Personally, I am relieved to see the leftists take over El Salvador. I'm sure this will trigger a mass return of Salvadorian illegals now living in the U.S. Just look how the Venezuelans are clawing to get back to their left-dominated country. We could learn valuable lessons from El Salvador's former CNN reporter.
One of the President Bushes raised taxes and the other increased spending on healthcare and education. That is the definition of neoconservatism. They are moderates or slightly left of center domestically, and hawkish.
Actually, I don't think there are many old style guys out there anymore. On nationalization, it is generally is not related to being pro or anit-market, at least it hasn’t for many years, I would say. Look at the current situation in the US, for example. If the government nationalizes the banks that wouldn’t be a sign that the US has stopped being pro-market. It would only be an indication that the government believed that this was the best solution to a specific problem. The US may also nationalize a significant chunk of the US health care system when you switch to your new universal healthcare system. Again, this wouldn’t mean that your government has become anti-market. Essentially every democratic country, and even non-democratic countries like China, now understand that some things are better managed by the private sector and others are better managed by the government. Switching from one to the other in certain areas doesn’t mean that government is either pro or anti market. In fact, often nationalization occurs when market conditions aren’t working. If a large corporation has a monopoly or an effective monopoly then clearly that isn’t a healthy market condition, and, depending on the business, the government may decide to break up the monopoly or nationalize the company. So nationalization is often a response to a breakdown in healthy market conditions, not a rejection of a market economy.
I agree with you. All I'm saying is now the Salvadorians can happily head home. The change in government will lure them home, right? Come to think of it, we should do the same thing. First, we need to provide free health care to every citizen of the U.S., regardless of age. Second, we should double Social Security payment to every retiree. Third, we should go to a flat tax where a) everyone making $40,000 or less should not be taxed, b) everyone making over $40,000 to $100,000 should be taxed 10%, c) everyone making $100,000 to $1M should be taxed at 15%, and d) everyone making $1M to $5M should pay 45% income tax and e) all income over $5M should be taxed at 100%. That should pay for the deficit. This income tax rate should also apply to non-U.S. citizens who work in the United States as well as those who earn money here but live elsewhere.
If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that from where you stand socialists and neoconservatives are pretty much the same thing? That's very interesting. From where I stand there are many very big differences, but I think we'd have to break down the terms a lot further to do a good comparison. I also don't recall Blair being particularly hawkish other than his strange and much puzzled about decision to get on board with Bush for the Iraq war.
Not the same thing, but similar, and from the same roots. I feel like we've been through this discussion before. Here's my response to someone else who posted it before: From Ottamaton:
One further point: Bush took his ideology from and modeled his Presidency after Truman, not Reagan or Nixon or Eisenhower. He might have personally been more conservative than Clinton is, but he ended up governing to the left of Clinton.
Of course not. It redistributes wealth. Now that I have sold my business and retired, I now see how this is equitable. I don't know of anyone that needs more than $5M a year to live, including actors, musicians, athletes, etc. etc. Also, corporate profits should be limited to 10% net and credit card interest rates should be limited to no more than the mortgage prime rate. The whole economy needs regulation. Elected government officials and workers should be limited to their government salaries -- any other income is 100% taxable.
So if you hit 5M, what is the incentive to keep working hard? Actually, you take away a lot of incentive for businesses to become really successful.
If you have made $5M for the year, why do you WANT to keep working so hard? Well, that means a lot of other businesses (and people) will come in to fill the vacuum so even more wealth is created. There is no reason to swim upstream -- it's time for the government to take care of our needs.
Not lazy -- emancipated! I never said we shouldn't work, just work toward a goal. Once you've achieved enough money to be comfortable, let someone else have a chance. I worked my 40+ years, and I certainly wasn't lazy. However, I see the Congressional cartel feathering their nests, so the American electorate should have the same level of feathered nest.
I have read a bit about this before and I think there’s some truth to it, and I think it’s very interesting to follow the path these movements have taken. I do think the progressive movement came to a fork in the road, but I would say that the two paths led to very different places. They may have started in the same place, but I think there is now a large distance between them. I think there were at least a couple of forks on that road, in fact, one leading to neo-conservatism and anther to racial left wing activism, which I would call just another form of conservatism. (Habermas said this first, btw, but I don’t have the exact quote handy). Both of these branches I think represent a falling away and a retreat to a position of self-interest rather than one that considers the greater good of a whole community. And almost in Biblical fashion I think both of these branches have now essentially failed, or at least are well down that path, while progressivism is once again on the rise.
I don't know how to do multiple quotes.=( The lies that were told by ARENA during the campaign were quite comical. My two favourite ones were... Obama will deport the relatives of those who vote for FMLN, and the FMLN is arming ms-13 gangs. If Republicans had won the elections in the U.S, it would have been tough for the FMLN to achieve victory. Grizzled, I can't think of a specific gift. A homemade cheesecake would do it for me. =) F.D Khan, You always mention economic growth. What good is it, if only the elite can benefit from it? You're asking the average salvadoran that makes less than $6,000 a year to pay american gas prices and food prices. Obama has made it clear that he will work with Funes, only now, China can also tour el salvador. Best of both worlds. I just don't understand Catholics who are against the FMLN like refman. I've been close with my catholic communities in houston, san antonio, and Boston. They all know the message of Oscar Romero and his influence to catholicism. He's going to become a saint soon, even if members of opus dei are against serving the poor. Romero would be proud of this day. I took this picture on my last trip to el salvador with Catholic relief services. It's for them that the fall of ARENA had to happen. <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hoy_en_la_revolucion/3041883545/" title="Disneylandia- disneyland (little comrade in san salvador) by El Crimen del violinista Vladi*, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/3041883545_3c40b5934f.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Disneylandia- disneyland (little comrade in san salvador)" /></a>
Having dollars in your economy doesn't make things more expensive, it simply stabilizes your currency. If a Coke is .60 in the US, that doesn't mean its .60 in El Salvador. Other countries are more willing to invest $$ in a country that creates jobs and opportunities if there is less currency risk. I do agree that the elite in latin america created this problem of socialism in latin america by leveraging government to enrich themselves at the expense of higher prices for everything for all people. The GDP per capita is one of the higher ones in latin america. GDP per capita is a measure of 'lifestyle'.
