RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Jonathan Alter writes, "Beyond No Child Left Behind (now in the process of being dismantled), President George W. Bush did nothing on the fundamentals. No rebuilding the country, no tax reform (unless you include monster tax cuts), no entitlement reform (unless you include adding a new prescription-drug benefit without paying for it), no energy independence, no immigration reform, no long-term deficit reduction (to the contrary, moving the budget from surplus to deep deficits)."

Poverty levels continue to surge upward. (photo: Gregory Wass/flicker)
Poverty levels continue to surge upward. (photo: Gregory Wass/flicker)



America's Lost Decade

By Jonathan Alter, Bloomberg

17 September 11

 

Batting .000 in '00s, US sees lost decade.

ave you ever seen "The Apotheosis of George Washington"? It's a fresco painted on the ceiling of the Rotunda of the US Capitol, at the very center of the American republic.

It was painted by Constantino Brumidi in 1865, when the Capitol was being completed at the end of the Civil War. I was reminded of it during the debate at the Reagan Library on Sept. 7, when Rick Perry, now the leading Republican presidential candidate, rejected the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

The fresco depicts toga-clad deities surrounding Washington, but he's the only president there: A full third of the ceiling is devoted to scientists and inventors. Benjamin Franklin, Robert Fulton and Samuel F.B. Morse are featured, with Venus holding a transatlantic telegraph cable, the big infrastructure project of the day. The Rotunda all but shouts that to be anti-science is to be anti-American.

Most presidents have embraced that idea. And most have sought to preside over a period when the US advanced in concrete and measurable ways on the home front. Abraham Lincoln was determined that the 1860s be known for something other than carnage. He insisted on pushing through a series of what were then called "internal improvements" - such as land-grant colleges - that were not directly tied to the war effort.

'The Oughts'

We tend to associate decades with presidents, even if they served for only part of a decade and the association is a lazy- minded convention (like "the Eisenhower '50s"). The anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks offered a chance to look back over the past 10 years. It was an ugly sight. Even with the decade over, there's no consensus on what to call it. I favor "the oughts" - as in, "It ought to have been different."

Sept. 11, 2001, is often compared to Dec. 7, 1941. But think of all this nation accomplished between 1941 and 1951 - the crushing of fascism around the world, the desegregation of the armed forces, the creation of the United Nations, the GI Bill to educate the middle class and build the basis for the astonishing prosperity to follow.

The sad truth is that the past decade has been the worst for this country in 100 years.

Century of Progress

In the 1910s, we expanded health and safety standards, established the Federal Reserve, and (unlike today) quickly lifted the limitations on civil liberties enacted during World War I.

In the '20s, we pioneered jazz, widespread radio use, motion pictures and the managerial approaches still used by modern business.

In the '30s, amid the Great Depression, we built much of the infrastructure we still use - including, most likely, the roads you drove on today and the schools where you dropped off your children.

In the '40s, we not only emerged as the preeminent power in the world but also helped develop radar, antibiotics and nuclear energy.

In the '50s, we built the interstate highway system, cured polio and used the government to help people own their own homes.

In the '60s, we went to the moon, made great strides toward racial equality, directed federal money toward better education and opened our borders to many more non-Europeans.

In the '70s, we moved toward gender equality, began dramatic advances in medical research and started cleaning up the environment.

In the '80s, we strengthened Social Security, reformed the tax code and fixed the immigration system (at least temporarily), while peacefully winding down the Cold War.

In the '90s, we balanced the budget, reformed welfare and watched the Internet - a government creation - transform our world.

The Lost Decade

And the past 10 years? Shoes off in the airport. Bruising unemployment. Slipping from first to 12th in college graduation. Even classic loser decades, like the 1930s and 1970s, were more productive than the oughts.

Census figures released this week show that for the first time since the Great Depression median household income, adjusted for inflation, hasn't risen at all in over a decade. More than 15 percent of Americans now live in poverty, and the income of the bottom 10th has fallen alarmingly. Even the suburban poverty rate is at its highest since the 1960s. The economist Lawrence Katz of Harvard University is now calling it the "Lost Decade."

Beyond No Child Left Behind (now in the process of being dismantled), President George W. Bush did nothing on the fundamentals. No rebuilding the country, no tax reform (unless you include monster tax cuts), no entitlement reform (unless you include adding a new prescription-drug benefit without paying for it), no energy independence, no immigration reform, no long- term deficit reduction (to the contrary, moving the budget from surplus to deep deficits).

Nothing New

In short, nothing to show for his time in office beyond doing good work on AIDS internationally and the wholly defensive claim that we were not attacked a second time on his watch. Besides Apple products and social networking, what new and exciting developments did the decade give us?

If Obama loses the next election, he won't be associated with a decade (like George H.W. Bush). If he wins, and serves until 2017, the next 10 years will probably be seen as the Obama decade. Only then will we know if history will view him as something more than the first black US president.

If Perry is elected, he has pledged to "make Washington, DC, as inconsequential in your life as I can." He and his supporters may have forgotten that it was Washington that helped build everything from the interstate to the Internet.

Whoever wins, we'll know within a few years where we stand on redeeming the message of that fresco - the one we can only see inside the Capitol when we look up.


Jonathan Alter, a Bloomberg View columnist, is the author of "The Promise: President Obama, Year One."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+107 # Barbara K 2011-09-17 15:53
Just think, if it hadn't been for the Supreme Court, who handed the presidency to Bush when it was actually won by Gore, our last decade would have been so different, no wars, I believe jobs would not have been shipped out and most or all people would be working, no deficits, a cleaner environment, even wind and solar energies would be popular. Instead we got Bushwhacked by an idiot who did absolutely nothing good for the country, while his party was sneaking in the destruction crew to undue America. Bush brought the economy to the brink of destruction, and then they have the nerve to blame Obama. Well it is like this: The Democrats try to save the world; the Republicans seek to profit off the destruction.
 
 
-18 # Glen 2011-09-17 17:47
"The Democrats try to save the world", as in when they kept us involved in Vietnam through lies and then profit? As in when Clinton bombed a little spot in Africa and bombed Iraq and the Balkans under the guise of saving the good guys. Oh, and he signed NAFTA. Of course, we now know all he was doing was softening up Iraq for the Bush administration to finish off. How about when Carter OK'd planting a crap load of land mines in Africa, etc. etc. etc. unto assassination.

Check out what Obama is actually doing, such as building or refurbishing military bases in South America, bombing countries without provocation, etc. How about drones, the production of which has multiplied under Obama.

None should be naive when considering the U.S. government.
 
 
-80 # forparity 2011-09-17 19:34
Oh come on. Bush won. Gore sued to overturn the election. Gore lost in the courts.

Gore - by the way - argured in the FL Supreme court that they could not order up a statewide recount. He was correct.

Just the same, the national media consortium conducted it - and without exception, they all found out that using the rules that were in place in time - the rules by which the Florida Supreme court ordered the recount - Gore still Lost, and Bush still won.

Had Gore been sucessful and somehow overturned the election, it would indeed be proper to say that they handed the presidency to Gore.
 
 
+29 # Ken Hall 2011-09-18 09:50
Don't think so. When I go to Media Matters, they report that Gore would have won, and the major media did conclude that, burying their results in the last paragraphs of the reporting so as not to upset "national unity". See Robert Parry's articles for more info. And, BTW, it was the Repubs who sued first.
 
 
-24 # forparity 2011-09-18 11:32
It doesn't matter what the shrill Democratic org, Media Matters said.

The media - all wanting Gore to win - found out what they found out.

There were some possible scenarios discussed, none of which were possible under either the rules in place at the time, nor that were the order of the Fl Supreme Court - that would have swung it to Gore's favor - but, that hardly matters. I'm sure that Bush could have come up with schemes, as well which would have given him more votes.

Rewriting history serves no purpose.
 
 
+10 # Ken Hall 2011-09-18 19:20
No, sorry, Media Matters is a trusted source and more accurate than the shrill right wing news sources that you seem to consult. I agree, let's not rewrite history. Your unequivocal claim that "Bush won" has been challenged by the very source that you cite, and that's history.
 
 
-6 # forparity 2011-09-19 11:30
From Wa Post - about the Press's historic recount effort:

"But an examination of the disputed ballots suggests that in hindsight the battalions of lawyers and election experts who descended on Florida pursued strategies that ended up working against the interests of their candidates.

The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through."

Once again - on that last sentence -- Gore's counsel, David Boies, argued against the Fl Supreme Court ordering the statewide recount - saying that there was no place in the law for it - that it would be struck down. They didn't listen - and David Boies was correct.
 
 
+3 # Ken Hall 2011-09-20 23:12
And is this from the NYT: ""If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won." Because of the tampering by conservative officials, the hired thugs, the ballots "lost" before the Media recount, I don't think we'll ever know what really happened, and that is my point. To declare with absolute certainty that Bush won, and that the Media recount proves it, is false.
 
 
+17 # soularddave 2011-09-18 18:18
Don't forget "electronic voting machines" that lost or altered votes and the outcomes.
 
 
+8 # ericlipps 2011-09-19 12:01
Quoting forparity:
Oh come on. Bush won. Gore sued to overturn the election. Gore lost in the courts.

Gore - by the way - argured in the FL Supreme court that they could not order up a statewide recount. He was correct.

Just the same, the national media consortium conducted it - and without exception, they all found out that using the rules that were in place in time - the rules by which the Florida Supreme court ordered the recount - Gore still Lost, and Bush still won.

Had Gore been sucessful and somehow overturned the election, it would indeed be proper to say that they handed the presidency to Gore.


Rubbish. It was, at every point, Bush who raced into court, not Gore.

The title of the case heard by the Supreme Court, "Bush v. Gore," says it all. It's always the plaintiff--the one suing--whose name comes first. Bush sued and kept suing until he reached the safely Republican Supremem Court, two of whose members were appointed by his dad (and who should therefore have recused themselves, but did not).
 
 
-5 # forparity 2011-09-19 19:38
Wow - Now why would Bush do that, when he was the winner? Gore filed the first action - Bush responded.

Gore and his allies filed many more suits than did Bush.

Here's a brief account.

Of course, the 7-2 vote in the end ruled the day - just as Gore's attorney, David Boies had argued in front of the Florida Supremes.
 
 
0 # forparity 2011-09-19 21:16
Oops so solly - left that link out.here it is:


http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/bg.shtml
 
 
+2 # ericlipps 2011-09-19 12:02
And actually, the media consortium's findings were more complex than that--and were in any case tainted. They had been scheduled to come out the second full week in September, 2011. When 9/11 happened, their release was delayed by two full months, allegedly to preserve national unity during the crisis. If Bush was the winner, free and clear, what was the threat? I've alwayss uspected that the delay was ordered to give the consortium time to spin their findings Bush's way to avoid appearing "disloyal."
 
 
+37 # doneasley 2011-09-17 22:40
In addition to the S"election" of Bush in 2000, Republicans have produced a conspiratorial scandal in each administration since Nixon.

o Nixon: Watergate scandal. The ONLY administration in history where President and VP (Agnew) were forced to leave.

o Ford: The one exception in the Republican string. The pardon of Nixon! Otherwise a good man. He made a huge blunder in his debates against Carter when he said, "There is NO Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" when all of those countries were under Soviet control.

o Reagan: Iran-Contra scandal. Reagan claimed he didn't know anything about weapons being funneled to the Iranians, but Ollie North will tell you different. Behind President Carter's back, Reagan also conspired to release the American hostages in Iran when his future VP George H W Bush held secret meetings with the Iranians paving the way for their release when Reagan took office.

o George H W Bush: After his involvement in the Reagan conspiricies, when he took office he pardoned the major Iran-Contra conspirators. He also presided over the Savings & Loan scandal, where his little known sons, Neil and Marvin, were involved in the largest one. He also pardoned some of those involved.

George W Bush: Conspiracy to invade Iraq. The man whose inept handling of his responsibilitie s in office put us where we are now!
 
 
+17 # TrueAmericanPatriot 2011-09-17 23:42
Quoting doneasley:
In addition to the S"election" of Bush in 2000, Republicans have produced a conspiratorial scandal in each administration since Nixon.

o Nixon: Watergate scandal. The ONLY administra

o George H W Bush: After his involvement in the Reagan conspiricies, when he took office he pardoned the major Iran-Contra conspirators. He also presided over the Savings & Loan scandal, where his little known sons, Neil and Marvin, were involved in the largest one. He also pardoned some of those involved.

George W Bush: Conspiracy to invade Iraq. The man whose inept handling of his responsibilities in office put us where we are now!


Doneasley, it is SO GOOD to know that there really are others who are alert, awake, and aware of what has been (and is) going on in our nation. Continue to stay properly informed and share with others whenever possible!
 
 
+8 # doneasley 2011-09-18 15:54
I'll certainly do that TrueAmericanPat riot. My fear is that in 2012 Democrats will not turn out in the numbers that they did in 2008 and the GOP will win the presidency and the Senate, and maintain control of the House. You can bet that once the GOP has selected its candidate, the millions will roll in anonymously because of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. They're also currently implementing laws in no less than 27 states to limit voter turnout in typically Democratic demographic groups - minorities, seniors, students, ex-convicts, etc. Those numbers are estimated to be several million. Through underhanded tactics, they successfully got rid of the ACORN voter registration group, while in at least 2 states, they're also trying to make it illegal for outside organizations to register voters. And since unions are normally Democratic supporters, the GOP is working to outlaw public unions - teachers, police, firefighters, public workers, etc. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), supported by the Texas Koch brothers, is an organization that formulates radical ideas and presents them to GOP-controlled states and legislatures for implementation into law. They're striking while the iron is hot folks. We'd better take this seriously, because they're going to turn out en masse!!!
 
 
-3 # forparity 2011-09-19 12:00
. . and the Democrats did not?

James Riady

Solyndra

. . to be brief.
 
 
+13 # GeeRob 2011-09-18 10:26
Ofcourse Bush was inept. But he handed over his responsibilitie s to Cheney, who actually was our president from 2001-2005.
 
 
-6 # anarchteacher 2011-09-17 16:49
Jonathan Alter suffers from an embrace of the hollow nostrums of statist court historians. Court Historians are the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the "official line" or interpretation on the State's wars, its presidential regimes, or other key events and public policies.

As dissident economist/histo rian Murray N. Rothbard noted:

“All States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of “Court Intellectuals,” whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public. The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity."
 
 
+23 # Glen 2011-09-17 18:37
I'm not certain why you are getting thumbs down, anarchteacher. Isn't the U.S. ruled by a minority ruling class? Of course it is.
 
 
+35 # GeeRob 2011-09-17 17:27
Rick Perry will finish us off. His term will be the Last Decade.
 
 
+38 # giraffee2012 2011-09-17 17:33
Not only did Bush/Cheney act as treasons but they TOOK and TOOK and GAVE AWAY --

Vote Dem 2012 - you can register today and get a mail-in ballot and HAND your ballot into one of several places - even if your governor MOVES your polling place.

As Michael Moore said: "Don't stay home and complain" -- get out and get everyone out who may not know "how to get an ID - it is FREE and not $28 as Gov Walker is advertizing"

If Cheney or Bush tries to leave the country (say on vacation) they will be picked up and held for "WAR CRIMES" -- but notice neither will now - darn.

The Supremes not only gave "W" the pResidency but in 2010 made a very UNCONSTITUTIONA L decision to let big $$ corp have first amendment rights "person hood" -- without giving them the rest of the "bill of rights" such as the right to BE SUED -- .... Scalia/Thomas are in bed with the Koch brothers --- google ALEC.

VOTE -- 2012 -- get all the minorities, old, young OUT to get registered that you can!

We lost in 2010 bc so many Dems SAT at home. Ok, President Obama has not been able to do all he promised --BUT he's been pounded on like NO OTHER PRESIDENT ever -- the GOP/TP are racists and do not even hide their prejudices.

Follow the example of WI -- GO WI, OH, IN and all states with Koch funded GOP/TP Governors.
 
 
+2 # forparity 2011-09-17 19:30
"In the '90s, we balanced the budget, reformed welfare & watched the Internet . ."

Really?

We balanced the budget because the R's & Clinton cut spending. That left the military w/o spare parts, good flax jackets & armored Humvee's, & with a shortage of cruise missiles when GW Bush came in. That's why Gore campaigned on spending more money for the military;

And . .

The dot.com bubble created massive tax rev.

Oops, it crashed in March,2000 - and so did all of the budget surplues & proj surpluses; "by far" (to quote Dean Baker) the main reason we returned to huge deficits in a couple years. Yes -Bush added to them.

In the last 12 mo's of 2000, gas prices rose 50%, the NE was having a serious heating oil problem, and CA was in the midst of the CA blackouts. Enron's run was over.

The world? We'd had Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Checyna, Kosovo, millions dying in N.Korea (the nuke was on the make), & the DR Congo (another 3 million dead). Libera and Darfur were coming unglued.

Afghanistan was cruely taken over by the Taliban; 60-100K mini genocide.

In late 2000, Pakistan&India were on the brink of a nuclear war; China & the US were playing a game of chicken with spy planes; and Clinton had greatly escalated the bombing in Iraq.

Ah - the 90's.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2011-09-18 05:35
Forparity, George W. also campaigned with the intent to cut back the military, close bases, etc. During that campaign I sat next to a military officer on a flight into Florida who was going there for a meeting to make plans for how to handle a cut back and possible changes.

When reminding folks of the dark side of the nineties there is an immediate flare of anger - same with any mention of the dark side of democrats. There is a dark side to both parties when in office and ignoring that has kept folks misinformed and under the impression that there is a good guys against the bad guys mentality.
 
 
-1 # forparity 2011-09-18 11:47
Well, we all get to talk to big wigs. In the opening weeks of the Iraq war - I spoke to CentCom general - and convinced them start flying out injured Iraqi Children (and other civilians) for medical treatment aboard Navy hospital ships - namely the USS Comfort.

Needless to say - my comment above is simply a comparison of the most deadly (most representative decade of turning our backs upon) for the world since the end of WW II - the decade of the 90's.

Was also a period of exceptional greed and corporate fraud. Perhaps the later stage of the housing bubble, got us even past that point - but even Baker and Canova would argue that it's cumulative.
 
 
+3 # Glen 2011-09-18 14:08
Upon close scrutiny, it may be recognized that each decade of any administration is guilty of of rather heinous crimes or corruption. Too bad citizens miss that. You are right about the nineties, but others are right about the new millennium and George W. administration. One mistake is to believe that all of us must be democrat or republican, left or right. That limited grouping leads to misinformation and blind loyalty.
 
 
0 # forparity 2011-09-18 16:59
I'm smiling !
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-09-19 10:33
Trouble is, there is no way to know what that smile might mean.
 
 
+2 # forparity 2011-09-19 11:58
Goodness. Help us learn to trust one another.

And to enjoy a good one, without having it ruined.
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-09-19 15:43
I can't see your face. You must be specific as in I am smiling because it's good to "trust one another". That is a distinct problem with the internet.

Glad, though, that you are smiling! Thumbs up, my man. I guess you are a man - not that it matters.
 
 
+8 # kyzipster 2011-09-18 09:41
Clinton with all of his flaws did make a controversial decision to balance the budget with much resistance from Republicans and he left office with a surplus and a recommendation to the next administration to stay on track to be debt free by 2008. He raised taxes as well as cut spending, the same strategy recommended by a bipartisan commission today and rejected by Republicans.

Gas prices rose 50% from $1.40 per gallon. There is a direct relationship between the price of oil, a devalued dollar and the debt. A devalued dollar accounts for around 25% of the price of oil. Oil speculation on Wall St accounts for another 25%.
 
 
-1 # forparity 2011-09-18 11:40
Kyzip . .

What controversial decision yo talking bout?

Read my comment again - I explain in very easy to understand layman terms why and how the budget got balanced. And yes, Clinton was a good partner with the R's on many of those measures.

Still primarily the reason we got there, was the huge increase in tax revenue from the dot.com investment era.

It crashed in March of 2000. That was the end of that. Look at what happened in CA, as a result (for an easier layman understanding of the immediate effect) of the crash. Boom - $20 billion disappeared almost over night (a 20% shift) -- then the recession from the crash hit .

"By far," (one again to quote the progressive/soc ialist economist Dean Baker, the primary reason the surpluses disappeared, and we were deep into deficit spending by the end of 2002-2003 was the economic fallout from the collapse of the Dot.com bubble.

There's no argument there amongst economists.

And I offered to you, Bush policies certainly did not prevent the debt from growing, although federal tax revenue did increase a whopping 44% from 2004 thru 2007, inclusive.

Then another bubble collapse - and this one is worse.

And yes, I'm familiar with gas prices. cheers
 
 
+4 # kyzipster 2011-09-18 13:44
You're regurgitating revisionist Fox News history. This is not simply 'another bubble collapse', it's one of the worst economic catastrophes in the history of capitalism. It transcends political parties but not ideology, it is clear how we got on this path. Clinton played a role to the extent that he let Alan Greenspan loose on the economy but he did not create the irresponsible and devastating debt of the Bush years that was based on a mythology that tax cuts create more tax revenue. Quite the contrary, he cleaned up the mess from the first round of trickle down tax cuts from the Reagan/Bush era and the decision was controversial, he was advised against it.
 
 
-2 # forparity 2011-09-18 21:40
sad .. we could have shared so much - but you can't find it.
 
 
0 # forparity 2011-09-19 09:27
The first round of tax cuts - 2001 - and let's call them what they were called then, and what Obama's tax cuts are called today - Stimulus -- were the 2001 tax rebates, which were pushed into the broader tax bracket reductions, child credit increases and marriage penalty fix, by the Democrats, namely, Daschle, Kucinch and Liebermann. They wanted $60 billion in 2001, but got $40 billion, with a $20 billion carryover into 2002.

The tax cuts (stimulus) were to help soften the recession and economic collapse left in the wake of the 2000 dot.com (Enron) bubble collapse.

The 2003 tax cut stimulus (of which I've long opposed the 18% for the upper income earners) was a continuation (much like Obama is doing today) trying to get it going. It was a hard two-three years.

You see - like today - without bubbles (dot.com - housing, etc.) we don't have an underlying economic base capable of fueling growth and employment -- and -- Revenue.

And for the record, I doubt that I've heard any of my argument on Fox News.

This last collapse had nothing to do with debt (though that is a big issue); rather, it was about the collapse of the credit markets, which followed the collapse of the housing bubble - which, as Obama has noted - was created by HUD back in the 90's - and while he thought it was good - it got out of control.
 
 
0 # kyzipster 2011-10-06 22:46
Your revisionist history is available on more venues than Fox. Blaming this catastrophe on low income home buyers with HUD backed loans, that's baloney. HUD contributed but was not the cause.
 
 
+3 # SundownLF 2011-09-18 11:35
Quoting forparity:
"
Ah - the 90's.


Ah, indeed. And then there was 'welfare reform' and, above all, NAFTA.
 
 
+9 # dandevries 2011-09-17 21:48
And likely to be century, if the planet lasts that long.
 
 
+5 # sukumar 2011-09-17 22:13
Lost Decade? Heck, we invented the iPhone!
 
 
+6 # Glen 2011-09-18 05:23
Thank you for injecting some levity into the discussion, sukumar!!

We should make a list of good stuff that came out of that 10 years to ease the spirit a bit. You go first.
 
 
+7 # kyzipster 2011-09-18 09:45
Judging from all of those thumbs downs, there seems to be a serious lack of humor around here.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2011-09-18 13:57
Yep. A distinct lack of humor and quite a lot of folks who take themselves too seriously. Sure, serious times deserve serious discussion, but hey.

Give sukumar your thumbs up. I did.
 
 
+3 # forparity 2011-09-19 09:16
So did I.
 
 
+13 # Dave45 2011-09-17 23:28
A government concerned mainly with the upper 1% of its citizens and which spends half of its tax receipts on military adventures around the world in order to feed its lavish appetite for comfort and commodities will not long last. Such a country will ultimately devour its own until the rich no longer have anybody to be richer than.
 
 
+9 # wleming 2011-09-18 10:14
why not point out that under capitalism, tho millions suffer- there are a few who profit tremendously. good way to describe a process whereby the top 2 per cent effectively absorb all the wealth. bush helped make that process accelerate... but it is a fix feature of capitalist exploitation. this isn't about one loser faux texan.. its about a system that can do this to people
 
 
+9 # fredboy 2011-09-18 10:21
It is quite clear that the question we face is simple: save or allow others to destroy America. The Rick Perrys of the world pose more danger than the "communist threat" ever did. Dangerous, vicious people. Dangerous, vicious people. If you love your families and kids and grandkids, you'd best take action now. And stay with it save this nation and restore its essential vitality.
 
 
+3 # DavidThree 2011-09-20 05:10
This is less about the oughts, than the teens. We will soon decide the direction for the next decade - will we move backwards with the Tea Party, or forward? We needed an FDR in '08 - and we still need one now.
 

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