HOORAY FOR OBAMA!

[Alondro]

I see only one good thing about this.

They have the House.
They have the Senate.
They have the Presidency.
They'll have the Supreme Court soon.

And in four years, they'll have no more excuses.

Of course, we'll have the Fairness Doctrine, the cap and trade, and card check law, and numerous other things which will leave us a socialist mess.  But as long as they can't touch the Constitution, it can still be fixed.

But that's just me, one of those, as Obama said, one of those "bitter people clinging to guns and religion."

That was the REAL Obama.

[Tapewolf]

Of course, we'll have the Fairness Doctrine, the cap and trade, and card check law, and numerous other things which will leave us a socialist mess.

In any other country, he'd be called a right-wing candidate, not a socialist.

[Noone]

crazy McCain supporters[/url] and just plain crazy people.  McCain, to his credit, has tried to stop the crazies.

yeah, this is plentiful

Just to add, I don't think Fox news is helping at all. They're quite active in stoking the fires of hatred, especially with comments like this. 

I see only one good thing about this.

They have the House.
They have the Senate.
They have the Presidency.
They'll have the Supreme Court soon.

And in four years, they'll have no more excuses.

Right, because it's the democrats who have been responsible for the entire economic and social downtrend that has been going on for the past 4 years  . If anything, I think people are going to blame Bush even if after the next for years things have not improved. His administration left the economy in such shambles that I don't think there is a good solution anymore. I don't even think the economy will be fixed in the next eight years, but I can sure hope that the eight years after that have a better start than now. But really, continued deregulation of the market led to this, and a further continuation would not help anything. Still, casting blame is pointless, and I doubt that McCain would do any better in this situation. All I can hope is that the more moderates that the republicans drove out when they started declining towards their dismal roots (with the unfortunate death of William Buckley) have some say in matters to keep the Democrats from becoming as radical.

Of course, we'll have the Fairness Doctrine, the cap and trade, and card check law, and numerous other things which will leave us a socialist mess.

I love it when Socialism is bashed without any real support for it. Of course, I guess that can, in part, be blamed by all the smearing of it's name that the right wing has given it. It's often associated with communism, and the government taking control over people's lives. Suffice to say, that very little of this is true. It advocates for a market economy with the worst aspects softened by the government. It, of course, is not without it's flaws, and I can think of several pieces of regulation in France that came from Socialism taken too far, but then again, any system has it's flaws, and I'm sure that a pure market economy is a good deal worse. I sure wouldn't like to go back to a system like the one the US had in the industrial era, and considering how the past 8 years have been, it looks like that is what the radicals on the right wing want to head to.
 

But as long as they can't touch the Constitution, it can still be fixed.

Actually, the Bush administration has already made a fine mess of this too, Patriot act ring a bell? Here is a short compilation of controversies that his foreign policy has sparked: (Quoted from wikipedia).

Policies of the Bush administration have been criticized for allegedly subverting elements of the Constitution, violating treaty obligations, and obstructing justice. The suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens was reversed by the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Domestic spying has included undercover infiltration of political organizations with no suspected terrorist affiliations, telephone surveillance without a warrant, and the Carnivore program for internet surveillance. The policy of holding enemy combatants in a legal status outside of either due process of criminal prosecution nor the Geneva conventions for prisoners of war created a legal limbo without a process for adjudication or appeal. The extraordinary rendition of an innocent citizen of Canada, to Syria, caused an international incident involving kidnapping, wrongful imprisonment and torture.[26] The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, stated in a white paper that "President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."[27]

Violating treaties, torture, extraordinary rendition, and nulling such basic rights as a fair trial. It sure smacks of the constitution itself being mocked and abused in a most horrendous manner.

But that's just me, one of those, as Obama said, one of those "bitter people clinging to guns and religion."

And he has also been called a terrorist, unpatriotic, and other plenty less flattering things. Is that any better? Of course not. Judging a person bad based on one slip of the tongue is quite unfair. I'm sure I have said plenty of dumb things in my life, that doesn't make me any less intelligent than I am now.

[superluser]

All right.  I think I've got enough clarity to explain.  First a trip down memory lane:

This election result is bad.

It could have been worse--Republicans could have won.  Values voters are now seeing that Republicans don't share their values, don't vote for their values, and can't stay in office.

Values voters aren't going to get out of politics.  They're just going to change parties.  The Constitutional party already exists, so they might go to that one, or they might form a new American Party.  Either way, it probably won't happen by `08.  You might see a Buchanan-like candidate run in `08 to try to force the debate to the right.  Both the Republicans and Democrats are going to try to kill the internet that year, but that's another story.

By 2010, there will be a real third party running on an arch-religious platform.  There are enough votes out there that we'll probably see some people elected to Congress, like the Progressives in 1912.  We will have a third party candidate from this party running in 2012.

We'll see this party rise in power and popularity for a decade or two, after which they will drop off the radar, like the American Party in 1968-76 or the American Party in 1845-60.

These will be dark times for the nation.  But on the positive side, with this party to act as a honeypot for the real crazies, the more normal religious candidates will be more evenly distributed between the Republican and Democratic parties.

Here's the thing.  The religious community in the US isn't an exclusively conservative movement.  I think you'd have quite a few people who would support Christian Socialism rather than Christian conservatism.  The Republican Party, due largely to the issue of abortion, has hijacked the religious voters in this country.  The only problem is that the Republicans know that they have the religious conservatives in their pocket, and don't actually need to listen to what they want.  They can spin their wheels and make no progress on religious issues so long as the other party doesn't make any appeals to the religious voters.  I mean, no religious issues have been addressed, and they had the House, Senate and President for 6 years.

It looks like the religious conservatives started really waking up to this in October 2006.  That's when I started reading quite a few columns by religious conservatives about how they were fed up with the Republicans.  Further, it was pretty clear that after the Terri Schiavo affair, no one was going to trust the Religious Right to be in office, so they'd have to select a Goldwater type or an economic conservative.  This would alienate the religious base that they had activated for George Bush Jr., and make it impossible for them to win.  McCain wasn't even being seriously considered at that point.

Sadly for the Right, running a moral conservative would have done the same thing: lost.

But the religious voters have tasted power and they're not going to give it up.  They've got their leader: Sarah Palin.  She's incredibly popular with the religious people, and even if they don't nominate her, they'll be sure to get someone in her mold.  The candidacies of Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan come to mind.  When it becomes clear that a large part of the party does not want to run a socially conservative candidate, they'll spin off into a new third party.  This party will probably attract a few of the PUMAs, as well.

Here's one thing that is true, even if the above does not come to pass.  Like the UK Conservatives after the defeat by Labour, this defeat is probably going to splinter the party, and they are not going to get anyone elected President until 2020.

Nearly two dozen prominent conservatives planned to meet in Virginia on Thursday to try to chart a path going forward.  Unfortunately, they don't have any leaders left.  The former leaders have all been kicked out over scandals (Tom Delay) or disastrous policies (Bill Frist and the Schiavo affair).

Looking at the future, it's not OK if you're a Republican.

Also, I was clearly wrong about trying to kill the internet.  I didn't anticipate that one candidate would be so much better than the other at internet organizing.  Perhaps this is a testament to how little the McCain demographic and the blogger demographic share.  Of course, if anyone suggested regulating campaigning on the internet, it would be seen as a partisan idea since Obama was so much more effective at it.

In any other country, he'd be called a right-wing candidate, not a socialist.

Yup.  I'd really like to see The Daily Show interview a socialist candidate from, say the Netherlands and compare the two platforms.

[Brunhidden]

Looking at the future, it's not OK if you're a Republican.

america has had many political parties, many of them died, perhaps its time for the republican party to ease into the past- the youth and lower income people of america will probably never trust republicans again, thus only the rich elite and uber-conservatives that would vote republican if the republican candidate happened to be dead will be the only ones to rely on

seriously, i loathe people who say 'i always vote republican' and make a mockery of the system by having a predetermined side instead of actually listening to the issues and what each candidate has to say

[Sunblink]

The1Kobra, I heart you for saying everything that my mind wanted to say but in a far more intelligent and a far more amazing way.

Right now I'm a little pissy so anything I say in defense of Obama will come off as a really bad flame.

[superluser]

seriously, i loathe people who say 'i always vote republican' and make a mockery of the system by having a predetermined side instead of actually listening to the issues and what each candidate has to say

Someone will say that it's just as bad when someone votes straight Democratic (or any other straight ticket).  Might as well be me.  The little letter after the candidate's name isn't what matters.

america has had many political parties, many of them died, perhaps its time for the republican party to ease into the past- the youth and lower income people of america will probably never trust republicans again, thus only the rich elite and uber-conservatives that would vote republican if the republican candidate happened to be dead will be the only ones to rely on

I mentioned above the Progressive Party and two American Parties (one of which was the Know Nothing Party).  But we also had the Whigs and the National Republican Party.  Yeah, the Republicans in their current form may be disappearing.

[Cvstos]

The1Kobra:

Much props for not only beating me to the punch but doing at least as good a job as I would have. Kudos.

[Valynth]

A socialised market is like a communist market, but the socialist government has the markets/coporations as a scape goat when the shit hits the fan (pretty much most of Socialist Europe has done this at one point or another) and the Communist market only has the government or a racial group to scape goat.  Usually in a communist market if they lack a racial group, they just block out any complaints as best they can.

In my opinion the government should only intervene in the market when:

1.  A lack of competition develops in markets that are adversely affected by monopolies, mostly these are item/service markets.  The markets that are most feasible as monopolies need to be carefully watched by the government, but only tampered with in cases of price gouging or manipulation.
2.  The health and safety of Americans is in danger from the working conditions/practices.
3.  The U.S. is in a war and it stands a militaristic chance of losing (We've lost wars before.  Just not by military might.)

Note:  I AM for many things that INDIRECTLY affect the market like welfare, unemployment, and social security.  Though social security needs the minimum age to be upped since it only runs at a positive when it's several years over the average age (as it was until relatively recently).  Either that or just accept that it's going to constantly run red and add that to the debt.

Oh, and taxing isn't to "spread the wealth."  It's to control the inflation created by the government creating more money to pay workers/debt.  Technically, the government could still spend without gathering taxes AT ALL, but the trade off is inflation that makes the Zimbabwe dollar look valuable, inactive government/anarchy, or massive debt that makes Bush's spree look like pocket change.

[superluser]

Oh, and taxing isn't to "spread the wealth."  It's to control the inflation created by the government creating more money to pay workers/debt.  Technically, the government could still spend without gathering taxes AT ALL, but the trade off is inflation that makes the Zimbabwe dollar look valuable, inactive government/anarchy, or massive debt that makes Bush's spree look like pocket change.

That's a new one on me.

You might have a point if the government collected taxes and stuffed them all in a giant mattress, but since the government spends that money, the money supply is unchanged.

[Valynth]

Oh, and taxing isn't to "spread the wealth."  It's to control the inflation created by the government creating more money to pay workers/debt.  Technically, the government could still spend without gathering taxes AT ALL, but the trade off is inflation that makes the Zimbabwe dollar look valuable, inactive government/anarchy, or massive debt that makes Bush's spree look like pocket change.

That's a new one on me.

You might have a point if the government collected taxes and stuffed them all in a giant mattress, but since the government spends that money, the money supply is unchanged.

That's because payments=taxes collected(taxes=money removed from system, Gov. payments=money introduced to system).  The fact is, the government can only pay out what it gets in tax collections for every unit of time addressed by the particular tax.  That's how inflation is prevented and why the U.S. can't just print out the 12 trill needed to clear the debt.

For example:

When taxes collected > Gov. payments, you typically get deflation, but at the same time, fewer jobs due to a lack of money to create those jobs.

When taxes collected < Gov. payments, you have lots of money for jobs, but also have inflation.

Note:  This is PAYMENTS, not debt spending.

This is on the assumption that other factors in the economy remain the same.  Most of the time, however, economics of the day necessitate the implementation of the unbalanced views to counterbalance something else.

[superluser]

That's because payments=taxes collected(taxes=money removed from system, Gov. payments=money introduced to system).  The fact is, the government can only pay out what it gets in tax collections for every unit of time addressed by the particular tax.  That's how inflation is prevented and why the U.S. can't just print out the 12 trill needed to clear the debt.

Umm...

What?

What you said isn't right.  In fact, it's not even wrong.  For it to be wrong, it would have to make a lot more sense than what you're saying.

First, the government is not limited in what it can pay out in any real sense.  If it wants to spend more than it takes in, it floats bonds.  These bonds do not increase the money supply because the interest is not released into general circulation until maturation (usually 30 years), and in any case, the interest can be converted into another bond.

I would have to look into it, but I believe the total federal income tax invested in bonds is $0.  You can talk about intra-governmental holdings, but those are not paid by taxes, or even paid at all.

None of this money is removed from circulation.

I should point out that if we were running surpluses, you might be right.  If we took in more money than we paid out, the extra money would be effectively removed from circulation, but since we're running a deficit, we are not creating more money.  We are creating more debt, which, as I said, has no impact on the money supply.

Somebody back me up on this.  Val can be difficult to reach sometimes.

[Noone]

Somebody back me up on this.  Val can be difficult to reach sometimes.

Sure thing, oh, and thanks for the support Keaton and Cvstos. . Now I need to pull out my sources, numbers, broken facts picture (I haven't finished that , ), and steak tenderizer...

A socialised market is like a communist market, but the socialist government has the markets/coporations as a scape goat when the <CENSORED> hits the fan (pretty much most of Socialist Europe has done this at one point or another) and the Communist market only has the government or a racial group to scape goat.  Usually in a communist market if they lack a racial group, they just block out any complaints as best they can.

Actually, this characterization is COMPLETELY incorrect. In fact, a socialist market has more in common with a market economy than with a command economy. To say that socialism is only communism with extra ways of casting blame is so horribly false it hurts.
Socialism, in a nutshell, realizes that a pure market economy is a complete mess, and tries to stem away it's worst aspects through regulation. And yes, pure market economies are a terrible mess, just look at the US industrial era for that one, and see what happens when the wealthy control the country. I would recommend reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, the content is truly gut-wrenching. Socialism attempts to stop things exactly like what the meatpacking industry was getting away with, bottom of the barrel wages, exploitation, and through control of externalities and market power.
In fact, I think our current system may benefit from some of the byproducts of socialism. Just take a look at the distribution of the GDP over the last few years. I don't think I know anyone who can say this is actually healthy with a straight face. This is the result of continued deregulation of the markets, and it's what the right wing has been supporting all along. I have already stated that Socialism has it's issues, but so does any system.

In my opinion the government should only intervene in the market when:

1.  A lack of competition develops in markets that are adversely affected by monopolies, mostly these are item/service markets.  The markets that are most feasible as monopolies need to be carefully watched by the government, but only tampered with in cases of price gouging or manipulation.
2.  The health and safety of Americans is in danger from the working conditions/practices.
3.  The U.S. is in a war and it stands a militaristic chance of losing (We've lost wars before.  Just not by military might.)

Actually, there are plenty more reasons to regulate the market. A free market is only most efficient when a lot of assumptions are made, when there are no externalities, when there is no market power, when individuals have little control over the supply and demand curves, and when there is perfect information on both sides. Suffice to say, this doesn't always happen, so there is PLENTY more to cover with regulation. How would you think the market would do if companies were allowed to advertise and were allowed to spin the facts of their product however they wanted? How about when the sale, production, or usage of a product leaves a mess somewhere else which neither the buyer or seller cares about but there are others that do? (A good example of that would be factory pollution). Suffice to say, in a stable market, the government has a lot to do, in addition to keeping a firm rule of law. It is in fact, through persistent deregulation of the market that this current mess has been applied, and through banks failing investment 101 and now requiring government aid to prevent the whole economy from going straight down the toilet.

Oh, and taxing isn't to "spread the wealth."  It's to control the inflation created by the government creating more money to pay workers/debt.  Technically, the government could still spend without gathering taxes AT ALL, but the trade off is inflation that makes the Zimbabwe dollar look valuable, inactive government/anarchy, or massive debt that makes Bush's spree look like pocket change.

This is just completely incorrect. For one, every bill that effects the economy redistributes the wealth, that's a simple economic fact. The other point, is that taxation has the important effect of giving the government revenue, which I assume many have glossed over ever since our debt/GDP ratio got into the 75%+ range, and I think it's now currently 80%. Taxes often do have the side effect of affecting Inflation and Unemployment, but that isn't the primary goal. In fact, if you've seen the bell curve of taxation income curve, the motive there is for the government to raise revenue, other factors come in later, most of the time anyways.

[Cogidubnus]

This discussion suffers from two things, I think.

1: Inadequate definition of Socialism. What, exactly, is meant by a socialist economy rather than a free market economy? I have been taught that socialist economies entail government control of the supply of goods and services, but again, this may not be what you mean.

2: Generalizations are bad. "Deregulation of the Market" (capitals intentional) did not cause the economy to get in the straights that it's in. Deregulation of a very specific sector of the economy (in a form), namely that of the financial institutions that deal in mortgage lending, was rather the cause. These so-called subprime mortgages were banks and institutions on a national scale lending money to people who could not afford the things that they were buying. If what I was told is also correct, this began back in the 90's (before Bush's administration, if you'll recall), as a sort of socially progressive program on the part of the government (that is, the financial institutions were encouraged to take these loans by government incentive, and the governmentally regulated entities that rate these loans gave them such a high rating that they were considered "safe bets", which in turn caused institutions which are normally required to be extremely conservative to put their money in these places), with the intent of getting more people to own houses. An admirable goal, certainly, but...
This is what I have been told, in any case, and what I understand to have happened.

As well, this country does not operate on a Free Market system anymore anyway, but I would like to point out that becase in 2008 there was a recession is hardly justification to throw out the entire system and start over with a socialist one, if I'm understanding you correctly.

[Alondro]

Looking at the future, it's not OK if you're a Republican.

america has had many political parties, many of them died, perhaps its time for the republican party to ease into the past- the youth and lower income people of america will probably never trust republicans again, thus only the rich elite and uber-conservatives that would vote republican if the republican candidate happened to be dead will be the only ones to rely on

The Republican Party doesn't need to die.  It needs to start acting like the Republican Party again and not a bunch of spoiled twits who try to act enough like the liberals to appear 'sensitive'.  It needs real conservativism; small government that stays out of people's lives, more ability for the everyday person to get into an office to serve if he/she wishes without having to appease the elite, solidly sticking to the Constitution as an important document which must never be allowed to become a tool for the enactment of radical views (as was allowed with disasterous results in the Prohibition Era).

I would also like to point out to those who believe the rich are all evil Republicans who hoard all the money that Obama received a huge amount of his funding from Wall Street donors, and that New Yorkers and northern New Jersians, who are vastly majority Democrat, are among the highest per capita income earners in the country.  

I would also like to point out that the wealthiest person in the federal government is a Democrat, and wealthy Democrats slightly outnumber wealthy Republicans in government.  Also, the governor of my state is a super-rich Democrat who was CEO of Goldman-Sachs.

We should also note that Hollywood is overwhelmingly Democrat, with all its ultra-rich stars and celebrities.

The rhetoric that Republicans are the party of the rich is utterly false.  Plus, it contrasts with the other stereotype of Republicans, that they are all poor, uneducated whites in the Midwest and South.  So how can we be both super-intelligent masters of wealthy-run conspiracies, and stupid and poor at the same time?

By numbers, the richest people in the country voted for Obama.

Honestly, if it were just Obama and his starry-eyed promises, I wouldn't be worried.  

It's the Pelosi crowd that scares me.  They are unequivocably communist (no illusions of socialism there) and seek to crush anyone who opposes their will.  I don't know what Obama really thinks of the Fairness Doctrine, which is a crushing attack on freedom of the press and an utter violation of First Amendment rights.  I'd feel much better if I could hear him say publically that he thinks it's a violation of the Constitution and he'd veto it without question.  I can only hope he will when it comes up.  

No one seemed to like it when Republicans had complete control, well now the Democrats have complete control.  Do you really think the power-mongers on either side are any different?  There will be no checks and balances left in the system and only the vague hope that enough of those in their party will be worried about their positions with voters to prevent their radical bills from becoming law.

I notice no one has stood up to defend the Fairness Doctrine, cap and trade, the card check bill, and other ultra-liberal bills they're just waiting to reintroduce.  Of the card check bill, the one that will allow unions to legally harrass non-union workers in their homes and drastically undercut the authority of the government to prosecute union bullying tactics, one Democrat even said it was a horrible bill, but he'd vote for it to keep in step with the party.

But I will also say this, Obama was not handed a mandate.  He won by only about 600,000 more votes that Bush won with 4 years ago.  The popular vote was much closer than the electoral college, as it almost always is, and we know how easily such a small lead can swing the other way when people find out you're not giving what you promised.  And that was after the most outrageously expensive campaign in history, one that cost nearly 3/4 billion dollars, bomarding people day and night with 'hope and change' and government handouts for everyone, outspending McCain 5 to 1.  That was after McCain blundered pretty much as much as was possible in every way possible.  That was after all the hype and momentum.  With so narrow a win after so many advantages, he and the Democrats had better be careful what they try to shove through into law.

And Glenn Beck also noted this:

"I give the same warning to the Democrats that I gave to the Republicans after George Bush in 9/11: Be careful how far you push this pendulum up because if you take this pendulum and try to swing it so far up, the pendulum always swings back. And when it does, it goes back as far, if not farther than you just swung it. That's what gave us Barack Obama. What gave us Barack Obama was the pushing of that pendulum so far, the wrapping of America in the flag and everything else and not really standing for anything. As they push this pendulum up, it's going to swing. Mark my words, Democrats, it will swing just as far the other way. And what I said was the danger after September 11th: You interject hunger and fear; that pendulum can stop and it depends on who's in power that grabs that pendulum. So while you may be happy today about Barack Obama, be careful what you do because we don't want an extremist on either end to grab the pendulum. We've got to bring the pendulum and stop it swinging so far and bring it closer to the center. We are not that different. We are not the country of Nancy Pelosi. We are not the country of Jerry Falwell. We're the country of Ronald Reagan. Remember the Ronald Reagan Democrats. That's who we are."


 If things do go into the crapper, it could end up much worse by swinging to the far right.  Imagine the Fairness Doctrine in the hands of an ultra-conservative religous nutcase who ends up making himself virtually a dictator.  Like Iran.  Or in the spirit of punishing the rich, ends up like Venezuela and Bolivia and Zimbabwe.  Yes, they had better think very carefully about what they're doing, because it will come back to bite them in the rear end.

[Tipod]

Rather than debate whether or not Obama's going to make America into a socialist state, I'll just say it's amazing that he managed to survive Richard Wright, Bittergate, and choosing Joe Biden. And not just win, but with like a landslide victory.

[Sunblink]

The Republican Party doesn't need to die.  It needs to start acting like the Republican Party again and not a bunch of spoiled twits who try to act enough like the liberals to appear 'sensitive'.

Your generalizations piss me right the hell off. Have you been reading The1Kobra's post at ALL?

As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans had their chance, they had their opportunity, and then the Bush administration went and fucked it up. Now Bush is one of the most unpopular presidents in history and our country's in a number of horrid situations.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'm gonna have to step in here, and remind people to REMAIN POLITE.

Thank you so very much for making our job easier...

Hint. Hint.

[Valynth]

That's because payments=taxes collected(taxes=money removed from system, Gov. payments=money introduced to system).  The fact is, the government can only pay out what it gets in tax collections for every unit of time addressed by the particular tax.  That's how inflation is prevented and why the U.S. can't just print out the 12 trill needed to clear the debt.

Umm...

What?

What you said isn't right.  In fact, it's not even wrong.  For it to be wrong, it would have to make a lot more sense than what you're saying.

First, the government is not limited in what it can pay out in any real sense.  If it wants to spend more than it takes in, it floats bonds.  These bonds do not increase the money supply because the interest is not released into general circulation until maturation (usually 30 years), and in any case, the interest can be converted into another bond.

I would have to look into it, but I believe the total federal income tax invested in bonds is $0.  You can talk about intra-governmental holdings, but those are not paid by taxes, or even paid at all.

None of this money is removed from circulation.

I should point out that if we were running surpluses, you might be right.  If we took in more money than we paid out, the extra money would be effectively removed from circulation, but since we're running a deficit, we are not creating more money.  We are creating more debt, which, as I said, has no impact on the money supply.

Somebody back me up on this.  Val can be difficult to reach sometimes.

I said payments NOT spending.  Payments is the Government actually paying off those bonds when they reach maturity.  As I said before, the Gov. can deficit spend as much as it damn well wants, but it can't PAY those debts as they come in in most cases.

Somebody back me up on this.  Val can be difficult to reach sometimes.

Sure thing, oh, and thanks for the support Keaton and Cvstos. . Now I need to pull out my sources, numbers, broken facts picture (I haven't finished that , ), and steak tenderizer...

A socialised market is like a communist market, but the socialist government has the markets/coporations as a scape goat when the <CENSORED> hits the fan (pretty much most of Socialist Europe has done this at one point or another) and the Communist market only has the government or a racial group to scape goat.  Usually in a communist market if they lack a racial group, they just block out any complaints as best they can.

Actually, this characterization is COMPLETELY incorrect. In fact, a socialist market has more in common with a market economy than with a command economy. To say that socialism is only communism with extra ways of casting blame is so horribly false it hurts.
Socialism, in a nutshell, realizes that a pure market economy is a complete mess, and tries to stem away it's worst aspects through regulation. And yes, pure market economies are a terrible mess, just look at the US industrial era for that one, and see what happens when the wealthy control the country. I would recommend reading "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, the content is truly gut-wrenching. Socialism attempts to stop things exactly like what the meatpacking industry was getting away with, bottom of the barrel wages, exploitation, and through control of externalities and market power.
In fact, I think our current system may benefit from some of the byproducts of socialism.

The Government still controls everything.  That is a command economy.  The only difference between a socialist economy and a communist economy is that the socialists ascribe it to "regulations"  which is essentially the Government telling corporations what they can/can not do.  How is THAT not Communism with a corporate scape goat?  As for your meat-packing industry, I've already said that one of the few times the government should intervene is when the health and lives of Americans is directly and adversely affected by the practices/environment of the work.

In my opinion the government should only intervene in the market when:

1.  A lack of competition develops in markets that are adversely affected by monopolies, mostly these are item/service markets.  The markets that are most feasible as monopolies need to be carefully watched by the government, but only tampered with in cases of price gouging or manipulation.
2.  The health and safety of Americans is in danger from the working conditions/practices.
3.  The U.S. is in a war and it stands a militaristic chance of losing (We've lost wars before.  Just not by military might.)

Actually, there are plenty more reasons to regulate the market. A free market is only most efficient when a lot of assumptions are made, when there are no externalities, when there is no market power, when individuals have little control over the supply and demand curves, and when there is perfect information on both sides. Suffice to say, this doesn't always happen, so there is PLENTY more to cover with regulation. How would you think the market would do if companies were allowed to advertise and were allowed to spin the facts of their product however they wanted? How about when the sale, production, or usage of a product leaves a mess somewhere else which neither the buyer or seller cares about but there are others that do? (A good example of that would be factory pollution). Suffice to say, in a stable market, the government has a lot to do, in addition to keeping a firm rule of law. It is in fact, through persistent deregulation of the market that this current mess has been applied, and through banks failing investment 101 and now requiring government aid to prevent the whole economy from going straight down the toilet.

And socialism makes the assumption that your government can be trusted.  Which is the biggest mistake?  Hint:  Bush should help you on this.

Secondly, individuals DO have an affect on supply and demand.  It's like a democracy, when enough people start asking for an item, corporations start makng the items and create the supply in order to sell to the demanding public.  If they don't demand it, the corps. don't make it 'cause "why bother?"

Thirdly, this is ONE market that's been adversely affected AND it happened durring to Clinton's regulation practices back in the 90's, we're just NOW feeling it.

Fourthly, You think the government doesn't practice propaganda?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha hooo boy I needed that.

Fifthly,  See my comment on worker/consumer safety for those ads.  Also, fraud is illegal.  Also, the freedom of speech allows them to express opinions such as "Ours is the best!"

[Alondro]

As evidence that socialism in practice will always fail, I suggest that people look at the world today.

Show me one successful socialist government.

[Cvstos]

The Republican Party doesn't need to die.  It needs to start acting like the Republican Party again and not a bunch of spoiled twits who try to act enough like the liberals to appear 'sensitive'.  It needs real conservativism; small government that stays out of people's lives, more ability for the everyday person to get into an office to serve if he/she wishes without having to appease the elite, solidly sticking to the Constitution as an important document which must never be allowed to become a tool for the enactment of radical views (as was allowed with disasterous results in the Prohibition Era).

I don't know what party you've been watching but the GOP hasn't been like that since Nixon, maybe earlier. And without completely clearing out all the leaders that are there right now you're not going to get that. The GOP is now the Party of the Neocons.

I would also like to point out to those who believe the rich are all evil Republicans who hoard all the money that Obama received a huge amount of his funding from Wall Street donors, and that New Yorkers and northern New Jersians, who are vastly majority Democrat, are among the highest per capita income earners in the country. 

I would also like to point out that the wealthiest person in the federal government is a Democrat, and wealthy Democrats slightly outnumber wealthy Republicans in government.  Also, the governor of my state is a super-rich Democrat who was CEO of Goldman-Sachs.

We should also note that Hollywood is overwhelmingly Democrat, with all its ultra-rich stars and celebrities.

The rhetoric that Republicans are the party of the rich is utterly false.  Plus, it contrasts with the other stereotype of Republicans, that they are all poor, uneducated whites in the Midwest and South.  So how can we be both super-intelligent masters of wealthy-run conspiracies, and stupid and poor at the same time?

Obama's donations came largely from small donors. Average donor size has been very small, and people all over the country have been donating in small amount. That's why Obama has been able to break the GOP fundraising edge. MILLIONS of people donated to the Obama campaign; more than any other in history.

The GOP is the party of the rich. They give tax cuts to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. John McCain never even said the words "middle class" in the debates. Not once! (Also, Hollywood ultra-rich? They're peanuts compared to the corporate elite.)

The rich who run the GOP get SOME OF the poor to vote for them by way of wedge issues. Guns, god, and gays. Look out! You'll catch the gay! They're all socialist, communist Marxists that'll take away your guns and make you have sex with men! But the idea that the poor voted for McCain is bullplonkey, which we'll see in a moment.

By numbers, the richest people in the country voted for Obama.

Bullplonkey. Also, bullplonkey to your claim that the poor voted for McCain.

The rich, those making over $200k a year, by and large voted with the country with a 52-46 split in favor of Obama. Again that's the same as the country as a whole. That's not exactly evident of them overwhelmingly supporting Obama. (There's a healthcare link here, actually, but that's another topic.)

As for the poor? Yeah, the statement that the poor voted for McCain is 100% bullplonkey. Let's take a look at the numbers.

Under $15k: 73-25 Obama
$15k-$30k: 60-37 Obama
$30k-$50k: 55-43 Obama (Just a little stronger than the nation as a whole there but that's entering the living wage level, NOT the poor.)

Source: CNN http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

The idea that the poor voted for McCain? Bullplonkey. The poorest segment of the nation voted Obama in with a 73-25 split. If we only counted their votes it would be a landslide that would move a whole mountain range.

Honestly, if it were just Obama and his starry-eyed promises, I wouldn't be worried. 

It's the Pelosi crowd that scares me.  They are unequivocably communist (no illusions of socialism there) and seek to crush anyone who opposes their will.  I don't know what Obama really thinks of the Fairness Doctrine, which is a crushing attack on freedom of the press and an utter violation of First Amendment rights.  I'd feel much better if I could hear him say publically that he thinks it's a violation of the Constitution and he'd veto it without question.  I can only hope he will when it comes up. 

You're serious, aren't you? Oh... well, I'm just going to mostly ignore this then, since if I try to take it seriously your whole argument goes right out the window.  Any real socialist or communist would be offended that you would put them in the same circle as her (she's way to the right of communism and even socialism).  This is hyperbole is the worst and most extreme sense.

No one seemed to like it when Republicans had complete control, well now the Democrats have complete control.  Do you really think the power-mongers on either side are any different?  There will be no checks and balances left in the system and only the vague hope that enough of those in their party will be worried about their positions with voters to prevent their radical bills from becoming law.

I notice no one has stood up to defend the Fairness Doctrine, cap and trade, the card check bill, and other ultra-liberal bills they're just waiting to reintroduce.  Of the card check bill, the one that will allow unions to legally harrass non-union workers in their homes and drastically undercut the authority of the government to prosecute union bullying tactics, one Democrat even said it was a horrible bill, but he'd vote for it to keep in step with the party.

So, let me see if I have this right.

Warrantless wiretapping, selling out our nation treasures and environment to the highest corporate bidders, LYING about WMD to start a war, ignoring the threat from bin Laden, torturing people, keeping them detained while not allowing them the right of habeas corpus, tax cuts for the rich, leaking CIA agents names to the press, celebrating McCain's birthday while New Orleans drowned, all that AND MORE... is perfectly mainstream stuff compared to cap and trade?

(For those who don't know, cap and trade laws would strictly limit CO2 emissions. It would set a maximum CO2 emission limit on businesses for the US. Each business would get a certain amount of credits which allow them to emit CO2, and then force them to sell all of them, and buy any credits they need to operate at their current pollution level. So if they pollute heavily they're going to pay for it by having to buy more credits. And if there's a lot of demand for them from companies that pollute, they'll have to pay more from companies that don't pollute because those companies can then sell them at higher prices.  So it literally rewards low-pollution companies while punishing high-polluting companies, all the while putting a limit on nationwide emissions.  Overall I'd call that a good thing.)

(As for the card check law, Alondro isn't telling the truth about people going to people's homes. I've read that bill. It's S.1041. The card check law says that if 50% of the employees of a company say they want a union, then they get a union. It also ups the punishment for companies that intimidate employees trying to unionize. Right now corporations are getting away with intimidating employees with anti-union tactics left and right. Wal-mart is the biggest example of this.)

But I will also say this, Obama was not handed a mandate.  He won by only about 600,000 more votes that Bush won with 4 years ago.  The popular vote was much closer than the electoral college, as it almost always is, and we know how easily such a small lead can swing the other way when people find out you're not giving what you promised.  And that was after the most outrageously expensive campaign in history, one that cost nearly 3/4 billion dollars, bomarding people day and night with 'hope and change' and government handouts for everyone, outspending McCain 5 to 1.  That was after McCain blundered pretty much as much as was possible in every way possible.  That was after all the hype and momentum.  With so narrow a win after so many advantages, he and the Democrats had better be careful what they try to shove through into law.

Bush won in 2004 with a 2.5% spread and 286-251 in the EV, and gained a few seats in the House and Senate. The right wing was SCREAMING about the "Mandate" Bush won. "Bush has a mandate!" was the talking point of the day.  The right wing and the GOP vastly outspent the left and the Democrats. Bush talked about having earned political capital and wanting to spend that.

In 2008...

Did Obama win with over 50% of the vote? YES!
With more than a 2.5% spread? YES! It was a 6% spread.
Did Obama win more than 286 EVs? YES!
Over 300? YES! He got AT LEAST 349, more if NC goes his way.
Did he significantly increase the Dem margin in the House? YES!
And the Senate? YES! At least 57 with a few more seats yet to be called!

So, naturally the thing to take away from this is that Obama has no mandate to govern whatsoever and he should act just like the political party that he just defeated at every level because they were the real winners.

Well, at least according to right-wing pundits. For those of us watching the 2008 US elections, it's pretty easy to see that if Bush had a mandate to govern, Obama has to have one in an even bigger way.

And Glenn Beck also noted this:

"I give the same warning to the Democrats that I gave to the Republicans after George Bush in 9/11: Be careful how far you push this pendulum up because if you take this pendulum and try to swing it so far up, the pendulum always swings back. And when it does, it goes back as far, if not farther than you just swung it. That's what gave us Barack Obama. What gave us Barack Obama was the pushing of that pendulum so far, the wrapping of America in the flag and everything else and not really standing for anything. As they push this pendulum up, it's going to swing. Mark my words, Democrats, it will swing just as far the other way. And what I said was the danger after September 11th: You interject hunger and fear; that pendulum can stop and it depends on who's in power that grabs that pendulum. So while you may be happy today about Barack Obama, be careful what you do because we don't want an extremist on either end to grab the pendulum. We've got to bring the pendulum and stop it swinging so far and bring it closer to the center. We are not that different. We are not the country of Nancy Pelosi. We are not the country of Jerry Falwell. We're the country of Ronald Reagan. Remember the Ronald Reagan Democrats. That's who we are."

Well, my response to that is first of all... wait a minute... You're quoting Glenn Beck?

The man who said of the recent So Cal forest fires:

I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.

Here are some other quotes from the Limbaugh knock-off that is Glen Beck:

The anti-gay slur "(I am not smart enough to use polite words)" is nothing more than "a naughty name." [1/23/07]

"What happened to the Duke lacrosse team was practically a lynching without the rope. And for the first time in my life, Mr. Oreo Cookie without the chocolate on the outside can understand why people celebrated when O.J. Simpson was acquitted." [1/15/07, using a racial slur for African-Americans that refers to "being black on the outside and white on the inside"]

"[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'" [11/14/06, on what he would like to say to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first elected Muslim member of Congress]

"I wonder if I'm alone in this — you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year." [9/9/05]

"And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we're seeing on television are the scumbags." [9/9/05]

Beck concluded an interview with Hagee by saying: "There are people -- and they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the Antichrist. Odds that Barack Obama is the Antichrist?" 03/05/08

"f you're a guy, you can get past it. I don't think you can as an ugly woman." Beck, who also hosts his own show on CNN Headline News, continued: "[Y]ou've got a double cross, because if you're an ugly woman, you're probably a progressive as well." 02/14/2008

That's the man you're quoting, Alondro! He said all those things! Are you sure you really want to quote that man in support of your arguments?

Also, I really hope that conservatives go with the right-wing pundits advice and run to the right and start embracing it. They're already saying they weren't vicious enough and went too far to the center to "appease" liberals and, as Alondro put it, "appear sensitive". To them I say: GO FOR IT. Run as far to the right as you want and be as nasty as you want. We now not only have the ability to counter it, but the American people are sick of it. You can be Sideshow Bob and step on that metaphorical rake all you want, and I don't think I'll ever stop laughing.

I'm going to say this to all would-be democratic political candidates out there: Do not listen to right wing pundits. They are either stupid, working without your best interests in mind (hint: they want you to lose), or both. To borrow a Producers joke, there are two major rules to know about running as a Democrat. One, "Never take advice from right-wing pundits." What's the second one? "NEVER TAKE ADVICE FROM RIGHT-WING PUNDITS!"

If things do go into the crapper, it could end up much worse by swinging to the far right.  Imagine the Fairness Doctrine in the hands of an ultra-conservative religous nutcase who ends up making himself virtually a dictator.  Like Iran.  Or in the spirit of punishing the rich, ends up like Venezuela and Bolivia and Zimbabwe.  Yes, they had better think very carefully about what they're doing, because it will come back to bite them in the rear end.

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." –Wikipedia.

The idea behind the Fairness Doctrine is that the issues would get debated and presented fairly with all major sides of the debate given time to voice their opinion. It is not to, as you imply, give just one side all the airtime and turn the media into a wing of Pravda, although Fox News is certainly functioning as a GOP-equivalent. In fact the Fairness Doctrine is one of the best weapons AGAINST what you claim to be so worried about.

And as for the Democrats going hard-left to socialism or communism, I can only say this: don't worry about it. That claim in and of itself is ludicrous and is a complete fabrication of the right wing to try and scare people.

Show me one successful socialist government.

From your definitions of "socialist" (from you saying that Pelosi and the like are socialist when they are to the right of the left in most other countries), I'd have to say the rest of the industrialized world.

Now, you show me a single country that:
Has no social safety net.
Has no social security.
Has a truly free market with no government interference or regulation.
Has no government health care system of any kind.
Has no labor laws.
Is a first-world nation.
Is in, say, the top 50 countries in GDP per capita.

[Eibborn]

...Yay Obama!

I don't even know what his foreign policy is like, beyond his opinion on Iraq. I mostly paid attention to the much more interesting Ms. Palin.

[Brunhidden]

As evidence that socialism in practice will always fail, I suggest that people look at the world today.

Show me one successful socialist government.

people all too often confuse socialism with communism, communism with Marxism, and Marxism with dictatorship


lets define

socialism- simply put any policies that are for the selfless act of protecting the general public, free of charge. examples include unemployment benefits, public health care, food stamps, energy assistance, social security, and education grants

communism- the concept of equality which typically takes the form of common ownership of means of production, primarily by having most industry run by the state. examples include the early USSR, the quota system it imposed on its factories, and the absolute failure known as communal farms. hippie communes also count as a form of communism, with the benefit of having no government to seize control of assets

Marxism- one step beyond communism, goes so far as to believe not only are all men created equal, but they all have equal skills, and the average worker should be ruling the country. examples of this are a janitor and a psychiatrist being paid the same wage, which lead to a great number of brilliant men with little to do but dick about with pure research.

Dictatorship- both communism and Marxism set themselves up wonderfully to evolve into dictatorships in rapid speed, with all of the power centralized to the government its easy for one of the major politicians to gain control of pretty much everything while still claiming everyone is equal. examples include cuba, the USSR as run by Stalin, and the early peoples republic of china before it became a state run capitalist corporation

[Darkmoon]

Okay, this thread has gotten heated, from both sides, even after an admin came in and hinted that you guys needed to calm down.

I'm warning everyone to cool it off. Additionally, I'm banning Alondro for a day. You've been warned about instigating political fights. Maybe this time you'll listen. It's one thing to calmly debate topics, but the minute you came in, you went on the attack, and the whole mood of this thread changed.

[superluser]

OK.  Let me try to calm things down with something I think we can all agree on.

This is cute:

[Reese Tora]

No one seemed to like it when Republicans had complete control, well now the Democrats have complete control.  Do you really think the power-mongers on either side are any different?  There will be no checks and balances left in the system and only the vague hope that enough of those in their party will be worried about their positions with voters to prevent their radical bills from becoming law.

I notice no one has stood up to defend the Fairness Doctrine, cap and trade, the card check bill, and other ultra-liberal bills they're just waiting to reintroduce.  Of the card check bill, the one that will allow unions to legally harrass non-union workers in their homes and drastically undercut the authority of the government to prosecute union bullying tactics, one Democrat even said it was a horrible bill, but he'd vote for it to keep in step with the party.

(For those who don't know, cap and trade laws would strictly limit CO2 emissions. It would set a maximum CO2 emission limit on businesses for the US. Each business would get a certain amount of credits which allow them to emit CO2, and then force them to sell all of them, and buy any credits they need to operate at their current pollution level. So if they pollute heavily they're going to pay for it by having to buy more credits. And if there's a lot of demand for them from companies that pollute, they'll have to pay more from companies that don't pollute because those companies can then sell them at higher prices.  So it literally rewards low-pollution companies while punishing high-polluting companies, all the while putting a limit on nationwide emissions.  Overall I'd call that a good thing.)

Ok, what? I don't want to get into the whole discussion on anthropogenic global warming, but seriously, I think that that's a horrible idea.

Also, the fairness doctrin means that a show is required -REQUIRED- to bring in an opposing viewpoint.  While it's a nice thing for some topics, it's stupid and wrongheaded for others.  Even if the requirement was a good idea for all topics, the requirement would bog down radio shows and most likely kill talk radio.  Next time your'e listening to the radio, think about what opposing viewpoint there might be to any given topic, and now consider that each show will be required to find someone espousing that viewpoint to defend it.  Even if the shows can pull off that feat, what makes you think most of the listeners to radio shows are going to continue to listen when the viewopint they are listening to ehar is being diluted by what they consider to be garbage? Evangelical shows required to bring on atheists? science shows bringing on UFO 'experts' and so called psychics, history shows showcasing holocaust deniers.

Now, maybe there will be a lot of judges that will decide in favor of the broadcaster on these things, but by that point the dmage will have been done.  Maybe a lot of broadcasters will even capitulate without too much of a strugle.

[superluser]

As I said before, the Gov. can deficit spend as much as it damn well wants, but it can't PAY those debts as they come in in most cases.

Well, it's a good thing we're not paying off the debt, then.

[Valynth]

As I said before, the Gov. can deficit spend as much as it damn well wants, but it can't PAY those debts as they come in in most cases.

Well, it's a good thing we're not paying off the debt, then.

It will get paid.  It will just take a long time to pay without introducing a large amount of new currency into the system causing inflation and thereby cheating our debt holders out of the "true value" due to the decreased value of the amount they were to be paid and thus ruining our credit as a nation.

[superluser]

It will get paid.  It will just take a long time to pay without introducing a large amount of new currency into the system causing inflation and thereby cheating our debt holders out of the "true value" due to the decreased value of the amount they were to be paid and thus ruining our credit as a nation.

Quick question.

If we increase the money supply, will that increase inflation?

[Cvstos]

-snip for bevity-

Ok, what? I don't want to get into the whole discussion on anthropogenic global warming, but seriously, I think that that's a horrible idea.

Also, the fairness doctrin means that a show is required -REQUIRED- to bring in an opposing viewpoint.  While it's a nice thing for some topics, it's stupid and wrongheaded for others.  Even if the requirement was a good idea for all topics, the requirement would bog down radio shows and most likely kill talk radio.  Next time your'e listening to the radio, think about what opposing viewpoint there might be to any given topic, and now consider that each show will be required to find someone espousing that viewpoint to defend it.  Even if the shows can pull off that feat, what makes you think most of the listeners to radio shows are going to continue to listen when the viewopint they are listening to ehar is being diluted by what they consider to be garbage? Evangelical shows required to bring on atheists? science shows bringing on UFO 'experts' and so called psychics, history shows showcasing holocaust deniers.

Now, maybe there will be a lot of judges that will decide in favor of the broadcaster on these things, but by that point the dmage will have been done.  Maybe a lot of broadcasters will even capitulate without too much of a strugle.

You're missing a few VERY IMPORTANT things. It is very important to FULLY read the statement I quoted from wiki.

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. "

The important bit to take away from that is "controversial issues of public importance". So the Fairness Doctrine is NOT applied to all topics. I doubt UFOs will be considered "controversial issues of public importance". Well, by the government anyway. There's a few people...

In addition, it was never codified into law, yet has existed in the past. This isn't a new concept. It was in active use until the Reagan era (around 1985). However, it has been upheld by the courts "where channels are limited". In other words this would apply to network TV channels but cable and satellite channels would be exempt.

If we go back to the way it was before the FCC would be able to judge which formats and issues this needs to apply to in order to protect the public debate. That would be the ideal scenario since it could be ignored in many cases and then enforced when something truly important comes around.

Second, in regards to the cap and trade system, I disagree. I think it's a great idea. We really need to take a harder approach to dropping our CO2 emission levels and this is a great way to keep companies from dodging the law. And this is NOT a new idea. The EU already does it, and the US already does it, but for emissions other than CO2. (Certain industries and given extra credits in a grandfather clause but even those will diminish over time.) This is also a major part of the Kyoto Protocol, which every industrialized nation in the world (except the US under Bush) has ratified.

The great thing about this is that is uses a natural economic market in addition to a process that will both force companies to green up, and ease them into it. This has a number of side-benefits, as well.

Firstly, the cap starts out pretty high. At first there would be little issue for most companies to get the credits needed. Then, slowly, the maximum level drops. Things are still loose at first but then the worst polluters will start to feel the squeeze and be forced to do things like put scrubbers in smoke stacks, since the credits are becoming more expensive. Heavy-polluting industries may even eventually have to heavily retool to meet requirements – there are already a lot of ideas from the government to help fund those renovations in major industries, such as steel and the auto production industry. It's not as if they'll be without support. And as companies green up, they can then sell their extra credits, which helps pay for those very green renovations. It's a really elegant system, IMO.

But the benefits go beyond just reducing emissions. The renovations get done by US workers, creating GREEN jobs here in the US. Options like solar panels and wind turbines get installed by more US workers, and solar and wind are very job-intensive (with good paying jobs that are hard to export, I might add). CO2 emissions are often tied to other emissions and reducing one almost always reduces others. Fewer pollutants in the air and water mean a healthier populace. A healthier populace means lower health care costs and longer-living people. Longer-living people means that they can contribute to the economy even more, which leads it all right back into where it started.

The solar and wind options (which are already proving very popular) also lower our dependency on burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, improving energy independence. That means we send less money to people to want to hurt us, don't need to mine for as much coal*, and don't need as much nuclear power (which means less nuclear waste). That's also a good thing.

*Mining for coal is about as environmentally unfriendly as you get. If the mining industry was a person, and the environment a puppy, mining for coal would be like the person drop-kicking the puppy... into an active volcano.