit from the "rising tide" if they have no investments in stocks, real estate and what not. Wealth disparity, even more than income, should be of concern given that wealth is also transferable through generations (estate tax and all), thus ensuring that wealthy families are likely to retain that wealth.
Here's a WSJ article from 2004 that echoes similar points (warning: long):
Affluent Advantage: So Far, Economic Recovery Tilts To Highest-Income Americans
Jon E. Hilsenrath and Sholnn Freeman.
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 20, 2004. pg. A.1
Joshua Berry and Ricky Williams, both Houstonians, have seen two very different economic recoveries.
Mr. Berry, an entrepreneur, has profited handsomely from the stock market, in the real-estate boom and by selling a business. Mr. Williams, an airline baggage handler, has been waiting since 2001 for a pay raise.
With the U.S. economy expanding and the labor market improving, it isn't clear how well the Democrats' message of a divided America will resonate with voters this fall. But many economists believe the economic recovery has indeed taken two tracks, exemplified by the experiences of these two Texas residents.
Upper-income families, who pay the most in taxes and reaped the largest gains from the tax cuts President Bush championed, drove a surge of consumer spending a year ago that helped to rev up the recovery. Wealthier households also have been big beneficiaries of the stronger stock market, higher corporate profits, bigger dividend payments and the boom in housing.
Lower- and middle-income households have benefited from some of these trends, but not nearly as much. For them, paychecks and day-to- day living expenses have a much bigger effect. Many have been squeezed, with wages under pressure and with gasoline and food prices higher. The resulting two-tier recovery is showing up in vivid detail in the way Americans are spending money.
Hotel revenue was up 11% in the first five months of 2004 at luxury and upscale chains, but up just 3% at economy chains, according to Smith Travel Research, a market-research firm. At the five-star Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs, Colo., $600-a-night lakeside suites are sold out every day through mid-October.
At high-end Bulgari stores, meanwhile, consumers are gobbling up $5,000 Astrale gold and diamond "cocktail" rings made for the right hand, a spokeswoman says. The Italian company's U.S. revenue was up 22% in the first quarter. Neiman Marcus Group Inc., flourishing o
n sales of pricey items like $500 Manolo Blahnik shoes, had a 13.5% year-over-year sales rise at stores open at least a year.
By contrast, such "same store" sales at Wal-Mart Stores Inc., retailer for the masses, were up just 2.2% in June. Wal-Mart believes higher gasoline costs are pinching its customers. At Payless ShoeSource Inc., which sells items like $10.99 pumps, June same-store sales were 1% below a year earlier.
A similar pattern shows up in cars. Luxury brands like BMW, Cadillac and Lexus saw double-digit U.S. sales increases in June from a year earlier. Sales of lower-tier brands such as Dodge, Pontiac and Mercury either declined or grew in the low single digits.
"To date, the [recovery's] primary beneficiaries have been upper- income households," concludes Dean Maki, a J.P. Morgan Chase (and former Federal Reserve) economist who has studied the ways that changes in wealth affect spending. In research he sent to clients this month, Mr. Maki said, "Two of the main factors supporting spending over the past year, tax cuts and increases in [stock] wealth, have sharply benefited upper income households relative to others."
The good times upper-income Americans are enjoying represent a bounce-back from the hit that many of the wealthiest took after bonus income dried up in 2001 and 2002 and stock options went sour. For example, Wall Street compensation was up 16% in the first quarter from a year earlier, after having fallen from stratospheric levels the three previous years, according to the Securities Industry Association.
Longer-term issues are also at work. Wage and income disparities between the rich and poor have generally been widening for nearly 20 years. In 1980, the top 10% of households in income accounted for 33% of total household income, according to economist Emmanuel Saez at University of California, Berkeley. By 2000, that had risen to 44%. The figures exclude capital gains. Mr. Saez says the concentration of income at the top dropped during the recession but has probably started picking up again.
Some economists believe the gap is driven wider by technological change and by the economy's increasing openness to global competition. Technology rewards skilled workers, and competition has generally punished the unskilled, who are susceptible to the movement of work overseas. Both factors have come into play in recent years as technology-driven productivity surged and the U.S. trade deficit widened.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has seen a big increase in the sheer number of affluent families. In 2002, nearly 16 million U.S. households had annual incomes of more than $100,000, up from a little more than five million 20 years ago, in inflation-adjusted terms.
For a sense of the divide, contrast the recovery experiences of Mr. Berry, a businessman who earns a six-figure income, and Mr. Williams, the baggage handler, who makes around $20 an hour for Southwest Airlines. Both have been shopping this month at the River Oaks Chrysler-Jeep car dealership in Houston.
Mr. Berry, 34 years old, is president of a nurse staffing business called ShiftBay.com. Last year, he and some partners sold a medical- supply business. Mr. Berry says that together they saved more than $100,000 in taxes, thanks to a reduction last year in the federal income-tax rate on long-term capital gains.
Mr. Berry also is in the process of selling his house, which he says has appreciated by almost $100,000 over four years. And he says that while he lost a lot of money in the stock-market downturn that began four years ago, he has enjoyed hefty gains since the market turned up about 15 months ago. Mr. Berry is choosing between sticking with Chrysler (he now drives a Jeep Grand Cherokee) or trading up to a Cadillac, BMW or Mercedes-Benz.
Mr. Williams, 52, hasn't benefited from the boom in the price of houses because he doesn't own one. His pay hasn't budged since 2001, although he is expecting a raise this month. Within a year, he expects his hourly pay to rise to about $24.
Mr. Williams's car lease (he, too, drives a Grand Cherokee) will be up in October, and he has been scrambling to come up with a down payment for a new Chrysler PT Cruiser. He was still $1,800 short last week. A Chrysler salesman was able to make up part of the difference with an additional $1,000 rebate targeted at returning lease customers, on top of $4,000 in manufacturer's incentives already on the table.
"With the economy the way it is, I've had to rob Peter to pay Paul, and then sometimes rob them both," Mr. Williams says.
The perception of a fast-lane/slow-lane recovery has become a central political issue. This year's stronger job market has led Democrats to shift their emphasis: away from the argument that Bush policies have failed to produce jobs and toward the idea that the expansion's fruits haven't been widely shared.
"They're telling people this is the best economy we've had," Sen. John Kerry mockingly told a riverbank crowd last Thursday evening in Charleston, W.Va., drawing jeers. "What does it mean when you don't have any health care at all?" Hands started popping up throughout the audience, as Mr. Kerry paused to point to each one. "Too many people in Washington have no sense at all about what's happening," he said. His running mate, Sen. John Edwards, speaks of "Two Americas," one "that does the work, another America that reaps the rewards."
Bush critics have argued that the economy is producing jobs mainly in low-paying industries like restaurants and temporary work. Mr. Bush counters that his opponents have been pessimistically distorting the economic statistics, ignoring the gains. The Bush campaign cites data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that in the past year, there has been more net employment growth in occupations with above- average pay than in occupations with below-average pay.
Campaigning in Wisconsin last week, Mr. Bush spoke of a local family of six who benefited from elements of his tax package aimed at lower- and middle-income families, such as the child tax credit. "Oh, some of the sophisticates will say that $2,700 doesn't matter to the Muellers: 'It doesn't sound like a lot to me,' " Mr. Bush said. "It is a lot to them. That's what counts."
Polls suggest that Americans aren't giving the president full credit for an economic recovery, and the class divide in this recovery may help explain that. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in late June found that 45% of Americans approved of his handling of the economy, while 49% didn't.
Mr. Maki of J.P. Morgan Chase estimates that in terms of dollars saved, the top 20% of households by income got 77% of the benefit of the 2003 tax cuts, and roughly 50% of the 2001 tax cuts. And of stocks held by households, roughly 75% are owned by the top 20% of those households. That made them prime beneficiaries of last year's stock- market rally, although also big sufferers from the stock carnage from 2000 to 2002.
The affluent also benefit more from stock dividends, on which the federal income-tax rate was cut last year retroactive to the start of 2003. Total dividend payments have risen 11% to $3 billion since the end of 2002, estimates Berkeley's Mr. Saez. Higher-income households also are larger beneficiaries of the surge in corporate earnings, which helps to drive dividend and stock returns. The level of corporate profits has risen 42% since the last recession, which ended in the final quarter of 2001. Wage and salary income is up just 6.3% in that time. Meanwhile, housing values have appreciated fastest in the most affluent regions during the past three years, according to research by Fiserv CSW Inc., which tracks home prices.
Many economists say the lopsided recovery is now at a critical juncture. The impetus from new tax cuts has largely passed, and the stock market has lost momentum, two factors that could slow the pace of higher-income people's spending in the months ahead. As a result,
the time has come for the recovery either to broaden out to more- modest income groups -- or possibly lose momentum.
The late 1990s showed that lower-wage workers benefit when unemployment falls, as the tighter labor market helps underpin wages across income categories. With the job market improving, there is a chance this could happen again, but the outlook is still highly uncertain. Payroll employment has increased by 1.5 million since last August. And some companies that cater to the mass market say they have noticed the turnaround. "We had a terrific Fourth of July weekend," says Wayne Wielgus, a senior vice president at Choice Hotels International Inc., which serves low- and middle-income travelers with brands like EconoLodge and Comfort Inn.
But some economists worry that the early stage of the recovery for low- to middle-income families is being squeezed by continuing pressure on wages and purchasing power. Average hourly earnings have risen at just a 1.9% annual rate since the job market started improving notably last August. Meanwhile, the consumer-price index -- driven by higher food and gasoline prices -- has risen at a 3.3% annual pace. The average worker's purchasing power, in other words, has declined even as more people have been finding jobs since August.
Weekly earnings for production workers and nonsupervisors at service companies, adjusted for inflation, were down 2.6% in June from a year earlier. This slip might be transitory, and it wasn't anywhere near the drops of 5% to 7.5% registered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Still, it was the largest decline since 1991, and it is a shift from the late 1990s and even the 2001 recession, when real wages were increasing.
As a result, after rising last year, the University of Michigan's consumer confidence index for lower-income households is off 12% so far this year. Confidence among the affluent is lower as well, but by a smaller 6.7%.
The recovering job market and an easing of food- and gasoline-price increases could reverse some of today's pressures. But these aren't the only issues hanging over lower-income households. Many are also highly exposed to rising interest rates, says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, because these households were more likely to take out adjustable-rate mortgages to squeeze into an ever-pricier housing market. For those who don't own homes, the chances of buying have become more remote as house prices have soared. "Lower- and middle-income groups are going to remain under significant pressure," Mr. Zandi says.
Many in this group are also getting squeezed as health-care costs rise and companies seek to shift the burden to workers. From 2000 to 2003, employees' average annual out-of-pocket expenses for family medical premiums rose 49% to $2,412, according to an employer survey by Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Menlo Park, Calif.
Becky Salas, a 32-year-old vocational nurse in San Antonio, says her family is still pinching pennies, even though she believes an economic recovery is taking hold now. Two years ago, she and her husband stopped using credit cards. Expensive toys for her children, movies at theaters and meals at McDonald's also are out. "Easily we could spend $20 at McDonald's for just one meal," Ms. Salas says. And "we can go fly a kite, instead of going to an expensive theater where the kids are going to yell and scream and won't enjoy it anyway."
Lastly, this Christian Science Monitor article outlines some of the partisan debates on the topic, including noting that some conservatives think the disparity argument is a myth...even though Alan Greenspan argues that this is a national problem that needs addressing:
"Christian Science Monitor Jun 14, 2005
The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.
Is that a liberal's talking point? Sure. But it's also a line from the recent public testimony of a champion of the free market: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan.
America's powerful central banker hasn't suddenly lurched to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean. His solution is better education today to create a flexible workforce for tomorrow - not confiscation of plutocrats' yachts.
But the fact that Mr. Greenspan speaks about this topic at all may show how much the growing concentration of national wealth at the top, combined with the uncertainties of increased globalization, worries economic policymakers as they peer into the future.
"He is the conventional wisdom," says Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. "When I'm arguing with people, I say, 'Even Alan Greenspan....' "
Greenspan's comments at a Joint Economic Committee hearing last week were typical, for him. Asked a leading question by Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island, he agreed that over the past two quarters hourly wages have shown few signs of accelerating. Overall employee compensation has gone up - but mostly due to a surge in bonuses and stock-option exercises.
The Fed chief than added that the 80 percent of the workforce represented by nonsupervisory workers has recently seen little, if any, income growth at all. The top 20 percent of supervisory, salaried, and other workers has.
The result of this, said Greenspan, is that the US now has a significant divergence in the fortunes of different groups in its labor market. "As I've often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing," Greenspan told the congressional hearing.
The cause of this problem? Education, according to Greenspan. Specifically, high school education. US children test above world average levels at the 4th grade level, he noted. By the 12th grade, they do not. "We have to do something to prevent that from happening," said Greenspan.
So are liberals overjoyed by these words from a man who is the high priest of capitalism? Not really, or at least not entirely.
For one thing, some liberal analysts prefer to focus on the very tip of the income scale, not the top 20 percent. Recent Congressional Budget Office data show that the top 1 percent of the population received 11.4 percent of national after-tax income in 2002, points out Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in a new study. That's up from a 7.5 percent share in 1979.
By contrast, the middle fifth of the population saw its share of national after-tax income fall over that same period of time, from 16.5 to 15.8. "Income is now more concentrated at the very top of the income spectrum than in all but six years since the mid-1930s," asserts Mr. Shapiro in his report.
For another, some Democratic analysts believe that Greenspan's emphasis on education as a cure ignores other causal factors of inequity. Data show an income gap widening among college graduates, says Mr. Bernstein. The quality of US high schools has nothing to do with that, he says. Instead it's partly a function of overall monetary and fiscal policies. "Greenspan takes a very long term view of the situation," says Bernstein.
On the other hand, some conservatives label the whole inequality debate a myth. The media's recent focus on the subject stems from its liberal bias and clever press management by Democrats, they say.
Inequality studies often ignore the wealth created by rising house prices, for instance - and homes represent the most substantial investment by many, if not most, Americans.
Nor do US workers necessarily perceive themselves on the losing end of a rigged capitalist game. A recent New York Times survey found that while 44 percent of respondents said they had a working- class childhood, only 35 percent said they were working class
today, points out Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. Eighteen percent said they grew up lower class, while only 7 percent said they remained in that societal segment.
When Democrats today raise the inequality flag, they are simply trying to attack President Bush's tax cuts, albeit indirectly, says Mr. Bartlett. "A lot of this is driven by the estate-tax debate," he says.
And as Greenspan himself points out, by many measures the economy is doing well. Unemployment is down, GDP is up. Inflation still slumbers. Current standards of living are unmatched.
"So you can look at the system and say it's got a lot of problems to it, and sure it does. It always has," Greenspan told the JEC last week. "But you can't get around the fact that this is the most extraordinarily successful economy in history."(c) Copyright 2005. The Christian Science Monitor"
Statistics now supplied, I'd like to hear the rationale as to whether or not we live in a qualitatively better society than we did 10 years ago. That's not a gauntlet being thrown down - I'm genuinely curious to hear what people have to say and not just Saba (even if he is the resident contrarian around here).
And Keith - you misunderstand my point (or maybe not)...I'm not trying to break up a fight but I'm definitely someone who's down with the idea of picking your battles strategically. That said, upon reflection, I think there's a good lesson to be noted here: Maybe this just comes from years of watching my friends and colleagues on the left wear themselves thin by spreading themselves all over the place with every potential issue that can arise. I know this gets said enough to be conventional wisdom but one reason why the Right has become so sucessful politically speaking (until recently perhaps) is their ability to focus on specific wedge issues, right?
I think if the War can serve as a functional wedge issue - even if I personally think it's more symptomatic of social inequality rather than its cause - then maybe it's worth stirring up the hornet's nest even more than it is already.
But just to clarify - I'm not saying conservative law makers shouldn't be held responsible for their policies. I'm well aware of the line in the sand and I don't think it's very vague where I stand in relation to it. But consider a few things:
1) Democrats have played a supporting role in many of the major examples of social inequality in the U.S. If they weren't the instigators, many have been enablers and complicit in supporting policies that widen these disparities. The idea that this is solely a GOP thing is not simply wrong but it does serious damage to the ability to create any real movement in the other direction.
2) Specific to Soulstrut itself, isn't like 95% of our membership moderate-to-left leaning? We have like...what? 3 conservatives in the entire mix? If even that? So preaching to the choir about the evils of Bush is comforting but I'm interested in the conversation that comes AFTER that.
please stop with "during a war" talk. this bill has nothing to do with war as it gives the prez the ability to designate someone as a wartime combatant, regardless if the "combatant" is a hot dog vendor in Central Park.
the beauty of this "war on terror" is that, just like the "war on drugs", it will basically never end.
billbradleyYou want BBQ sauce? Get the fuck out of my house. 2,906 Posts
Saba asked for statistics. You guys gave him what? Academic research? Everyone knows that Academia is all about far left wing liberals hatting America. The Census Buraeu? Like you didn't know that many employees at the Census Bureau are members of UNIONS!?!?! Of course they are going to say things are getting worse. The communist controled unions they belong to force them to say that. Now go out and find an unbiased research. Perhaps you can have Dick Cheney ask his friends how they are fairing.
please stop with "during a war" talk. this bill has nothing to do with war as it gives the prez the ability to designate someone as a wartime combatant, regardless if the "combatant" is a hot dog vendor in Central Park.
the beauty of this "war on terror" is that, just like the "war on drugs", it will basically never end.
In related national news: I am going to start a personal War on All Things Melancholy in two weeks. Be there.
If you ain't with me, then you's against me. Me and the missus are thinking about invading the Jewel to liberate some sorbet and torture some turkey dogs on a grill. I am a goddamn rock. I am a motherfucking island.
Statistics now supplied, I'd like to hear the rationale as to whether or not we live in a qualitatively better society than we did 10 years ago. OW, I just spent 45 minutes writting a detailed account of the socital difference between 1996 and today. 1996 won big time. I can't rewrite it.
The part you don't want to hear, but I want to repeat is: I believe that torture and secret prisions reflect on our society and thus 1996 was much better. The rest of my points were about economics, the record business and the kindness of strangers. 1996 won on all. The flat area was Free Trade, much of the pain of today can be laid to the free trade agreements of the 90s. The up side is people on the left and the right worked together to argue against free trade.
I also wrote a great thing about how great things were for my parents entering the workforce in the 50s. GI Bill, labor laws, blue laws...
Statistics now supplied, I'd like to hear the rationale as to whether or not we live in a qualitatively better society than we did 10 years ago.
OW, I just spent 45 minutes writting a detailed account of the socital difference between 1996 and today. 1996 won big time. I can't rewrite it.
The part you don't want to hear, but I want to repeat is: I believe that torture and secret prisions reflect on our society and thus 1996 was much better. The rest of my points were about economics, the record business and the kindness of strangers. 1996 won on all. The flat area was Free Trade, much of the pain of today can be laid to the free trade agreements of the 90s. The up side is people on the left and the right worked together to argue against free trade.
I also wrote a great thing about how great things were for my parents entering the workforce in the 50s. GI Bill, labor laws, blue laws...
Comments
Just because something "can" happen, doesn't mean it "will" happen. Commentators on the left make this type of speculative argument and then out of the other side of their head argue that the risk of terrorism is speculative. This is not the first time that there has been a restriction on civil liberties durring a war. But, if you resist every effort to prosecute this war successfully, and then there is, God forbid, another attack in the United States, then you are really going to see some curtailment on Civil Rights.
maybe sabadabada can drop some science on why all this is kosher under the constitution and the geneva convention.
1. The Court was specifically denied jurisdiction over cases involving Guantanamo Bay prisoners by the legislature, but heard the case in violation of that.
2. The decision was in part based on an Article in the Geneva Convention that was not only not agreed to by the United States but specifically rejected.
3. The caselaw that Hamdan is based upon supports the denial of habeus corpus to enemey combatants captured on the battlefield. The implications of Hamdan are that any prisoner no matter where they are captured is somehow entitled to the same rights of due process as an American citizen arrested in the United States.
Was that a response?
This bill proposes that any "prisoner" (no definition of that term), no matter where they are captured (i.e, picked up off the street) is somehow an enemy combatant captured on the battlefield (see your point #3). Your six year old nephew would fit the definition if our government scooped him up overseas and labeled him an "enemy combatant". It is completely arbitrary. Bush can call anyone he wants an "enemy combatant" and immediately take away their right to habeus corpus. It is a fucking disgrace. Senator Specter, a republican and head of the judiciary committee, had the balls to call this bill out as being a slap in the face of the constitution.
And we haven't said one word yet about how they tip-toed around torture.
I think under FDR the Court established that it was within the power of the executive to define someone as an enemy combatant. If you recall, he went ahead and hung the German spies that were picked up on Long Isalnd, and told the Court he was going to do so regardless of how they ruled.
One of those prisoners was, in fact, an American citizen who had moved to Germany and the Court found that this was not an obstacle to him being labled an enemy combatant also.
As for torture, the Geneva Conventions are full of vague language like "affront to dignity" and the like, I see no problem with wanting to define these terms and do it broadly. When did our enemies ever abide by the articles of the Geneva Conventions, the Japanese tortured and killed hundreds if not thousands of American POW's, the Germans shot them at the Battle of the Buldge, the North Koreans and the Vietnamese didn't abide by it, and the terrorists certainly wont. So this whole argument that it puts our soldiers in danger is pretty weak.
Since you wrote a coherent response, I will reply.
As to the FDR court ruling, didn't you just discount rulings by that court as "old" the other day?
I did not know about the hanging of spies, including US citizens during WWII. I'd like to see more info on this.
I guess your point is that the hanging of a US citizen as an enemy combatant is a good thing. I disagree. I do not believe that the outrages of the past, justify the current outrages.
The language of the Geneva Conventions have been defined both in international and US law. The new bill does not define those terms, it redefines them to allow torture.
I agree with you that the argument that it puts our soldiers at risk is weak. What about the argument that it is immoral to torture another human being?
Do we really want American citizens working for the US Government to be committing torture? Is that the country we want to live in? Do you want to live next door to someone who is a professional torturer?
I don't.
i.e. "Do what we want right now or you are REALLY going to get it the next time a terrorist attack happens*
* And please ignore the fact that we've created a great big terrorist factory in Iraq (we think that's irrelevant....)"
the bigger problems are the ignorant people across the us who put these selfish idiots in office. o-dub, i respect your point of view, but you always seem to pop up in these political threads like the friendly guy who tries to break up a fight between two of his friends. sometimes you have to take sides because there really is a line in the sand. just because the press isn't putting out daily front page stories of how the conservatives have been wrecking our county, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. think of what you are saying in terms of the widening economic gap in our society. now take a look at the long standing republican "let these people pull themselves up by their bootstraps" mentality and contrast it with the democratic "lets try and even the playing field so 50 years from now things might be different" viewpoint. there are hundreds of issues in which the dems and gop are like night and day. i guarantee you that the problems you are most concerned about have been drastically worsened by the bush administration.
HUGE
B/W The Iraq war is getting to be a bigger (and deadlier) disaster with every passing day.
it is amazing that a law student would think the Constitution provides our president with the un-checked authority to sit down and write a list of American citizens who will not have the right to be heard in an american court of law. maybe this "will" happen to you and then you might understand the importance of civil rights.
please stop with "during a war" talk. this bill has nothing to do with war as it gives the prez the ability to designate someone as a wartime combatant, regardless if the "combatant" is a hot dog vendor in Central Park.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=2106225
Please.
going against what you believe = false
that and you saw Clintons name, I'm sure.
I didn't have to go further than the home page. Hysterics.
Do you think people are making this shit up? Look around you.
Things are not right.
They are if you are a republican.
I think it's good to talk to people with a difference of opinion about what's going on to get a more informed viewpoint. You have to look at both sides of every argument.
That side just so happens to be wrong
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl16_foley/072106senatesopass.html
yeah, there must be some f-- upped sh-- going on there if he was so quick to resign. What is it with those congressional pages that Congressmen can't resist?
No. Please Yourself. (AYO)
I study this shit for a living. ODub is right.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2000pubs/p60-204.pdf
And according to Census ACS data estimates through 2004, the current administration is accelerating income inequity. I don't think you're going to brush off Census data as partisan, are you?
Ok, sure. The claim is hardly controversial. Most economists or sociologists who study social stratification keep watch on this data all the time. Here's a smattering of both journalistic and academic research that all repeats the same point - the gap b/t rich and poor has increased since the 1970s.
I avoided drawing from sources that I thought might be too likely to be skewed by ideological factors (though of course, that potential for bias exists anywhere) so that meant no analysis from either left-leaning or right-leaning organizations.
Stuff you can read online: http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7055911
http://www.chicagofed.org/economic_research_and_data/wp_abstract.cfm?pubsID=732
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/37/1864447.pdf
For those who are lazier, here's a few newspaper articles that tackle the same issue. Most of this stuff isn't available full-text online without an account so I just copied and pasted in toto:
One thing to stress in the above piece is that the Fed is focusing not just on income but on WEALTH since, as the study suggests, those with wealth are poised to gain more wealth through investments whereas those without savings won't benefit from the "rising tide" if they have no investments in stocks, real estate and what not. Wealth disparity, even more than income, should be of concern given that wealth is also transferable through generations (estate tax and all), thus ensuring that wealthy families are likely to retain that wealth.
Here's a WSJ article from 2004 that echoes similar points (warning: long):
Lastly, this Christian Science Monitor article outlines some of the partisan debates on the topic, including noting that some conservatives think the disparity argument is a myth...even though Alan Greenspan argues that this is a national problem that needs addressing:
right click and save link
And Keith - you misunderstand my point (or maybe not)...I'm not trying to break up a fight but I'm definitely someone who's down with the idea of picking your battles strategically. That said, upon reflection, I think there's a good lesson to be noted here: Maybe this just comes from years of watching my friends and colleagues on the left wear themselves thin by spreading themselves all over the place with every potential issue that can arise. I know this gets said enough to be conventional wisdom but one reason why the Right has become so sucessful politically speaking (until recently perhaps) is their ability to focus on specific wedge issues, right?
I think if the War can serve as a functional wedge issue - even if I personally think it's more symptomatic of social inequality rather than its cause - then maybe it's worth stirring up the hornet's nest even more than it is already.
But just to clarify - I'm not saying conservative law makers shouldn't be held responsible for their policies. I'm well aware of the line in the sand and I don't think it's very vague where I stand in relation to it. But consider a few things:
1) Democrats have played a supporting role in many of the major examples of social inequality in the U.S. If they weren't the instigators, many have been enablers and complicit in supporting policies that widen these disparities. The idea that this is solely a GOP thing is not simply wrong but it does serious damage to the ability to create any real movement in the other direction.
2) Specific to Soulstrut itself, isn't like 95% of our membership moderate-to-left leaning? We have like...what? 3 conservatives in the entire mix? If even that? So preaching to the choir about the evils of Bush is comforting but I'm interested in the conversation that comes AFTER that.
Regardless, I mean no disrespect.
the beauty of this "war on terror" is that, just like the "war on drugs", it will basically never end.
End of the 4th amendment -
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congress_eavesdropping
Things just keep getting worse.
In related national news: I am going to start a personal War on All Things Melancholy in two weeks. Be there.
If you ain't with me, then you's against me. Me and the missus are thinking about invading the Jewel to liberate some sorbet and torture some turkey dogs on a grill. I am a goddamn rock. I am a motherfucking island.
Six years until eight years of Obama.
OW, I just spent 45 minutes writting a detailed account of the socital difference between 1996 and today. 1996 won big time. I can't rewrite it.
The part you don't want to hear, but I want to repeat is:
I believe that torture and secret prisions reflect on our society and thus 1996 was much better. The rest of my points were about economics, the record business and the kindness of strangers. 1996 won on all. The flat area was Free Trade, much of the pain of today can be laid to the free trade agreements of the 90s. The up side is people on the left and the right worked together to argue against free trade.
I also wrote a great thing about how great things were for my parents entering the workforce in the 50s. GI Bill, labor laws, blue laws...
All lost because I clicked paste instead of copy.
OW, I just spent 45 minutes writting a detailed account of the socital difference between 1996 and today. 1996 won big time. I can't rewrite it.
The part you don't want to hear, but I want to repeat is:
I believe that torture and secret prisions reflect on our society and thus 1996 was much better. The rest of my points were about economics, the record business and the kindness of strangers. 1996 won on all. The flat area was Free Trade, much of the pain of today can be laid to the free trade agreements of the 90s. The up side is people on the left and the right worked together to argue against free trade.
I also wrote a great thing about how great things were for my parents entering the workforce in the 50s. GI Bill, labor laws, blue laws...
All lost because I clicked paste instead of copy.
right click "Undo"!!!