wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Dennis from jersey city September 23, 2009 - 06:16AM

  Ralph Nader frequently mentioned that he's convinced that it is the American people who simply don't seem to want to improve the quality of life for everyone in America. What does he think is necessary for a progressive movement to do to "make people want" to make a higher overall standard of living in this country?

  
  
• [2] Shana from Clinton Hill/Fort Greene, Brooklyn September 23, 2009 - 09:15AM

  I think that many people do not want, and possibly fear improving the overall standard of living for everyone because they think that means they will have to lose something. There is also the American attitude of things being earned, which is a great thing to strive for. But things like basic healthcare, education and basic proper nutrition are not the type of things people should have to earn. Too often, many think that just because you cannot afford those things on your own you must be lazy, when in fact with many it is just the opposite. A belief that is often perpetuated by interest groups and politicians to rile up the fringe.

  
  
• [3] longstreet from NYC area September 23, 2009 - 09:19AM

  Dennis: The quality of life is sensational in the US. In case you hadn't noticed, the US is #1 across the board, despite all of the supposed crises enveloping us daily. The reason for that was simple: liberty.

  Perhaps the people who are taxed every which way in this country, yet see the problems taken on by the gov't get worse, have had it with utopian promises and plans that never work?

  If you really want to see drastic improvements in people's quality of life, get off of their backs, free them from the enslavement of the tax code, and let them live their lives as they wish.

  After all, that was the blueprint for about 175 years in this land. Made us the envy of the world and brought us to lone superpower status, despite the best efforts of the two parties that have run the country off the road.

  
  
• [4] david from sandusky, ohio September 23, 2009 - 09:59AM

  Shana is correct when she writes that there is a false perception about needy people, that they must be lazy if they can't get the things they need. Television talkshow personalities fan the flames of ignorance when they propagate shallow assumptions like that one.

  The United States is a country founded on many values, some of them being humanitarian principles. So in effect, we do actually "take from the rich and give to the poor," such as when we tax the people. That is our way and it is a value we should esteem and promote, not trash.

  A good educational system is one of the key factors that brought our great country to its supreme status in the world. We must continue to improve our system of education, which will continue to create good, healthy, thoughtful and upstanding citizens. And that, in turn, will help maintain or raise the standard of living in America.

  Also, we must remember that there is no sure bet to solve the many ills of a large country, especially in its heavily populated metropolises. As we know from studying history, certain portions of the population will always live in the margins of society.

  
  
• [5] Susan from Kingston, New York September 23, 2009 - 10:01AM

  Although the United States still enjoys the highest standard of living in the world, not everyone in the States does. The inequality of wealth between the haves and havenots has certainly widened in recent years or at least it appears to have. What I find really maddening is that the levers of power and wealth are controlled by the very few. The recent bail out of the banks and financial institutions is a prime example of this, and the type of crisis that lead to the meltdown was in fact a product of greed by these few. While the Feds, Geithner and the lot, have brought the markets back from the brink, they have done little for the common person in America. What good is liberty if one is kept enslaved to the whims of the richest amongst us?

  
  
• [6] Yourgo from Astoria September 23, 2009 - 10:07AM

  Nader fought against nuclear power in America stopping the spread of nuclear power plants. This was good news for oil and coal companies.

  Nader ran for president in 2000 taking votes from Gore and helping Bush win. More good news for oil companies.

  And then he disappeared.

  I voted for Nader in 2000 and i regret it to this day. Why doesnt he tell us who he really works for.

  
  
• [7] longstreet from NYC area September 23, 2009 - 10:25AM

  Susan: Both parties supported the bailouts. Obama voted for TARP and then brought the tax-challenged Geithner to run the Treasury Dept. And that stimulus plan really lived up to what he promised, especially concerning the unemployment rate.

  Buyer's remorse, as I argued back in January, is setting in with a vengeance. Mr. Resume is being seen for the inexperienced Marxist that he is.

  What would be helpful to understand is that there will never be equal outcomes here, or even in a Marxist society. There will always be people with more than you or me. At the end of the day, who cares?

  Control your own life, overcome setbacks, help the less fortunate yourself, and be beholden to no one. That's the path to follow if you want to be successful and happy.

  
  
• [8] Susan from Kingston, New York September 23, 2009 - 10:39AM

  Longstreet: While I am certainly in a better position than most of my colleagues and friends in terms of resources, it does not make me immune to what's happening to the people who are in a much more precarious position that I.

  "Control your own life, overcome setbacks, help the less fortunate yourself, and be beholden to no one. That's the path to follow if you want to be successful and happy."

  This statement strikes me as naive. In my book, we are all beholden to each other.

  
  
• [9] david from sandusky, ohio September 23, 2009 - 10:47AM

  In response to longstreet: The tax code is not enslavement. Taxing the people is one of the foundations of our civil society. I don't like taxing either, but it helps keep our country from falling apart. When you pay your taxes, you are making a contribution to your society. It is a sacrifice we make for the good of all, but unfortunately we don't get individually recognized for it.

  Also, we cannot "let people live as they choose," that would be anarchy, not a democracy. Freedom isn't an absolute ideal. We sacrifice some of our freedoms to the ruling government and they in turn create and maintain the state we live in. We all understand, of course, that keeping the state forever healthy is an impossible task.

  Susan is on the right track. The goverment's job is to look out for the common people, the little people. And the government's job is also to check the overly opportunistic people at the top of the ladder. How much freedom should be allowed for the upperclass and how much should they put back? How much help should go to the little guy? That is our American debate.

  I'm for the little guy. Where I live, in a small town in the Midwest, most people don't have lots of money to throw into the economic markets like Wall Street. So the mega-bank troubles, for example, are not a direct attention getter for most people here, even though there is a connection. The government should look out for the common man first, because that is where its promise begins.

  
  
• [10] david from sandusky, ohio September 23, 2009 - 11:10AM

  In response to longstreet: While you are very opinionated, you are puting contradictory thoughts together as one. "Beholden to no one" and "help the less fortunate" are two opposing ideas. I wonder, in a pinch, which you would choose.

  Also, the Marxist Society was an historical movement in Russia's past and really doesn't belong in the discussion here. Socialism still exists, but caring about others in your country does not equate to the definition of socialism.

  "In the end, who cares?" We do, of course. That is the political discussion. That doesn't mean Susan is envious. Concerned people want to make sure that one group doesn't dominate the other, that's democracy, even though the majority sometimes wins the day.

  Also, successful and happy are not the same thing. One can be very happy without any significant societal or businessplace success. Sometimes you must sacrifice good values to get success. Happiness only costs some personal thought and self-criticism. And hapiness can come from simple things, like helping the less fortunate.

  
  
• [11] smidely September 23, 2009 - 11:11AM

  There is actually a name for billionaires aiming to save the world & it is millionaire.

  
  
• [12] Mike from brooklyn September 23, 2009 - 11:15AM

  Grassroots? Has Mr Nader never heard of the internet?

  
  
• [13] Anthony Pellino from New York September 23, 2009 - 11:16AM

  Please take the person who gave George W. Bush the presidency off the air immediately. He's the last person on earth to advise the world on saving anyone.

  
  
• [14] bob from queens September 23, 2009 - 11:17AM

  thanks for bush v. gore, ralph, and the succeeding eight disastrous years.

  
  
• [15] Diantha Parker from Prospect Heights September 23, 2009 - 11:17AM

  I love that Ralph Nader has "a lady who typed the book." Good for her for earning the money---Ralph, join the 21st century and learn to type. Lots of people have personal typing machines now...not just the super-rich!

  
  
• [16] antonio from park slope September 23, 2009 - 11:26AM

  Sorry Bob ever heard of "the best democracy money can buy" by greg palast it explains it all.

  
  
• [17] Shana from Clinton Hill/Fort Greene, Brooklyn September 23, 2009 - 11:26AM

  It is childish to blame Nadar for the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the electoral vote. Whose fault is it in the 2004 election. It is ridiculous to say that a third party candidate should not run just so someone from one of the big two can win. The whole point is for there to no longer be only two parties that are pretty much the same in everything but name, but for there to be many choices to represent American citizen and not private interest.

  
  
• [18] Mark from Sunset Park September 23, 2009 - 11:28AM

  Brian, I'm not sure if the film Food Inc. was in wide release, but just as Michael Moore's new film does, it inspires people to change the status quo and challenge the way their food is grown.

  
  
• [19] Ciesse from Manhattan September 23, 2009 - 11:29AM

  It is absurd to keep blaming Nader for the Gore loss -- just as absurd as the hypocritical and after all retroactive canonization of Gore after his Nobel, who in 2004 was still widely dismissed (also pettily) as boring, ineffectual, etc. Nader should be applauded for having the guts to persist against big-business's tyranny of this country -- and he's completely correct that Obama has already been far too acquiescent to those interests. Americans are proud of having elected a black president, but it remains to be seen how extensive structural changes will really be during this presidency. This book sounds fascinating and I'm grateful to Brian Lehrer for having Nader on to discuss it.

  
  
• [20] Dennis from jersey city September 23, 2009 - 11:38AM

  Blaming Nader for Gore's loss is insulting to anyone who believes in democracy and not plutarchy that the two parties have successfully established.

  
  
• [21] Alan from Manhattan September 23, 2009 - 11:44AM

  Re: Ralph Nader's parting comment about the existing prejudice against anyone who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican running for the presidency: The system known as Approval Voting, which permits a voter to vote for, or "approve", any number of candidates in a multi-candidate election, would remove any reason for such a prejudice.

  For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting, http://www.approvalvoting.org/ and http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html .

  
  
• [22] Bruce Palley from River Vale NJ September 23, 2009 - 11:57AM

  I am surprised that that Brian did not announce that he bowed & kissed Ralph's ring upon his entering the studio.

  Ralph is the most dangerous type of devil incarnate, one who wraps himself up in the cloak of idealism.

  Why didn't Brian ask Ralph if he still felt that there was no difference Gore & Bush!

  
  
• [23] Michael Davis from Midwood, Brooklyn September 23, 2009 - 12:10PM

  It's absurd that to believe that the ultra wealthy in this country would be so benevolent to change and improve conditions to the people who need help the most. These ultra rich sound so philanthropical according to Nader's conversation today. Perhaps some of these "fictional characters" can support health care or other needs, not in a fictional book but in REAL LIFE.

  
  
• [24] david from sandusky, ohio September 23, 2009 - 12:17PM

  I'm not the biggest Nader fan, he can come across as sort of a doofus at times, but he is right about the subtle political bias in favor of the Dems and Reps. Any American government college course will teach you that. But they would also teach that we benefit from the two party dominated system, in that their similarities bring them together and help get more legislation routinely passed. As opposed to multi-party systems, where their extreme ideologies can keep them bogged down.

  However, we should always want more parties with new ideas flowing. The Dem and Rep old boy networks aren't famous for changing things, they are just the groups that have had power for a long time. And we know power tends to maintain the status quo (how does the famous quotation go?).

  I like what smidely says about "billionaire to millionaire." How much greed and money is acceptable to rational human beings in a civil society? It's gone way past any logical marks. Do we really need billionaires to drive our capitalist economy or are plain ol' millionaires enough to do the job? The extremely wealthy individuals and companies should give back to the civilized country that allows them to thrive. That proves we have good ethics and good values in our land.

  
  
• [25] Lonnie from Brooklyn!!! September 23, 2009 - 10:15PM

  I listened to the show and even though I know this is a work of FICTION, the notion of the People of the World relying on the largess of individual super wealth is oddly repellent to me. At the same time, I know that this notion is an intoxicating tonic to some people-- particularly the Manhattan Centered Condo-climbing set.

  But This idea coming from Ralph NADER of all people is weird and a little repugnant. The notion boils down to a treatise on the establishment of an American Aristocracy.

  Imagine if we actually just stopped calling Bloomberg 'Mayor' and just let HIM run and manage NYC for free. No Holds barred, no checks, no interference. Let him be the Bruce Wayne/Batman to our Gotham.

  Then what happens when this Wealthy Benefactor decides that it is his PRIVILEGE to take something in return for his largess? What if someone is 'In the Way' of what this Super Wealthy person wants? And BTW-- Bloomberg STILL wants a Stadium on the West side. So I guess all the people over there would just have to move.

  Everyone wants SOMETHING in return for their efforts. This fictional Utopia and the personal yearnings of the writer in question ignores the price of Human Nature.

  Again-- coming from Nader, this is a weird pitch out of nowhere. What's going on with him?

  
  
• [26] Gershon Nathan from Brooklyn New York October 13, 2009 - 07:45PM

  Ralph Nader is a bright guy. But sometimes he’s ideas are off mark.