A Darker Future For Us

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Vote Now @ 11/02/2008 5:37:02 AM

    Comment: Sarah palin when asked about becoming vp responded

    "As for that VP talk all the time, I tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me, 'what is it exactly that the VP does every day......"

    After she had been the nominee for around 2 months she was asked again and this time said

    [T]hey???re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

    WRONG THE VP IS THERE TO STEP IN IF SOMTHING HAPPENS TO THE PRESIDENT ONLY THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICY AND THEY DONT RUN THE SENATE!!
    If she doenst know what the vice pres or presidant does why would we give her the job

    Mccain has around a 40 percent chance because of his age in not being able to

    complete his term picking palin was about as smart as picking any other mrs Alaska contestant.

    Its not just that we disagree with her answers in alot of cases she doesnt understand basic questions
    like what is the bush doctrine, or what do you read.
    These are not gotcha questions!!!
    One of advisors recently said not only was she unqualified but said mccain picked her after 1 interview of about a hour
    and that even at mcdonalds you get 3 interviews.
    Members of her own campaign called her a diva and a whack job.
    They would know better then anyone else right now.

    So mccain gambled and he lost big. He ended up with a girl that cant answer questions that most of the people reading this can answer.
    at the same time mccain could never read this blog because he cant use a computer at all.
    I mean his wife has 100 million dollars get him classes or something.

    Am i crazy or do we want a computer literate president and a vp who can answer a least basic questions.
    If you read the rest of the articles on this site you would think the world is about to end
    So if thats the case these are the last 2 people you want running anything.
    let send them packing.

    ELECT OBAMA BIDEN NOW

    • Posted By: Krohn @ 11/02/2008 8:19:46 AM

      Typical Obama camp employee blogger post!

  • Posted By: Krohn @ 11/02/2008 8:17:24 AM

    This sounds like a typical pro-Obama article. A way to support his anti-"Joe the plumber" message. Get real! This is really grabbing for straws!

  • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 11/02/2008 8:06:12 AM

    Mr. Samuleson makes a coherent argument for belt tightening, but he misses a few important points.

    "Economic growth has anchored our national self-esteem; slower growth suggests a grumpier and more contentious America." Grumpier and more contentious would seem to be a given - so many people are scared, angry and confused by the economic events of the last few months and so many fear the worst is yet to come.

    "Unfortunately, slower growth seems probable. " Slower growth isn't what people are afraid of - going backwards is what they fear. For many, too many, the economic "boom" of the last few years never materialized; even before gas prices hit the roof, a hefty percentage of people were struggling to make ends meet. Talk of new cars, vacations, big television sets - out of reach for many.

    Too many of our young people are 22 and already struggling under the burden of large college loans, too many of our elderly can't cover their medical costs, too many of our working poor are working 2 and 3 jobs and still falling behind.

    For these folks, there was never any affluence to lose.

    For too many, getting ahead won't be the concern: not drowning will be the concern.

  • Posted By: Wetzelfam @ 11/02/2008 6:54:32 AM

    Here are some suggestions for controlling health spending while providing improved health care coverage to Americans. 1. Determine AS OF TODAY what the cost in tax-payer dollars is to provide the current health insurance coverage available to our senators and congressmen (sic). Make this same coverage available to any American who wishes to buy it at its current price, regardless of pre-existing condition, age, or sex. 2. Any person working in the health care or health insurance industry who does not provide direct hands-on patient care can make no more than a Family Physician. Period. This may result in an increase in GP salaries, which would great. But there's no reason an insurance exec should make $500,000 per year when a pediatrician makes $80,000. 3. No person who receives all of his or her health care benefits from the government, be it Medicare, Medicaid, or Champus, may receive more in health benefits than the average person who buys individual health insurance on the open market.

  • Posted By: fireofenergy @ 11/02/2008 4:16:00 AM

    Largescale concentrated solar power (CSP) is the solution! Plain and simple. Sure, Americans will still have to consume less but the jobs lossed to less consumption (Chinise?) will be made up for in the creation of the only form of UNLIMITED renewable energy that can store heat for on demand power for days! By simply using oversized mirror fields that covers only a 1/4 the space of land that all roads do, America can lead the world to preventing death by fossil fueled depletion!

    Just say Yes on Solar !

  • Posted By: chillydogs @ 11/02/2008 3:23:58 AM

    It's true that some people live more extravagantly than they should, and the last post was a practical suggestion. But read the article again. He says that Americans can't do it because it's not how we view ourselves. That's not how we think. Americans are convinced that we can live on credit and charge whatever we want. There would have to be a major psychological change for us, in order to really scale back.

    And to the rest of you, why do you keep pasting the same tired old garbage on these sites? No one wants to read it, but you just cut and paste it over and over and over. If you don't have something new to say, don't bother wasting your time.

  • Posted By: Tan Boon Tee @ 11/02/2008 1:48:51 AM

    Why talk about the future of affluence when it is non-sustainable and already near death?

    Isn???t extravagant affluence the main culprit of the current economic upheavals?

    There is just not enough energy (or for that matter essential raw materials) in this world if all the 6.5 billion people were to lead an average American???s or European???s life-style. The incessant crave for instant and immediate better standard of living for many throughout the world in the past few decades had sent all kinds of prices spiraling upwards beyond control. Yet the gap between the rich and the poor keeps widening to an unbelievable extent.

    The world (especially the West) must learn to live simply and lead a thrifty and humble life. Believe it or not, there just aren???t any other alternatives. Unless some one would want to see the planet deteriorates into chaos and anarchy.
    (Tan Boon Tee, btt1943@yahoo.com)

  • Posted By: bfarms @ 11/02/2008 1:04:28 AM

    It is purely Mother Nature at work here. Human population has DOUBLED IN JUST THE PAST 50 YEARS!
    while the animals are down across-the-board over 30 % and nearly 25% of all animals on Earth are on the brink of extinction ---- this is a time of great change in the entire system of LIFE ITSELF ---
    the effects manifest themselves in various ways, such as the financial turmoil .

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 11/02/2008 12:54:34 AM

    The article suggests darker days are ahead, hell the dark days are here right now.
    28% of America is now below the poverty level, a number that has steadily risen for the last eight years.
    159,000 lost jobs just in September alone.
    I have to laugh at the oft asked question "are you better off than you were 4 years ago" the fact is Americans are not better off than they were 40 years ago.
    The Republicans have pushed working folks to ever lower wages a process started by Nixon and advanced by Reagan and Bush.
    Those who heeded Nixon???s decree that America is a "service Economy" now find those who might use their services can no longer afford them, and are joining the ranks of poverty level existence themselves.
    As Obama stated the economic pain has just moved up from the bottom, and it continues to rise.
    Clinton gave us a brief respite but the Republicans have had control of the white house thirty out of the last forty years to advance the decline of the middle class in their incessant drive for lower wages.
    Stupidly perhaps, since they seem unable to grasp the fact those people pushed to lower economic existence are the ???missing consumers" they keep looking for.
    As long as people keep voting against their own best interests and those of the rest of America, we will continue on the road to a third world look alike.
    It is possible Obama given time can turn it around, but if McCain is elected the downhill slide will continue just as it would if any Republican is put into office, but for some strange reason people like being treated like they were mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bullsh*t. while having their pockets picked.

  • Posted By: johnvndnbrk @ 11/01/2008 11:47:04 PM

    [sharkman] I cannot disagree much with your post. Loyalty is no longer existent but this is a sword which cuts both ways. I am not sure of the revolution you are talking about, but if there is one it is within the structure of a capitalistic society. I am all for revolutions and hope you are right. It would be revolutionary for companies to offer health-care by way of paying for health club memberships - my Dad actually had this and with 8 of us kids it was great - and we were healthy!

    • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/02/2008 12:14:41 AM

      I disagree. Obama, along with his democratic buddies in Congress, personally and professionally advocated for a residential housing policy favoring forced sub-prime lending, which subsequently resulted in massive defaults and foreclosures, leading to your loss of significant equity value in your home, to the point that it destabilized your banks, which panicked the stock market, which wiped out your savings.

      Look and listen to Obama for yourself. Obama in this video, addressing his community activist work and his work representing ACORN in litigation against the banks and relating to the Community Reinvestment Act, and addressing the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as those actions relate to the destruction of our economy by causing the current real estate and subsequent financial crisis, states that, and I quote:

      "Subprime lending started out as a good idea, helping Americans buy homes who previously could not afford to. Financial institutions created new financial instruments that could securitize these loans, slice them into finer and finer risk categories, and spread them out among investors and around the country, as well as around the world. In theory, this should have allowed mortgage lending to be less risky, and more diversified."

      Acknowledging the catastrophe, but as apologist for the Democrats, Obama then offers this justification.

      "The original idea was a good one, which was, lets see if we can distribute risk more broadly, and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might not be able to get one."

      Yah, great idea. Economically unsound, but embraced by Obama. Listen for yourself. You cannot dispute the mans on words recorded live:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314&feature=related

      Below is a link to C-SPAN video clips of the Congressional hearings at roughly the time McCains attempt at S.190. to fix Fannie and Freddie. See for yourself who said what.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

  • Posted By: pugs @ 11/01/2008 11:45:10 PM

    Hey check out this cool story from Kansas City Newspaper:
    http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2613

  • Posted By: johnvndnbrk @ 11/01/2008 11:35:38 PM

    [nawawimohamad]"The US will grow stronger because the whole financial world depends on the US for growth and survival." Excellent point and one I believe is not mentioned enough. Didn't we see this last month? When our economy began to tank all major economies began to take action and were affected. It sounds like you are saying that we need to maintain a strong dollar, and if so, I would agree with you. A weak dollar doesn't help out anyone either. When you are expected to pay 5x normal to stay at a hotel in Rome, Americans don't or won't travel as much. The unanticipated growth in exports up by 3.3% in September was directly attributed to the weak dollar, i.e. foreign currency bought much more. Not sure what the best exchange rate for our currency would be, but if I had to guess it would probably be 1:1, against the Euro, for example. Interesting stuff though, and great post!

  • Posted By: sharkman @ 11/01/2008 11:22:52 PM

    We are in an economic revolution.These are man made recessions.The rich pukes in this country are scared to compete against the workers whom they have benefited off of.The richest people in this country are the least deserving.We are now in a society where if you work hard you are not gauranteed to get ahead or even get by for that matter.All blue collar workers do not look for another job ask why all the jobs you have already worked in the last 30years did not retire you.I will never work for the big corporates ever again if anything I will work to see them fail.They think they can retire there great grand children off our backs.Like the great band Krokus sang EAT THE RICH EAT THE RICH OUT OF THE PALACE AND INTO THE DITCH.

  • Posted By: johnvndnbrk @ 11/01/2008 11:19:50 PM

    Dear Mr. Samuelson: I know that Newsweek is not doing too well, and perhaps this is a stress on you and your outlook. It is obvious you have talent and this is a very well written article, but there isn't anything new here, and I believe many American's would agree with me. I am looking at other articles from Newsweek and they all have the same theme, "WE ARE SUNK". If Newsweek wants to continue this tone there's not much you can do about that, but IMHO you would do better to look elsewhere and give your talent a chance to shine. It is so dark and gloomy in this corner of virtual space you'd probably get fired for writing something up-beat! Good luck in whatever you do!

    *BTW, for the sake of contrast to your skills take a look at Washington Post. My apologies if you have friends there but that is really junk literature and writing. I am in no way lumping you in with such people, who should do better with a career change...

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 11/01/2008 11:00:43 PM

    The US will grow stronger because the whole financial world depends on the US for growth and survival. The US has long been surviving on deficits and it is not wrong to say that the US has no money in its treasury. Since the US has been able to go from strength to strength without any money it will be able continue to do so with the support of the entire financial world. The only thing that the next US president must do is to continue protecting the dollar.

    The doomsday will happen when the entire world has no more trust in the US dollar which is unlikely to happen if there are no other alternatives. But if every country starts to do trade using their own individual currency then that will be a diifferent scenario.

  • Posted By: johnvndnbrk @ 11/01/2008 10:58:29 PM

    "The bad news is that recovery, though boosting employment, may prove unsatisfying. Our new economic era may lapse into a state of 'affluent deprivation.' That's an unfamiliar term." Yeah, because you just made it up. Socialism isn't a new term, but you would not have the guts, or knowledge, to use it. I am excited about what the future holds in store, for me and my family. Why? Because for one I choose to be, and for another it has become an ingrained habit. My fellow American's ... don't listen/read this stuff. The economy has baffled these doom-n-gloom elite because it is based on capitalism; the freedom we have to choose who/where/what to work for; the belief that private ownership is possible; and the knowledge that regardless of the circumstances we do care for one another as well as those not as fortunate in other nations. Globally speaking, other countries are also optimistic as Socialism has lost its luster and they too have freedoms consistent with democracy and capitalism. We have come a long way since Adam Smith and his ideas captured in the 'Wealth of Nations', but then again not so far after all. Marxism is dead and along with it what would truly be a 'Darker Future' for us, Socialism. As you continue to enjoy the freedoms resulting directly from your choices, remember those who are hurting - and not merely financially. Know go "progress" ... to the four corners of the world and beyond !! God Bless!

  • Posted By: johnvndnbrk @ 11/01/2008 10:57:39 PM

    "The bad news is that recovery, though boosting employment, may prove unsatisfying. Our new economic era may lapse into a state of 'affluent deprivation.' That's an unfamiliar term." Yeah, because you just made it up. Socialism isn't a new term, but you would not have the guts, or knowledge, to use it. I am excited about what the future holds in store, for me and my family. Why? Because for one I choose to be, and for another it has become an ingrained habit. My fellow American's ... don't listen/read this stuff. The economy has baffled these doom-n-gloom elite because it is based on capitalism; the freedom we have to choose who/where/what to work for; the belief that private ownership is possible; and the knowledge that regardless of the circumstances we do care for one another as well as those not as fortunate in other nations. Globally speaking, other countries are also optimistic as Socialism has lost its luster and they too have freedoms consistent with democracy and capitalism. We have come a long way since Adam Smith and his ideas captured in the 'Wealth of Nations', but then again not so far after all. Marxism is dead and along with it what would truly be a 'Darker Future' for us, Socialism. As you continue to enjoy the freedoms resulting directly from your choices, remember those who are hurting - and not merely financially. Know go "progress" ... to the four corners of the world and beyond !! God Bless!

  • Posted By: Nowforsomemoretruth @ 11/01/2008 10:33:44 PM

    The problem with Obama is a simple one. One association does not a radical make. But in Obama's case, the list of left-wing radical mentors and associates is seemingly endless, (Davis, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi , etc., etc.) with a new revelation practically every day. With that, a picture begins to emerge, and that picture is that Obama is as steeped, not in just left-wing political thought, but in radical left-wing and race ideology, to the same extent that Pat Robertson was steeped in the ideology of the radical Religious Right. I would not have voted for Pat Robertson for dog catcher, and for similar reasons, I will not vote for Obama.

  • Posted By: wendydk @ 11/01/2008 9:33:17 PM

    ABC Reports that in a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said her First Amendment rights are threatened by reporters suggesting she is engaging in a negative campaigning against Barack Obama.

    Palin told WMAL-AM that for reporters or columnists to suggest that she is going negative constitutes an attack on her free speech rights under the Constitution, saying -If the media convince enough voters that this is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.-


    If I hadnt heard her butcher the Constitution numerous times already, I might not have believed it!

    • Posted By: C. MacLean @ 11/01/2008 10:14:44 PM

      The Constitutional protection of free speech is about protection under the law - a person can not be arrested because of the content of their speech.

      Ridicule by the press, or anyone else, however, is entirely fair game.

      Really, Sarah - playing the victim is all well and good, but try reading the Constitution - and better yet, understanding it - before you try to hide behind it.

      This woman is really too, too sad.

  • Posted By: wendydk @ 11/01/2008 9:33:28 PM

    DICK CHENEY ENDORSES MCCAIN/PALIN

    Thanks Goodness! He waited so long I was beginning to worry that he would be one of the many high-profile Republicans endorsing Obama!

    www.RepublicansForObama.com

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse