Rick Perry... sounds great -- ha ha ha!

[Faldur]

The only republican that has any sense is Ron Paul and he seems to be viewed as a wacko by your party. Oh the irony..............

Lets keep it real here.. the only (R) running the liberals like is Ron Paul. Not hard, he actually leans more left than right. When the time comes when we need progressive liberals to pick our candidate, you will be the first one we will call.

But for know I think we have a primary to run.

[trish]

You're wacko if you think any of the Pauls are going to attract liberals. Just because we align on a few issues (the wars, and some_but not enough_social issues doesn't mean liberals are willing to throw away New Deal values on a Randist fantasy candidate.

[hippifried]

See what I mean about the left/right argument?

It makes no sense at all, because no 2 people can define it the same way. It has no context, & just sounds like kids in a sandbox, fighting over the pail & shovel.

[Ben]

Ben....the average American isn't at all interested in your inane posting about Neo Cons and Paleo Cons. It's not that they're not
sophisticated...they neither care, and don't have the time to discern the difference between all those sub categories. Here's what they care about...their families, their jobs and leaving their kids a better country than they were given. If Perry can speak to their anxieties and fears in a rational way.....he'll be successful. If he can't....he wont. It is now, and has always been about the economy stupid. Obama was able to do that in the campaign and the rest is history as they say. But.......Had Obama focused on and perused economic policies that began to put Americans back to work in a gradual, coherent . methodical way, he would have waltzed into a second term and then could have begun to initiate all his social agenda , and probably could have gotten most of it...but Americans aren't all that tolerant of any President's social policies if they ain't working and providing for their families. Witness the 2010 mid terms. All those brilliant strategists surrounding Obama failed to realize that. They went for the gusto....went for broke on Health Care, a liberal dream for decades.. in a tortured 12 month debacle , sleezy deal making, vote buying, reconciliation process, 12,000 page bills, and finally a rammed through vote in the early morning hours. ...and it may cost them their legacy as the Supreme Court may strike down the individual mandate just as the 11th circuit did recently....and all that for what??? . Because they believed if they could control 1/6 of the economy, they could transform the nation. They got it...but it has, and will continue to cost them dearly. Call it impatience, ideology, miscalculations, or flat out political naivety .

They'll be tens of thousands of articles by pundits and observers about who Rick Perry is and how he thinks...and it won't matter a fucking bit because the average guy ain't reading all that. It's about having solutions, and communicating those to average folks, neither of which the current President has mastered.

The average American wouldn't be on this site -- ha ha ha!
I agree. Americans are concerned about their jobs, their families, etc. etc.
Most Americans are sick and tired of both parties. Hence the Tea Party movement. People are angry and legitimately so.
American politicians won't and can't respond to their wishes. The political system is just way too corrupt. People know this. They understand it. And they're angry.
The economist Paul Craig Roberts has said as long as America continues to offshore jobs, well, there won't be a recovery. Not only do you offshore jobs, well, you offshore your tax base and your economy.
Donald Trump spoke to America's anxieties by saying let's slap a 25 percent tariff on goods coming in from China. To protect American jobs.
The free movement of capital and the free import of goods has had a devastating impact on America. (As Alex Jones rightly pointed out: America was built through tariffs. Through protecting our industries. Protectionism is a very conservative idea.)
Most Americans, too, want to control their own labor. Most Americans are fed up with big corporations controlling our government. Most Americans want taxes on the rich to go up to pay down the deficit and reduce the debt.
OK. This is what Americans want. Will politicians respond to those wishes? No. Will public policy reflect public opinion? No.
Each person has to try and change things. Well, collectively. I mean, even getting a STOP sign on a street corner is a big step. Because one will feel they have some power.
Each tiny step makes a difference.

[Ben]

You're wacko if you think any of the Pauls are going to attract liberals. Just because we align on a few issues (the wars, and some_but not enough_social issues doesn't mean liberals are willing to throw away New Deal values on a Randist fantasy candidate.

Trish is right. Ron Paul, who is good on a whole host of issues, is kinda frightening on some other issues.
OK. Let's get rid of government. Well, who builds the roads, the bridges, the sidewalks, the schools.
Full scale libertarianism &/or free market capitalism hasn't been fully worked out. We must remember that unfettered markets mean: NO minimum wage laws. NO child labor laws. Ya know, the 10 year old can work, well, shove him down a coal mine.
The financial sector closely resembled a free market system and look what happened.

[Faldur]

Mine!

[onmyknees]

The average American wouldn't be on this site -- ha ha ha!
I agree. Americans are concerned about their jobs, their families, etc. etc.
Most Americans are sick and tired of both parties. Hence the Tea Party movement. People are angry and legitimately so.
American politicians won't and can't respond to their wishes. The political system is just way too corrupt. People know this. They understand it. And they're angry.
The economist Paul Craig Roberts has said as long as America continues to offshore jobs, well, there won't be a recovery. Not only do you offshore jobs, well, you offshore your tax base and your economy.
Donald Trump spoke to America's anxieties by saying let's slap a 25 percent tariff on goods coming in from China. To protect American jobs.
The free movement of capital and the free import of goods has had a devastating impact on America. (As Alex Jones rightly pointed out: America was built through tariffs. Through protecting our industries. Protectionism is a very conservative idea.)
Most Americans, too, want to control their own labor. Most Americans are fed up with big corporations controlling our government. Most Americans want taxes on the rich to go up to pay down the deficit and reduce the debt.
OK. This is what Americans want. Will politicians respond to those wishes? No. Will public policy reflect public opinion? No.
Each person has to try and change things. Well, collectively. I mean, even getting a STOP sign on a street corner is a big step. Because one will feel they have some power.
Each tiny step makes a difference.

Ben...I think of you as more left leaning than right...not insanely so, but I think I'm correct in my assumptions. You're probably a combination of libertarian/progressive if I may use those categories. But you don't strike me nearly as hateful or condescending as the other house progressives on here. They think if you don't agree entirely with their dogma, you fall into one of three separate categories...racist, terrorist, or rage filled. You were one of the few who doesn't agree with a thing Palin ever said, but didn't see the need to savage her or her family. I respect you for that, and consequently read what you have to say with interest. I may not agree with it, but I read it ! As far as the others on here....I repay them with exactly what it is they deserve, and that they dish out in huge portions...scorn and contempt.

As Obama said to McCain at the Health Care Sumit..."John there was an election .........and we won"

HA Progressives...there was an mid term election, and we won. Deal with it.

[Stavros]

The economist Paul Craig Roberts has said as long as America continues to offshore jobs, well, there won't be a recovery. Not only do you offshore jobs, well, you offshore your tax base and your economy.

Ben look at it from the point of view of a capitalism, which is the dominant economic system in the world: the jobs went offshore because the costs were irresistible: how can an unskilled American worker compete with an unskilled Chinese worker? Packing, assembly, simple jobs, or even semi-skilled: It is cheaper for a company to ship raw materials to China from Africa or Latin America (say), create products, ship them to the USA and still sell them at a profit. Even with a 25% tariff barrier lots of things would still sell at a profit (eg, iPads, iPhones). How many Americans are going to work for a $ a day?

[pantybulge69]

I watched Perry's speech announcing his candidacy. 5 minutes into it he was sweating like a stuffed pig.. much worse than Nixon, who's upper lip was always dripping wet during TV appearances.

I don't want to sound shallow. There are enough real reasons to hate this prick and his holier than thou brand of fake Christian values bullshit. But watching him svich under the hot lights was extremely amusing. All Perry will accomplish is to split the wacko right wing vote with Michele and make it easier for Romney to lock up the nomination.

Perry is easily one of the most arrogant, crookiest " mo-fo" you willl
ever come by. Even the more conservative of Texans realize that he has
more " Dubya " Bush in him than we can ever imagine.
Should he be presented the Presidency it's automatic a return to the
Bush dayz. And that doesn't account for all the tollway BS that he has
accounted for. But as everyone clearly knows, the GOP candidate- availability is crying hurting so bad for a valid nominatee because they arent worth a shit. ( Michelle Bachman ? Sarah Palin ? LOL !!!)
So tnow hey are going to try to scramble really hard to find what they think is a valid entry.Dont be surprised to see a Perry completely out-do Mitt Romney (who was clearly out-done by the ridiculous McCain.) No much different than the McCain/Palin era.

Where the fun will start is the moment those so-called GOP presidency candidates start opening their mouths during the run-offs and November elections.

" adios, Mo- Fo !! " ......

[Ben]

The economist Paul Craig Roberts has said as long as America continues to offshore jobs, well, there won't be a recovery. Not only do you offshore jobs, well, you offshore your tax base and your economy.

Ben look at it from the point of view of a capitalism, which is the dominant economic system in the world: the jobs went offshore because the costs were irresistible: how can an unskilled American worker compete with an unskilled Chinese worker? Packing, assembly, simple jobs, or even semi-skilled: It is cheaper for a company to ship raw materials to China from Africa or Latin America (say), create products, ship them to the USA and still sell them at a profit. Even with a 25% tariff barrier lots of things would still sell at a profit (eg, iPads, iPhones). How many Americans are going to work for a $ a day?

I completely agree. Corporations have to, by law, maximize profits. It's the CEO's fiduciary responsibility. Meaning the shareholders have put faith and trust in the CEO to do everything he or she can to maximize profits. Otherwise they can be sued. It's a strict legal requirement. So, the institution itself demands it.
So, the internal corporate system requires and demands the offshoring of capital and jobs in order to increase return on investment. That's understood. (Adam Smith said -- or wrote -- that the principal architects of policy, namely the merchants and manufacturers [today: corporations] are going to pursue their own interests regardless of the grievous impact on others.)
So, the CEO having to serve the interests of the shareholders will move capital to China [where, as we know, it's cheaper and a corporation is compelled by legal requirement to MINIMIZE costs] no matter the harm it causes to America and American workers. (CEOs are not bad people perse. They are, well, obeying the strict code of the law, as it were.)
The CEO doesn't have a choice. If she or he doesn't do it, well, she or he is out and someone else is in. (I wouldn't call the system we live in capitalism. Capitalism &/or free markets means: no State intervention. None. We have plenty of State intervention.
The government plays a big role in the economy. A more apt description is: State Capitalism. Where the State does play a role in the economy. Again, pure capitalism means, by definition, no government intervention.
And, too, in order for free markets (or so-called capitalism) to work a few things have to happen. 1) The seller must bear the full cost of what they produce. 2) Investment income must stay in the country. 3) Savings must be spent on real wealth, not phantom wealth.
And, also, one needs perfect information in a market system. So he or she can make rational choices. Again, informed consumers making rational choices. That's what you need in order for markets to work.
And it must be noted: corporations work to undercut markets. If we lived a market system, well, when you watched a commercial they'd tell you about, say, the car. Instead they have a model with big boobs zooming down a road.
I mean, Britney Spears bopping up and down with a Pepsi can doesn't tell you anything about the drink. Again, corporations are intentionally undercutting markets. So, how can one make rational choices when seeing big-boobed Britney bouncing up and down and, well, not getting information about the actual drink.
Adam Smith actually gave an argument for markets. (First off, well, the real Adam Smith was anti-capitalist. He called for equality. And felt that people shouldn't be subjected to wage labor because it's destructive of their humanity. He also said that the division of labor would make people stupid and ignorant and in any civilized society the government must intervene to prevent this.) He supported markets only on the basis that under conditions of perfect liberty you get perfect equality. That's the argument he gave for free markets.
And Adam Smith's term invisible hand appears once in Wealth of Nations. And it was an argument AGAINST what is now called globalization. And it's an argument AGAINST the free movement of capital. Because free capital movement will harm England. He was concerned about England. And it continues to harm England -- and, of course, America.