BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM

As I understand it the real problem in Haiti under Aristide has been outside interference from the United States and others.

Here's an article from today's Guardian which gives a slightly different slant on all this from most of the stuff about this that has been coming out - Why they had to crush Aristide

..."With the enthusiastic backing of Haiti's former colonial master, a leader elected with overwhelming popular support has been driven from office by a loose association of convicted human rights abusers, seditious former army officers and pro-American business leaders...."

As for the claims about a bent election: "An exhaustive and convincing report by the International Coalition of Independent Observers concluded that "fair and peaceful elections were held" in 2000, and by the standard of the presidential elections held in the US that same year they were positively exemplary."

So in the light of "a colonial power is responsible for the problems of it's former colonies" , when can we expect to see the British step in to sort out the former colonies in North America, and the problems they seem to have in holding fair elections?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM

Well, I'm not an Aristide apologist but...

... given the circumstances in Haiti with just basic security without outside help, he has been in no-win situation... And he hasn't gotten much in the way of help from the international community. Why? I 'm not sure if there has been an active conspiracy or just a passive agressive one but he was certainly set up...

I'd be real curious to know the relationship of Haiti's aristocracy (the 1% that controls 99% of the country's wealth) has with aristocracies in other countries, the US included...

As fir the Don/Strick discussion. Sorry, Strick, but I kinda find myself on Don's side on what I have read about teh US economy in '37 and '38 and his observation that their is a chizzeled-in-stone goal by the ruling class to kill off every last FDR program, Social Security included. It's not that they are aginst entitlements, it's just they are the ones who feel superiorially entitled becuase, for the most part, they were born with a silver spoon...

Sorry, pal, that's my take on it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Metchosin
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 07:48 PM

Bobert, if you would like more information regarding Haiti's well "oiled" or "greased" oppostion to democratically elected governments, "not of the right persuasion" and the US, check out the website I linked to above (its in English as well as French) or just Google "Haiti" and the "International Republican Institute". Basically it is a repeat of what happened to Allende in Chile (although perhaps they've learned that iis not a good idea to kill 'em you make a martyr out of 'em, which it isn't good for business) and what went on in Venezuela (to a lesser extent not as successfully......so far").

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:20 PM

I did speak in haste earlier. The unemployment rate at the beginning of WWII was 17.2%, extraordinarily high by any historical standard.

That WWII pulled the US out of the Depression is considered common knowledge by most economists. Here are some reasonablly independent sources that support that contention with a relevant quote taken from each.

The Great Depression -- Wikipedia
"After the Court began to uphold his interventionist legislation, the economy took a sharp downward dip, which has been called a depression within a depression, from which it was only slowly recovering when the US entered WWII. Thus it is claimed that his intervention delayed the economic recovery that had been underway."

The Depression & WWII -- Library of Congress
"The end to the Great Depression came about in 1941 with America's entry into World War II."

The Timeline of The Great Depression -- PBS
"...In little over a year, following Japan's December 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would enter the war in the Pacific and in Europe.

The war effort jump-started U.S. industry and effectively ended the Great Depression."

The Great Depression -- FDR Presidential Library and Museum
Despite all the President's efforts and the courage of the American people, the Depression hung on until 1941, when America's involvement in the Second World War resulted in the drafting of young men into military service, and the creation of millions of jobs in defense and war industries.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:31 PM

My apologies, the wrong quote is attributed to Wikipedia. The correct citation should be:

The Great Depression -- Wikipedia
"It was World War II, not the New Deal, which finally ended the crisis(i.e., The Great Depression). Nor did the New Deal substantially alter the distribution of power within American capitalism; it had only a small impact on the distribution of wealth among the population."

Great Depression and the New Deal -- History.SearchBeat/Wikipedia
"After the Court began to uphold his interventionist legislation, the economy took a sharp downward dip, which has been called a depression within a depression, from which it was only slowly recovering when the US entered WWII. Thus it is claimed that his intervention delayed the economic recovery that had been underway."

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:38 PM

Hmmm - I really don't know much about this but I thought Aristide was a U.S. puppet? Yes or no? What does this tell the U.S. about their efforts at democratizing other countries? Maybe it will inform some of the decisions being made about Iraq.

I heard that Canada is willing to go to Haiti and has enough troops to deal with it if that is what the U.N. wants. Heard the P.M. say he wants a game plan first. Maybe the U.S. will confine themselves to Iraq for the time being since it seems to be a humanitarian effort as opposed to an economic opportunity.

d

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: GUEST,Bill Carlsen
Date: 02 Mar 04 - 09:45 PM

What I would like to know, and what I've not heard of anywhere: Who are the opposition leaders? Who are these "rebel" forces that came in over the border? But mostly what I'd like to know is who backs them - it takes a lot of $$$$$ to finance a political rebellion/coup and these folks came in from across the border (as I understand it).
Can someone offer some ligth on this?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 05:33 AM

In today's Guardian you can read letters to the article McGrath has linked to yesterday:

Aristide's failures .

Aristide is not, as Peter Hallward would portray him, a champion of the poor (Why they had to crush Aristide, March 2). Instead, his regime was little different from Haiti's other rulers when power was exercised in the personal interests of previous presidents...Despite his populist rhetoric, Aristide failed to take any serious measures during his last period in office that would address Haiti's underlying problems of growing poverty, glaring inequality and the exclusion of ordinary people from any say in the way the country is governed.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 10:27 AM

From what they're saying on NPR, the "opposition" is a pretty gnarly group of drug dealers, gangsters, general criminals. But I turned on the piece a couple of minutes into it. Anyone hear the whole thing?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Metchosin
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 11:45 AM

Re the opposition from my previous link

The Opposition

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Metchosin
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:11 PM

More information regarding

Haiti Coup

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 12:51 PM

Strick, I read the links and they're very interesting and informative. Thanks. But—conclusions drawn depend a lot on the viewpoint of who writes (and who reads) the history.

With the institution of the WPA and the CCC, the unemployment rate immediately started to drop because people were put to work directly. Most of the projects of the Works Projects Administration involved construction and manual labor (repairing and building roads, highways and bridges, that sort of thing) and the Civilian Conservation Corps put young men (18-25) to work in National Parks and wilderness areas repairing and cleaning up facilities, building trails, etc. These were only two of a number of similar programs. The unemployment rate was still way up there, but because of these programs, suddenly a fair number of people—millions, in fact—were working again. And they were able to pay their bills and buy things for the first time in a long time. Stockpiles of manufactured goods that sat in warehouses because no one had the money to buy anything slowly began to sell once more. This, in turn, created manufacturing jobs. It made one helluva difference to a lot of people, and it did get a very sick economy moving again. Not fast, mind you, but it was coming back to life.

Now I'll grant you that America didn't move from the residual effects of the Depression to full employment and prosperity until World War II, but Roosevelt's policies did end the Depression for millions of people and put the country back on a track on which it would have recovered fully even if the war hadn't come along.

I've heard this bit about "Roosevelt got us out of the Depression by getting us into World War II" schtick from mainly two groups: conservatives who hated Roosevelt's guts (and still do) and people too young to actually remember. It makes a nice, simplistic way of trying to explain the complex and messy workings of a nation's economy (which even Alan Greenspan says he doesn't fully understand), and I repeat, it's a canard. What you really need to do to understand the effect of the New Deal is to read (you did read it, didn't you?) the section about the causes of the Depression and relate that to the way the New Deal policies addressed and dealt with those causes.

Incidentally, this canard has been used by some politicians as a justification (usually not to the people in general, but to the "inner circle") for wanting to start or maintain conflicts with other countries. If the economy is bad, start a war. That's an completely counter to reason. Wars are expensive (in many ways), and anyone with half a brain should know that rather than bailing out a sick economy, it puts a major drain on it.

What concerns me now is that many of the causes of the Depression are back, twice as ugly and just as dangerous, and the Bush administration, like Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, is doing nothing to alleviate them—in fact, they're doing just about everything they can to make them worse.

It's interesting to note that a number of historians have said that Roosevelt's policies would have worked much better had he been bolder about them. He was, they say, too conservative.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 01:14 PM

"Now I'll grant you that America didn't move from the residual effects of the Depression to full employment and prosperity until World War II, but Roosevelt's policies did end the Depression for millions of people and put the country back on a track on which it would have recovered fully even if the war hadn't come along."

My point about addressing symptoms, not the problem (come now, 17.2% is not "residual"! and the "depression within a depression" in '37 & '38 was quite real and despite the New Deal). The Wikipedia article goes so far as to say that even WWII didn't really end the Depression considering that it did little to directly improve the lot of most people and the investments being made went to blowing things up rather than consumer goods. But that's a social program, not an economic program. The Depression could not legitimately be said to have ended as a result of the New Deal.

Most economists agree that there were one or more of three problems that prevented the New Deal from really affecting the overall economy. First that it was not coordinated with monetary policy. Keynes didn't give monetary policy much credit and the result was that what the monetary system was doing tended to counter-act what the government was trying. That made sense at first when interest rates didn't allow much room for monetary policy to work, but later it was a real problem. Second, the reluctance to rely on deficit spending tended to styme their own programs. Without some deficits, they only borrowed from Peter to pay Paul. As the 30s progressed the economy tried to recover on it's own. Government's actions kinda got in the way. Third, as you point out, the government's programs were simply too small to address the problem. To have been effective you would have to have had a much larger deficit than Roosevelt or anyone else would have tolerated.

Of course, that last point is telling. Once you've dropped interest rates to a certain point, the only way you can stimulate an economy is through deficit spending. Interesting given the current situtation, isn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 03:44 PM

I see Baby Doc is planning to go back to Haiti now some of his friends are in power in the new regime.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 05:25 PM

Well, Strick, I don't think the statement that "most economists" agree that the New Deal didn't help the economy. Perhaps a statement closer to "most economists that I (Strick) read and respect agree...".

I'd be curious to know what the economists with whom you agree would have done as president in 1932 that would have worked any better. Massigve deficit spending is not a one-size-fits-all solution to economic woes.

Don is correct in his observation that the CCC and WPA provided opportunities for millions of folks, many of them close to losing all hope. In doing so it made some positive strides in restoring some level of confidence in the nation and it's leadership. Had these steps not been taken, I would hate to think just how prepared the US would be to dear up for WW II had the Depression ravaged on at '32 levels...

And, sure, what came out of the New Deal was a feeling that we're all in this thing together and that we do value the sentiments expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Lyndon Johnson said it well. "Don't spit in the soup fir we've all got to eat." Well, I know there is a small minority of very wealthy folks who just *want it all* and they are threatened by anything that might impose on them to, ahhhh, share.

Russia had a similar situation in 1918 as does a present day Haiti. Wporking, productive people can only be squeezed but so much by the ruling class before something breaks. The New Deal was kinda insurance against that happening in the US. Given the recent "two-tiered" labor settlement and the push to scale back the near *poverty level" entitilements to the working class, America's moneyied class could just make life very uncomfortable for itself... Once Southern Man figures the deal out it will be too late to say "I'm sorry".

With the wealth, incidently which has been created by labor, in the US there is no earthly reason to have 15% of our children living in poverty. And there is no reason why the working man's spending power has fallen every year for the last 20 years, or that a average number of vacation days in the US is lower by far than any other industrialized nation... Something is way out of wack here...

Think Haiti if Boss Hog is gonna insist on having as much as he possibly can cheat everyone else out of... It's not too farfetched.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 06:21 PM

Bobert, I'm confident when I say that most economists think that the New Deal had a marginal impact on the Depression and that it did less to end the Depression than WWII for one or more of the reasons I stated. The statistics alone are impossible to ignore.

Then there are the different schools of economic thought. If you're a monetarist, well, the New Deal ignored monetary policy altogether and the Fed unknowingly worked against what would be considered good policy today. If you're a Keynesian (or whatever followed that line into this generation of economists) you're comfortable it just wasn't enough money to do much good. If you're a Communist, well, you're the last one, but you'd certainly agree that a Capitalist can only end a recession or worse through a war. There are other schools of thought, but most economists fall in one of those three.

I wasn't disputing the social impact of the New Deal, just it's effectiveness as an economic stimulant. It failed.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 06:25 PM

BTW, I know what you're thinking. When even NPR and FDR's own Presidential Library accept the Republican revisionst theory that it was WWII and not the New Deal that ended the Depression, there must be a conspiracy a foot. Damn that Karl Rove. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:31 PM

What "most economists think" about anything is hardly a basis for making any kind of judgment. What is relevant is, which of them are correct in their judgment.

It's probably true to say that, at any time, what "most economists" - think is going , within a handful of years, to be considered completely wrong, by "most economists" of the next generation. And the same goes for any kind of analogous experts. Economics is in many ways better thought of as a branch of philosophy rather than a science.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:37 PM

'most economists agree...
thats a good one, I studied economics at University. There are a lot of opposing camps. And the best criticism of economic theory came from David Suzuki (geneticist/environmental activist)

with a phd and years of work in genetics and biology, he decided to take a course on economics, during a lecture he asked the professor
on how the effect on the environment enters the equation. The professor replied that it doesnt. At which point Suzuki got up and left.

good examples of unknown economic spinoffs - feeding ground up beef to cattle = BSE and Cjd (ask a canadian rancher how they feel about it)
then theres pollution or air, water, greenhouse effect -
DDT, Dioxin, ... overfishing, species extinction.. none of those enter the economic equation. When they do Ill take economics seriously.

and one of the first searches I did when the internet became available is the phrase 'economists were surprised'

try it.
Petr

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 07:45 PM

Just tried that - 69,100 responses... Mind "econoists were not surprised came in at 109,000 responses.

I wouldn't put any great credence in them either way.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 09:01 PM

As you wish, McGrath, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. The criteria for establishing when the Great Depression started and ended are objective and, other than a little time here or there, not open to dispute. So are the criteria for determining whether the economy was stronger or weaker at any point in the 8 years or so it lingered. The economic indicators leave no doubt. Short of voiding the laws of causality, there isn't much question that the New Deal actually made the situation worse in '37 and '38.

What you might try to remember is that economists are lousy at predicting the future. That's what keeps them from being considered true scientists. Any damned fool can read the record of what happened in the past.

For the rest, I can only refer you to the objective opinions I cite above, including, as I mention in passing once again, FDR's own Presidential Library that acknowledges WWII, not the New Deal, is responsible for ending the Depression. (Oh, and dang it, I meant PBS, not NPR in that last post.)

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 09:45 PM

There is nothing on Earth like massive war production to kick start an economy...as long as the bombs are falling on someone else's homeland. The USA was in that fortunate position in WWII, and has been ever since with the one notable exception of 9/11.

FDR tried hard to get the country out of the depression, and he did pass some notable progressive legislation, but the war was the crucial factor in putting America back to work on a full scale basis.

Be that as it may, the neoconservative movement is passionately dedicated to doing away with every piece of progressive legislation ever passed by FDR or anyone else...because it stands in the way of their one god...MONETARY PROFIT. That's a philosophy of unrestricted greed at the expense of all else. Such a philosophy deserves an ignoble death and a deep and permanent grave. Put a bleeding dollar sign on the tombstone, and stamp a skull and crossbones over it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 10:43 PM

Add in the "economic idicaters" and you got one heck of a mess... Unemployment? Hmmmmmm? How does one measure that? Ya' gonna knock on every door in America???

Recovery? Now here's a joke? If yer borrowin' aginst yer kids future earnings is that a recovery?

Back in '37 and '38, were the WPA and CCC folks counted as employed? Maybe, maybe not...

Statisticians can prove that 1 = 2......

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 03 Mar 04 - 11:08 PM

"Back in '37 and '38, were the WPA and CCC folks counted as employed? Maybe, maybe not..."

On the contrary, of course they did. Though I don't think the CCC and the WPA ever co-existed. I could be wrong.

I just want to be sure this is what it seems. I've offered some fairly substantial opinions from well respected, clearly objective sources (I could provide the numbers themselves if you want) and the best you can do is fall back on hyperbolic political rhetoric and an argument that since the Federal government's own numbers, the ones collected by FDR's government by the same techniques that damned Hoover in your eyes, don't show what you want to believe, it's all statistical lies? You don't like the evidence, you can't respond to it, so you dismiss it and believe only what you want to believe? Do you have any idea how childish those responses sound?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 02:01 PM

A good overview of the Depression can be found HERE. Tanner's concluding paragraph gives World War II credit for actually bringing the Depression to an end, but the article outlines the effect the New Deal programs had. The spread between the rich and the poor was extreme, and what middle class there was constituted a very narrow band in the economic spectrum. 50% of the population was below the poverty line. And, believe me, talk of revolution was in the air.

After instituting the first of the New Deal programs, the 23.6% unemployment rate began to drop and the GNP began to rise. The unemployment rate dropped slowly—but steadily—reaching 14.3% in 1937. Still pretty gawdawful, but a lot better than 23.6%, and a lot more people were able to pay their bills and begin to buy things. The economy was moving again. Slowly, but moving. For the first time in a long time, people began to have hope, feeling that there was actually someone in charge who a) knew what he was doing, and b) really cared about what happened to them.

All this time, Roosevelt was fighting with a recalcitrant Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court that declared just about everything he tried "unconstitutional." This was one of the reasons for Roosevelt's "fireside chats." He bypassed Congress and went directly to the people. When Roosevelt explained (in detailed, but understandable terms) what he was trying to do, the citizens themselves set their Senators' and Representatives' asses on fire and sent them back to Washington, D.C.

Above, I comment that it's interesting to note that "a number of historians have said that Roosevelt's policies would have worked much better had he been bolder about them. He was, they say, too conservative." The whole world was deeply affected by the Depression. Sweden took direct and decisive action—very similar to Roosevelt's New Deal programs but considerably more aggressive—and was fully recovered by 1934. This, of course, got Sweden labeled as "socialist."

Because of the deficit spending, Roosevelt got cautious in 1937 and backed off a bit. The result was a recession. The economy slowed and unemployment rose. Had he been bolder (not quite so conservative), this wouldn't have happened. But people could see real progress and had sufficient faith in him to elect him for an unprecidented third term, and then a fourth.

World War II created an artificial boom. Sudden full employment. It confuses the issue regarding the actual effect of Roosevelt's New Deal programs, and it gives conservatives and other anti-Roosevelt-types an opportunity to point and pontificate that, "Roosevelt didn't end the Depression, the War did!" or "Roosevelt got us out of the Depression by getting us into a war," as if we wouldn't have had to get into the war, Depression or not. Political spin. Bad history. Remember? The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and the following day Germany declared war on us.

Once the confusing issue of the war was over, what really drove the last nail into the coffin of the Depression were programs like the GI Bill and the influx of a large number of mature college graduates into the business world. World War II veterans were treated decently back then. We haven't done quite so well lately.

Here are a couple of other articles that are worth reading:   Causes of the Depression, a brief, comprehensive list, and Main Causes of the Great Depression, a longer, more extensive article. By the way, if anyone wants to go into this in even greater detail, here is a link to the texts of Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats".   

History never actually repeats itself in detail, of course, but similar causes do tend to cause similar effects (e.g., Point 1 in the above linked "Causes of the Depression:" high levels of unemployment can also be caused by "out-sourcing" or "off-shoring," as we're beginning to see). It's illuminating to compare the factors that brought about the Great Depression with some of the factors at work today. And a bit nervous-making.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:37 PM

The incredible thing is that it is so easy in North America to demonize anything intended to help people in an equal fashion across the board...you just call it "socialism"...

As if that was a dirty word. Amazing!

Socialism is based on the idea of equality...that is to say, an equal playing field for people starting at the ground level, not an enforced equality but an equal initial opportunity in life. It stands directly in the way of the traditional robber barons who have run western society since feudal times, whose bread and butter is the maintenance of endemic poverty alongside privilege. That is why they demonize it. They are liars, oppressors, and murderers by proxy. They are presently engaged in shipping most of your jobs to China. They have no loyalty to America, but only to profit.

Remember Woody Guthrie, on whose guitar was written: "This Machine Kills Fascists" He was talking about the fascists in America...the robber barons, the bosses, the crooked politicians, and the bankers. It is the blood brothers of those same people who stand behind the neoconservative movement today.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: pdq
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 04:45 PM

Little Hawk...nice try but dead wrong. "This Machine Kills Fascists" was on his guitar during World War Two, while he was a sailor. The slogan was aimed at Hitler and Musolini just as common sense would suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 05:28 PM

"Because of the deficit spending, Roosevelt got cautious in 1937 and backed off a bit. The result was a recession. The economy slowed and unemployment rose. Had he been bolder (not quite so conservative), this wouldn't have happened. But people could see real progress and had sufficient faith in him to elect him for an unprecidented third term, and then a fourth. "

On this we're in agreement, Don. Deficit spending is the only way to restart an economy (whether for social programs to help people or war to kill them) when interest rates are as low as they were in those days. Or now.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 04 - 06:54 PM

You may be right about that, pdq. Still, I think Guthrie was pretty upset at the homegrown variety of fascist too, wasn't he? Most of his activist songs would seem to indicate that.

I find it odd that our entire society encourages the ordinary citizen to do deficit spending ALL the time (through the use of credit cards, borrowing, mortgages, buying on time, etc...)while unscrupulous politicians take the position that deficit spending by a government is sacrilege! They do it not out of a real sense of social responsibility, but for other reasons entirely...and those reasons are: the direct personal gain of more wealth faster by the already wealthy and the demolition of existing social services in favour of private industry for profit.

Deficit spending is a dangerous thing for anyone to do (private citizen or government) when it is accompanied by complete irresponsibility. It's a useful thing to do when it is accompanied by a long range plan that makes sense and is workable.

How can you take seriously a conservative philosophy that encourages everyone EXCEPT government to do massive deficit spending?

It's trickery, folks. The intention of conservative politicians is to move public funds into the pockets of their buddies and backers in the private corporate sector by any means possible, no matter what the damage is to society, ecology, or democracy.

I am a bit unusual in that I do not personally do deficit spending. I do use credit cards, but only for convenience and I always pay them off on time in full...even on so-called "payment holidays" (ha! ha! I'm a fish that won't take the bait.) I have no debts nor does my business. I guess I'm just careful by nature. Most of the people I know do deficit spending constantly. If their next paycheck doesn't come in, they are in deep trouble. Every credit card in the world is now panting to sign me up, cos I am so reliable... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 09:44 AM

I recently attended a conference on the environment wherein an economist stated that conservation of our natural resources harms the economy. He stated that the harm would come in the way of lost jobs across the spectrum of the industrial sector.

I wanted to laugh him out of the hall. His whole speech was based on the Government restricting use of the resources as a way of conserving them. I believe the whole of the drive for the ecology vs. economy is based on this viewpoint.

What environmentalists are looking for is development compatible with nature not shutting it all down. investment in cleaner burning fuels, more efficient engines, etc. What about all the jobs generated in researching, creating, maintaining and monitoring these new systems?

What about lower costs to the industrial sector for the energy they use? What about the reduction of fines from the EPA and other regulatory agencies?

And finally,
What about the health of the nation, the jobs that are being lost because our lakes, rivers, and streams are poisoned by the (few) industrialists that don't give a damn? I can quote figures at you for the Chesapeake Bay in the billions of dollars for aquaculture and recreational use. To say that conserving (and creating a cleaner environment) would hurt the economy is pure and utter hogwash.

Economists, give me a break!

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:28 PM

Meanwhile in Haiti Haiti's poorest languish in riots' wake:

The upheaval that forced out Haiti's president also sickened children, disrupted medical care and increased food prices beyond the reach of people already mired in poverty. In some cities, it dried spigots and spoiled vaccines, said Cecily Bryant, assistant director in Haiti for CARE, the international relief organization with U.S. headquarters in Atlanta.

Bryant, in Atlanta to meet with CARE officials, said some of the organization's 480 employees in Haiti plan to travel soon to rural parts of the Caribbean island nation to better learn how the rebellion affected people, including many who had no part in the uprising.

"We're not talking about people who have a lot to fall back on. They were already living on the edge," she said. "Without a doubt, it's gotten worse."

One reason is the closure of a road connecting Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital, with Gonaives, where the rebellion began. Since fuel trucks could not travel to Gonaives, gas tanks went empty in generators, which in turn affected power at water treatment plants and hospitals, Bryant said.

But in this thread ostensibly about Haiti in 2004, we're talking about a New Deal that happened seventy years ago...

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 12:53 PM

I think you will find in the end that the recent events in Haiti were due to maneuverings by certain big money players behind the scenes who are not mentioned in the news. They decided they wanted Aristide out because they could make more money faster with him out than with him in. They got the powers that be to stand by until the situation had deteriorated badly enough that Aristide would be forced out. They used a bunch of local thugs and some US Marines to accomplish that, then told the local thugs to go packing when it was accomplished. The US Marines are the unwitting servants of those big money players, but how would they know? They are merely good professional soldiers, and they follow orders. This sort of thing has been happening ever in Latin America ever since the Monroe Doctrine was declared.

The Monroe Doctrine had the same gloriously idealistic notions behind it as Stalin's kind and helpful assistance to the new members of the Soviet sphere of influence after 1945. (sarcasm) Latin America is a field of exploitation for the banks and corporations of the USA, backed up by the guns of the US Marines.

Watch for it to happen in Venezuela next.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 01:19 PM

A slow learning curve - Bay of Pigs, and they made a complete cod's arse of taking over; Chile they succeeded, but in a way that was very embarrassing politically; Haiti the spin-doctors have evidently managed to present it as a "liberation" so far as a lot of the media is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 03:17 PM

I think you will find in the end that the recent events in Haiti were due to maneuverings by certain big money players behind the scenes who are not mentioned in the news. They decided they wanted Aristide out because they could make more money faster with him out than with him in. They got the powers that be to stand by until the situation had deteriorated badly enough that Aristide would be forced out. They used a bunch of local thugs and some US Marines to accomplish that, then told the local thugs to go packing when it was accomplished. The US Marines are the unwitting servants of those big money players, but how would they know? They are merely good professional soldiers, and they follow orders. This sort of thing has been happening ever in Latin America ever since the Monroe Doctrine was declared.

The Monroe Doctrine had the same gloriously idealistic notions behind it as Stalin's kind and helpful assistance to the new members of the Soviet sphere of influence after 1945. (sarcasm) Latin America is a field of exploitation for the banks and corporations of the USA, backed up by the guns of the US Marines.

Watch for it to happen in Venezuela next.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:19 PM

so, you think the US would invade Venezuela despite Chavez's threat to cut off their oil exports to the US? Or with Jimmy Carter actively trying to mediate the referendum crisis dispite Chavez's machinations? Chavez keeps claiming that the opposition doesn't have enough valid signatures to require the referendum despite Carter's insistance that they do. And moving the vote, apparently hoping to push things past the constitutional deadline for the referendum. Protests in the streets, I see. Hmmm

Actively sponsoring Columbian groups recognized as terrorists, visiting both Iraq and Libya back in 2002, this Chavez is a pretty interesting character. Venezuela certainly has gone to hell in a hand basket since he took over.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Metchosin
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 10:51 PM

Don't you just hate it when them damn little Spaniards and Indians get uppity, think they own their own oil and vote for the wrong guy. Its so annoying when we have to spend all that time and money destabilizing their country and trying to instill the good guys who know how to do things the American way. What's this world coming too! When will they learn?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:18 PM

You see the local paid-off bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies, shake hands with the fellows
Then it's open for business like a cheap bordello
And they call it democracy
--Bruce Cockburn

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 05 Mar 04 - 11:41 PM

"Don't you just hate it when them damn little Spaniards and Indians get uppity, think they own their own oil and vote for the wrong guy."

Don't you hate when they try to vote him out of office and he won't go even with Jimmy Carter standing over his shoulder and trying to keep the referendum honest?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: MAG
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 12:35 AM

"The Marines - are - landing

On the shores - of - San-to Domingo"

-- ochs

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Metchosin
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 02:23 AM

Jimmy Carter urged Venezuelans to trust the NEC that he helped to set up.

Under the auspices of the NEC, the referendum failed to get enough signatures, as there were a substantial number of irregularities including thousands of forms of signatures which seemed to be filled individually by the same person and signatures of apparently deceased individuals.

NEC President Francisco Carrasquero is quoted as saying "just 1.83 million of the 3.4 million collected signatures were valid‚ far fewer than the required 2.4 million." The council said another 876,000 signatures could be deemed valid if citizens confirmed that they had indeed signed their names to the petition (Sanchez,AP/Yahoo! News). The council proposed setting up 1,000 verification centers for five days, from March 18 to March 22, where citizens could confirm their signatures (AFP II/Yahoo! News, March 3).

Whether some in the US administration like it or not, Chavez is an "autonomous" Venezuela's President and so far, under the auspices of the NEC, the recall has failed to meet requirements set out by provisions in that country's constitiution.

Chavez initially had about 80% of the popular vote, which is proving a bit hard to overcome. What % of the popular vote did Bush have? Can the US citizens recall their president before his term is up if enough people don't like him anymore?

Will Chavez's government continue to survive for its full term? I rather doubt it. Aristide's and Allende's certainly didn't. What the US wants, it usually gets, one way or another.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 02:06 PM

What is this "handbasket" that places keep going to hell in? What does it look like? How big is it? I have been asking this question for decades, and no one seems to have the answer... :-)

A little self-observation can always reveal one more thing to chuckle about if one is a human being on planet Earth.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 03:35 PM

Now it's Venezuela. Haiti has a hard time, getting any attention paid to what's going on there...

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 04:03 PM

Little Hawk,

www.inahandbasket.com/
www.inahandbasket.com/

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 09:31 PM

Ha! Just as I suspected. The mythical handbasket does not exist. That link goes nowhere. Venezuela is not going to hell in a handbasket! If Venezuela is going to hell it's in some other kind of container entirely. My guess is: an oil container ship.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 01:17 AM

Yes. Pure genius. It goes to hell in a ship made from old oil containers. You just keep thinkin' there Butch.

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM

"NEC President Francisco Carrasquero is quoted as saying "just 1.83 million of the 3.4 million collected signatures were valid‚ far fewer than the required 2.4 million." The council said another 876,000 signatures could be deemed valid if citizens confirmed that they had indeed signed their names to the petition (Sanchez,AP/Yahoo! News). The council proposed setting up 1,000 verification centers for five days, from March 18 to March 22, where citizens could confirm their signatures (AFP II/Yahoo! News, March 3)."

Interesting. The NY Times cites 1 million signatures that need to be validated. Why not wait and see what the NEC says next? The US won't do anything until that's settled for better or worse and if Haiti is any example, it won't do anything without the agreement of the international community.

Until then a little self examination might be in order. Some of you seem so intent on seeing evil where you want to believe it is, you're trying to will it into existance. You might want to keep the following in mind. People have been predicting dire consequences for this or that or that the US is going to invade here or there so long it's become like the boy who cried wolf. Even you can't imagine why the US would bother with poor, oil free Haiti. With the US so reluctant to enter Haiti it would only do so with the cooperation of France (think about it), your posts here only seem to show that even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. If you keep this all this hyperbolic rhetoric over everyday international situations, the world will tune you out and you won't have a voice when something really happens.

So which is it, would you rather vent your anger in frustration or save your voice so it can be meaningful when the world really needs it?

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 05:47 PM

Everyone is intent on seeing evil where they want to believe it is. If we habitually disagree, it is only because we are habitually looking in different places for it. After we're gone, the World will still keep turning just fine anyway.

Still, it makes for interesting debate, doesn't it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 10:10 AM

Not only Haiti and Venezuela, but Zimbabwe too!
Have you read the shocking news first uncovered by Zimbabwe Radio that the USA has plotted with the so called opposition in Zimbabwe so that condoms manufactured in the USA for distribution in Zimbabwe came with the imprint "Get up, stand up"?

The excuse that this is but a know Bob Marley song which was even sung at the celebration of independence of Zimbabwe with president Mugabe being present can easily be seen trough as another dirty Karl Rove trick.

This news item is genuine, my outrage isn't.

Seriously, it puzzles me, that many of you seem to know without any sign of doubt which bunch of thugs is the good bunch of thugs, which rebellion is only staged and which is genuine. I get the impression that Bush's 'who is not with us is against us' has followers here. Whenever the US government takes one course of action you know what you are against. As long as the US government looks undecided you are too.

Not that I usually like what the US government does, more often than not I don't, but the somnambulistic sureness of opinion here in a situation in which scarcely any independent information can be read isn't very convincing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Strick
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:18 AM

Ah, but I'm not on anyone's side in these cases. The world's full of turmoil. Not all of it is the US's making and we shouldn't be responsible for all of it.

Bush was criticized for staying out of Haiti and then for going in. Which was right? Aristide was so criticized for fraud in the 2000 elections, the international community withheld promised aid and the people are starving. How was that Bush's fault (hint, his administration didn't take over until 2001)? He's criticized for ingnoring the international community, particularly France, and then for cooperating with them, particularly France. It seems more that the Bush administration couldn't win no matter what it decided to do. That tends to reduce one's willingness to listen to certain voices, particularly when this isn't the first case of this. The US is already supposed to have invade Syria and then moved on to Iran. How does Haiti fit into the US's plans for world dominiation? Haiti?

In Venezuela, which ever side is right about the referendum what's the downside? The people get to vote? I should be worried about that? Or cricized for supporting a constitutionally allowed initiative to allow a vote? In the meantime, well, nothing's happened yet. When I hear it's all the US's fault I have as much reason to doubt as they to do accuse. The burden of evidence is on the accusers.

Naturally, Wolfgang, when I mentioned the boy who called wolf, I wasn't refering to you (bet you've heard that before, haven't you?).
;)

Subject: RE: BS: He kept Our Boys out of Haiti
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM

LOL! You're sharp today, Wolfgang. Great post. You are right on the money. Yup, I believe that the greatest evil in the world stems from a very large consortium of huge corporate players...those who control most of the money in the world, and by extension, most of the high-tech weaponry, and most of the governments (elected or otherwise). For the sake of a lousy buck those guys manipulate human affairs on this planet to their further benefit. While they are not exclusively affiliated with the government of the USA, it is their foremost instrument of decision-making power, and the US military is their foremost instrument of exercising that power by force. So naturally, I look there first. I also look elsewhere.

Again, I compliment you on a great and amusing post. The bit about "Get up! Stand up!" is unforgettable. :-)

- LH