RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Krugman writes: "For Mr. Rubio is a rising star, to such an extent that Time magazine put him on its cover, calling him 'The Republican Savior.' What we learned Tuesday, however, was that zombie economic ideas have eaten his brain."

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)


Rubio and the Zombies

By Paul Krugman, New York Times

15 February 13

 

he State of the Union address was not, I'm sorry to say, very interesting. True, the president offered many good ideas. But we already know that almost none of those ideas will make it past a hostile House of Representatives.

On the other hand, the G.O.P. reply, delivered by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, was both interesting and revelatory. And I mean that in the worst way. For Mr. Rubio is a rising star, to such an extent that Time magazine put him on its cover, calling him "The Republican Savior." What we learned Tuesday, however, was that zombie economic ideas have eaten his brain.

In case you're wondering, a zombie idea is a proposition that has been thoroughly refuted by analysis and evidence, and should be dead - but won't stay dead because it serves a political purpose, appeals to prejudices, or both. The classic zombie idea in U.S. political discourse is the notion that tax cuts for the wealthy pay for themselves, but there are many more. And, as I said, when it comes to economics it appears that Mr. Rubio's mind is zombie-infested.

go to original article

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+96 # kyzipster 2013-02-15 07:29
I've tried talking to Republicans about the collapse of 2008, these particular conservatives are intelligent people in general but they believe every bit of this revisionist history that Krugman refers to. It's frightening, they're like a cult. They are trapped inside the right-wing media bubble and refuse to look at any fact that might infringe on the fantasy. They honestly believe that low income home buyers caused the crisis, along with Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. They've even cited Jimmy Carter. Sure, Democrats played a role but only to the extent that they embraced Alan Greenspan and his Ayn Rand mythology, "Reagan Democrats".

This past election was encouraging, it wasn't validation of Obama's right of center policies, it was a rejection of the failed conservative agenda. Romney was campaigning on $5 trillion more in tax cuts and an increase in military spending. He probably believed it was the right course of action, that is how pervasive this cult is, lunacy.

Slightly more than half the electorate is seeing the light. The truth will prevail, I only hope we can survive until it does.
 
 
-17 # Todd Williams 2013-02-15 09:29
I agree with most of your comment except the "Obama's right of center policies." I see that quip as patently absurd.
 
 
+26 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 11:02
It's not a "quip". It's the truth. BHO is NOT a Democrat in the true sense of the word. He's a war hawk (R), a corporatist, (R), and is pushing fossil fuel over clean green energy (R), to name a few. He is most definitely Right of Center; or a Light Republican. Anyone who thinks he's a Progressive Liberal doesn't know what's really going on and needs to book-up and do some real homework.
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-02-16 05:11
Sorry folks. You can red me all you want but I still don't agree that Obama is right of center. Lay that moniker on Mitt, Ryan, Rubio, Paul and other right wingers, not Obama. He's the most progressive president we've had since Carter. I will NEVER agree with you.
 
 
+4 # Todd Williams 2013-02-16 05:21
If you so-called progressives feel Obama is right of center, god help us if a real right winger had been elected. I'd love to know your presidential voting record since Kennedy. Fess up. How many voted for Reagan? How many for Bush I? How many for Nixon? How many for Ford? How many for Bush II? My record includes Obama, Kerry, Nadar, Carter, McCarthy, Chisolm, etc., etc. Jeeze. Give me a break.
 
 
+40 # Billsy 2013-02-15 11:10
Given Obama's foreign policy, drone assassinations, support of the NDAA, championing of the right wing heritage foundation's health care proposal I have to say he is indeed somewhat right of center. He is what would have been called, when i was in college in the 1970s, a moderate republican. He's a far better president than his predecessor, but I discourage liberals from buying into our own fantasy, that Obama is truly one of us. It's why, like kyzipster, I have difficulty understanding, from a logical point of view, why republicans hate him so much.
 
 
+20 # Firefox11 2013-02-15 17:17
Possible reasons....they technically lost the last two elections, they are the "far right" these days, they do not want the country to continue, they want their religion to dominate the public arena, they don't like the idea that Obama was not born near them or has ties outside the borders of continental US, they are ignorant...he does not look like them...the key point here is "from a logical point of view"
 
 
0 # veritable 2013-02-17 23:41
I agree, Billsy. In fact, I'm still trying to recover from the shock of seeing Geithner and Summers appointed at the beginning of his first term.
 
 
+30 # kyzipster 2013-02-15 12:39
I believe the center lies where public opinion lies and all of Washington is to the right of public opinion because of corporate lobbying and the power that the conservative movement still holds there. You have to look at polling on individual issues and ignore the culture war which Congress has little control over, these are issues for the courts. The media paints Obama and the Dems as 'far left' but I don't see it. Obamacare is only unpopular across the board because it's so conservative and it forces people to get coverage, a corporate giveaway. Prior to the debate there was a majority that supported 'Medicare for all', voters support the government intervening in the free market when it comes to their health care. The public overwhelmingly supports taxing the rich, saving SS & Medicare, cutting military spending, reigning in the banks and Wall St, etc.

Where do you think Obama is on the spectrum?
 
 
+5 # engelbach 2013-02-15 12:42
You're right.

He's to the right of Nixon.

Far from the center.
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-02-16 06:45
I disagree completely.
 
 
+38 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 10:58
#kyzipster:
What I don't get is: If the Right has to spend that much money, make that much of an effort, has to rig elections with voter suppression and crooked redistricting, how can anyone claim to be "intelligent" if they don't realize that the majority of the people don't want what they're selling? I guess they are intelligent right up until common sense kicks in. Then they are just plain crazy.
 
 
+10 # kyzipster 2013-02-15 12:41
I'm referring to people I know personally, they're intelligent in every part of their lives until it comes to politics, then their eyes sort of glaze over.
 
 
+7 # Firefox11 2013-02-15 17:22
They don't CARE if people don't want what they are selling; just like many professional sales people don't really care if their target wants what they are selling. Those who control the right wing of the Repub Party are neither stupid or crazy; they are shrewd business men/women who understand sales and cutting deals. Watch Shark Tank esp Kevin O'Leary..it's all about the money.
 
 
+1 # jky1291 2013-02-16 14:19
It's more about the power to control other peoples lives than it is about the money, because they have already stolen more money from the consumers than they could reasonably spend in 200 lifetimes.
 
 
+4 # jky1291 2013-02-16 19:00
It's more about the power to control other peoples' lives than it is about the money, because they have already stolen more money from the consumers than they could reasonably spend in 200 lifetimes.
 
 
+58 # fredboy 2013-02-15 07:53
His ideas and intellect are shallow indeed. He made his mark in Florida politics by simply agreeing with anyone in power and any special interest group in power. Most revealing, however, was his awkward, sissy manner as he fumbled a bottle of water to his lips during his post-SofU talk. Tragically ill prepared. What's needed is a real investigation of this guy and all his ties in the Miami area.
 
 
-63 # MidwestTom 2013-02-15 09:51
"What's needed is a real investigation" My question is why? We already have elected someone who had little access to money and who was an average an student in California who somehow or other got into and could pay over $50,000 per year to attend Harvard. Then both he and his wife froze all of their records, including why they were dropped by the Illinois Bar Association. No investigation made. No need to investigate anybody anymore.
 
 
+49 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 11:06
The Illinois Bar Association probably dropped them for not paying their Assoc. fees; this is usually the most frequent reason for such an action. If it had been something illegal, it would have hit the papers by now. You don't think Rove or some of the other sleazebags would have let something juicy slip by all this time, do you? Your thinking has been tooled by Fox News and Pat Robertson. You need to come out of the Right-wing fog chamber.
 
 
-21 # MidwestTom 2013-02-15 12:22
Highly possible, but no explanation ever given. With both Bush and Clinton the public had full acess to their records.
 
 
+7 # hammermann 2013-02-16 16:51
Yes, sure, including Busk's cocaine use and desertion. Dan Rather had it right, 2 years later turns out they DID have proportional spacing Selectrics- but they had successfully destroyed the toop newsman in America.
 
 
0 # Barbara K 2013-02-18 10:44
hammermann: Dan Rather absolutely had it right. He just had the time off. I lived in Texas when Bush was running for Governor there. That is when he destroyed his military records, running for Governor. It was common knowledge and reported in the news papers and on the news there. Saw it for myself at the time it happened. I felt bad for Dan Rather, and I actually tried to contact him to tell him where to find the info and that he was right, but it was when he was running for Governor, not when he was running for President. They were already destroyed long before he ran for President.

..
 
 
+23 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-15 11:44
Tom,

The next time you read something that the tea pot heds say is a blockbuster revelation, check it out first. And when you do, a bit of friendly advice about handling Tea pot hed information. Wear boots and gloves, otherwise you will wind up with shit all over you like that woman scientist in Juraissic Park.
 
 
-15 # MidwestTom 2013-02-15 12:20
Explain Harvard admission and how paid for? I know several how tried to get in who had very good grades, but were passed over.
 
 
+16 # Ken Halt 2013-02-15 20:49
How 'bout explaining GW's admission to Harvard Business, a guy who thought the word nuclear was "nucular"! Not that I'm a big fan of Obama's and the elimination of Habeas Corpus, but with Dems in office at least you get people who can speak in whole sentences
 
 
+8 # Pickwicky 2013-02-16 13:21
MidwestTom: Grades aren't the only thing considered by admission committees. Public service counts as does school activities. But one of the most important considerations is the application/adm ission essay. Many universities place great weight on the essay. High school students may not shine all through their secondary education, some catch fire late in high school. Many bright minds have been discovered in their essays. Obama can write--that we know, and his essay could have been the key to his acceptance. And don't think an essay can be filched from the internet--admis sion committees are mighty savvy about fakes.

Harvard isn't the only university who helps fund a particularly promising student. I ran out of money during my last year in grad school and my university stepped in and helped me through.

Further, the most interesting thing about your posts on this subject is the ongoing emphasis you place upon Obama's grades and his college funding. Why is this so important to you? It shouldn't be. Are you a 'birther' also?
 
 
+8 # flippancy 2013-02-16 16:11
Quoting MidwestTom:
Explain Harvard admission and how paid for? I know several how tried to get in who had very good grades, but were passed over.


Superior intellect and student loans and scholarships. 'K?
 
 
+32 # Anarchist 23 2013-02-15 13:14
Quoting MidwestTom:
"What's needed is a real investigation" My question is why? We already have elected someone who had little access to money and who was an average an student in California who somehow or other got into and could pay over $50,000 per year to attend Harvard. Then both he and his wife froze all of their records, including why they were dropped by the Illinois Bar Association. No investigation made. No need to investigate anybody anymore.

Can we investigate Bush on same reasons? He was a 'C' student and pretty much AWOL during most of his presidency including the crucial month before 9/11 while on that day, as you look at his vacuous expression, he was clearly 'missing in action' in the most literal sense of the word as the worst crises of recent national history unfolded. and there never has yet been a full investigation done on that-at least not 'officially'. And from all that came our descent into Fascism: drone assassinations, rendition, torture,destruc tion of the Bill of Rights. If you want to look at history, look at all of it.
 
 
+13 # Constant Voter 2013-02-15 19:21
Certainly AWOL during his Air Force reserve duty.
 
 
+6 # Doubter 2013-02-15 13:22
He strikes me as a brat spoiled by his doting Latin parents. (speaking from experience)
 
 
+40 # DPM 2013-02-15 07:57
A continuing economic slump benefits big business by keeping wages low and profits high. Their "boot lickers", in the government, will want to keep it that way. After all, they are not suffering.
 
 
-84 # MidwestTom 2013-02-15 08:32
Zombie or not, it makes no difference. If you didn't notice 98% to 99% of the black population voted for Obama, most probably had no idea what he stood for, but he was from their tribe. Along comes Rubio, a genuine Latino with a working class background, if Obama gives the Latino's voting rights (and he will) the Latino's are liable to vote 98% for the man from their Tribe, and he will win, good or bad ideas don't count when tribalism is involved.
 
 
+44 # Todd Williams 2013-02-15 09:27
That's ridiculous.
 
 
+43 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-15 09:50
The Latinos already have voting rights.

Tom, your whole little blurb there was nothing but Racist, ignorant claptrap. I bet you will exclaim that you are not Racist and that you judge people by their character. To that, I say, BS.

I was gonna say more, but I would just end up getting the RSN censors ticked off, and they would probably be right.
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2013-02-15 17:46
Quoting BradFromSalem:
The Latinos already have voting rights.

Tom, your whole little blurb there was nothing but Racist, ignorant claptrap. I bet you will exclaim that you are not Racist and that you judge people by their character. To that, I say, BS.

I was gonna say more, but I would just end up getting the RSN censors ticked off, and they would probably be right.

Thanks for saying it anyway; I guess that my response was a bit rich or strident for their tastes and didn't make it through the censors.
 
 
+36 # jon 2013-02-15 10:11
Quoting MidwestTom:
Zombie or not, it makes no difference. If you didn't notice 98% to 99% of the black population voted for Obama, most probably had no idea what he stood for, but he was from their tribe. Along comes Rubio, a genuine Latino with a working class background, if Obama gives the Latino's voting rights (and he will) the Latino's are liable to vote 98% for the man from their Tribe, and he will win, good or bad ideas don't count when tribalism is involved.





Quote # 1: "most probably had no idea what he stood for"

They did know what he stood for - they voted for him because he is on their side.

If Obama had been a Republican making the same sort of corporate boilerplate speech that Rubio did, he would have gotten very few votes from the "black population".


Quote # 2: "Latino's are liable to vote 98% for the man from their Tribe, and he will win".

We shall see about that. If you think Latinos are so simple minded that they will vote against their best interests, I am afraid that you and the rest of your ilk are in for an even more rude awakening.
 
 
+43 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 11:08
I think the Latinos are a WHOLE lot smarter than to vote against their own best interests and Rubio doesn't represent their own best interests.
 
 
+23 # Cassandra2012 2013-02-15 12:08
And just assuming that all 'Latinos' are the same (the way , contrary to fact, 'Jews' are assumed to vote in a a block) shows ignorance of the fact that Rubio is a Cuban, and other Spanish speaking groups (e.g., Puerto
Rican, Mexican et al) do not agree with Republican Cuban ideology, generally.
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-02-16 09:02
How true. When I lived in Brownsville, Texas, 100% of my friends were of Mexican descent, and they referred to Cubans as tio tomas (uncle toms) or oreos (white on inside and black on outside). Why? Because they knew that most Cubans were Republicans and they didn't like Republicans.
 
 
+31 # Billsy 2013-02-15 11:19
That opinion doesn't wash. I didn't see the 'tribe' circling the wagons around their GOP member, Hermann Cain, during the GOP primary. Nor will latinos bond with cuban american Rubio so easily. Remember, Cubans have an easy path to American citizenship, not so those coming from Mexico or central america. Ruibio's hostility to the dream act has earned him the ire of Univision, the huge latin tv network with a decidedly pro immigration bent. These guys always look good until we learn more details about their beliefs, their voting record and their background. Nor did his discomfort with a 14 minute rebuttal to the state of the union help any. Obama made public speaking look easy. Rubio made it look painful.
 
 
+25 # kyzipster 2013-02-15 12:50
Like most people with half a brain, African Americans and Latinos vote Democratic because it's obvious who is against them. Same is true of women and LGBT people. It should be true of working class white men but so many are scared and confused.

Republicans are losing because they've embraced bigotry with all of its ugliness. It was bound to fly back in their faces eventually. The culture war is nothing but a continuation of their racist Southern Strategy, they've been at it so long that they've trapped themselves in their own muck.

They can't win an election without the bigot vote and now they can't win an election with it. All they have left to sell is Reaganomics which is like a sad joke after all that's happened in recent years.
 
 
+22 # Anarchist 23 2013-02-15 13:17
Hey Midwest: I lived in the barrio of Albq.SW for 25 years;all my neighbors were 'working class' Latino-most born here and with long histories of family here, and believe me -Rubio does NOT live in a 'working class' neighborhood!
 
 
+7 # Todd Williams 2013-02-16 09:04
Yea, his house in Miami just went up for sale at $675k or something like that. Working class, my ass!
 
 
+15 # kelly 2013-02-15 13:17
So by your logic, Herman Cain should have cleaned up the black vote where ever he showed up in the primaries. But that wasn't the case.
 
 
0 # veritable 2013-02-18 03:03
Let's not forget Allen West.
 
 
+8 # CAMUS1111 2013-02-15 16:10
MidwestTom---no thing more or less than "NationwideFool ."
 
 
+8 # freeone 2013-02-16 08:02
Rubio is not what you call a "genuine Latino".. He's Cuban.. Cubans are mostly staunch Republicans & look down at "Latinos" from South & Central Americas & Mexicans. even Puerto Ricans & Dominicans. "Latino" is not a "catch all" nor is "Hispanic".. The cultures are all different from different Spanish Speaking countries. People with British names or from English speaking names are not all "the same,"neither are those with Spanish names.
 
 
+5 # Pickwicky 2013-02-16 13:26
Middling Tom--you're a fountain of hatred and racism. You need to give your attitude much thought. I know quite a few black people and they know exactly what Obama stands for. Tell us: do you involve yourself in 'tribalism?' That is, do you always vote white?
 
 
+41 # jon 2013-02-15 08:37
Even with red paint dripping off of their hands down to their elbows, experienced criminals (Republican corporate shills - same thing) deny wrongdoing.
 
 
+28 # genierae 2013-02-15 08:59
Republicans seem to be living in an alternate universe, everything they say or do has absolutely no bearing on reality. They are crashing and burning right before our eyes, yet they keep repeating the same tired, old mantra, expecting us to somehow accept the unacceptable. No ideas, just propaganda, outright lies, and hubris. They are wrecking this country with their constant obstruction, and they should be impeached. Now they are filibustering a pick for Secretary of Defense, obstructing President Obama from having his personal choice. There are global issues and situations that must be dealt with, and keeping Hagel from doing his job, for admittedly personal, petty reasons, should be considered a threat to our national security and be dealt with accordingly.
 
 
-15 # cafetomo 2013-02-15 09:14
Slept right through the State of the Union address. Woke up long enough to swear at this Rubio guy, though. Could hear the odor of outrageous falsehood sufficient to wake the dead and we catatonic of jaded indifference alike.
 
 
+7 # CAMUS1111 2013-02-15 16:07
"Could hear the odor of outrageous falsehood sufficient to wake the dead and we catatonic of jaded indifference alike." No one with even half a functioning brain can even begin to make sense of such crap, but then, for example, I've never heard an odor....
 
 
+2 # flippancy 2013-02-16 16:19
NeQuoting CAMUS1111:
"Could hear the odor of outrageous falsehood sufficient to wake the dead and we catatonic of jaded indifference alike." No one with even half a functioning brain can even begin to make sense of such crap, but then, for example, I've never heard an odor....


Never heard of synesthesia? 8^)
 
 
+27 # Corvette-Bob 2013-02-15 09:18
Relax everyone. The demographics favor the left. As a old white male, I would like to point out the changes will aid the Left's approach which I fully support. The birthrate for the whites in this country is down to 1.6 which is well below the necessary 2.1 to sustain their numbers. That the angry white males will be dying off at a very high rate and will not be replaced while the Hispanics have a birthrate of 2.6 while not really that high it is still higher than the base of the right wing. Ironically the very policies that the right advocates discourages people from having children so that their numbers are being decreased by their very policies. Being anti government is being anti-family due to the high cost of having children in a highly technical society. For example, by cutting government support of education makes education too expensive for people to have children so they decide not to have children.
 
 
+20 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 11:16
Never mind education, just look at the cost of rent, food and utilities (electric and water). If the Right got behind solar, they could help people out with basic family needs. But this Right-wing crowd relish suffering. They have the diseases of greed and lust for power and they would rather indulge themselves in this rather than save the Caucasian community.
 
 
+34 # Ken Halt 2013-02-15 09:23
Still the party of stupid, be it creationism, the text and meaning of the Constitution, the difference between a fetus and an infant, being able to identify a valid birth certificate, the definition of rape, the history of US imperialism... the list could go on, and it certainly includes economics.
 
 
+16 # Deist 2013-02-15 09:40
Rubio is part of the religious right. The religious right believes the Bible is the word of God. It's interesting that the Bible also mentions zombies as being real at Matthew 27:51-53 which claims that when Jesus died allegedly on Friday graves opened up and the dead came back to life and hung out in the graveyard until Sunday when Jesus allegedly rose from the dead, too, at which time the zombies from the graveyard walked into Jerusalem "and appeared unto many." (Thomas Paine, the American revolutionary and Deist, does a great job making fun of this Christian teaching in his landmark book on God, Deism and religion, The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition.) It's time to take down the religious right and the best way to do that is to ask politicians like Rubio about foolish Bible teachings such as this.

Progress! Bob Johnson
www.deism.com
 
 
-23 # Dorcas Black 2013-02-15 10:01
I'm sorry, but Zombie ideas (just different ones) have infested just as many brains on the left as on the right. Both sides cherry pick the facts to support their prejudices. Krugman fails to mention a primary cause of the crisis was excessive leverage, just as much as it was misguided theories of market deregulation. Excessive leverage absolutely was encouraged under various government policy changes going back to the Clinton administration, as well as in the subsequent Bush administration. But it's hard to criticize excessive leverage when you have a crony capitalist system that rewards big donors to either party, with many of those donors benefiting from loose lending rules that leave taxpayers holding the bailout bag.

Neither party is offering realistic long-term solutions, but the Democrats have the upper hand at the moment, due to the stimulatory effects of the ongoing deficit spending. But sooner or later, all the accumulated debt will come home to roost. High debt levels are already dampening the anticipated effects of the ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulation.
 
 
+21 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-15 10:34
Dorcas,
I think you are talking about government debt, as an accumulation of deficits. If not, and you mean individual debt, then you have identified a problem.
But since Krugman's article was about government debt I would have to say that anyone that is concerned with the debt is worried about the wrong thing.
What we need to "worry" about is answering this question; Is there a way to allow all persons that are in the US to have an expectation of a decent life, the liberty to choose how they want to live that life and pursue a life of liberty and happiness.
If the government cannot make that guarantee, then America has failed. Throughout history when a government concerns itself with itself ahead of the needs of it's inhabitants failure is sure to follow. So, worry America to death, if you really want to be worried about the debt.
 
 
+3 # Dorcas Black 2013-02-16 23:24
I didn't make myself entirely clear. Krugman clearly implies that no government policies encouraged reckless lending. But in 1994, then Fed Chairman Greenspan, without Clinton administration or congressional objection, effectively eliminated bank reserve requirements by allowing overnight sweeps from checking into savings accounts. After that, the ratio of total debt to effective reserves started to rise rapidly, mostly across the private sector, but also somewhat on the government side. Current Fed Chairman Bernanke acknowledged as much in testimony before Congress in March 2010, but rather than propose reinstating reserve requirements, he proposed eliminating what little requirements remained, as they were nothing but a paper tiger anyway.

All excessive debt, both individual and government is a problem, as it either has te be paid off or defaulted upon, though governments have the additional option of defaulting via inflation. Do I support further stimulative deficit spending if it is carefully invested in infrastructure and programs to better our future? Yes. If it is spent on wars and wasted consumption? No. My bottom line is that both sides need to stop letting politics override the facts, or we are never getting out of the mess we are in.
 
 
+1 # Ken Halt 2013-02-17 23:34
DB: I think Krugman is clear, in the body of his writing, that gov't policies DO matter, that is why he advocates for different policies than the US has been following. Perhaps you think of Clinton, a Dem, as being different from Reagan on economic policy? Clinton was a true-blue corporatist, and no friend of the common man. I often wonder why Repubs were so opposed to him, who did more for the conservative agenda than they could have accomplished themselves (NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bli ley, energy deregulation, etc. As an aside, we should be wary of a Hillary presidential run, being a bought and sold corporatist herself). B Clinton kept and enabled the inept "free-marketeer s" and economic "trickle-downer s", which eventually, but not by his agency alone, resulted in the 2008 housing bubble disaster. I agree, federal policy does matter, and it should favor the "general welfare", and not the narrow, 1% welfare of the constituents who can afford to buy politicians. Both parties have been complicit in the fleecing of US labor, but only one of the parties responds to reason and fact and is therefore malleable. Good governance requires the active and skeptical participation of the electorate, and not the "ditto-head" mentality of ovine respect for authority. Let's hope the tide is turning...
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2013-02-15 11:18
No, no and no.
 
 
+11 # engelbach 2013-02-15 12:52
There is no left of any size in America, certainly not in the Democratic Party nor in the government.

However, a job creation stimulus is the only sensible course to follow. It's only doubtful whether the Democrats have the spine for an out-and-out fight, taking their case to the public.

As Obama and Reid already showed, even before the inauguration, talk is not only cheap but not particularly reliable.
 
 
+22 # Al21 2013-02-15 10:12
The least ridiculous thing about Rubio's speech was his grasping for a slug of water.
What is most revelatory about the savior of the GOP is that there was nothing revelatory about his speech. It was almost verbatim of Romney's many misleading stump speeches and full of the old tired GOP line.
Rubio who's stated as a Tea Party favorite apparently isn't that much of a fav as the GOTP had to have Rant Paul in his continuing heroic striving to claim the right to become the next mediocre gop candidate for president who has come up with a new Obama slam. He's no dictator or socialist... he's a king.
Rubio hates government assistance... unless it helps Rubio, or his parents. So in the end Rubio lets us know that above all Rubio is for a government by Rubio, for Rubio.
 
 
+9 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-15 11:49
It was the least ridiculous, except for the image of him attempting to hide the fact that he was taking a drink of water captured the entire essence of his speech in 5 seconds.
 
 
+1 # Al21 2013-02-15 20:09
True enough,
 
 
+24 # Dangoodbar 2013-02-15 10:32
Rubio's speech is the same GOP spew since 1980. That these ideas do not now or ever worked is evidenced that when in power, very little of what Rubio says Republicans actually do. That is other than cutting taxes on the wealty....ie not paying for government....R epublicans increase spending more than do Dems. Other than for big corporations Republicans put more government restriction.... abortion for example, not less.

The reason for Republican hypocracy is obvious, their stated policies do not and never worked. Just look at the first two years of both the Reagan and Jr. Bush administrations , both had to greatly increase spending to improve the economy or face defeat.
 
 
+20 # pagrad 2013-02-15 10:51
In American History, the contemporary Republican Party philosophy is a failed concept.

History has shown that implemented Republican philosophy leads to failure. Absolutely!

The US has had three major economic Depressions, 1873, 1929 and 2007, ALL under Republican administrations!

Anyone who votes for a Republican candidate has not had a credible high school Economics and/or American History education.

To vote Republican and with the Republican Party is actually treason.
 
 
+28 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-02-15 11:04
Ever since Reagan, the Republicans have tried to spend until the government is deep in debt so they could justify cutting social programs. Remember "welfare queens" that was just the start. Remember "drown it in a bathtub", "get government off our backs". Now, it's "fiscal cliff", "deficit reduction", etc. Where were these Republicans when W was spending, borrowing from Social Security to fund Iraq war?
 
 
+11 # Doctor J 2013-02-15 11:38
Quoting PABLO DIABLO:
Ever since Reagan, the Republicans have tried to spend until the government is deep in debt so they could justify cutting social programs. Remember "welfare queens" that was just the start. Remember "drown it in a bathtub", "get government off our backs". Now, it's "fiscal cliff", "deficit reduction", etc. Where were these Republicans when W was spending, borrowing from Social Security to fund Iraq war?

Excellent question!
 
 
+30 # walt 2013-02-15 12:03
Here in Florida he is known as "Wrong Way Rubio." He has opposed almost all legislation designed to benefit the people. He cares little for the middle class and poor and postures himself quite arrogantly.

His age, minimal experience, complete arrogance and wrong positions on everything surely do not make him a "savior" for the Republicans, and certainly not for the nation.

If the party really believes this, the future is almost as bleak as a Paul Ryan "savior."

Let's face it. The GOP is witnessing its own demise. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
 
 
+9 # BradFromSalem 2013-02-15 13:14
Of course he is their saviour. He is Hispanic and he is dumb enough to think the Republicans can help Hispanics. They hope that enough Hispanics are as dumb as he is, since they are too dumb themselves to even realize that their policies don't really help the vast majority of people. No matter what group they belong to.

Fortunately, most hispanics are eith lucky enough, smart enough, or both to live in areas where Democrats rule and help them and others geta decent education. The majority are not fooled by guys like Rubio.
 
 
+1 # Pickwicky 2013-02-16 13:29
Walt--so true.
 
 
+6 # giraffee2012 2013-02-15 12:18
Rubio is as temporary and illusion as Romney - so let him embarrass himself with rhetoric that didn't fly during the 2012 elections and dig the grave of the GOPBaggers deeper.

As one said above - I too know and am related to some GOPbaggers who SHOULD know better but have their heads in the sand and they worry me more than Rub-cube
 
 
+2 # Marxian 2013-02-15 14:38
Left-Right, Up-Down, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum; when do the American people wise up and stop playing good cop - bad cop with the phony two party, fraudulent government system in this country? A system designed from its conception to serve the interests of a small group of white, wealthy men. Remember, it was not very long ago that females and those without wealth and property could not even vote, and non-whites were worth only 3/5 of a human being! "All men are created equal" and other BS. Now we have indentured servitude as a social norm. Get a series of big loans to go to college and try to find a job to pay them. The debt is fashioned to be permanent- no relief from bankruptcy; that is reserved by the government for the crooks and banksters to walk away from pension obligations and debts and pass them along to the people. Time for fundamental changes.
 
 
+9 # wrknight 2013-02-15 17:25
Come up with a viable third or even fourth and fifth party. Or come up with decent candidates for the two parties we have. But if all you do is sit around and whine, nothing will change.
 
 
+3 # Firefox11 2013-02-15 17:33
agree
 
 
0 # veritable 2013-02-18 00:46
I don't know whether or not Charles Beard receives attention anymore, but his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution provides worthwhile insight into the motives and intent informing it's framers. They were not particularly interested in forming the Utopia that legend tends to make us believe was their noble purpose. Alexander Hamilton could walk into a Wall St. office today, and feel right at home.
 
 
+9 # wrknight 2013-02-15 16:21
Smart people learn from their mistakes. Wise people learn from the mistakes of others. Stupid people never learn.
 
 
+1 # Marxian 2013-02-15 18:43
The American economic system was referred to, not the political system, per se. The premise was that the present 2-party political system is not viable. The People need to start considering alternative economic possibilities and then build a political construct to serve it - not seek a fourth, fifth, or even 100th new party within the same, failed system. It would be a dubious claim to say the current system has validity for serving the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens...
 
 
+4 # brilyn37 2013-02-16 12:59
I agree that much of what President Obama proposed will go no where with the current Republican congress, but discussions that don't become policy still have value. In the case of the proposed increase in minimum wage, I can see this leading to important discussions that bring the poor back into the public discourse. When pro-business commentators trash Obama's proposed raise in the minimum wage, I doubt they will frame their arguments to include the costs and damages poverty wages cause. Companies that pay poverty wages force government to subsidize their workers. Min.Wage shifts some of that burden back to the employers where it belongs. This is a conversation we need to have. http://j.mp/WOqWm2
 
 
+8 # heraldmage 2013-02-16 13:10
The GOP's only interest is to continue record corporate profits.
In Rubio's same old speech he suggested opening federal lands for drilling & resource extraction.
But what would the GOP say if ownership of the land and all natural resources was retained by the people? The Corporations rather than owners would be paid contractors receiving a small % of the profits. The majority ownership (75%)of the land, equipment, product & revenue generated would instead belonged to "We the People" The profits generated from our natural resources used to fund education, health care, infrastructure & social safety net programs rather than lining the pockets of the wealthy few.
Under those circumstances do you think the GOP & their corporate sponsors would be in favor of opening our federal lands to exploration & mining?
For decades public lands have been given to wealthy patrons whose projects are funded by the tax payers but unlike other investors we don't share in the profits.
When are we going to wake up & realize the market is just a front for redistribution of public wealth to the wealthy.
We need to follow other nations & adopt an economic system that benefits the all the people not just the privileged few.
We also need conflict of interest law, which prohibits legislators from proposing or voting on legislation that benefits donors.
 
 
+1 # Firefox11 2013-02-17 08:55
Excellent plan; who will represent the people and take back our resources from the rich. Since there are so many lawyers now, surely conflict of interest law could be drafted, but who will pass it.
 
 
+3 # jky1291 2013-02-16 15:23
EVERYONE!!! CAREFULLY READ heraldmage's ABOVE POST!!! Thank you, for clearly presenting an idea which I have supported for some time now! FURTHERMORE, in consideration of our national debt any corporation, that would show a profit without any tax breaks or preferential treatment, that pays 1 million dollars in compensation to any executive should forfeit all such corporate welfare to reduce our national deficit. While we know the functions of government are quite different than the functions of business, for those claiming government should be run like a business, we should be receiving voting stock and collecting dividends for every dollar of tax breaks and preferential treatment corporations receive from our treasury. If a business which is not essential to our national security, militarily, economically, or socially, is unable to operate profitably without federal welfare, the government should execute a leveraged buyout and dispose of the assets in a manner which best benefits "WE THE PEOPLE", who are providing the corporate welfare. And, in addition I have suggested that publicly owned corporations that require federal bailouts be NATIONALIZED, with their high priced executives being replaced with no benefits, and their responsibilitie s assumed by employees of the appropriate governmental department pertaining to their business activity.
 
 
+3 # Firefox11 2013-02-17 08:50
Good ideas; seems that part of the problem in the US is the confusion about what is and what should be public and private. Banking is an essential service, as is healthcare, and both have been nationalized in other Western countries, yet here we are still debating the idea. Our confusion as a country has been costly for our citizens, yet not for the profiteers.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN