Originally posted by Alogon:
I, too, will
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Grammatica, except that the vanishing of the middle class is not entirely the fault of Republicans. It is also a result of globalization. quote:[Emphasis added]
My hypothesis is that what all the events precipitating the Tea Party movement share is that they demonstrated, emphatically and unconditionally, the depths of the absolute dependence of us all on government action, and in so doing they undermined the deeply held fiction of individual autonomy and self-sufficiency that are intrinsic parts of Americans’ collective self-understanding.
The implicit bargain that many Americans struck with the state institutions supporting modern life is that they would be politically acceptable only to the degree to which they remained invisible, and that for all intents and purposes each citizen could continue to believe that she was sovereign over her life; she would, of course, pay taxes, use the roads and schools, receive Medicare and Social Security, but only so long as these could be perceived not as radical dependencies, but simply as the conditions for leading an autonomous and self-sufficient life. Recent events have left that bargain in tatters.
But even this way of expressing the issue of dependence is too weak, too merely political; after all, although recent events have revealed the breadth and depths of our dependencies on institutions and practices over which we have little or no control, not all of us have responded with such galvanizing anger and rage. Tea Party anger is, at bottom, metaphysical, not political: what has been undone by the economic crisis is the belief that each individual is metaphysically self-sufficient, that one’s very standing and being as a rational agent owes nothing to other individuals or institutions.
quote:I think this is a really good point. Actually, George Monbiot (a fiercely leftist environmental campaigner) has written in the Guardian today praising the Tea Party for actually getting up and doing something about their discontent. But he also points out (as others have) that the Tea Party's plans for taxes and cuts will hurt the working classes most. I cannot understand why anyone with below average income, working a job which may disappear at any time and depending on employment benefits to get by would possibly be sucked in by the rhetoric. But people are.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The OP has an interesting analysis, but it leaves out what I believe is the most important factor in the rise of the Tea Party: the deterioration of the American middle class over the past 30-40 years. The destruction of the American industrial base, the loss of living wage jobs, the steady erosion of the job security, benefits, and pension plans the postwar middle class relied upon, the overstretched, harried families trying to make do, and the virtual certainty that the next generation will do worse than the present generation -- all this has accelerated, beginning in the 1990s.
For a time, the effects were masked by cheap credit, cheap imports, and the stock market and housing bubbles. Now the middle class can't sell their houses, can't find jobs, and have no money in their 401Ks on which to retire. Their jobless kids are moving back home, saddled with student loan debt.
quote:And yet they fight against socialized healthcare as if their lives depended on it!
Originally posted by Grammatica:
One automobile accident, one expensive illness, one run-of-the-mill catastrophe, and they are paupers.
quote:Way to over-simplify.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
It boils down to a black guy with an Arab name in the White House. They "want their government back" for white people.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:If this were a political class feeling the pinch, you'd be hearing such a debate, but this is happening to the middle classes. That's perhaps the best point the OP made about Tea Party members. They aren't in the governing classes and don't make the decisions. (They don't make them at work, either. They carry out others' orders.) Their bargain was that they could leave governing alone, and the government would leave them alone.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
If the anger was political then surely it would be expressed in a way that makes sense for the situation that people are in.
...
Surely an informed debate about the impact of globalization and the end of the carbon fuel economy would serve the United States much better than an ideologically driven countermovement characterized by conspiracy theories and revelling in their self-imposed underdog status?
quote:According to this apparently well referenced Wikipedia article, this isn't so, and its conclusions are the same as an Economist article that appeared recently. To me it's the same angst as expressed in Falling Down or indeed this scene from Network. They know there's something wrong. They believe that their existing political leadership has something to do with the problems they're experiencing. So they are lashing out and moving towards the only extreme that is acceptable in the USA...
Originally posted by ken:
But the economic situation of most Americans, middle class or otherwise, has improved over the last generation. Not proportionately by as much as that of most Chinese or even Greeks - but they are on the whole better off.
quote:If you haven't noticed a lot of anger out there, you've been sleeping. Consider, for example, how some of the town hall meetings about health care degenerated into uncouth shouting matches and near riots. Let me guess: it was only some Republicans who were angry, and the other Republicans were so aghast at this anger that they stomped out and formed the tea party. Sure.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've never noticed them as being all that angry, especially when compared to all the various political organizations and movements I've seen in my lifetime. The thread title is an unproven premise.
Grammatica, except that the vanishing of the middle class is not entirely the fault of Republicans. It is also a result of globalization. If we need to compete with hundreds of millions of Asians who are willing to work for a tenth of what we've been earning, and probably longer hours as well, then our salaries and standards of living will go down. Can any politician do much about that? Sad to say, European social services are beleaguered and may soon need to be rolled back for the same reason. Any attempt at protectionism and isolationism would only make matters worse. If that were not so, doesn't Clinton share the blame for embracing free trade with the enthusiasm he did?
quote:Agreed, but whose fault is globalisation? It didn't just "happen" - it was deliberately brought about by free-market, free-trade ideologues, who had sucked-up a bit too much David Ricardo.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I, too, will
quote:
If we need to compete with hundreds of millions of Asians who are willing to work for a tenth of what we've been earning, and probably longer hours as well, then our salaries and standards of living will go down. Can any politician do much about that?
quote:
Sad to say, European social services are beleaguered and may soon need to be rolled back for the same reason.
quote:I'm not so sure. That's the nineteenth century economic theory; I'm really not convinced that it's the twenty-first century economic reality.
Any attempt at protectionism and isolationism would only make matters worse.
quote:Yep, he deserves the blame too - just as Blair deserves as much blame as Thatcher.
If that were not so, doesn't Clinton share the blame for embracing free trade with the enthusiasm he did?
quote:Absolutely. I am no fan of Bill Clinton's.
Originally posted by Alogon:
The vanishing of the middle class is not entirely the fault of Republicans. ... Doesn't Clinton share the blame for embracing free trade with the enthusiasm he did?
Radical Whig on tariffs. Sabine on anxiety attacks.
quote:Ditto that! What utter horseshit. You probably believe that the Tea Party would cease to exist if all the racists left it. That's exactly what the guy who wrote this piece believes, and every one of those who also believe that the objection to His Oness is because he's a Black Man. The POTUS is a fascist and he's bent on remaking American in his own image. That's what has so many people both alarmed and pissed off. Our lifestyle and our very liberty is at stake. We don't want America following some European model of socialism or worse!...
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Way to over-simplify.
Originally posted by Alfred E. Neuman:
It boils down to a black guy with an Arab name in the White House. They "want their government back" for white people.
quote:I think all of the above is spot-on, with the exception of the last paragraph. If you think it is only the fly-over states who have been impacted by the decline of the industrial base, the erosion of the middle class, then you need to visit inner-city and rural California.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The OP has an interesting analysis, but it leaves out what I believe is the most important factor in the rise of the Tea Party: the deterioration of the American middle class over the past 30-40 years. The destruction of the American industrial base, the loss of living wage jobs, the steady erosion of the job security, benefits, and pension plans the postwar middle class relied upon, the overstretched, harried families trying to make do, and the virtual certainty that the next generation will do worse than the present generation -- all this has accelerated, beginning in the 1990s.
For a time, the effects were masked by cheap credit, cheap imports, and the stock market and housing bubbles. Now the middle class can't sell their houses, can't find jobs, and have no money in their 401Ks on which to retire. Their jobless kids are moving back home, saddled with student loan debt. One automobile accident, one expensive illness, one run-of-the-mill catastrophe, and they are paupers.
There is nothing the middle class-by-the-skin-of-its-teeth fears more than a slide back into pauperism.
How did they get here? Well, they voted for it, at the ballot box and with their wallets. They were the Reagan Democrats; they owned SUVs; they supported the troops, fought culture wars, and voted with the Religious Right. To understand what went wrong, they'd have to recognize that everything they they thought was true, ever since the Carter Administration, was false. That's a hard trick to manage for anyone.
So of course they are angry! What distresses me more, though, is that the US governing elites have seemed so unconcerned. Perhaps they don't understand how badly the middle-class situation has deteriorated. (After all, the middle class, almost by definition, lives in fly-over territory.) So the middle class is left to be exploited by right-wing demagogues. This bodes ill for our nation.
quote:Did you peel off your "Question Authority" bumpersticker on 11/05/08, or something?
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:If you haven't noticed a lot of anger out there, you've been sleeping. Consider, for example, how some of the town hall meetings about health care degenerated into uncouth shouting matches and near riots.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] I've never noticed them as being all that angry, especially when compared to all the various political organizations and movements I've seen in my lifetime. The thread title is an unproven premise.
quote:The problem with this analysis, at least from outside the Republican Party, is that it's just those entitlements that the Tea Partiers are screaming for the government not to take away. They want the government to stay out of healthcare, but leave their Medicare alone. Huh? The apparent irrationality of that statement flummoxes the left (well, center -- there is no effective left in this country anymore).
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Years of Gov't mismanagement: ever increasing size of Gov't; encroachment into our private lives; entitlements promised and delivered to the least deserving; the increasing burden of taxation to pay for said-entitlements and other bureaucratic crap
quote:Yes, but not because I think their anger is chiefly about racism. But just because that's the slice of society that make up the Tea Party. I note that the Tea Party has not distanced itself at all from the birthers. Probably because they make up a sizeable enough portion of the Tea Party that the non-birthers don't feel they can afford to alienate them. Although one might think that has to do with their intelligence -- but then we are told the rank-and-file Tea Partier is well-educated. Maybe that shows that "education" in this country isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You probably believe that the Tea Party would cease to exist if all the racists left it.
quote:I'm not sure I see evidence of that. He "leaves aside" consideration of the racism question, and focuses on other things.
That's exactly what the guy who wrote this piece believes
quote:Here's another thing that flummoxes the center -- the seemingly willing misuse of labels like "fascist", "communist", "socialist", "Nazi" and the like. They're emotionally loaded, and none of them apply to Obama or today's Democratic Party, except a very watered-down socialism that I think is better described as communitarianism. But the use of that word by the TP is red-baiting, not honest analysis. It's a deliberate attempt to arouse fear and hatred.
The POTUS is a fascist
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've noticed anger as I plainly said. It just isn't an unusual amount and from what I've seen of the town hall meetings they still appear a bit more civil than what often happens when certain folks are invited to speak at a university.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Two wrongs make a far right?
quote:and probably Bush.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QB] Clinton wasn't a Republican? Oh right, he was a Democrat by party affiliation. But he was to the right of Nixon, . . .
quote:Are you a Tea Party recruiter? When I think of the rich and powerful, I think of DC where they spend whatever they feel like spending and take pretty much whatever power they feel like taking.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You are being played by the rich and powerful, and into made a willing forger of your own chains.
quote:Pwned. That's exactly what they want you to think. Keeps your mind off the way Megacorp Inc. is fucking you dry.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Are you a Tea Party recruiter? When I think of the rich and powerful, I think of DC where they spend whatever they feel like spending and take pretty much whatever power they feel like taking.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You are being played by the rich and powerful, and into made a willing forger of your own chains.
quote:Megacorp? Is that a new name for the federal government? In the movie Deliverance, Ned Beatty was raped by a Democrat politician.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Pwned. That's exactly what they want you to think. Keeps your mind off the way Megacorp Inc. is fucking you dry.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Are you a Tea Party recruiter? When I think of the rich and powerful, I think of DC where they spend whatever they feel like spending and take pretty much whatever power they feel like taking.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
You are being played by the rich and powerful, and into made a willing forger of your own chains.
quote:Historically tariffs have been the usual precursor to a sudden lurch into tyranny.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Quite a lot they can do about it. It's called tariffs.
quote:I don't know whether any of those allegations are true, but to Tea Partiers, they seem true. It's as if there was some other America promised to them, which has been taken away by some or all of the following: Democrats, visible minorities, left-wing special interest groups, unions, feminists, liberals, gun control advocates, environmentalists, bureaucrats, and anyone who believes in international co-operation. In short, 90 per cent of their neighbours.
Years of Gov't mismanagement: ever increasing size of Gov't; encroachment into our private lives; entitlements promised and delivered to the least deserving; the increasing burden of taxation to pay for said-entitlements and other bureaucratic crap; and all of this and more caused by BOTH parties. Above all, the belief that none of them can be trusted; that we continue to be lied to.
quote:Then I would agree with Alogon that you don't seem to be paying attention. Or you the universities where you hang around cater to a lot more angry student body than the ones at the university where I teach.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]
I've noticed anger as I plainly said. It just isn't an unusual amount and from what I've seen of the town hall meetings they still appear a bit more civil than what often happens when certain folks are invited to speak at a university.
quote:I never doubted that. But since September 2008, a lot of people have been glad that Social Security exists since their retirement nest eggs went bust. Suddenly the outgoing administration and its ideological think tanks stopped talking about "privatizing Social Security". And the bust occurred because the same outgoing administration didn't believe in keeping any leash whatsoever on the Wall Street Luftmenschen.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A healthy economy makes individual saving for retirement not only possible but practical and necessary if you are planning to retire at all.
quote:Of course I'm paying attention. I just don't agree with the selective indignation.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Then I would agree with Alogon that you don't seem to be paying attention. Or you the universities where you hang around cater to a lot more angry student body than the ones at the university where I teach.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]
I've noticed anger as I plainly said. It just isn't an unusual amount and from what I've seen of the town hall meetings they still appear a bit more civil than what often happens when certain folks are invited to speak at a university.
quote:I am awake, believe that. There is this little but oh-so-significant-difference in the way the Founders viewed inalienable rights and the way the rest of the Western world tends to: and that is that in this country the Individual trumps the body or corporate "good". For many years this has been eroded. Until now we have so many clamoring for more entitlements at the expense of individual (private sector) freedoms. The right way is not to view this balance of powers as "big business versus strong government". When you have an over-strong (intrusive) gov't, it fosters big business: it IS the big business! And the bigger gov't business is the fewer rivals it brooks. If His Oness has his way America will become a nation of big, gov't-owned/regulated business. That my friends is fascism. And that is why I call him a fascist. I am no Tea Party "member" either. I've never attended a meeting or a rally. But I keep my ear to the ground and my eyes wide open....
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
MerlintheMad,
I hear what you are saying. I feel the anger. But you anger is woefully misdirected. The problem facing America isn't "too much European-style socialism" - that's not what's threatening your liberty or your way of life. Quite the opposite, in fact.
You are being played by the rich and powerful, and into made a willing forger of your own chains.
For your sake, for America's sake, wake up.
quote:Help here can you please? How can one be a fascist and a socialist?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The POTUS is a fascist and he's bent on remaking American in his own image. That's what has so many people both alarmed and pissed off. Our lifestyle and our very liberty is at stake. We don't want America following some European model of socialism or worse!...
quote:Locally, the folks who are talking up the tea party now were complaining about the Patriot act, then.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Help here can you please? How can one be a fascist and a socialist?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The POTUS is a fascist and he's bent on remaking American in his own image. That's what has so many people both alarmed and pissed off. Our lifestyle and our very liberty is at stake. We don't want America following some European model of socialism or worse!...
ISTM the single biggest threat to American Civil liberty in recent years was the Patriot act. Yet, no tea party formed then.
quote:Over-simplification. ALL retirement nest eggs have not gone "bust". Mine hasn't and it isn't even a big one. I lost a lot of value, but it is on the way back up. Historically it is like riding an escalator with a yoyo: the economic dips are the yoyo doing up and down; but the escalator tends upward nevertheless. Those whose yoyo strings busted were high-risk, get-rich-quick mentality investments. Anyone in the know will tell you to invest diversely and in the middle; steady gains over-all to buffer the hits, the pits and valleys in the investment market.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:I never doubted that. But since September 2008, a lot of people have been glad that Social Security exists since their retirement nest eggs went bust. Suddenly the outgoing administration and its ideological think tanks stopped talking about "privatizing Social Security". And the bust occurred because the same outgoing administration didn't believe in keeping any leash whatsoever on the Wall Street Luftmenschen.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A healthy economy makes individual saving for retirement not only possible but practical and necessary if you are planning to retire at all.
quote:That's the ticket! Less government interference in its own big business! We can start with less regulation of big government's banking and oil industries! Then we can dump the EPA, FDA, IRS, FBI, NSA... all those useless departments that infringe upon the individual's right to be, well... individual!
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...The right way is not to view this balance of powers as "big business versus strong government". When you have an over-strong (intrusive) gov't, it fosters big business: it IS the big business!
quote:Hmmmm, yet no protests. Interesting.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Locally, the folks who are talking up the tea party now were complaining about the Patriot act, then.
quote:Right. They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Can't a fascist be a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party?
quote:Fascism doesn't have to create a socialist environment, but it usually does or pays lip service to socialism. Warm fuzzies are created when the gov't speaks often of its duty to protect and provide the necessaries of life for the disadvantaged: cradle to grave care is the ultimate entitlement. And fascism is just the most gov't-owned way to pull that off, if it chooses to. The way His Oness is going (and he's not alone in this by any stretch), all of the remaining business concerns in the USA will be effectively Gov't-owned. Private enterprise will be a foreign phrase. It's going that way and has been for a long time. If McCain had been elected we would probably not be as upset or doing any screaming about it: but His Oness has shocked us into mobility. I only hope it is effective for needed change.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Help here can you please? How can one be a fascist and a socialist?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The POTUS is a fascist and he's bent on remaking American in his own image. That's what has so many people both alarmed and pissed off. Our lifestyle and our very liberty is at stake. We don't want America following some European model of socialism or worse!...
ISTM the single biggest threat to American Civil liberty in recent years was the Patriot act. Yet, no tea party formed then.
quote:Yep. And one of those "natural consequences" of the market "fixing itself" is starving in the street. What a beautiful system! It works only if you forget that "the market" includes human beings - not just numbers on a board.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...the Market fixes itself through natural consequences, thank you....
quote:When one looks at the historical returns of various asset classes, it seems obvious that loaning money to the government via Social Security has not been a good investment. However, the demographic problem that is screwing up Social Security and Medicare may just screw up everything else if eligibility ages are not increased to reflect the increase in attained age life expectancies and decreased birth rates. Bush had a good point, but he still seems to have danced around the real problem.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:I never doubted that. But since September 2008, a lot of people have been glad that Social Security exists since their retirement nest eggs went bust. Suddenly the outgoing administration and its ideological think tanks stopped talking about "privatizing Social Security". And the bust occurred because the same outgoing administration didn't believe in keeping any leash whatsoever on the Wall Street Luftmenschen.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A healthy economy makes individual saving for retirement not only possible but practical and necessary if you are planning to retire at all.
quote:The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
quote:Same with me. Our portfolios, unlike some, are apparently diversified and not leveraged. And of course, we can wait awhile for the market to go back up because we didn't happen to retire in August 2008. How smart of us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Over-simplification. ALL retirement nest eggs have not gone "bust". Mine hasn't and it isn't even a big one. I lost a lot of value, but it is on the way back up.
quote:I agree RW - there are two 'market forces' - fear and greed.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:Yep. And one of those "natural consequences" of the market "fixing itself" is starving in the street. What a beautiful system! It works only if you forget that "the market" includes human beings - not just numbers on a board.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...the Market fixes itself through natural consequences, thank you....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:"Starving in the street". Manure. Because in the USA people don't starve in the streets unless they are homeless; and people are homeless because they CHOOSE to be. Anyone can see that they are going to become homeless if they don't do something, ergo they don't need to be. A poor series of choices can result in eviction, sure. But long before that occurs a family can secure another roof over their heads and food to eat. This doesn't need to be at gov't expense, but it can be: I am not advocating that gov't totally turn a blind eye to the impoverished and disadvantaged: but any help people receive needs to be obtained for work: no freebies....
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:Yep. And one of those "natural consequences" of the market "fixing itself" is starving in the street. What a beautiful system! It works only if you forget that "the market" includes human beings - not just numbers on a board.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...the Market fixes itself through natural consequences, thank you....
quote:Sorry, I find that an odd conclusion to draw. In US history, Henry Clay's "American System," which included tariffs (to protect our "infant manufactures") and Federally-sponsored infrastructure improvements, was the precursor to decades of prosperity.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Historically tariffs have been the usual precursor to a sudden lurch into tyranny.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Quite a lot they can do about it. It's called tariffs.
quote:Actually, my "retirement" was already a four year-old fact by 2008. My income has dropped with the lost value of my investments. But in time, if history is any gauge, my income will increase. My lifestyle is very straitened. But because I paid off our house, and because we have other property that provides a little income, and because I am conservative and don't gamble with what I cannot afford to lose, we are far, far from suffering: even though we live also, far, far BELOW the so-called poverty line....
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Same with me. Our portfolios, unlike some, are apparently diversified and not leveraged. And of course, we can wait awhile for the market to go back up because we didn't happen to retire in August 2008. How smart of us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Over-simplification. ALL retirement nest eggs have not gone "bust". Mine hasn't and it isn't even a big one. I lost a lot of value, but it is on the way back up.
quote:If you will note the other posts I have made, I am not glibly tossing the word around. I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics. So far he has amply demonstrated this in his methodology, his "fixes" for the problem of the economic "crisis". And, he is far from alone. I do not view Bush as effectively any better at advocating for "constitutional economics" than our current president is. Apparently the Tea Party agrees, and their anger is mainly fueled by exhausted patience with the antics of BOTH parties....
Originally posted by sabine:
...This supports the idea that when faced with an anxiety-producing set of circumstances or with a weak argument, some people will simply resort to name calling....
quote:Actually a lot of the homeless in my city are homeless because of either substance abuse problems or untreated mental illness- a result of being "liberated" when, in the name of individual freedom and lowering taxes, a lot of the mental hospitals were shut down.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because in the USA people don't starve in the streets unless they are homeless; and people are homeless because they CHOOSE to be.
quote:I kinda like anarchists. My oldest just graduated from a small university named after a Christian anarchist.
Originally posted by sabine:
I was driving in a university town when I saw a man on a street corner with a sign that read: "Obama is a Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist."
quote:Pretty much the same as in Britain when a lot of the psychiatric hospitals were closed in the name of "Car in the Community". Goodness knows the psychiatric hospitals weren't perfect but the community, by and large didn't care and probably couldn't.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:Actually a lot of the homeless in my city are homeless because of either substance abuse problems or untreated mental illness- a result of being "liberated" when, in the name of individual freedom and lowering taxes, a lot of the mental hospitals were shut down.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because in the USA people don't starve in the streets unless they are homeless; and people are homeless because they CHOOSE to be.
quote:And according to the OP, what protests against the Patriot Act would have meant is that the protestors just had some anger issues.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Hmmmm, yet no protests. Interesting.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]Locally, the folks who are talking up the tea party now were complaining about the Patriot act, then.
quote:And yet nobody thought about protesting until a darkie won the election. I live in Redneck Wonderland, believe me when I say that racism is one of the things that unites the teabaggers. I have yet to meet a teabagger who didn't, at some point, refer to "that nigger in the White House".
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:If you will note the other posts I have made, I am not glibly tossing the word around. I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics. So far he has amply demonstrated this in his methodology, his "fixes" for the problem of the economic "crisis". And, he is far from alone. I do not view Bush as effectively any better at advocating for "constitutional economics" than our current president is. Apparently the Tea Party agrees, and their anger is mainly fueled by exhausted patience with the antics of BOTH parties....
Originally posted by sabine:
...This supports the idea that when faced with an anxiety-producing set of circumstances or with a weak argument, some people will simply resort to name calling....
quote:I suppose that starved of the "freedom" to call him a "nigger" in public, this buckshot approach was the next best thing. A strange kind of politically correct prejudice.
Originally posted by sabine:
I was driving in a university town when I saw a man on a street corner with a sign that read: "Obama is a Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist."
It was cold, the windows of the car were up. I wanted to say:
Those are different philosophies, dude. You're in a college town. Read a book!
sabine
quote:Exactly. This is true across the country, and has been so ever since "deinstitutionalization" in the 70s. Here in L.A, with more than a quarter of a million homeless, around 25% are mentally ill, and another 20% physically disabled. Almost half are families with children-- who, no matter what the failings of their parents, surely had no "choice" in the matter.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:Actually a lot of the homeless in my city are homeless because of either substance abuse problems or untreated mental illness- a result of being "liberated" when, in the name of individual freedom and lowering taxes, a lot of the mental hospitals were shut down.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because in the USA people don't starve in the streets unless they are homeless; and people are homeless because they CHOOSE to be.
quote:That is absurd.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
quote:And (assuming that I'm remembering correctly) when the US had large tariffs, we actually had a governmental surplus. (Yes, the government was spending LESS money than it was taking in...odd isn't it??)
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:Sorry, I find that an odd conclusion to draw. In US history, Henry Clay's "American System," which included tariffs (to protect our "infant manufactures") and Federally-sponsored infrastructure improvements, was the precursor to decades of prosperity.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Historically tariffs have been the usual precursor to a sudden lurch into tyranny.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Quite a lot they can do about it. It's called tariffs.
quote:By what definition of "socialist"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
quote:Exactly. The same ignorant racial prejudice that can no longer find release in favorite epithets (for fear of having their lily-white arses stomped in public) now resort to 'acceptable' bigoted speech with terms like "Fascist". You can always recognize the hate merchants with their tactics of fear. Your individuality is being threatened by the Fascist President! Obamacare will mean Death Panels!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:I suppose that starved of the "freedom" to call him a "nigger" in public, this buckshot approach was the next best thing. A strange kind of politically correct prejudice...
Originally posted by sabine:
I was driving in a university town when I saw a man on a street corner with a sign that read: "Obama is a Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist."
It was cold, the windows of the car were up. I wanted to say:
Those are different philosophies, dude. You're in a college town. Read a book!
sabine
quote:The Neocon definition.
By what definition of "socialist"?
quote:I think there's some truth in this: ordinary people living under one or other system may suffer similar loss of freedom and have more in common with each other than with those living in a democracy. But it's important to realise that they're fundamentally different 'philosophies' - no-one can be both at once. You can't be strongly left-handed AND strongly right-handed.
Originally posted by Janine:
Far-extreme socialism and far-extreme fascism are, functionally, in practical measure, "in the trenches/on the ground", as they would touch me, identical.
quote:I think the "truth" in that is that both are totalitarian systems, and people who perhaps not terribly knowledgeable or sophisticated about political systems and theories are throwing epithets at Obama that, in their minds, are synonymous with "dictator." Of course, in many people's minds, "dictator" means "a leader trying to impose policies I disagree with," despite the fact that that leader can be voted out of office after four years.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:I think there's some truth in this: ordinary people living under one or other system may suffer similar loss of freedom and have more in common with each other than with those living in a democracy. But it's important to realise that they're fundamentally different 'philosophies' - no-one can be both at once. You can't be strongly left-handed AND strongly right-handed.
Originally posted by Janine:
Far-extreme socialism and far-extreme fascism are, functionally, in practical measure, "in the trenches/on the ground", as they would touch me, identical.
.
quote:You genuinely don't know what a socialist is, do you?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
]The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
quote:You are going to have to explain what you mean by "fascist" then because its obviously not what the rest of the world means by it, so your post is incomprehensible to us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics.
quote:Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:That is absurd.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb]quote:The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
quote:That may be a rather credulous approach. You should consider that Hitler might not have been completely honest.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
quote:That sounds thoroughly consistent and supportable to me.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Heck, my dad put his life on the line in WW2, fighting fascists. And he was an old-style Labour democratic socialist whose opinion of Stalinists (whether communist or elsewhere) would set your ears on fire. Go figure.
quote:This one:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:By what definition of "socialist"?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:The North Korean's aren't democratic but Hitler and the Nazis were socialists.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They were as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are democratic.
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I was driving in a university town when I saw a man on a street corner with a sign that read: "Obama is a Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist."
quote:Sound like he reads textbooks from Texas.
Originally posted by sabine:
Those are different philosophies, dude. You're in a college town. Read a book!
sabine
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thoughtless lumping together of him and folks like him (I have known many) with totalitarian fascists simply because they were old style supporters of the UK Labour party (and therefore must somehow be "evil socialists") really gets under my skin.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
quote:Perhaps because, despite their rhetoric, they were not truly socialist.
Originally posted by Papio:
So, why did the Nazi's slaughter real socialists and trade unionists, then?
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Perhaps because, despite their rhetoric, they were not truly socialist.
Originally posted by Papio:
So, why did the Nazi's slaughter real socialists and trade unionists, then?
quote:In particular no's 1, 3, 9, 10 and 13
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You are going to have to explain what you mean by "fascist" then because its obviously not what the rest of the world means by it, so your post is incomprehensible to us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics.
quote:I fail to see how you could hang any of those particular qualifiers on Obama. In most every item on the list, Obama and the Democrats would seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Which might possibly give some justification for the "socialist" charge (albeit only in comparison w/ what's gone before) but would seem to completely negate the "fascism" charge. Which items on the list in particular do you see Obama as "burgeoning"?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:In particular no's 1, 3, 9, 10 and 13
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You are going to have to explain what you mean by "fascist" then because its obviously not what the rest of the world means by it, so your post is incomprehensible to us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics.
Bush was guilty of no. 1, (arguably) 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and (arguably) 14.
Between the two of them we have American-made, embryonic (and under His Oness, burgeoning) fascism. It is this trend that the Tea Party (not teabaggers) wants stopped in its tracks. They are at "war" with the status quo in our two-party political system as carried out in the last generation, especially the last c. 20 years....
quote:Which words? Mein Kampf? He made his hatred of socialists and communists pretty evident there. Or what were you thinking of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
quote:Dunno about USA but in Britain journalists as a class are on the whole left-wing and libertarian. Some years ago - a lot of years ago I admit - someone did some sort of survey of political opinions in a few dozen posh professions and found that journalists and writers were the second-most left wing of them all - just behind artists and a little ahead of scientists IIRC. (the most right-wing were airline pilots)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The media is on the whole right-wing and libertarian. That's because journalists as a class benefit from libertarian policies. And newspaper and media owners as a class benefit from right-wing policies.
quote:Just how credible was this study?
Originally posted by ken:
Some years ago - a lot of years ago I admit - someone did some sort of survey of political opinions in a few dozen posh professions and found that journalists and writers were the second-most left wing of them all - just behind artists and a little ahead of scientists IIRC. (the most right-wing were airline pilots)
quote:Libertarian is right-wing. In this country at least.
Originally posted by ken:
Dunno about USA but in Britain journalists as a class are on the whole left-wing and libertarian.
quote:That looks like a very good description of fascism to me. I woudl say that because it pretty much agrees with my own which I wrote a few years back and put on a website aso I wouldn't have to keep on posting it in threads like this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:In particular no's 1, 3, 9, 10 and 13
Originally posted by ken:
quote:You are going to have to explain what you mean by "fascist" then because its obviously not what the rest of the world means by it, so your post is incomprehensible to us.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I actually believe that His Oness is fascist in his politics.
Bush was guilty of no. 1, (arguably) 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and (arguably) 14.
quote:Not even entirely in your country. You have, or once had activists like Daniel DeLeon, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Henry Thoreau, Joe Hill, Lucy Parsons Noam Chomsky, Woodie Guthrie. All left-libertarians. Plus a whole bundle of writers like Kim Stanley Robinson or Ursula K LeGuin or Sam Clemens AKA Mark Twain.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Libertarian is right-wing. In this country at least.
Originally posted by ken:
Dunno about USA but in Britain journalists as a class are on the whole left-wing and libertarian.
quote:You'll have to give a bit more detail on those ones. As far as I can see Obama isn't guilty of any of them. He is no more nationalistic than you have to be to get elected in America, and less so than the previous regime. He is actively opposed to 3, even though his early bipartisan idealism hasn't been possible under fire, though he has consistently worked to make friends internationally, rather than entrenching opposition. Regarding 9, he is dragging BP over the coals and has also severely damaged corporate interests with his healthcare reform. I don't know about 10, but I haven't heard anything about labour unions being suppressed by Obama. And there is no sign of 13 either: indeed much less than the Bush nepotism.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
In particular no's 1, 3, 9, 10 and 13
quote:Also the last letter of Barry Soterro.
Originally posted by Hawk:
(Also, I've been meaning to ask. Is the Right's new pet name for Obama pronounced "One-ness" (as in he's Number 1) or pronounced "O-ness" (as in a cute yet meaningless riff on the first letter of his name). I like to keep abreast of American slang.)
quote:They do when they are on our side!
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hush now, Hawk. Logic and reason have no place in political discussions!
quote:I think, though, that by the end of his 2nd term, it came to be almost an endearment.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
"Barry" was Barack's nickname in younger years. When it's used today, it tends to be used dismissively (think "Junior") much like "W" was used for Bush, even when not explicitly connected to the birthers.
quote:Personally, I think it has something to do with being so desperate to find a reason to hate Obama so, that isn't just cos he is black, that they desperately cling to any wild conspiracy theory or bogus internet legend hoping that they can point to it and say "see? *that's* why we hate him! It's NOT just because he is black, honest!"
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thank you, Papio. I do not properly keep up with the nutters and thought "Barry" was a dismissive nickname for Barack. So Barry Soetoro is a hoax. And even if true, is based upon an inaccurate understanding of US citizenship. How can anyone with an I.Q. over 50 make any of these claims? Oh, wait...
quote:I must live in the next county over. I hear that phrase on a regular basis in public places.
And yet nobody thought about protesting until a darkie won the election. I live in Redneck Wonderland, believe me when I say that racism is one of the things that unites the teabaggers. I have yet to meet a teabagger who didn't, at some point, refer to "that nigger in the White House".
quote:The Nazi platform, particularly points 10-17.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Which words? Mein Kampf? He made his hatred of socialists and communists pretty evident there. Or what were you thinking of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
quote:If "I don't want to" isn't a good enough reason then my sympathies would be with the armed rebellion that would surely arise.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I would like to see them all tossed out and a new way of getting leaders chosen: not by popular election at all, but instead by random selection, like jury duty. And you had better have a good reason why you can't serve or there is a hefty fine and maybe some alone time too.
quote:You might need to consider the possibility that a party might have a stated policy which appears to be socialist, but in fact be lying. This possibility might gain further traction if you consider that logic and telling the truth weren't Nazi fortes.
The Nazi platform, particularly points 10-17.[/QB]
quote:10-17?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:The Nazi platform, particularly points 10-17.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Which words? Mein Kampf? He made his hatred of socialists and communists pretty evident there. Or what were you thinking of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
quote:You might also need to consider what would happen to you if you were a German during the Hitler rule and used your property in a manner he didn't like.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:You might need to consider the possibility that a party might have a stated policy which appears to be socialist, but in fact be lying. This possibility might gain further traction if you consider that logic and telling the truth weren't Nazi fortes.
The Nazi platform, particularly points 10-17.
In any case, if all it takes is one socialist policy you could put any country with any form of state welfare down as socialists. [/QB]
quote:Ah! Now you've got it. ONce you've got that trick down, you're ready to join the tea partiers.
Originally posted by mdijon:
[QUOTE
In any case, if all it takes is one socialist policy you could put any country with any form of state welfare down as socialists.
quote:It appears you are reading the summary up at the top. Scroll down a for the actual points.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:10-17?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:The Nazi platform, particularly points 10-17.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Which words? Mein Kampf? He made his hatred of socialists and communists pretty evident there. Or what were you thinking of?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Not when I read the Nazi platform and Hitler's own words.
What is Socialist about points 15, 16 & 17? ("Death to all criminals", "German law, not Roman law", "Education to teach the German Way")>?
quote:Then there you have it. He wanted to control everything.
Agreed that points 10-14 would be supported by most socialists (as might 18, 19, 20 and 22). So what? Its motherhood and apple pie stuff. Germany was in a huge economic disaster and that sort of talk won votes.
quote:If we lived in the same country and I was a dictator and could control anything I wanted to and instructed one of my goons to show up on your front porch and tell you what to do with your property, who is the real owner?
When they got into power they only implemented one of those five points (13. "Extension of old age welfare") They soon forgot about "Abolition of unearned income", "Nationalisation of industry" (the Nazis nationalised a slightly smaller proportion of the German economy than the contemporary US government did of theirs), "Division of profits" and "Land reform".
quote:What game? Was it a game to those Jews and others having their property and lives confiscated by the state?
And points 4-8 give the game away: "Land and territory", "Only a member of the race can be a citizen", "No Jew can be a member of the race", "Only citizens can live in Germany", "No immigration".
quote:I know quite a few Tea Partiers, a good many of whom are Southerners. If they heard that term they would, at the least, ask you to leave, but most likely they'd physically toss you out of the meeting.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Quote by Erin:
quote:I must live in the next county over. I hear that phrase on a regular basis in public places.
And yet nobody thought about protesting until a darkie won the election. I live in Redneck Wonderland, believe me when I say that racism is one of the things that unites the teabaggers. I have yet to meet a teabagger who didn't, at some point, refer to "that nigger in the White House".
quote:And that makes him a socialist? Are all thieves socialists? All dictators too on the basis of your "wants to control everything" answer to Ken?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You might also need to consider what would happen to you if you were a German during the Hitler rule and used your property in a manner he didn't like.
quote:What are you talking about? Your last two posts don't engage with the quotes you hung them on.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
What game? Was it a game to those Jews and others having their property and lives confiscated by the state?
quote:Ok, back on track - what things?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
His Oness has done, threatens to do and is doing many things that MANY Americans consider to be crossing the line of both parties
quote:I think you and Grammatica are more or less right about the Tea Party. The Tea Party has gone after Republicans who support big government policies just as hard as they have gone after Democrats. Just ask Bennett of Utah. The Tea Party is in a struggle for the control of the Republican Party. It is a struggle between Neo-Conservatives and sort of a Libertarian Right that hasn't gotten the memo about libertarian opposition to imperialism.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Look! It works!
We were discussing the decline in middle class living standards, the drop in real wages since the 1970s, unemployment and economic insecurity, the lack of affordable healthcare and college education, and the dangers of globalised "free trade".
Now we are discussing whether "One-ness" is a socialist or a fascist.
I think that pretty much sums up exactly what the tea-party movement is all about, and why it thrives: get the people angry and distracted with on hand, shaft them with the other, and blame it one someone else. The tea-partyers themselves are, for the most part, "useful idiots", being played by the very rich and corporate interests, just as the "Christian Right" were played before them.
quote:Yes indeed. What we really need is a Centre Party with a sort of "localist-left", agrarian, distributist outlook. This might even be coupled with moderate social conservatism - because, let's be honest, the reason "small town values" and "our traditional way of life" are threatened in America has nothing to do with gay liberals in New Orleans or San Francisco, and everything to do with globalising marketeers in Shanghai and Hong Kong.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only thing capable of restricting the power of big business is big government. If you want small government, you must also support small business.
quote:I'm not going to answer the broad-brushing tactics: BOTH SIDES resort to it all the time, but again it's only the noisy protagonists who do the broad-brushing of the other side. From where I observe, the main mass of Americans are not on any side but their own. That we agree on most things is an indicator of how far afield BOTH SIDES (so-called right and left, liberal and conservative) are at this point.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Ok, back on track - what things?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
His Oness has done, threatens to do and is doing many things that MANY Americans consider to be crossing the line of both parties
Let's not worry about which meaningless emotive label to call Obama's actions, first just please say what these extreme and beyond-the-pale actions are? I think the only thing he's actually acheived is to reform Healthcare, which is hardly less radical than setting it up in the first place.
From what I've seen, the only radical policies being mentioned are on the placards of the teaparty protesters. The fear and paranoia of death panels and Nazi thugs is far beyond the reality; which is often quite dull.
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:This makes no sense, because small business is only the beginning. Given enough time small business GROWS and becomes BIG BUSINESS. Then the gov't steps in and imposes restrictions and regulations, i.e. becomes BIGGER than big business. Then gov't becomes the business and private business goes away to the extent that gov't has taken over through its restrictions and regulations.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
...I don't blame them for wanting less government. What I don't understand is their willingness to allow big business to grow exponentially until they have as much power over the lives of individuals as government. The only thing capable of restricting the power of big business is big government. If you want small government, you must also support small business.
quote:That's what insurance and investment are for. No future is assured. To expect gov't to provide a secure future is the proverbial pact with the devil.
People don't want to depend on the government for support. However, they seem to have no problem putting their faith in a corporation that can shut down, move to another country, and leave a virtual ghost town of people who practically sold their soul to the company store (to quote an old country song).
quote:Really? I must have missed that one.
The libertarian right has convinced people that more government deregulation would prevent those jobs from leaving.
quote:It isn't that way at all: the industry that has left the USA is a temporary shift toward making bigger profits elsewhere. It can shift back to the USA again the same way it left. Meanwhile, this remains the best of all possible worlds, and we just have to live with it. Again, to clamor for gov't to "save us" is the worst possible course of action. Only private business untrammeled by gov't restrictions can attract more business/competition....
I can't imagine them being able to cut wages low enough. Actually, if we are to follow the gospel of free trade, politicians should be calling for those displaced workers to move with their jobs. Free trade theory called for the free movement of labor as well as capital. If you were a telephone customer service agent who lost his job, move to Bangalore. You can get a job and live as well as anybody in Bangalore. Not that anybody ever advocates that aspect of it.
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:Except that's not what happens. If government stays out of the way, monopoly always arises. The government is required to regulate heavily just to preserve competition. Our government lost its will to prevent monopoly long ago. In 1988 there were 7 "big" accounting firms in the US. How many are there now? Mergers and more mergers and the government just does a superficial "investigation" and then allows it.
The only fix for oppressive big business is competition. And as long as gov't stays out of the way, competition always arises.
quote:Point by point, private industry coming "begging" for money from the Gov't and getting it just shows how far down the drain we've already gone. A full-blown depression is probably the only "fix" we must endure: once things are that bad, people will really work to turn it around, and please God it won't take a world war next time to clinch the "new" deal. It isn't as though the resources actually vanish away during hard times. What stops people from digging themselves out of the rubble of an economic collapse is BIG gov't, every single time, getting in the way. During the expansion West gov't was slow to come in behind the pioneers and entrepreneurs; by the time gov't got involved the infrastructure for success was already up and running. People felt a desire for security in wild and uncertain times, so gov't made its usual promises and got its franchise from The People, and things seemed to stabilize and security improved. If we could have held the line at that point we wouldn't be in the bureaucratic mess we are now. But as we were warned in the beginning, people who are willing to sell freedom for security will lose both....
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Power grab with the auto, banking and health industries?
The auto companies were begging for money. We took the decision to bail them out instead of letting them fall into bankruptcy. I as a Canadian Citizen became a shareholder in GM because of that decision.
Banks came begging for money in the same way. Unless you wanted another Great Depression instead of the small one we have right now, it was the deal with the devil we had to make.
As for health, once the full provisions of the reform bill kick in, Americans will grow to love their new benefits.
It happened that way for Medicare.
quote:So it really is the racism
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:And Big Gov't is our enemy. What you are admitting, whether you like to or not, is that this is a no-win situation. This is what always happens sooner or later. And the fallout will inevitably be oppression on both sides, from Big Business and Big Gov't, and all the little People getting crushed in between.
Originally posted by mousethief:
...If government stays out of the way, monopoly always arises. The government is required to regulate heavily just to preserve competition. ...
Big business is our enemy, not our friend. And don't go crying that Big Biz creates all these jobs. They're shipping all those jobs overseas. Small Biz doesn't ship jobs overseas. Big Biz does.
quote:No I am not admitting that because I don't agree that big government is our enemy. That's a lie invented by Reagan's handlers and propagated by neo-cons ever since. What you have done is admit that unbridled capitalism does not lead to competition but to monopoly.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And Big Gov't is our enemy. What you are admitting, whether you like to or not, is that this is a no-win situation.
quote:How do you get RACE out of that? Are all cultures outside the USA BLACK? or non White? Is Chicago a BLACK town?...
Originally posted by ken:
quote:So it really is the racism
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:Now, now, don't be so crude. Karl is a really kind and lovely person. He is not the Devil.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
... but the hand of Karl Rove, aka The Devil.
quote:Anyone opposing Obama is automatically racist. Don't you know that? It is a fact of life under the current regime.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
How do you get RACE out of that? Are all cultures outside the USA BLACK? or non White? Is Chicago a BLACK town?...
quote:You have got to be kidding! That's your main point ("for starters")?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Using the word regime is an example of the inflated rhetoric that makes it so hard to have a discussion.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
under the current regime.
quote:Seriously? You really want to make that argument? Because he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, that automatically means that his motives and perspectives are suspect. We'd rather have a small town provincial leader who never left the ranch except to do the weekly marketin'. Yeah.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:There are no words to convey the depths of the stupidity and xenophobia in this response. They do not exist. It's like trying to comprehend the size of the universe. It can't be done. Not to mention that you haven't actually provided a cite for his background making him suspect. I could understand if he were, say, a recovering coke addict. But he's not, so you've got nothing other than the stuff from Rush, Hannity and Beck that managed to penetrate your tinfoil hat.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Have you been living in a box? Or are you just being disingenuous? Chicago? Raised outside the USA? Just for starters....
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:He's a politician. That's sufficient reason to suspect his motives.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Please provide a cite for this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[Obama] has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact.
quote:Ummm, Hawaii is an American state, and has been for all of Obama's life. That's like saying someone was "raised outside the US" because they spend their teenage years in New Mexico.
Originally posted by sabine:
And "raised outside the US" -- ok, a few years as a child in Indonesia and then teenage years in Hawai'i.
quote:Yes, of course I know that Hawai'i was a state when Obama was a child. I'm sorry the way I wrote my post caused you to think otherwise.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Ummm, Hawaii is an American state, and has been for all of Obama's life. That's like saying someone was "raised outside the US" because they spend their teenage years in New Mexico.
Originally posted by sabine:
And "raised outside the US" -- ok, a few years as a child in Indonesia and then teenage years in Hawai'i.
quote:Well, since it became a State in 1959, they certainly weren't paying attention in civics class. President Obama was born in 1961.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The way his being from Hawaii was being emphasized by some of those campaigning against him, one must wonder if they were aware of it?
quote:Absolutely spot on.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Actually, I would diagnose a fairly simple raison d'être for the Tea Party movement: Nostalgia
quote:I'm not so sure. Nostalgia has a way of making the look-back rather fuzzy so that no one sees the difficulties that marked so much of history.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Actually, I would diagnose a fairly simple raison d'être for the Tea Party movement: Nostalgia........
What is basically on sale is a route back to when times were better and the world was somehow safe.
quote:It is also questionable whether such an idealized state ever truly existed.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
It is of course rather questionable if such is possible in a modern, complicated world where the balance of economic power is irrevocably shifting away from the West.
quote:Bah. School is a communist conspiracy to hide the fact that the past used to be rosy until the government changed it. (The government can do that because it's all-powerful and is hiding time-travel machines from us. Only business can be trusted with time-travel machines.) That's why it's important to have right-leaning history in school to change the past back.
Originally posted by sabine:
If the tea party people think that some sort of rosy past has been ripped from their scrapbooks, they need to go back to school and revisit the past in all its complexity.
quote:I'm sorry but I really don't understand this. Unless you're a paid up card carrying birther of course. Why is Chicago suspicious? Why does a career in community politics and law make you believe that Obama's background is suspicious? Perhaps this is a pond thing but I have no idea what you're talkng about here.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
His Oness has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact. That, plus his connections (via his background) increase the suspicion that he's not really good for America.
quote:So you disagree? You think the uneven distribution of wealth is fair? I can't see why this is a bad thing either.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So far his "noise" has indicated that his vision of America is some Euro-centric model: toss the traditional and precedent-based interpretation of the Constitution: specifically his comments about the unfairness (unrighteousness, actually) of the uneven distribution of wealth; he'd love to take it all and dole it out fairly and evenly;
quote:Your answer to SPK on this point is interesting. You seem to be arguing that a depression is not a depression but a natural corrective that economies take and this would have been better than how things are right now. Either you have no idea what a depression is or...no I can't think of an alternative. You really have no idea what a depression is.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
his instantaneous power grab with the auto, banking and health care industries; moving to turn enormous blocks of them into Fed-controlled (owned) entities;
quote:Oh no - he's changed his mind in reaction to unforeseen new circumstances. What a fascist! Perhaps he should have ignored what's going on outside the White House and just carry on regardless with whatever he has previosuly said. That's the kind of leader America needs.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
his incapability of sticking to one policy, but rather saying the things that the group he's talking to want to hear (as far as he can tell). For example, He promotes off-shore drilling, then puts a six month moratorium on ALL off-shore drilling simply because of the outrage over a single accident:
quote:It just gets worse. I've heard enough - impeach him now!
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
he's trying to make everybody like him and trust him.
quote:This actually makes sense. The neo-con attitude is one of brash bull-headed strength. Obama's more diplomatic approach would obviously seem weak to such people. I can understand this.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Americans don't like to see our president BOWING to dictators, or pissing off our friends and allies with his criticisms and rudeness, or showing only weakness and the same damned smile in every photo-op. No spine, only "let's all talk and get along with our enemies, even if it means alienating our friends".
quote:Millions of gallons/litres each day.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
For example, He promotes off-shore drilling, then puts a six month moratorium on ALL off-shore drilling simply because of the outrage over a single accident:
quote:So, your saying the people don't really want a Democratic agenda enacted? They really want a Republican agenda moderated by a Democratic president? They could have had the same thing if they had just voted for McCain in the first place.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Of course it never did. But we can sure pretend it did...
I agree with Sabine that the TP will probably go the same way as Ginrich's Contract with America. Accordingly the American electorate will try it on for size at the midterm elections which will help Obama focus on a slightly less Democrat-oriented policy and maybe get him elected for a second term.
(yes a Clinton rerun).
quote:Dear me. The West as a profitable agricultural territory was made possible by railroads, without which cash farming would be impossible. Those railroads were financed by land grants, the mother of all corporate subsidies.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Point by point, private industry coming "begging" for money from the Gov't and getting it just shows how far down the drain we've already gone. A full-blown depression is probably the only "fix" we must endure: once things are that bad, people will really work to turn it around, and please God it won't take a world war next time to clinch the "new" deal. It isn't as though the resources actually vanish away during hard times. What stops people from digging themselves out of the rubble of an economic collapse is BIG gov't, every single time, getting in the way. During the expansion West gov't was slow to come in behind the pioneers and entrepreneurs; by the time gov't got involved the infrastructure for success was already up and running. People felt a desire for security in wild and uncertain times, so gov't made its usual promises and got its franchise from The People, and things seemed to stabilize and security improved. If we could have held the line at that point we wouldn't be in the bureaucratic mess we are now. But as we were warned in the beginning, people who are willing to sell freedom for security will lose both....
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Power grab with the auto, banking and health industries?
The auto companies were begging for money. We took the decision to bail them out instead of letting them fall into bankruptcy. I as a Canadian Citizen became a shareholder in GM because of that decision.
Banks came begging for money in the same way. Unless you wanted another Great Depression instead of the small one we have right now, it was the deal with the devil we had to make.
As for health, once the full provisions of the reform bill kick in, Americans will grow to love their new benefits.
It happened that way for Medicare.
quote:I never heard anyone emphasize it. I know some birther folks questioned it, but I always figured Hillary would have already found it out early in the primary campaign if he wasn't.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
The way his being from Hawaii was being emphasized by some of those campaigning against him, one must wonder if they were aware of it?
quote:I'm not going to repeat well-hashed out details of his past. But Chicago are you kidding? It's politics are so tied to organized crime that it is popularly considered the most corrupt gov't in the USA, or possibly second most corrupt after DC! These connections would not be anything to point at except that as POTUS he's performing according to socialist form. So his current behavior makes the Chicago connections worrisome to those critical of his politics. His statements about the need for sweeping reforms point to socialism as his motivation and goal; a decidedly alarming feature in a POTUS to very many people. Because of his statements his critics look at his somewhat mysterious past and fear the worst will manifest, now that it is too late to prevent his first term, but might not be too late to show him up as too radical and socialistic to deserve a second one.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:I'm sorry but I really don't understand this. Unless you're a paid up card carrying birther of course. Why is Chicago suspicious? Why does a career in community politics and law make you believe that Obama's background is suspicious? Perhaps this is a pond thing but I have no idea what you're talkng about here.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
His Oness has a background that makes his motives and perspective suspect. Simple fact. That, plus his connections (via his background) increase the suspicion that he's not really good for America.
quote:Well, you Brits are a lot more socialistic and Big Gov't than Obama's critics want to be. And the "American dream" did not arise out of socialism, but rather private enterprise. Socialism is the death of individual inititiative. TPOTUS has made his desires clear with his statements: he hates the freedom of the Stock Market and views its behavior as extreme and wrong; he wants gov't to control the economy, plain and simple. This is anathema to traditional American business.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...he'd love to take it all and dole it out fairly and evenly;quote:
So you disagree? You think the uneven distribution of wealth is fair? I can't see why this is a bad thing either.
quote:Of course it is debateable. His past voting record is entirely anti-gun rights; he hates the Second Ammendment, yet he mouths platitudes and dissembles with his past voting record by claiming to be a champion of the Second Ammendment. He lies continuously. He can't be pinned down to one policy on anything. It isn't so much what he's done up to this point that has many people scared: it is what his manifested desires, his statements, allude to as our future. His interpretation of the Constitution is not something that we want to see happen, because to implement socialism will require a complete overhaul of Constitutional tradition.
Plus there is no sign that Obama has strained or sought to push against the constitution at all. He has acted fully within it as far as I can see. Perhaps you can enlighten me where he has acted against the traditional interpretetation of the constitution (or perhaps what you mean by the traditional interpretation - since that's possibly a matter of some debate)
quote:Malarky. My parents went through the Great Depression. It was started by the collapse of the German economy, brought on by the Allies(especially France) forcing it to happen by their refusal to allow Germany to do business with the rest of Europe and the USA. I don't think a depression is better at all: just inevitable if the gov't intrusion doesn't work - and it doesn't look like the intrusion is doing any good for the long term.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
his instantaneous power grab with the auto, banking and health care industries; moving to turn enormous blocks of them into Fed-controlled (owned) entities;quote:
Your answer to SPK on this point is interesting. You seem to be arguing that a depression is not a depression but a natural corrective that economies take and this would have been better than how things are right now. Either you have no idea what a depression is or...no I can't think of an alternative. You really have no idea what a depression is.
quote:What new unforeseen circumstances? An oil rig disaster? That changes off-shore drilling, how exactly? So His Oness is informed enough to assure support for more off-shore drilling; then the BP mess shows him up as ignorant? Sure, he doesn't know what he's talking about, then or now. And he's trying to look in charge regardless of what he said last month or last year or whenever.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
his incapability of sticking to one policy, but rather saying the things that the group he's talking to want to hear (as far as he can tell). For example, He promotes off-shore drilling, then puts a six month moratorium on ALL off-shore drilling simply because of the outrage over a single accident:quote:
Oh no - he's changed his mind in reaction to unforeseen new circumstances.
quote:Well, let's all sit back and see how well it works then.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Americans don't like to see our president BOWING to dictators, or pissing off our friends and allies with his criticisms and rudeness, or showing only weakness and the same damned smile in every photo-op. No spine, only "let's all talk and get along with our enemies, even if it means alienating our friends".quote:
This actually makes sense. The neo-con attitude is one of brash bull-headed strength. Obama's more diplomatic approach would obviously seem weak to such people. I can understand this.
quote:He already is, with his "anger" levelled at BP. He's trying on the "tough guy" hat now.
There's probably nothing Obama can do about this either. Such people would be pissed off with Obama regardless. I really hope that he doesn't start changing his attitude though in the hope of making the neo-con hawks like him.
quote:Oh, he pretended all right. And you can see it as clearly over there as anybody on this side of the Pond.
He pretended to be angry with BP because he was told he was being too calm and it looked bad.
quote:True. He's a phony. That's right, a POLITICIAN; only this guy as I said is the "priest-king" of politicians. I only hope his phoniness becomes so blatant that it shoots his political career in the head. He'd make a popular professor of Constitutional law somewhere, doing no harm to anyone....
Then when he showed emotion his enemies still criticised him for that. If he starts changing his international approach it will damage his world standing and still achieve nothing with his detractors at home.
quote:The point is that gov't influence was minor. Of course homesteading and investment was not some form of anarchy: the Fed had the right of eminent domain in the territories but it operated with practically no "red tape". It operated in good faith (for the most part). It let people alone to do their chosen jobs. Gov't didn't "move in" until there was something built up to start taxing.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Dear me. The West as a profitable agricultural territory was made possible by railroads, without which cash farming would be impossible. Those railroads were financed by land grants, the mother of all corporate subsidies.
Those farms were homesteads, again an explicit government subsidy.
quote:And gov't intervention is going to turn this around how exactly?
Hawk is right about depressions too: demand has fallen off a cliff, so has hiring. I should know, I've got hundreds of resume files on my computer to prove it.
quote:Confidence is the only cure. Gov't compelling the economy to pick up by artificially providing money will result in rampant inflation. If the bad investors are breaking the law then prosecution will help increase confidence. It takes time to turn this kind of slump around. Gov't will only make it worse if it takes control....
Actually what stops people digging themselves out is money. Money is a creation of the banks ("broad money") and this crisis has devastated the money supply. No confidence, no loans. No loans, no money. No money, no trade. No trade, no jobs.
We learned during the last Depression that Say's Law ("Supply creates it's own demand") doesn't apply in monetary economies.
quote:Yeah, I'll just take my wallet full of confidence and buy a buttload of groceries.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Confidence is the only cure...
quote:I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm hazarding a guest on what "people" might want a couple of years from now! And the will of the "people" is just a composite balance of all these political flavours which changes over time.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:So, your saying the people don't really want a Democratic agenda enacted? They really want a Republican agenda moderated by a Democratic president? They could have had the same thing if they had just voted for McCain in the first place.
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:
Of course it never did. But we can sure pretend it did...
I agree with Sabine that the TP will probably go the same way as Ginrich's Contract with America. Accordingly the American electorate will try it on for size at the midterm elections which will help Obama focus on a slightly less Democrat-oriented policy and maybe get him elected for a second term.
(yes a Clinton rerun).
The Tea Partiers want nothing of the sort. They want something radically different. I'm not sure what moderates want. For instance, all of those people that vote for Democratic senators and then vote for a Republican president. What do those people think will happen?
quote:just makes me
Well, you Brits are a lot more socialistic and Big Gov't than Obama's critics want to be. And the "American dream" did not arise out of socialism, but rather private enterprise. Socialism is the death of individual inititiative.
quote:Interesting contrast, given the original strong links between the French and American revolutions.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
You really have NO idea what a country with socialist leanings looks like. Come to France and we'll show you how it's done properly.
quote:Not really. The French and the American revolutionaries had both read Montesquieu, but that's about it. Americans had a headful of Locke and a bellyful of "possessive individualism", fuelled in part by largely congregationalist patterns of religion. The French had a headful of Cicero and Polybius, and, being largely non-Protestant, they hadn't fully rejected Aquinas either.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Interesting contrast, given the original strong links between the French and American revolutions.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
You really have NO idea what a country with socialist leanings looks like. Come to France and we'll show you how it's done properly.
quote:Reality sucks?
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:Using the word regime is an example of the inflated rhetoric that makes it so hard to have a discussion.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
under the current regime.
quote:I wasn't making a comparison between the UK and the rest of "socialist Europe". Taken as a whole, the Euro-centric approach is "anti-American" on so many levels....
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Sorry, but this kind of thing:
quote:just makes me
Well, you Brits are a lot more socialistic and Big Gov't than Obama's critics want to be. And the "American dream" did not arise out of socialism, but rather private enterprise. Socialism is the death of individual inititiative.
You really have NO idea what a country with socialist leanings looks like. Come to France and we'll show you how it's done properly.
(There is an interesting point about socialism/dictatorship somewhere in here, although I'm not quite sure what it is. Suffice to say that the trade unions are the ones who keep Sarko's hands tied by going on strike any time he tries to implement any kind of policy. Which may or may not be a bad thing.)
quote:Fear-mongering sucks.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Reality sucks?
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:Using the word regime is an example of the inflated rhetoric that makes it so hard to have a discussion.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
under the current regime.
quote:Who do you think elected Obama?
In the Constitution the first word are “We the people” this means that the government works for us not us for them.
quote:Yes, those who want no government generally have no concept of the reality of that. Or wish to have their chance to pillage.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If people don't like Government, they can always go somewhere where there isn't very much of it. Somalia, for example.
quote:No, no, no. Minimal government in the modern context has nothing to do with actual government size. It is a government which supports me and screw the rest.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Libertarians seem to me the mirror-image of those handful of far-lefters who think Marxist-Leninism is the answer to everything with complete disregard to the actual reality of the Soviet Union. We've had states with minimal government before. Medieval Iceland being an example. They don't work.
quote:Actually I'd say he has stuck pretty darn close to his campaign promises, with only a few exceptions. Far better track record than most pols. Some were promises that the voters didn't pay much attention to (e.g. ramping up Afghanistan) but most everything he's done or proposed was something that was clearly outlined prior to the election. I get that you don't like those things. Welcome to the club-- some of us were horrified by what happened in the prior 8 years. In fact, enough of us apparently to elect Obama.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
I believe a great many people were fooled by his words he certainly is not living up to them.
quote:I'm still voting for Andrew Jackson.
Originally posted by Papio:
Is "worst POTUS EVER" really any more than vastly inflated and irresponsible hyperbole?
quote:In a world that used to include James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland, Ulysses Grant, Richard Nixon and George Bush II, it isn't even hyperbole. The people who say it can't really believe it, or expect it to be believed. They aren't that stupid. Its just a sort of slogan.
Originally posted by Papio:
Is "worst POTUS EVER" really any more than vastly inflated and irresponsible hyperbole?
quote:Amen! Preach on Sister! Of course, the lefties are the best at fear-mongering since they use it all the time to accuse those "evil Republicans" of wanting to steal the Social Security from the retirees.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Fear-mongering sucks.
quote:Expiration dates? How's about expiration times? Zero's promises don't usually last a ful day!
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
We quickly learned that all his promises came with expiration dates.
quote:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Worst ex-president? That's nuts. Carter has done more good to the world since the end of his administration than all the other former presidents (with the possible exception of T. Roosevelt) put together.
quote:Unprecedented until the Thugster came along. He's worse on human rights than anyone by a long way.
Surely the worst president ever was George Bush. ... curtailed human rights in an unprecedented (since Lincoln) manner ...
quote:
...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
quote:I think Molly called him "Shrubya" instead of "The Thugster", but at least there is something we agree on.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Unprecedented until the Thugster came along. He's worse on human rights than anyone by a long way.
quote:Did they make you surrender your Enter key at the door?
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
To get started I am a member of Tea Party
quote:1. Not any more.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Democrats have a filibuster proof congress and can do any thing they want.
quote:...and a few strategically placed military bases.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
... the only thing we asked was enough land in which to bury our dead.
quote:Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, Samoa, Panama, various South Pacific Islands, various overt and covert operations in Central and South America....
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
quote:Wow. That's a good one. Any more and we can have a stand up comedy act. It is Friday.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
quote:The same could be said of blacks, except on the Democratic side.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:1. Not any more.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Democrats have a filibuster proof congress and can do any thing they want.
2. Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:You obviously know a huge amount more about this than I do, but I was thinking of the statue of liberty, general Lafayette, and I thought that the example of the American revolution was an inspiration to France.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The French and the American revolutionaries had both read Montesquieu, but that's about it.
quote:Read more history, economics and politics then.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
quote:Not at all - in fact, the reality is far worse!
Originally posted by Papio:
Is "worst POTUS EVER" really any more than vastly inflated and irresponsible hyperbole?
quote:So we can go bankrupt like Europe? Of course, it doesn't matter since we're almost there already.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
American society needs proper healthcare and the sort of social safety net which exists in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth.
quote:I might debate you on the FDR allusion, but the current problem is that we have an empty suit in the oval office who has never had to solve problems or administer anything. His lack of experience and capability are biting us in the rear now.
The genius of the American people, as embodied by their greatest politicians, such as FDR, is to solve problems.
quote:If you're that blind or that ignorant about history, then I understand Teabagging (at least the non-sexual kind) a little better: utter ignorance married to vast prejudice.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it. We fought WWI and WWII and at the end we were the big dog. We rebuilt Europe and Japan at considerable cost the only thing we asked was enough land in which to bury our dead. If as you contend we are an empire we doing a pretty bad job of it.
quote:The jokes already been done by Will Rodgers:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Wow. That's a good one. Any more and we can have a stand up comedy act. It is Friday.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Democrats, individually, have brains and do not follow the herd instinct like the automatons in the Rethuglickin' party. This means they don't vote as a mindless bloc.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Do any of us get what we deserve just because? Some get what they deserve and others get away with murder. What does deserve have to do with anything?
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
For those of us who are Christian Merlin has it all . Christianity is about helping the weak, not about declaring that “homeless people” are homeless by choice, being delinquent and deserving of their fate.
Tea party people see the end to their unjust benefits and resist the need to share though they pretend to be Christians. Merlin’s views and Christ’s are incompatible.
quote:"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." That's one of today's Google quotes. You are certainly in large company. This kind of hyperbole is enormously popular. It doesn't describe reality. It is not factual.
The fact is the U.S. is an unjust and vicious society where fifty percent of the wealth is owned by those who are millionaires – half of all the income earned goes to ten per cent of earners. That is an inherently unjust society that Tea Partiers seek to preserve.
quote:Err, no. Not really. Equality is pretty relevant. Once GDP/capita gets above the level of about Portugal, equality of distribution starts to have a major impact on well-being. You are actually better off earning $15,000 a year in a society where everyone earns about the same, than you would be earning $25,000 in a society where that puts you in the bottom quintile. The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...the percentage of wealth in the hands of "the rich" is immaterial to the topic of general welfare, simply because the general welfare is dependent on ENOUGH wealth to have what anyone can define as "the good life".
quote:
And that is the genius of the American system: that the total wealth is available to everyone as they work and obtain.
quote:
That the "filthy (viciously) rich" provide millions of jobs doesn't mean anything, does it?
quote:
Oh, I suppose small business heavily regulated by Big Gov't is the answer:
quote:
...the only Big Business should be Big Gov't. Trouble with that is The People will have lost their franchise and Big Gov't will call all the shots.
quote:How feasible is it to be a private entrepreneur in modern America? Want to start your own shop or workshop? Go ahead. Again, it's not 1824. The private entrepreneur is destroyed by capitalism, replaced by the corporate manager and the venture capitalist.
The genius of the American System has been the private entrepreneur. It was these men and women who became the rich that you are envious of.
quote:Err, no. Not at all. I mean, it's not like it's an on/off switch. The government can do much to encourage private initiative. Private enterprise has its place - it just shouldn't be allowed to run the place.
A Big Gov't controlled economy will prevent the initiative of individuals from creating successful businesses:
quote:
...instead, Big Gov't will offer positions within it's halls to the "deserving": and furthermore, Big Gov't will be the arbiter of who is deserving, i.e. the defining of this will be the privilege of Big Gov't as well.
quote:It's not socialism (although I have a rather narrow view of socialism; in my view you are not a socialist unless your thought is derived from Marx and you favour nationalisation of productive property - everyone else is who leans that way is, in my book, "non-socialist left", "radical", "progressive", or some other label). It's certainly not fascism.
This is socialism; it is also fascism when an outside enemy needs trouncing or absorbing....
quote:Australia has a much better health insurance system than the US, and it is nowhere near broke. Barely noticed the GFC here, by comparison to most countries.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:So we can go bankrupt like Europe? Of course, it doesn't matter since we're almost there already.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
American society needs proper healthcare and the sort of social safety net which exists in Europe and parts of the Commonwealth.
quote:Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.
quote:Er, we aren't quite the same as Greece yet, mate.
Originally posted by MSHB:
they are not quite all like Greece or the UK.
quote:You need to get out of your bubble and come meet some of the people I meet out here in the shelter here in L.A. Our shelter host 100 a night, and there are 100 different stories. Some are choices, most are not. Most are bad decisions, some are just plain bad luck.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least. Anyone can start looking for other work, and gov't institutions are in place in every city of the USA to help people who are evicted and jobless. People don't starve or live on the street except by choice. I am not saying that homeless people are normal people either: most of them are not typical, being mentally handicapped and (or) drug addicts, etc. That is an entirely different problem. But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
quote:They should have chosen better parents.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
quote:Or that we should hold people's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a pretty disgusting form of triumphalism that says that the disadvantaged could have prevented their falling into low estate.
quote:The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
quote:My own vote is for James Buchanan, whose bungling helped lead to the Civil War, with 600,000 Americans dying.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely the worst president ever was George Bush. Took a balanced budget and ran it into the red, curtailed human rights in an unprecedented (since Lincoln) manner, got us into two unnecessary and costly wars, gutted the regulatory powers of the government to at least three great disasters, used the power of his office to benefit his cronies.
quote:Well, they are roaming the streets, although their numbers are decreasing. They're all the Democrats. They are wonderful to care for others - using your money, not theirs.
Originally posted by sabine:
... The word "thug" was used with extreme emphasis so many times I lost count and and applied so so many people that I had a vision of gangs of muggers roaming the streets ...
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:Or that we should hold people's mistakes against them for the rest of their lives.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's a pretty disgusting form of triumphalism that says that the disadvantaged could have prevented their falling into low estate.
So, someone made a poor decision, maybe.
I've made poor decisions in the past too, so I am
not gonna be the one to throw the first stone.
Perhaps some people have never made poor decisions in all their lives. More likely, they've just had it easy and think their good fortune is more down to them than it really is.
quote:Merlin, I'm repeating this because I really would like an answer.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.
quote:This statement has so many holes you could slap it between bread and call it swiss cheese.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Well, they are roaming the streets, although their numbers are decreasing. They're all the Democrats. They are wonderful to care for others - using your money, not theirs.
Originally posted by sabine:
... The word "thug" was used with extreme emphasis so many times I lost count and and applied so so many people that I had a vision of gangs of muggers roaming the streets ...
quote:I'm not sure that this particular notion (the homeless consciously choose their fate and have ample warning to take measures to avoid it) can be supported or answered, cliffsweller, so I'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Merlin, I'm repeating this because I really would like an answer.
quote:Interesting thought.
Originally posted by Papio:
Doesn't the claim
A) The rich all deserve to be rich, and the poor all deserve to be poor
depend on
B) Life is fair.
quote:What I would like to see is tiers of regulation. The larger a business the more regulation imposed by government. I would exempt small business from almost all federal regulations. States and local communities could regulate them as they see fit though they should allow them to thrive.
originally posted by Radical Whig:
Yes. That really is the answer. I'd prefer to say, "small business operating within a regulatory framework which discourages excessive growth" - as long as businesses stay small they do not generally need too much regulation; it's as they grow that they need to be more tightly controlled.
quote:(quote taken from the New York Times OpEd piece, referring to an interview published in The Reno Gazette-Journal)
She talked once more of guns and politics last month, suggesting that conservatives might have no choice but to turn to violence if she failed to defeat her opponent, the Democratic Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, in the November vote.
“The nation is arming,” she told The Reno Gazette-Journal. “What are they arming for if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”
Josephine, esp. about giving up core beliefs.quote:Oh dear me, no.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
"On the whole" doesn't include the USA I guess. Yet people keep trying to get in and I don't see anyone trying to leave. I'd say that so-called American poverty is pretty good compared to most of the rest of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The effects of poverty - the alienating, dispiriting, dehumanising effects - are largely relative. More equal societies are, on the whole, happier than rich but unequal societies.
quote:
It's not 1824 anymore you know. The ladders have pretty much been kicked away. If you are born poor in America, chances are you will stay that way.
quote:
If a supermarket moves into town and puts ten small local shops out of business, I don't say, "oh, thank you, great supermarket, for giving us jobs". I say, "damn you, oh evil supermarket, for taking away our economic independence and making us dependent upon the faceless corporation".
quote:
MerlintheMad said:Oh, I suppose small business heavily regulated by Big Gov't is the answer:
quote:
Yes. That really is the answer. I'd prefer to say, "small business operating within a regulatory framework which discourages excessive growth" - as long as businesses stay small they do not generally need too much regulation; it's as they grow that they need to be more tightly controlled.
quote:
...the only Big Business should be Big Gov't. Trouble with that is The People will have lost their franchise and Big Gov't will call all the shots.quote:
How so? There are ways of doing this, you know. I mean, it is perfectly possible to have an active state which is also under democratic control. Look up Philip Pettit: "Republicanism, A theory of freedom and government" for a start.
quote:
How feasible is it to be a private entrepreneur in modern America?
quote:
Private enterprise has its place - it just shouldn't be allowed to run the place.
quote:
...instead, Big Gov't will offer positions within it's halls to the "deserving": and furthermore, Big Gov't will be the arbiter of who is deserving, i.e. the defining of this will be the privilege of Big Gov't as well.quote:
No, but this is exactly what big corporations do, without being bound by any sort of democratic control - patronage, cronyism.
quote:So Marx was the inventor of socialism. None of these communal, gov't controlling ideas existed before Marx.
This is socialism; it is also fascism when an outside enemy needs trouncing or absorbing....quote:
It's not socialism (although I have a rather narrow view of socialism; in my view you are not a socialist unless your thought is derived from Marx and you favour nationalisation of productive property - everyone else is who leans that way is, in my book, "non-socialist left", "radical", "progressive", or some other label). It's certainly not fascism.
quote:Venezuela.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Cuba, Puerto Rico, The Philippines, Samoa, Panama, various South Pacific Islands, various overt and covert operations in Central and South America....
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Something RadicalWhig said got me upset “The rise of America's imperial might in the twentieth century….” An Empire conquers other lands to steal its wealth I don’t see that America is doing this or has done it.
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.quote:
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
quote:
People who become homeless, also, are often not capable of getting a job or preparing for their future.
quote:
My mum used to work with the homeless, and many of them simply were never quite right in the head. Usually, they were looked after by their mothers until she died, and the home was repossessed or sold. When that happened, it was not uncommon for them to simply walk out of the house, taking nothing with them whatsoever, and become homeless.
quote:No provision for seeing the development? Or no provision for helping the disadvantaged/handicapped/addicted dregs of society? It seems to me that there are a lot of provisions. It's just that many of these odd people want to remain independent, even if it means being on the vagabond trail....
This is not the fault of those individuals, but the fault of society as a whole, and there is seldom any provision made whatsoever.
quote:"It's all about the children". Fine. I accept that as the biggest part of a homeless tragedy. But you nailed it: "Most are bad decisions", which includes not acting at all when there was still time and means to prepare. Now they are homeless. But, they are not STARVING IN THE STREET are they? That was the assertion that started me on this refuting tangent....
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You need to get out of your bubble and come meet some of the people I meet out here in the shelter here in L.A. Our shelter host 100 a night, and there are 100 different stories. Some are choices, most are not. Most are bad decisions, some are just plain bad luck.
And, as noted before, almost half are children. How in heaven's name did a homeless child "choose" that life???
quote:The so-called poverty line supports FAT kids! Look around. American "poor kids" are not starving. You will find an extremely small exceptional segment to that: and in almost all cases there are untypical circumstances causing the malnutrition, or even the lack of calories. Foodbanks will continue to recieve overwhelming demand as long as the momentum is toward more entitlement mentality.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Merlin The Mad Said :
quote:The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
But guess what will happen if you take away all government help.
quote:Feel free to feel inherently superior to them if you like, but I am betting that you aren't.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.quote:
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
Malarky! "Often"? Without warning? How does this occur? I'll tell you: by being STOOPID. Dig your head into the sand and say LALALALA. Anyone who can't look their personal finances over and SEE the danger of eviction with nowhere to go is being an idiot (I speak of normal, savvy people who are unwise in their finances and act as if tomorrow will necessarily be as today without a care for saving or planning for the worst case scenario).
quote:
People who become homeless, also, are often not capable of getting a job or preparing for their future.
Then these cases need help. How many of them are unaware of their incapacity? Not many is the answer. How many, being aware of their incapacity, do nothing about it? Quite a few. Stoopid, as I said: yes, prideful and stubborn. They'd rather squat and not let anyone know how badly off they are, until everything falls apart and they are out in the street with their kids.
The answer is to be there to pick them up when they are discovered AFTER it's too late to help them prepare. And advertise the services available BETTER, so that more of them will take advantage of the chance to prepare for the worst, so that it won't happen.
quote:
My mum used to work with the homeless, and many of them simply were never quite right in the head. Usually, they were looked after by their mothers until she died, and the home was repossessed or sold. When that happened, it was not uncommon for them to simply walk out of the house, taking nothing with them whatsoever, and become homeless.
You did notice, I trust, that I said MOST of the homeless we have fit this kind of description? It isn't as though perfectly capable, working people wake up one morning in the street going "My gwad! what just happened? I didn't see THAT coming!"
quote:No provision for seeing the development? Or no provision for helping the disadvantaged/handicapped/addicted dregs of society? It seems to me that there are a lot of provisions. It's just that many of these odd people want to remain independent, even if it means being on the vagabond trail....
This is not the fault of those individuals, but the fault of society as a whole, and there is seldom any provision made whatsoever.
quote:An interesting point. I wonder how it relates to what Josephine said about a core belief in fairness. Because every American today is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants - someone in their family tree decided that they could leave Lvov or Naples or wherever and make it in America. That's what the dream (myth?) of America is all about.
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, the reason they are trying to get in to America is because they all want the chance to NOT live in poverty, of American or any other variety. They all believe they're going to be the ones who WON'T end up in poverty. They'll be the big success.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...You've claimed that people are trying to get in to America because they'd be happy to live in American poverty. No, the reason they are trying to get in to America is because they all want the chance to NOT live in poverty, of American or any other variety. They all believe they're going to be the ones who WON'T end up in poverty. They'll be the big success.
quote:As I've said quite a few times already: I live well below the so-called poverty line. The difference is that I have a cushion in place: I have planned for the future by staying out of debt, living within my means, saving, having a retirement plan (that I am currently living from even as the market grows it back toward where it was before the plunge), paying off my house so that I can't be evicted, etc. Warning signs are all around us all the time. You prepare by being provident. Anyone, ANYONE can do that no matter what their income or circumstances. There is only more, or less, not NONE. The principles of provedent living are the same for everyone....
It's quite ironic actually, because we've already seen that's what you believe about yourself. You'll never be poor because you'll see the warning signs first.
...
quote:How do you get "superior" out of what I said? I was stating facts, not my attitude toward other people. There is quite a lot of hardship in my neighborhood. Some people are facing eviction if they don't turn it around. The guy on the corner lost his house because his self-employment construction job dried up and he couldn't make his house payments. But I didn't hear that he was going to be out on the street. I don't feel anything for him except sorry. He didn't deserve the economic downturn that took away his income. He reduced his finances, which meant losing his house (payment); he had somewhere to go; he planned for months on where to go and I trust he's doing what he can to keep eating and looking for work. He's not going to be homeless because he's a self-starter and motivator. There was a time when the American "way" expected that of everyone who isn't incapable. But the entitlement mentality is like a cancer, eating up our resources without contributing to the life of the Nation....
Originally posted by Papio:
...Feel free to feel inherently superior to them if you like, but I am betting that you aren't.
Even if you are, so what? What's wrong with a bit of compassion?
quote:Because you are claiming that the difference between you and they is that you are smart, well-organised and responsible, whereas they are stupid, lazy and feckless.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
How do you get "superior" out of what I said?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And Christians are not required to live as though the law of karma applies. We are to be people of grace.
quote:I don't care if it was 99% of the country's wealth; as long as the remaining 1% was sufficient to give the masses a good life and the liberty to "cut in" on that 99%. It's the gov't impositions that seek to redress the imbalance which are more immoral than the obtaining of the wealth in the first place: to take from those who own and to give their property to those who are not entitled to it is brigandage. Now, brigandage is an occupation too, a venerable one at that: but for gov'ts to engage in it is a mockery of "fairness".
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
Merlin is evading the issue of the fundamental unfairness in the existing American system. Wealth in A[me]rica is too concetrated in an affluent few. (millioaires are a small miority owingin 50% of the country's wealth).
quote:Way to go! Karlmaoché.
He seems to think that is o.k. Houses built on the sands of fundametal injustice get swept away when the dam bursts.
quote:Then existence itself is "evil", because I am not aware of anyone hereabouts who can be blamed for the "random selection" that puts some kids into rich homes and others into the street.
To be born in poverty in a family of schol drop outs is both unfortunate and evil depending on whether you are one of the unfrtunates or just plain incapable.
quote:My religion has nothing to do with this thread's issues.
...school systems that deepend on local taxation are designed to keep the poor in poverty. "Inasmuch as ye have done this unto the least of my people ye have done it unto me." Live with that if you want but don't pretend to be a charitable Christian.
quote:What about greed, arrogance, complacence, mean-spiritedness, blindess to the misfortune of others, miserliness and selfishness?
the evil of covetousness, envy, legalized brigandage
quote:I agree with every word of this response.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Merlin
That actually underlines the point that Papio and Josephine are making. Misfortunes happen to provident people. Poverty, severe illness, hard times, do not always fall on the feckless. It is not a fair world.
And Christians are not required to live as though the law of karma applies. We are to be people of grace.
quote:In a round-about way, ISTM that this point is something that illuminates the anger of the tea-partiers. We have come to see ourselves as individuals, not as part of a collective enterprise. WE decide how WE spend OUR money, etc. The notion that there is such a thing as a civilization that we are all attached to and leaching upon is just not a view that many Americans share any longer.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What is our response to be? Well, obviously those who can ought to contribute voluntarily, charitably to their local food banks and homeless shelters, etc: and more active support/aid where possible and desireable. Each of us must decide what our part is, in ministering to those who are unfortunate, no matter how they came to be that way....
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I was waiting to see how long it would take before someone used the word fascist -- about 16 posts. And then the arguing started, making it hard for a real discussion to continue.
This supports the idea that when faced with an anxiety-producing set of circumstances or with a weak argument, some people will simply resort to name calling.
I respect those who might have a willingness to discuss things from a perspective that is not popular, but as soon as name-calling comes into play or using terms outside of their meaning, then it's not a discussion--just a squaring off to trade verbal punches....
...which, of course, never solves anything. It doesn't convert anyone to a POV, it doesn't solve an issue. It really only works to raise the anger level.
I thought we were already at flood stage, but perhaps not.
[tangent] I was driving in a university town when I saw a man on a street corner with a sign that read: "Obama is a Nazi, fascist, socialist, communist, anarchist."
It was cold, the windows of the car were up. I wanted to say:
Those are different philosophies, dude. You're in a college town. Read a book!
sabine
quote:The principles are the same but not everyone has access to the resources you had. I don't dispute that many people fall into homelessness because they failed to make the sort of prudent preparations you did, and that if everyone saved as conscientiously as you have, we'd all be better off.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
]As I've said quite a few times already: I live well below the so-called poverty line. The difference is that I have a cushion in place: I have planned for the future by staying out of debt, living within my means, saving, having a retirement plan (that I am currently living from even as the market grows it back toward where it was before the plunge), paying off my house so that I can't be evicted, etc. Warning signs are all around us all the time. You prepare by being provident. Anyone, ANYONE can do that no matter what their income or circumstances. There is only more, or less, not NONE. The principles of provedent living are the same for everyone....
quote:But Iim not sure that (1) tea partiers are interested in being productive, and (2) the answer isn't simply "I believe Obama's policy is wrong because it's Obama's policy."
Originally posted by churchgeek:
ETA: Instead of saying, for example, "Obama is a fascist," it would be much more productive to say, "I believe Obama's policy on xyz is misguided, because..."
quote:But I'm not sure the tea partiers have anything to go after the ... except "it's Obama's policy." There is no indication that they have any suggestions for a way forward, only objections to current realities and policies.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Instead of saying, for example, "Obama is a fascist," it would be much more productive to say, "I believe Obama's policy on xyz is misguided, because..."
quote:Until quite recently, the largest category (and still one of the largest categories) of foreclosures in the US were medical bankrupcies filed by people WITH insurance. People who were working hard, paying their bills, AND-- they thought-- preparing for the future by making sure their had health insurance.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally Opined by MerlinTheMad
I said that anyone who is going to be homeless has plenty of warning; plenty of time to prepare for a shelter and food at the very least.quote:
Yes, but that is the purest bollocks.
People often become homeless over night, esp in a recession.
Malarky! "Often"? Without warning? How does this occur? I'll tell you: by being STOOPID. Dig your head into the sand and say LALALALA. Anyone who can't look their personal finances over and SEE the danger of eviction with nowhere to go is being an idiot (I speak of normal, savvy people who are unwise in their finances and act as if tomorrow will necessarily be as today without a care for saving or planning for the worst case scenario).
quote:Merlin, go down to Costco and compare the price of a frozen burrito with the cost of a lb of hamburger and some fresh vegetables.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:The so-called poverty line supports FAT kids! Look around. American "poor kids" are not starving. You will find an extremely small exceptional segment to that: and in almost all cases there are untypical circumstances causing the malnutrition, or even the lack of calories. Foodbanks will continue to recieve overwhelming demand as long as the momentum is toward more entitlement mentality.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Merlin The Mad Said :
quote:The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
But guess what will happen if you take away all government help.
The American Great Depression was not a time of wide-spread starvation. Very few people suffered as other countries would in a similar economic crisis...
quote:Actually, I think some modern form of this might be socially useful.
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
What do you want ? Workhouses ?
quote:Then you are wrong.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Actually, I think some modern form of this might be socially useful.
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
What do you want ? Workhouses ?
quote:Thinking?
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
Surely it is Ninteenth Century thinking to blame poor people for being poor.
quote:To add to this: I'm from Detroit, where half of the children live below the poverty line (that's an old statistic from before the current recession; now that the unemployment rate's around 30% in Detroit, the number of children in poverty is probably higher). There also is an epidemic of lead poisoning among children in the Detroit Public Schools, largely because of lead in the soil, but also because it's in homes (paint, etc.) - in many neighborhoods, most people are renting rather than owning their homes, so they're at the mercy of their landlord for things like stripping lead paint and removing asbestos siding. Anyway, in Detroit, there are no chain grocery stores. That means only "mom & pop" stores, which have much higher prices. Happily, the city has one of the nation's largest farmer's market, open on Saturday mornings, but another difficulty is transportation. Given the poverty level, many homes can't afford a car and rely on buses, which are somewhat reliable but not very frequent. Also, the city is huge - I recently saw a map showing that San Francisco, Boston, and Manhattan would fit inside Detroit with plenty of wiggle room - so to go outside the city for groceries or even to get to the farmer's market (Eastern Market) can be difficult for people depending on where they live. What is readily available is fast food. Lots of fast food places. Also lots of liquor stores (and no shortage of glossy billboards advertising liquor).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Merlin, go down to Costco and compare the price of a frozen burrito with the cost of a lb of hamburger and some fresh vegetables.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:The so-called poverty line supports FAT kids! Look around. American "poor kids" are not starving. You will find an extremely small exceptional segment to that: and in almost all cases there are untypical circumstances causing the malnutrition, or even the lack of calories. Foodbanks will continue to recieve overwhelming demand as long as the momentum is toward more entitlement mentality.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Merlin The Mad Said :
quote:The claim was that, left to itself, a "correction" like the great depression will lead to people starving in the streets as has happened several times in history. Nobody claimed that people are starving in the street NOW. But recent studies by the USDA estimate that there will be about 16 million kids in the US facing hunger this summer. (Hunger not starvation) 1 in 5 kids in the US live below the poverty line. And there are more children in need than the available food aid. For example in Oklahoma only 5% of those children in need actually received aid. Food banks are facing overwhelming demand.
But to claim that typical people in America are starving in the streets is pure bullshit.
But guess what will happen if you take away all government help.
The American Great Depression was not a time of wide-spread starvation. Very few people suffered as other countries would in a similar economic crisis...
That is why our poor kids are fat. It is also why, even those poor kids who are obese are still yes, undernourished-- many of them actually suffering medically from malnutrition.
quote:As someone who has worked with people who are truly living below the poverty line, I can say you've misinterpreted quite a bit here. With the assests you've mentioned (savings, retirement plan) I think it would be difficult to make a sollid case that you are in poverty.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I've said quite a few times already: I live well below the so-called poverty line. The difference is that I have a cushion in place: I have planned for the future by staying out of debt, living within my means, saving, having a retirement plan (that I am currently living from even as the market grows it back toward where it was before the plunge), paying off my house so that I can't be evicted, etc. Warning signs are all around us all the time. You prepare by being provident. Anyone, ANYONE can do that no matter what their income or circumstances. There is only more, or less, not NONE. The principles of provedent living are the same for everyone....
quote:This is compassionately and beautifully written, churchgeek.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I'm well familiar with the rhetoric the Tea Party is spewing.
See, what happens, per human nature, is that we tend to compare ourselves favorably to others, but we also tend to think we have it at least as bad, if not worse, than others. When misfortune befalls someone else, we tend to look for reasons it was their fault, and therefore, couldn't happen to us. I learned this first-hand after I was mugged. Everyone was quick to tell me what I did wrong, or how I shouldn't live where I lived. I've also noticed, as someone with several chronic illnesses, that people who are healthy thanks to their DNA tend to think it's due to their doing something right. Fat people should just eat less. People with acne should wash their face better. People with asthma should exercise more, it would improve their lung capacity. People who are depressed should stop focusing on the negative. People who... you get the picture.
Similarly, people who, through good fortune (even if they also have misfortunes and challenges) don't encounter extreme poverty (for any of the reasons people have enumerated on this thread) often take all the credit as if they really did produce their own good fortune ex nihilo.
We all rely on each other, even when we think we're totally independent. Even a selfish person should realize it's to his or her own advantage for everyone in his or her community to be educated, well-nourished, and have access to health care. It's to his or her own advantage as well to have public roads and utilities (electricity, water, trash collection, etc.). Remember how Jesus illustrated the commandment to "love thy neighbor." We have no indication that the Good Samaritan checked the injured man's citizenship status or "worthiness" to receive aid (whatever that means; but we're always being told by TP types that we should only help the "deserving" poor). If you asked Jesus today, "Who is my neighbor?" I suspect he wouldn't limit it to people who live in your own neighborhood or pass your own value system's worthiness test. His challenge to love as ourselves those we think least deserving is not only about the person who stands to receive our aid: it's also medicine for our own sick souls.
quote:I did, it's all about Obama:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why are the tea partiers so angry? Why not ask them as did this article.
quote:I simply do not believe that all of these people have been so angry for years but only coincidentally decided to voice their anger when a black man won the White House. It's a goddamned lie.
Angius acknowledges she did little more than complain until September 2008, when she realized Barack Obama was likely to win the presidency, bringing to office a liberal agenda that would mean the kind of changes Angius vehemently opposes.
quote:For this article to be particularly useful, you'd have to believe that the three angry people they profiled in this story know why they're angry, that they're willing to tell a reporter why they're angry, without fudging or dissembling, and that they are in some way typical of the tea party. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why are the tea partiers so angry? Why not ask them as did this article.
quote:She takes that uncomfortable feeling and looks around for something to pin it on. That's a very human thing to do. But it doesn't tell you what it is that's driving the feeling.
Ask her to explain, and she talks about a feeling that something is just “wrong.”
quote:He's just 30 years old, so younger than most tea partiers. And, if you read the whole article, he's sharing a house with his fiance and a friend, so presumably is not as financially well off as most.
Then Odom got his first real job [at age 24], and noticed how much of his paycheck went to taxes. Illegal immigration caught his attention.
It was 2004, and George W. Bush was running for re-election. Odom decided to try to get involved by offering to revamp the website for the Washoe County Republican Party in Reno. The leaders, he says, eventually rejected his work because it wasn’t “run through their process.”
Odom went from apolitical to antiestablishment activist.
quote:Calling him a "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstrap capitalist" is really interesting, given that the bootstraps he used were funded by the government -- his Navy salary, the GI-bill home loan. It's also interesting that he opposes deficit spending by the government (at least, that's what people who say the government, like responsible poeple, should live within its means), when he has used credit to achieve important goals (buying the house certainly, and presumably buying his engineering firm).
Bill Warner came to this place as a young man of 26, with his wife, Pat, and a 9-month-old daughter. Fresh out of the Navy, he went to work for a civil engineering firm, purchased a house on the GI bill and then bought the engineering business and built it into a solid venture.
A pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps capitalist, he rode the ups and downs of his community. But he now sees the life he’s built and the future of his daughter and grandson being threatened by “tax-and-spend” leaders who can’t do as he has always believed: Live within your means.
quote:Thank you, New Yorker, you just made our point. This article illustrates beautifully exactly what has been said on this thread: that the tea party movement is all about emotion, about frustration, about grieving for a loss of a mythic way of life. As the article demonstrates, there's no real "agenda", there's no real solution on offer, just some odd bits of illogical finger-pointing (blaming Obama for a decade of debt) and a deep, raw anger that Life Didn't Turn Out the Way we Wanted it To.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why are the tea partiers so angry? Why not ask them as did this article.
quote:Exactly. The tea partiers seem to vastly underestimate or dismiss the vast benefits they receive from government spending- until they're threatened of course. They see their benefits as "entitlements", others as "hand outs".
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QUOTE]Calling him a "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstrap capitalist" is really interesting, given that the bootstraps he used were funded by the government -- his Navy salary, the GI-bill home loan.
...I have known people who just wanted to move out into a cabin way out in the mountains and be left alone. They didn't want to pay taxes -- but they also didn't want the government to do much of anything. They really didn't want to be part of society, part of the community. So paying a share of things like a safe and clean municipal water supply, roads that are properly built and maintained, schools, libraries, pure food and safe drugs -- they didn't want any of those things. They wanted to be on their own.
I can respect that, and I think those people should pretty much be left alone to do as they like. But the tea partiers are not eccentric people who want to live alone in a remote cabin, hauling water from a mountain spring, growing or killing their own food, apart from the rest of the world. The tea partiers are members of our communities. When the community joins forces to provide services that none of us could pay for on our own -- roads, schools, medical research -- we all join together to pay for them. You can call it "tax-and-spend" if you like. But it's really just the mechanism that we have set up to allow us all to pay our share of things that benefit all of us.
quote:I disagree with this historical view. In fact my understanding of the predominant "American" mentality is the opposite of this: it is focus on the INDIVIDUAL that powers the traditional interpretation of our Bill of Rights, which in turn was the foundation of Constitutional interpretation. This notion that the "common good" trumps individual rights is NOT how "the American dream" got established. Your (unintentional?) negativity in the last sentence is interesting, since Americans as a whole NEVER shared such a concept as "leaching off of our civilization". Rather, as sovereign individuals we use our powers of self-reliance to better our own lot, and pay our fair share toward maintaining and providing for the common welfare, i.e. we each expect ourselves to pay our taxes and obey the law, which primarily means minding our own business: we expect our gov't to do the same, especially mind its own business (providing for the common welfare) and leave us alone in all other respects.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:In a round-about way, ISTM that this point is something that illuminates the anger of the tea-partiers. We have come to see ourselves as individuals, not as part of a collective enterprise. WE decide how WE spend OUR money, etc. The notion that there is such a thing as a civilization that we are all attached to and leaching upon is just not a view that many Americans share any longer.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What is our response to be? Well, obviously those who can ought to contribute voluntarily, charitably to their local food banks and homeless shelters, etc: and more active support/aid where possible and desireable. Each of us must decide what our part is, in ministering to those who are unfortunate, no matter how they came to be that way....
quote:Again, I don't see this happening, vis-a-vis failing to educate our children to care about others. Americans have always been very good at VOLUNTARILY helping each other out. It's when the voluntary aspect is taken away, and threatens to turn into obligation mandated by the gov't, that most Americans pull back in disgust and seem to be uncaring. I don't know anybody who accepts being forced to do anything: and that includes the latest popular outrage of being penalized for refusing to obtain health insurance....
Given that one thinks that he created everything of value in his life, the notion of an obligation to anyone, let alone someone who can't do you any obvious good, is a hard one to accept. Looking after other people in society is a generous act, not an essential part of being human. Failing to educate our citizens has real consequences for the glue that binds us together as a people...
--Tom Clune
quote:Oh dear. Time for a very quick lesson in constitutional history.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...it is focus on the INDIVIDUAL that powers the traditional interpretation of our Bill of Rights, which in turn was the foundation of Constitutional interpretation. This notion that the "common good" trumps individual rights is NOT how "the American dream" got established.
quote:I'll answer this one (these objections are much alike, sorry I won't appeal to each one):
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
Surely it is Ninteenth Century thinking to blame poor people for being poor.
Merlin: What do you want ? Workhouses ? Gruel ? Debtor prisons ? Flog the poor, the weak and mentally ill ? For the love of God, what use is the progress capitalism (bless it) has given to the world if it only benefits the pirates and the fortunate ? A decent society looks after its own people - all of them, not just the lucky.
Charity and a generous mind are part of duty as human beings. This "Each mman for himself and the devil take the hindmost" is uncivilized.
Still Americans have always lived on myth and delusion and that's not going to change soon, is it ?
quote:Purchase of health insurance is really the only way to get healthcare costs down. But I'd be willing to see Congress make an exception: as long as you pay, in full, every hospital visit, every doctor visit, every medical test and procedure, at the time services are rendered, then you don't have to pay for health insurance. But if you go to the ER even once and can't fork over the $2000 on the spot, you don't get to bitch about having to pay for health insurance. And you get to start paying for health insurance.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I don't know anybody who accepts being forced to do anything: and that includes the latest popular outrage of being penalized for refusing to obtain health insurance....
They probably were in just as much denial about their dependence upon the government as is evidenced here, and in the tea party movement. Old internalized lies die hard.
quote:I like this game. You could be describing yourself or someone you know. Surely this set of "Jonah curses" is occurring all around us. It is one of the reasons why Medicaid and Medicare got established. Medicaid saved my ass. My story:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Merlin? Can you do a thought experiment with me? Just for a moment, go back in your mind to the time before you had your house paid for. Imagine that you still have a mortgage.
This is a thought experiment, so I'm going to make up the details. Imagine that you got a modest house with a modest mortgage, for which your payments are a mere 20% of your take-home pay. You didn't get the most house that you could afford, because you were more cautious and prudent than that. And you wanted to put money in savings -- which you did.
Can you imagine that?
Now imagine that, with just three years to go on your mortgage, the financial institutions that hold all your savings failed, and the government did not bail them out, so all your savings disappeared overnight. You worked hard for years, and lived frugally, and were prudent and responsible, and now it's gone. It was through no fault of your own -- you really had no way to know that the bank was investing your money in Ponzi schemes or financial derivatives that were ultimately worthless. So now you don't have any savings to fall back on. Just your current income.
Can you imagine that?
But that's okay, because in just three years, your mortgage will be paid off, and you can increase the amount you're putting into savings then.
Then imagine that one of your children becomes terribly ill. (God forbid it should ever be so.) You start your child on the necessary treatment, and he starts getting better. But he's going to need the very expensive treatment for three to five years. You've got insurance, and by cutting your expenses even more (including the amount you were putting into savings), you can just barely manage the copays and stuff. You're tough, resilient, pro-active. It's hard, but you and your family can do this.
Are you still with me?
Now imagine that, after a year of treatment for your child, your insurance drops you. Now, to get the ongoing treatment for your child, you have to come up with the cash. Without the treatment, your child will suffer, and his life will be at risk. You've got to come up with the money.
But you have nothing in savings. So you take on a part-time job in addition to your full-time job. Your child who is ill requires you to drive him to medical appointments a couple of times a week, and there is therapy to do with him at home between appointments. You aren't getting more than about five hours of sleep a night. But you know this is only temporary, so you can manage it.
Are you with me so far? Can you imagine all of this?
Now imagine that you are on your way from one job to the other, it's gray and drizzly, and you fall asleep behind the wheel. You've gotten so little sleep for so long that even the radio and a cup of coffee couldn't keep you awake.
And you find yourself in the emergency room with a bruised heart, a severe concussion, a couple of broken limbs, and various other injuries. Between the brain injury and the pain meds, it's a week before you're able to think straight, and another week before they're ready to let you go home. Remember, you don't have any insurance. You have now used up all your sick leave on your full-time job, and you've been fired from your part-time job.
Can you imagine that, Merlin?
quote:The money I get is an entitlement
They see their benefits as "entitlements", others as "hand outs"
quote:Couldn't agree more. Been saying so for years.
Because, like it or not, we are all inter-dependent.
quote:\
“This is not the direction that the country is supposed to be going,” she says, citing financial bailouts, the stimulus bill, health care, immigration. “Things are changing at warp speed in a way that’s not going to be good.”
quote:Actually it was Carter. 1979. Chrysler bailout. Interestingly, no Tea Party formed then.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Financial Bailouts? Which president began that precedent? Oh, yes, Chairman Bush.
quote:Bingo!
Originally posted by Josephine:
Like him, most members of the tea party seem willing to take advantage of government spending that directly benefits them. "Don't touch my Medicare!" It's spending that benefits other people that seems to be a problem. And that disturbs me.
quote:That would be the libertarian reading, yes.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I disagree with this historical view. In fact my understanding of the predominant "American" mentality is the opposite of this: it is focus on the INDIVIDUAL that powers the traditional interpretation of our Bill of Rights, which in turn was the foundation of Constitutional interpretation. This notion that the "common good" trumps individual rights is NOT how "the American dream" got established. Your (unintentional?) negativity in the last sentence is interesting, since Americans as a whole NEVER shared such a concept as "leaching off of our civilization". Rather, as sovereign individuals we use our powers of self-reliance to better our own lot, and pay our fair share toward maintaining and providing for the common welfare, i.e. we each expect ourselves to pay our taxes and obey the law, which primarily means minding our own business: we expect our gov't to do the same, especially mind its own business (providing for the common welfare) and leave us alone in all other respects.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
but reading through this thread is reminding me of some passages in Charles Peirce's essay, "Evolutionary Love" . He weaves a lot of different strands into his argument that love is the engine behind evolution, and 19th-century economics is one of them. (He's writing right around the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries.)quote:
The Origin of Species of Darwin merely extends politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and vegetable life. [...] Among animals, the mere mechanical individualism is vastly reenforced as a power making for good by the animal's ruthless greed. As Darwin puts it on his title-page, it is the struggle for existence; and he should have added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost! Jesus, in his sermon on the Mount, expressed a different opinion. [...] The gospel of Christ says that progress comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with his neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth century is that progress takes place by virtue of every individual's striving for himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot whenever he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of Greed.
quote:I want gov't to stop encroaching on personal property; making noise about how the unfair differences in the amount of property ought to be eliminated; increasing entitlements; operating higher taxation while increasing the national debt; making noise about how obsolescent/misinterpreted the Constitution has become (His Oness is guilty of all of these and more)....
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...As an aside, Merlin, if you believe we should all pay our taxes and obey the laws, then what is it that you want the government to stop doing when you say it should mind its own business and leave us alone? I'm not sure what the government is doing besides making and enforcing laws, and collecting and dispensing tax money. Well, that and national defense, which we all agree requires a government to handle.
quote:Others on this thread have pointed out one of the fallacies of the tea party (and like-minded) arguments about entitlements. As long as they have theirs, then fine; but don't go giving them to anyone else.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I want gov't to stop.... increasing entitlements....
quote:Simply not true.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]]I like this game. You could be describing yourself or someone you know. Surely this set of "Jonah curses" is occurring all around us. It is one of the reasons why Medicaid and Medicare got established. Medicaid saved my ass. My story:
...There was never a chance of being actually homeless. Even your example case isn't going to be homeless and starving on the street. There is a safety net available, even if NO other options (e.g. family, friends, church, community) are there to take the brunt of the series of disasters and save the family. The kids won't go hungry or unclothed; there will be somewhere to keep everyone warm and dry; there will be plenty of food. But, if this unfortunate bread-winner must resort of some hypothetical gov't "work house" in order to qualify, so be it: s/he'd best be up and at it as quickly as possible....
quote:Maybe you didn't notice that Obama cut taxes for nearly everyone? It's true. He did.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
operating higher taxation while increasing the national debt.... (His Oness is guilty of all of these and more)
quote:The public also needs to perceive that the government is trying not to overspend. Funding innumerable wars and still calling for lower taxes for the highest contributors caused the bulk of the population to think twice when casting their 2008 ballots.
Originally posted by Josephine:
The national debt is increasing because, during a severe recession, the government's expenses go up...
quote:Define "increasing entitlements".
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I want gov't to stop ... increasing entitlements;
quote:Actually, even that stat is questionable, as it seems to depend on how/when the survey is taken/worded. When asked about the details of the plan (as opposed to "how do you feel about the Obama health care plan?") most Americans respond positively. Which, too, seems to reflect the "Tea Party effect".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How you feel about that depends on how you feel about the health care plan. Most people in the United States oppose it for various reasons.
quote:You mean they went point by point in the 3,000 page health care bill asking them if they approved of each point?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Actually, even that stat is questionable, as it seems to depend on how/when the survey is taken/worded. When asked about the details of the plan (as opposed to "how do you feel about the Obama health care plan?") most Americans respond positively. Which, too, seems to reflect the "Tea Party effect".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How you feel about that depends on how you feel about the health care plan. Most people in the United States oppose it for various reasons.
quote:Such as murder? I think you are seeing a distinction between legal and moral which is drawn in practice by community decisions over those things agreed to be immoral which will or will not also classified as illegal. isn't that the sort of thing which governments of all kinds do? And people of good will argue about?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues.
quote:I think the issue is more Religious morals, esp. Christian.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Such as murder? I think you are seeing a distinction between legal and moral which is drawn in practice by community decisions over those things agreed to be immoral which will or will not also classified as illegal. isn't that the sort of thing which governments of all kinds do? And people of good will argue about?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues.
I think those who campaigned for a change of laws governing slavery in the US were both libertarians and interventionists.
But YMMV - these terms are defined in quite wobbly ways and there is much variation over meaning.
quote:lilBuddha--I work with refugees from conflict zones and have mentioned them twice on this thread. Neither Merlin nor anyone who has called Obama a fascist has responded. I think this is because they can't. There is simply no comparison.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Merlin,
Speak to someone who has lived through a repressive regime. Say from communist China, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan.... No American President has ever come close to enacting anything like what has happened there.
quote:The Tea Partiers I am familiar with are true libertarians according to your definition. Some claim that the ones they know are different folks. All in all, it just seems to me they are folks still looking for "change you can believe in".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues. Paleolibertarians are social conservatives but non-interventionists. The Tea Partiers want to focus on fiscal but no social issues though they are mostly social conservatives. On the other hand, they are mostly interventionist.
quote:Murder? No, libertarians believe that the proper activity of government is to protect us from force and fraud.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Such as murder? I think you are seeing a distinction between legal and moral which is drawn in practice by community decisions over those things agreed to be immoral which will or will not also classified as illegal. isn't that the sort of thing which governments of all kinds do? And people of good will argue about?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues.
I think those who campaigned for a change of laws governing slavery in the US were both libertarians and interventionists.
But YMMV - these terms are defined in quite wobbly ways and there is much variation over meaning.
quote:And murder is not force? Surely it is the clearest example of the ultimate use of force to deprive someone else of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Murder? No, libertarians believe that the proper activity of government is to protect us from force and fraud.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Such as murder?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues.
<snip>
I think those who campaigned for a change of laws governing slavery in the US were both libertarians and interventionists.
<snip>
quote:From this side of the pond, I think I'd replace the word "right" by "freedom", Erin. There are proper limits to freedom when it comes to behaviour. I think the issue is that folks differ on the nature and extent of those limits. But nobody really argues for completely unbridled freedom, do they? Unless they believe anarchy is somehow the best.
Originally posted by Erin:
Ultimately I am as libertarian as they come, but I must also live in this world, so I know it's never going to happen. True US libertarians believe that one has the right to do pretty much whatever they want whenever they want, but that (to invoke an old cliché) your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Maybe libertarians on the other side of the pond are different.
quote:Well, there goes any intellectual respectability I thought they still had.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By interventionist, I mean interventionist in foreign affairs not interventionist in individual or state rights. True libertarians only believe in defensive wars. For them, the last just war was the War of 1812.
quote:This is a considerably more complex statement than many who utter it realize.
Originally posted by Erin:
your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
quote:It also reveals the shallowness of the libertarian view of the State (and its rejection of a "greater good"); rather than just stopping those hands from hitting noses, couldn't we put them to good work? Rather than just limiting to protect individual rights, could we not co-ordinate for common goods?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is a considerably more complex statement than many who utter it realize.
Originally posted by Erin:
your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
quote:This strikes me as extremely naive.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He believed violence was justified only in direct self defense.
quote:Protect the individual from what?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
All true libertarians want the government to do is protect the individual...
quote:So speaks someone who can actually afford to decide how to live his life. And who clearly doesn't give a fuck about those less fortunate than himself...
Originally posted by tobity:
I'd rather die free then be enslaved to the state. Don't touch my family, faith or guns! I don't want a bunch of feds dictating how I live my life. FREEDOM!!!!
quote:That's a little defeatist, isn't it? Surely we should be redeeming the world? Or doesn't your soteriology allow that?
Originally posted by tobity:
Individual pursuits trump the common good in a fallen world.
quote:Not really, no. Haven't you heard of a "public service ethic"? Or accountability? A well-constituted State is designed to ensure that power is exercised virtuously and for the public good.
It is naive to believe that those entrusted with power will not put themselves first.
quote:Well, the State is one of the instruments through which we do that which needs to be done to take care of ourselves and each other; within the Christian tradition the State exercises a "ministry" of care.
Trust in God and self, not the state.
quote:Don't shoot yourself on the way out.
Fend for yourself or shut the $!#@ up you little bitch. Ha ha!
quote:Which Gospel did Jesus say all this in? Trust in self? Individual pursuits? Fend for yourself? Whatever this is, it is diametrically opposed to Christianity.
Originally posted by tobity:
Individual pursuits trump the common good in a fallen world. It is naive to believe that those entrusted with power will not put themselves first. Trust in God and self, not the state. Fend for yourself or shut the $!#@ up you little bitch. Ha ha!
quote:The "gospel" of Glen Beck is not good news for anyone but Glen Beck's accountant.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Which Gospel did Jesus say all this in? Trust in self? Individual pursuits? Fend for yourself? Whatever this is, it is diametrically opposed to Christianity.
Originally posted by tobity:
Individual pursuits trump the common good in a fallen world. It is naive to believe that those entrusted with power will not put themselves first. Trust in God and self, not the state. Fend for yourself or shut the $!#@ up you little bitch. Ha ha!
quote:No, it's true libertarianism, but it can't be done in this world, because too many people are dishonest and would take advantage. THAT is the issue here. Like I said before, at heart I'm a libertarian, but there is no way it is logical in this world as long as there are assholes. And there are plenty of assholes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Selling tainted food is fraud. But many libertarians I've heard think bodies like the USDA should be abolished, and "the market" allowed to determine if you buy, or die from, a given food product. Is that then not true libertarianism? Or misguided libertarianism?
quote:Wow, the point is standing in front of you and screaming and you still totally miss it. Libertarians believe that no one should be compelled to do anything for the greater good. That should flow naturally from not being an asshole, rather than coerced out of you by the government. The decision to "co-ordinate for the common goods" should be up to the individual, not a faceless government agency.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:It also reveals the shallowness of the libertarian view of the State (and its rejection of a "greater good"); rather than just stopping those hands from hitting noses, couldn't we put them to good work? Rather than just limiting to protect individual rights, could we not co-ordinate for common goods?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is a considerably more complex statement than many who utter it realize.
Originally posted by Erin:
your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
quote:You're aware that Glenn Beck doesn't believe the rhetoric he gets you to spout, right? He said so himself.
Originally posted by tobity:
I've attended a tea party hosted by Glenn Beck in San Antonio. It was awesome. We are a bunch of freedom loving Americans who hate big government. I'd rather die free then be enslaved to the state. Don't touch my family, faith or guns! I don't want a bunch of feds dictating how I live my life. FREEDOM!!!!
quote:Compare this to these words
I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes.
quote:But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
quote:This is an excuse to fuck them over? Unbe-fucking-lievable.
Originally posted by tobity:
Jesus said we will always have the poor...
quote:Israel being the first, no doubt.
Originally posted by tobity:
Erin: some pastors don't believe in Christ, that doesn't make the message any less true. By the way Beck is just a figurehead of a constiutionally based movement in God's second favorite nation!
quote:Where does Jesus say this? Oh wait you don't believe in Jesus, you believe in Glenn Beck, who said "leave your church". Never mind.
Originally posted by tobity:
Free markets, free speech, but no free lunch! If a man doesn't work he doesn't eat. In other words...get off your ass.
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Still, I ask again: please point out the legislation that is "touching" your family, your faith, and/or your guns. Thank you.
quote:For sake of argument I can accept that as a true (if somewhat approximate) statement of extreme libertarian beliefs. (Classical liberals in the Lockean tradition believed that people could be forced by the whole to do things for the common good - like pay taxes for the upkeep of the State - but merely sought to limit that as much as practically possible.) However, the reason that I am not a libertarian, or even a classical liberal, is that I do not believe the classical liberal/libertarian approach to be based on a sufficiently deep or robust concept of freedom: it is based on freedom as non-interference (that government is best which governs least), whereas I prefer freedom as non-domination (that government is best which governs justly for the common good - it being implied that the people have decisive role in determining what their common good is, and in holding their governs to account for their stewardship). This latter approach is right slap-bang in the middle of the American constitutional tradition up to the Civil War - only after that did an "individual rights" concept of freedom trump a "common good" concept.
Originally posted by Erin:
Wow, the point is standing in front of you and screaming and you still totally miss it. Libertarians believe that no one should be compelled to do anything for the greater good.
quote:I disagree. There are common goods which only the power of the State can enforce, and should: that is the legitimate role of the "magistrate". But it poses the question of why are you so alienated from your Government? The use of the word "faceless" seems like an implied argument for greater democracy and accountability, nor less government.
The decision to "co-ordinate for the common goods" should be up to the individual, not a faceless government agency.
quote:Your point being?
Originally posted by tobity:
these are great weapons.. www.rockriverarms.com/
quote:Hopefully Erin will forgive my barging in.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
But it poses the question of why are you so alienated from your Government?
)
quote:Anybody else just tickled that such libertarians believe in war that the US lost? And might I remind them of the extensive campaigns the US launched to try to conquer Upper and Lower Canada?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By interventionist, I mean interventionist in foreign affairs not interventionist in individual or state rights. True libertarians only believe in defensive wars. For them, the last just war was the War of 1812.
quote:Twenty-one of the twenty-two largest Chinese corporations are either directly controlled by the Chinese government or have a majority of their shares owned by China's central bank. That doesn't fit into any definition of "capitalism" that I've ever heard. If I had to characterize this system I'd call it feudal-style industrialism. Or maybe industrialized feudalism.
Originally posted by tobity:
China seems to like capitalism.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Ah yes, we are supposed to believe the Tea Party has anything to do with faith. It does not. Glenn Beck calls those who disagree with him communists. At the same time, he suggests that people read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The only philosophy harder to reconcile with the gospel than Communism is the Objectivism of Ayn Rand and her ilk.
Originally posted by tobity:
Individual pursuits trump the common good in a fallen world. It is naive to believe that those entrusted with power will not put themselves first. Trust in God and self, not the state. Fend for yourself or shut the $!#@ up you little bitch. Ha ha!
quote:Not really... perhaps I'm missing something.
Originally posted by 205:
[QUOTE]
Personally, it's a function of accountability which is largely contingent on proximity. In my hometown my brother voluntarily serves on the board which oversees the HUD housing; recently when my buddy who'd been in prison needed a place to stay my brother, informed by me, knew my buddy was a good risk for 'government assistance'. My buddy is as we speak fasttracking for success in the largest private sector employer in the area in addition to moving into a house he is purchasing with the money he earns.
Contrast that with Obama usurping my (I believe, God-given) right to not support his IMNSHO wantonly profligate 'programs'.
(I hope that makes sense.
quote:Of course murder is force. A proper roll of government would be to arrest and punish me if I were to kill you unless I was defending me or mine from you. However, it would not be a proper roll of government to arrest you for sitting on your back porch and smoking dope while watching the sunset.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:And murder is not force? Surely it is the clearest example of the ultimate use of force to deprive someone else of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Murder? No, libertarians believe that the proper activity of government is to protect us from force and fraud.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Such as murder?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
True libertarians are non-interventionists and want the government to mind its own business on moral issues.
<snip>
I think those who campaigned for a change of laws governing slavery in the US were both libertarians and interventionists.
<snip>
Unless, that is, you are saying that murder is simply an example of the illegal use of force. But I take it that you mean the use of force by outsiders to deprive the US of "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Well, why should the government of the people for the people by the people not be interested in such uses of force by those within the community. Interested enough to establish laws and the means of their reinforcement?
I don't get you.
quote:If you and another choose to do that, fine.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Rather than just limiting to protect individual rights, could we not co-ordinate for common goods?
quote:Calling someone a prick is not on topic.
Originally posted by tobity:
lilbuddah can piss on me and you guys are cool with that? I was on topic.
quote:I don't believe in the basic goodness of all humans, either. That's why I find the libertarian idea far more attractive than any of the alternatives. Why would I give power to a strong government?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I would only be a libertarian if I believed in the basic goodness of all humans. I do not hence I'm not one. If I believe people are fallen and prone to corruption, I don't want power to be amassed in any one place. Why would I give power to multinational corporations unfettered by a strong government? I wouldn't. I would want as many checks and balances as possible.
quote:Irrelevant to the question of whether you were on topic. On this Ship, two wrongs do not make a right. If someone is abusing you in purg, you PM a host. You don't abuse back. I didn't say whether or not lilBuddha was on topic, because s/he didn't claim to be. You did claim to be, and you were wrong. Citing someone else's wrongdoing does not make yours okay.
Originally posted by tobity:
mouse...neither is calling me a troll...unbelievable
quote:I chose an inconsistent example; I could have lied and said it was a completely locally managed program...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not really... perhaps I'm missing something.
quote:Sounds a bit like Radical Whig might have in mind something to "establish Justice" or to "insure domestic Tranquillity" or to "promote the general Welfare".
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If you and another choose to do that, fine.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Rather than just limiting to protect individual rights, could we not co-ordinate for common goods?
quote:Wait, do you want limited government or state sovereignty?
Originally posted by tobity:
The Tea party is about this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)
Limited government. State sovereignty.
quote:Have you ever been to a Homeowner's Association meeting?
Originally posted by 205:
The point I want to make is the more local the government, the better.
quote:It's not an either/or, Erin.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Wait, do you want limited government or state sovereignty?
Originally posted by tobity:
The Tea party is about this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)
Limited government. State sovereignty.
quote:Because the only alternative is giving power to superstrong international corporations. And governments can be unelected every 2-4 years.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't believe in the basic goodness of all humans, either. That's why I find the libertarian idea far more attractive than any of the alternatives. Why would I give power to a strong government?
quote:It isn't the only alternative.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because the only alternative is giving power to superstrong international corporations. And governments can be unelected every 2-4 years.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't believe in the basic goodness of all humans, either. That's why I find the libertarian idea far more attractive than any of the alternatives. Why would I give power to a strong government?
quote:It kind of is. Unless the only bad government is the federal government, which, after reading this appalling article, is not necessarily the truth. But basically what you're saying is that it's perfectly ok for the state, county and city to fuck you up the ass, but God forbid the federal government make the attempt, right?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It's not an either/or, Erin.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Wait, do you want limited government or state sovereignty?
Originally posted by tobity:
The Tea party is about this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)
Limited government. State sovereignty.
quote:Participated in my fair share as I spearheaded the effort to get municipal water to a subdivision I lived in. Well over 90%, determined by secret ballot, wanted to get rid of the finicky well.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Have you ever been to a Homeowner's Association meeting?
quote:It is, however, much more immediately a pain in the butt.
Originally posted by 205:
...their impact for good or ill is comparatively very constricted, unlike Federal gov't.
quote:Hey, the activist wasn't arrested for it.
Originally posted by Erin:
It kind of is. Unless the only bad government is the federal government, which, after reading this appalling article, is not necessarily the truth.
quote:If you don't find your state and local government to be at least marginally more responsive/accountable than FedGovCo. then I must say, I am truly sorry for you.
Originally posted by Erin:
No, I didn't. In one breath, you say limited government. In the next, you say state sovereignty. What do you think state sovereignty is? The ability to enact any law it wishes. You're just trading the federal government for the local government. I don't understand why it's OK for one to legislate the hell out of you but not the other.
quote:Host Hat On
Originally posted by tobity:
lilbuddah can piss on me and you guys are cool with that? I was on topic.
quote:Nonetheless, the fact remains that you DID cite the HUD example, and I think it proves my point. When the federal program in question is managed by your brother and benefits a friend, you are in favor of it. You're closer to it, you're able to see that the ones administering it are not all mindless bureaucratic drones clocking in and drinking coffee on the taxpayer's dime-- some are caring professionals, including volunteers like your brother. And you're able to see that the recipients are not all lazy, shiftless bums conning the system, but honest people like your friend who just need a leg up to self-sufficiency.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:I chose an inconsistent example; I could have lied and said it was a completely locally managed program...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Not really... perhaps I'm missing something.
HUD exists and no doubt has some merit. The point I want to make is the more local the government, the better.
And I wholeheartedly believe that the government that governs least governs best and that when we are ready it is the type of government we will have.
IMO Obama is moving us farther away from that ideal.
quote:They're not even always all that good at getting things done. They can devolve into endless fruitless meetings where nothing is accomplished, or petty fiefdoms where a single tyrant runs rampant, or even where petty corruption and nepotism is the order of the day.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Have you ever been to a Homeowner's Association meeting?
Originally posted by 205:
The point I want to make is the more local the government, the better.
They are pretty good about "getting things done". They aren't so much into protecting individual liberties.
quote:Wrong.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:It kind of is. Unless the only bad government is the federal government, which, after reading this appalling article, is not necessarily the truth. But basically what you're saying is that it's perfectly ok for the state, county and city to fuck you up the ass, but God forbid the federal government make the attempt, right?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It's not an either/or, Erin.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Wait, do you want limited government or state sovereignty?
Originally posted by tobity:
The Tea party is about this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th amendment)
Limited government. State sovereignty.
quote:Some people would prefer to be trampled on by the State rather than the Federal government.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, it's constitutional interpretation 101. The clause cited doesn't give a flying pig about your individual rights. It's a mechanism to decide WHICH government gets to trample on them: State or Federal.
quote:So DH is Bush's fault then? Obama is the weakest, most pitiful excuse for a CEO this nation has ever known, and now his own general has told him to go get fucked. Barry is a joke. He is no leader what so ever. If he had any respect for his mother he would blow his fucking brains out.
Originally posted by Erin:
Every now and then the redneck establishment around here drags its knuckles into the 20th century. But it's hard.
But, I totally missed this, seeing as we have a real live teabagger on board. A prime example of "limited government" is unfolding before our very eyes. We've survived eight years of government of the corporations (particularly oil), by the corporations (again, oil) and for the corporations (come on, you know this one... OIL!). Deepwater Horizon is the direct result of the government not overburdening the poor widdle oil industry with pesky safety regulations or inspections. Is that really the world you want to live in? Tell me, in your "limited government" world, how is Deepwater Horizon avoided?
quote:Two can play at that game... who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:So DH is Bush's fault then? Obama is the weakest, most pitiful excuse for a CEO this nation has ever known, and now his own general has told him to go get fucked. Barry is a joke. He is no leader what so ever. If he had any respect for his mother he would blow his fucking brains out.
Originally posted by Erin:
Every now and then the redneck establishment around here drags its knuckles into the 20th century. But it's hard.
But, I totally missed this, seeing as we have a real live teabagger on board. A prime example of "limited government" is unfolding before our very eyes. We've survived eight years of government of the corporations (particularly oil), by the corporations (again, oil) and for the corporations (come on, you know this one... OIL!). Deepwater Horizon is the direct result of the government not overburdening the poor widdle oil industry with pesky safety regulations or inspections. Is that really the world you want to live in? Tell me, in your "limited government" world, how is Deepwater Horizon avoided?
Which national candidate for POTUS took more BP money in '08? Oh yeah, Barry.
Which Senator took more oil money than any other in the last cycle? Oh yeah, Lincoln.(D)
Democrats are the cream of the scumbag crop, and anyone who supports them is a fucking moron who should be barred from voting all together.
quote:Well, it came down to whether I'd respond to an asinine post or get a beer and watch some baseball. Your post lost.
Originally posted by Erin:
You have yet to mount a convincing argument, so, whatevs.
quote:Erin's was the most straightforward challenge, but several others have mentioned that the tea party-esque folks on this thread don't seem to be able to engage in a real discussion.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suspect in common with quite a few participants in this thread, I'm not sure you've got any real kind of answer to Erin's challenge.
quote:Don't hold your breath. The shelf life of grudges depends on not actually revealing true motives or solving anythig.
Please show us the donkey. Sometime soon?
quote:This touches on something else I've been thinking about... the notion of states' rights is rather archaic, given how mobile our society has become and how much access we have to non-local news and information. It just doesn't make sense any more.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
It also seems to me that in the interest of having US citizenship mean a little something, the federal government does have an interest in ensuring that the states maintain some basic level of consistency in certain areas - in fact, that's kinda what was behind the Civil Rights movement (which, as mousethief has reminded us, galvanized a "states' rights" movement in opposition to that "infringement" of the federal government).
quote:He's only spouting the party line. Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, actually came out and said that if the teabaggers didn't win the fall elections, there should be an armed revolution. I shit you not.
As an aside, I didn't bother to waste the brain cells necessary to remember who said it a page or two ago on this thread, but it boggles my mind that anyone living in what is essentially a 2-party nation could suggest that anyone who would vote for one of those two parties deserves to have their right to vote taken away. So... you'd prefer rigged elections? Or just 2 parties that are identical, thus making it a sham there are actually 2 parties instead of one? (Actually, come to think of it, that's basically what we do have...)
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
quote:I noted before that Cheney exercised restraint during Gulf War 1 so it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that Bush, by sheer force of personality, is nearly solely responsible for GW2.
It's Bush's fault insofar as he bent over so Darth Cheney could shove his hand up his ass.
quote:Only because the Republicans sorely misjudged the public opinion on this. The day before, the majority of House Republicans issued this statement, which except for the actual apology, is damn near word-for-word what he said. So forgive me if I take that so-called "apology" with the proverbial grain of salt.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
quote:Well WSC sent the troops in to break the 1911 miners' strike, so they might not be so different. He isn't half as well regarded in Wales as in other parts of Britain. Remember, he was the (to some extent self-styled) Greatest Living Englishman.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Only because the Republicans sorely misjudged the public opinion on this. The day before, the majority of House Republicans issued this statement, which except for the actual apology, is damn near word-for-word what he said. So forgive me if I take that so-called "apology" with the proverbial grain of salt.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
Bush = Churchill. Hoo boy, can't wait for the Brits to tear this one apart.
quote:Jon Stewart put together a great montage of all the Fox reporters using the Congressman's exact language days before he did-- "BP's shakedown"-- then spinning on a dime 3 days later with complete amnesia re: their own statements.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Only because the Republicans sorely misjudged the public opinion on this. The day before, the majority of House Republicans issued this statement, which except for the actual apology, is damn near word-for-word what he said. So forgive me if I take that so-called "apology" with the proverbial grain of salt.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
quote:Sorry I missed that.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Jon Stewart put together a great montage of all the Fox reporters using the Congressman's exact language days before he did-- "BP's shakedown"-- then spinning on a dime 3 days later with complete amnesia re: their own statements.
quote:Let's think now. Which apology actually expresses what he really thinks, and which is a sham? Hmm. Hmm.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
quote:What level? Gutter? The man is a hate-monger who stirs up hate to make cash. That people who call themselves Christian would give him the time of day, let alone listen to his poison, astounds me.
Originally posted by 205:
I was driving week ago last Tuesday so I had a chance to hear almost the whole three hours. He's apparently taking the time to formulate his thoughts in advance and when someone at his level does that it can be scary good.
quote:Coherence in regard to pundits is directly proportional to the extent to which his/her opinion is shared by the listener.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Glad to hear Rush has some sort of coherent thought.
quote:That's true no matter what your political leanings.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Coherence in regard to pundits is directly proportional to the extent to which his/her opinion is shared by the listener.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Glad to hear Rush has some sort of coherent thought.
quote:I'd say it's more highly correlated with quantity of responses.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Coherence in regard to pundits is directly proportional to the extent to which his/her opinion is shared by the listener.
quote:No, he is a loser for making the original apology to BP.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:PWN indeed; he later apologized for his apology... loser.
Originally posted by Erin:
who apologized to BP on national freaking television for the White House being so mean? A REPUBLICAN. PWN.
quote:Well, I know it's dailykos, but still, here you go. A word-for-word transcript. You're welcome.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Sorry I missed that.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Jon Stewart put together a great montage of all the Fox reporters using the Congressman's exact language days before he did-- "BP's shakedown"-- then spinning on a dime 3 days later with complete amnesia re: their own statements.
quote:I agree and hope I have not given any other impression.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:That's true no matter what your political leanings.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Coherence in regard to pundits is directly proportional to the extent to which his/her opinion is shared by the listener.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Glad to hear Rush has some sort of coherent thought.
quote:It's my understanding some French are less than enthused with one of his decisions.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sioni Sais' comments about Churchill and the miners reminds me of my childhood visits to the cinema.
quote:One can only hope that's true.
Originally posted by 205:
This may be an opportune time to mention that Rush .... is back and ON FIRE.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The man is a hate-monger who stirs up hate to make cash. That people who call themselves Christian would give him the time of day, let alone listen to his poison, astounds me.
quote:Come on Mousethief, not many people can spout stream-of-consciousness bigotry for three solid hours without notes or a break. The man's got a serious talent for spewing bile and no one can take that away from him.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What level? Gutter? The man is a hate-monger who stirs up hate to make cash. That people who call themselves Christian would give him the time of day, let alone listen to his poison, astounds me.
Originally posted by 205:
I was driving week ago last Tuesday so I had a chance to hear almost the whole three hours. He's apparently taking the time to formulate his thoughts in advance and when someone at his level does that it can be scary good.
quote:I like the fact that his biography was translated into English by Warren Tute!
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
At least when this gentleman gassed on for hours and hours he could be musical about it.
quote:Which never existed! Rearward facing pink tint spectacles.
The other (half) is ready to scrap the whole thing and restore a lost Eden.
quote:Or the fact that the judge is heavily invested in oil companies. Six of one.
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
This is the main reason a judge over turned it.
quote:Wouldn't it be lovely if the Teapartiers would get mad about that, and turn on Rush?
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:You're kinder than I am. I think it would be lovely if the listeners turned on Rush, he lost his lucrative job, and was forced to resort to dumpster diving himself to survive.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Limbaugh:
He recently opined, with supreme compassion and wisdom, about schoolkids who will be hungry without the summer food programs:
quote:Wouldn't it be lovely if the Teapartiers would get mad about that, and turn on Rush?
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
quote:I've heard opinions to the effect that Churchill was wrong about everything except the Nazis. This is the man who was responsible for the strategy at Gallipoli...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bush = Churchill?
Sioni Sais' comments about Churchill and the miners reminds me of my childhood visits to the cinema. I was born in the North East, which was another mining area. Whenever Churchill featured on Pathe News (giving his characteristic two finger salute), many members of the cinema audience would stand and give the much ruder two finger salute in reply. Two finger shadows would appear all over the screen, waggling aggressively.
But even the intransigent miners I grew up with had the deepest respect for his anti-Nazi stance and his courage as a war leader when the UK stood alone. "He may have been a bastard to the miners but we'd have been in a hell of a mess without him in 1940" was a pretty typical response.
quote:Because he is. Jesus, do you ever read or listen to anything besides what Rush, Glenn or Sean tell you to read or listen to?
Originally posted by Action Jackson:
Mousethief where did you get the idea that the judge was invested in oil?
quote:I’m sorry but I’ve got to stick up for the man against this seemingly unanimous attack. Churchill was right about Gallipoli - he was against the infantry landings and just wanted obsolete battleships to run the straits, planning that the attack would be carried out by the Navy alone. It was a pretty good plan but it was poorly carried out by the officers on the scene. And then after Admiral Roebuck took the strange decision to retreat from the straits just as the enemy had run out of ammunition it was Lord Kitchener who changed Churchill’s plan and initiated the catastrophe of the infantry landings. Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, had no responsibility for the infantry side of the conflict.
Originally posted by sanityman:
I've heard opinions to the effect that Churchill was wrong about everything except the Nazis. This is the man who was responsible for the strategy at Gallipoli...
quote:C'mon people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:You're kinder than I am. I think it would be lovely if the listeners turned on Rush, he lost his lucrative job, and was forced to resort to dumpster diving himself to survive.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Limbaugh:
He recently opined, with supreme compassion and wisdom, about schoolkids who will be hungry without the summer food programs:
quote:Wouldn't it be lovely if the Teapartiers would get mad about that, and turn on Rush?
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
quote:Depends on the family...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hate is not a family value.
quote:Not cool.
Originally posted by romanlion:
that Richard Maddow guy.
quote:Being conservative means never having to say you're sorry. The typical response when they get caught saying something hateful, ignorant, or both is to try to pass it off as a 'joke'. Of course, if you accept this at face value the punch lines make them look even worse. (HA HA HA! Kids are starving!!!)
Originally posted by romanlion:
C'mon people.
I am no Rush fan but this is just stupid.
He was illustrating the idiocy of the left by suggesting this, as a remedy for this.
quote:HA HA HA! Rachel Maddow doesn't conform to romanlion's idea how women should look/act! Isn't that HI-LARIOUS???
Originally posted by romanlion:
I recognize Rush for exactly what he is, but I must say he's a lot more entertaining than Olberman or that Richard Maddow guy.
quote:Hawk, my post was phrased like that because I'm no expert in military history. If others want to argue the point I'll leave it up to them! Thanks for the informative post.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:I’m sorry but I’ve got to stick up for the man against this seemingly unanimous attack. Churchill was right about Gallipoli - he was against the infantry landings and just wanted obsolete battleships to run the straits, planning that the attack would be carried out by the Navy alone. It was a pretty good plan but it was poorly carried out by the officers on the scene. And then after Admiral Roebuck took the strange decision to retreat from the straits just as the enemy had run out of ammunition it was Lord Kitchener who changed Churchill’s plan and initiated the catastrophe of the infantry landings. Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, had no responsibility for the infantry side of the conflict.
Originally posted by sanityman:
I've heard opinions to the effect that Churchill was wrong about everything except the Nazis. This is the man who was responsible for the strategy at Gallipoli...
Of course Churchill has been used as a scapegoat ever since because the overarching idea of outflanking Germany in Turkey was his concept in the first place. But he wasn’t responsible for the disaster the infantry landings turned into.
Overall I think Churchill was pretty right about most things, foreseeing the Cold War and mistrusting Stalin even while Roosevelt was cosying up to him and mistrusting the British. Churchill was a genius.
quote:If that supposed to be an excuse/defense??? Seriously???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:C'mon people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:You're kinder than I am. I think it would be lovely if the listeners turned on Rush, he lost his lucrative job, and was forced to resort to dumpster diving himself to survive.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Limbaugh:
He recently opined, with supreme compassion and wisdom, about schoolkids who will be hungry without the summer food programs:
quote:Wouldn't it be lovely if the Teapartiers would get mad about that, and turn on Rush?
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
I am no Rush fan but this is just stupid.
He was illustrating the idiocy of the left by suggesting this, as a remedy for this.
Kids who will starve without their government cheese can become freegans!
quote:I am sorry, I do not agree. Not for the majority at least. Not from anything I have observed. Your statement assumes rhetoric equals intent.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, there is a difference between neo-conservatives and the official tea partier position. The neo-cons don't mind big government. They just want efficient and fiscally responsible government. Tea Partiers don't won't big government period.
quote:Just a little context is all. I don't make excuses for or defend Rush. I also don't hope for him to lose his livelihood and scavenge for food in a dumpster.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:If that supposed to be an excuse/defense??? Seriously???
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:C'mon people.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:You're kinder than I am. I think it would be lovely if the listeners turned on Rush, he lost his lucrative job, and was forced to resort to dumpster diving himself to survive.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Limbaugh:
He recently opined, with supreme compassion and wisdom, about schoolkids who will be hungry without the summer food programs:
quote:Wouldn't it be lovely if the Teapartiers would get mad about that, and turn on Rush?
There's another place if none of these options work to find food; there's always the neighborhood dumpster. Now, you might find competition with homeless people there, but there are videos that have been produced to show you how to healthfully dine and how to dumpster dive and survive until school kicks back up in August. Can you imagine the benefit we would provide people?
I am no Rush fan but this is just stupid.
He was illustrating the idiocy of the left by suggesting this, as a remedy for this.
Kids who will starve without their government cheese can become freegans!
quote:What kind of hungry are we talking here? Complaining of hunger hungry, or all ribs visible, distended belly hungry? And exactly who is responsible for the fact that all these kids don't get enough to eat? Society? The GOP?
I serve in a community where upwards of 85% of children come to school hungry.
quote:I didn't hear him reject anything, only point out that since decades of liberal social programs are an obvious failure, maybe an idea from the environmental left could help to close the gap. Also, the program mentioned in the article I linked indicated federal money for any child between 1 and 18 to get a lunch regardless of income, so funding does not seem to be the issue.
I am part of a coalition that is trying to come up with options like the one you suggest Rush is rejecting in order to keep kids fed over the summer.
quote:Hungry kids are no laughing matter, on that we agree.
iow, it's really not a laughing matter, and I'm appalled that anyone would think so.
quote:You are saying Neo-Cons don't want big government either?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I am sorry, I do not agree. Not for the majority at least. Not from anything I have observed. Your statement assumes rhetoric equals intent.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, there is a difference between neo-conservatives and the official tea partier position. The neo-cons don't mind big government. They just want efficient and fiscally responsible government. Tea Partiers don't won't big government period.
/tangent
In the US, the difference between conservative and liberal is not efficiency, but focus. But discussion of this would be a different post./end tangent
quote:Hmmm, I think we can infer something from what they say. Which is largely nothing concrete and is very full of contradictions. And we can infer from what they have not done. As I replied to BA, much of what they complain about was present prior to Obama, yet no protests.
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha: Your statement assumes rhetoric equals intent.
Are you saying they are liars? How else can we determine their intent if not from the things they say, since they aren't in power so we can't infer it from the things they do?
quote:TARP coupled with the stimulus ignited the Tea Party movement. The first was a bipartisan bill proposed and signed by the Bush administration. 44% of Tea Partiers have a negative view of Bush. Of those who support him overall, most of them hold him accountable for his role in running up the deficit. So far, moderate Republicans have been hurt by the Tea Party.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BA,
I am saying if the Tea Party folks wanted small government and opposed government messing about in their lives, they might be still marching now, but they would have started sometime in the previous administration.
quote:Not all people use direct communication, putting their intent out where people can readily see/hear it. Many people use indirect communication and the intent is in between the lines. This is true for general conversation as well as political rhetoric.
Originally posted by mousethief:
lilBuddha: Your statement assumes rhetoric equals intent.
Are you saying they are liars? How else can we determine their intent if not from the things they say, since they aren't in power so we can't infer it from the things they do?
quote:Somehow, I really, seriously doubt that the message we are supposed to take away from the "the poor you will always have with you" bit is, or is even close to, "don't help the poor, there isn't any point and it's their own fault anyway".
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This is an excuse to fuck them over? Unbe-fucking-lievable.
Originally posted by tobity:
Jesus said we will always have the poor...
quote:I m sorry, I still do not buy this. What I am saying is that there was enough cause to ignite their indignation and cause protest before Obama.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:TARP coupled with the stimulus ignited the Tea Party movement. The first was a bipartisan bill proposed and signed by the Bush administration. 44% of Tea Partiers have a negative view of Bush. Of those who support him overall, most of them hold him accountable for his role in running up the deficit. So far, moderate Republicans have been hurt by the Tea Party.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BA,
I am saying if the Tea Party folks wanted small government and opposed government messing about in their lives, they might be still marching now, but they would have started sometime in the previous administration.
quote:Which totally belies their bullshit claims for wanting "limited government". That's one of many reasons why I believe nothing that comes out of their collective mouth, as they are lying liars who lie.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tea Partiers don't have a problem with the Patriot Act.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:If that supposed to be an excuse/defense??? Seriously???[/qb]
quote:
Just a little context is all. I don't make excuses for or defend Rush. I also don't hope for him to lose his livelihood and scavenge for food in a dumpster.
[QUOTE][qb]iow, it's really not a laughing matter, and I'm appalled that anyone would think so.
quote:And yet you felt it was important to provide the "context" that Rush's comment was a joke???
Hungry kids are no laughing matter, on that we agree.
quote:hmmm.... if that's the case, why wasn't the Tea Party movement and the protests in place while Bush was in office? Why did they sit on that rage for months until Obama had inherited TARP?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:TARP coupled with the stimulus ignited the Tea Party movement. The first was a bipartisan bill proposed and signed by the Bush administration. 44% of Tea Partiers have a negative view of Bush. Of those who support him overall, most of them hold him accountable for his role in running up the deficit. So far, moderate Republicans have been hurt by the Tea Party.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BA,
I am saying if the Tea Party folks wanted small government and opposed government messing about in their lives, they might be still marching now, but they would have started sometime in the previous administration.
quote:Very few children in the US has distended bellies. Poor children in the US tend to be hungry and malnourished, but not starving. So if Rush said he wanted to take his $$ and give it to starving children in Africa instead of hungry children in the US, I would appreciate that. But that's not what he said.
Originally posted by romanlion:
What kind of hungry are we talking here? Complaining of hunger hungry, or all ribs visible, distended belly hungry? And exactly who is responsible for the fact that all these kids don't get enough to eat? Society? The GOP?
[/QB]
quote:What makes them an "obvious" failure? They don't seem like a failure to me. What seems like a "failure" is Reagan's trickle-down economics and the Bush era tax cuts.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I didn't hear him reject anything, only point out that since decades of liberal social programs are an obvious failure, maybe an idea from the environmental left could help to close the gap. [/QB]
quote:Yeah, I can't help you there.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Which totally belies their bullshit claims for wanting "limited government". That's one of many reasons why I believe nothing that comes out of their collective mouth, as they are lying liars who lie.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tea Partiers don't have a problem with the Patriot Act.
quote:Well said, but it's more than that. In the US, there are many people who see "rugged individualism" ("I don't have to share anything with anyone if I don't feel like it") as a sacred political and human right that the founding fathers fought for. I don't personally believe that's an historically accurate reading of 18th century colonial culture, but I think that this reading of our history has become a shibboleth for many.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I agree with cliffdweller's post above. Other people's health, nutrition, education and quality of life are "our" problems; they concern all of "us", because "we" are a society and a common-weal. We must live together and work together towards the good life, recognising our interdependence and the need for collective endeavours.
My fear, though, is that for many people in the modern West, particularly (although not exclusively or universally) in the United States, the bonds of "us" and "our" have become too weak and too narrow to have much political salience.
quote:Yes, good point. It's a complete misreading of the founding ideals. Although a strand of Lockean contractual liberalism was present, it co-existed with a strong civic-republican "common good-n-public virtue" current of thought.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
In the US, there are many people who see "rugged individualism" ("I don't have to share anything with anyone if I don't feel like it") as a sacred political and human right that the founding fathers fought for. I don't personally believe that's an historically accurate reading of 18th century colonial culture, but I think that this reading of our history has become a shibboleth for many.
quote:This is the rub for me.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...society's problem.
quote:It's not moral for you to help your neighbor?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:This is the rub for me.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...society's problem.
I was born into an economic system designed and operated to deprive me of the hours, days, months, and years of my life, and I'm told that it's some sort of moral imperative?
quote:First of all, I didn't say it was a moral imperative-- although I think it is. I'll get back to that.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:This is the rub for me.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...society's problem.
I was born into an economic system designed and operated to deprive me of the hours, days, months, and years of my life, and I'm told that it's some sort of moral imperative?
If I have children that I cannot manage to feed I consider that to be my problem, not society's. I was aware that children need food long before I knew what my willie was for.
I did not ask to be here, to struggle, and worry, and find my own way, and I certainly don't feel any obligation to anyone else's struggle beyond what/to whom I choose to contribute.
And make no mistake, I avoid direct, unapportioned taxes with great skill and pride.
I am no tea partier though, and would not vote for my mother, or jesus christ for that matter, if they ran as an (R) or a (D).
quote:Actually, you were born into a society and a culture of which an economic system is only one part. That society and culture will have other components besides an economic system, inclurding moral norms. A person may opt to participate in alternative economic systems within a society/culture.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I was born into an economic system....
quote:To me, this seems as closed minded and misguided as voting solely for ones party.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I am no tea partier though, and would not vote for my mother, or jesus christ for that matter, if they ran as an (R) or a (D).
quote:I was gone from my 'puter for a week.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:lilBuddha--I work with refugees from conflict zones and have mentioned them twice on this thread. Neither Merlin nor anyone who has called Obama a fascist has responded. I think this is because they can't. There is simply no comparison.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Merlin,
Speak to someone who has lived through a repressive regime. Say from communist China, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan.... No American President has ever come close to enacting anything like what has happened there.
sabine
quote:So you know Obama's inner desires and mindsets? Based on what??
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
quote:Lets get this straight.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
quote:Sorry, creating legislation which has the very real potential for abuse of ones citizens (Patriot Act), circumventing the FISA court process; these are not nascent fascism.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:I was gone from my 'puter for a week.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:lilBuddha--I work with refugees from conflict zones and have mentioned them twice on this thread. Neither Merlin nor anyone who has called Obama a fascist has responded. I think this is because they can't. There is simply no comparison.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Merlin,
Speak to someone who has lived through a repressive regime. Say from communist China, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan.... No American President has ever come close to enacting anything like what has happened there.
sabine
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
quote:These kinds of studies never address the CAUSE of the increase in hunger. They label "insecure" households, where children are not provided with a secure food supply. They show percentages of WIC and food stamps and other programs giving "free" food, especially during the summer. Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work. I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries! "But what about the CHILDREN?" So the Gov't supplies freebies to meet a growing problem and well-meaning asses put working class people on a guilt trip because there are still "hungry" children.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi:
stats on childhood hunger in US
quote:I "fear" him. Because of what he says and what he has done so far. I do not believe that the smiling man we see is the man His Oness is inside. He wears a disguise. I feel this in my core every time I listen to or read his words. All of his words and actions are countered by earlier words and actions. The BP connections stand as exemplary of this. He talks to the immediate problem, not to an unchanging ethic. His words are slippery. His experience is lacking in every aspect other than showmanship.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:So you know Obama's inner desires and mindsets? Based on what??
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
quote:Um... I know we have a representative democracy and not a direct one, but in a democracy, the government is "we the people." That was kinda the point. "We the people" crafted a different kind of government so that it would be the political (i.e., having to do with the polis) arm of the people to do things people can't do individually.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility.
quote:Wow, that's a nice list of quotations from right-wing rhetoric. I think the author of this "letter" is actually scared not by the man, but by the scare tactics the far-right has been circulating about him since it became clear he was a serious contender for the presidency.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Obama, you scare me....
quote:That worked so well in France in the 1780s, didn't it? Like it or not, there is a national security interest in not letting people get too poor, or too hopeless.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered...
quote:And what sort of reacction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:I "fear" him. Because of what he says and what he has done so far. I do not believe that the smiling man we see is the man His Oness is inside. He wears a disguise. I feel this in my core every time I listen to or read his words. All of his words and actions are countered by earlier words and actions. The BP connections stand as exemplary of this. He talks to the immediate problem, not to an unchanging ethic. His words are slippery. His experience is lacking in every aspect other than showmanship.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:So you know Obama's inner desires and mindsets? Based on what??
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
Obama, you scare me....
quote:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Lamis: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
quote:Exactly! But he blew it all on a war, a war about imposing cultural Americanism in a culturally non-American part of the world populated by lots of non-Christians and brown people. War is always OK - even a premoral good - for certain "conservatives." Had he spent even a fraction of that money on social safety nets at home, now that would be intolerable.
Originally posted by five:
The other bit I never understand is where all these Tea Party/neocon/whatever "fiscal conservatives" were when W took a budget surplus and turned it into the biggest budget deficit America has ever had?
quote:Indeed. We have lived through at least two presidents in my lifetime whose definition of "strong leadership" was to never, ever admit you've made a mistake, to "stay the course" even when evidence clearly demonstrates that "the course" is headed to utter and complete disaster. We are now living in the kind of hell that eight years of this sort of so-called "leadership" results in. I am more relieved than I can express to have a leader who can say "with new information/data, I can now see that my previous path/position was mistaken so we will be changing direction now..."
Originally posted by comet:
And to Merlin: one person's wishy-washy is another person's flexible. I don't want a president so sold on his own dogma that he can't change his mind.
quote:Agreed! The success with which the term "flip-flop" (noun or verb) quickly entered and became ensconced in our political vocabulary is part of the reason for my current sig.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Indeed. We have lived through at least two presidents in my lifetime whose definition of "strong leadership" was to never, ever admit you've made a mistake, to "stay the course" even when evidence clearly demonstrates that "the course" is headed to utter and complete disaster. We are now living in the kind of hell that eight years of this sort of so-called "leadership" results in. I am more relieved than I can express to have a leader who can say "with new information/data, I can now see that my previous path/position was mistaken so we will be changing direction now..."
Originally posted by comet:
And to Merlin: one person's wishy-washy is another person's flexible. I don't want a president so sold on his own dogma that he can't change his mind.
quote:And I can show you 10 families I work with where the parents are working their fingers to the bone trying to keep food on the table, but still aren't able to make the paycheck stretch. I can show you the single-parent family that lived with us for two years, and everything the mom went through to find work in a declining economy.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:These kinds of studies never address the CAUSE of the increase in hunger. They label "insecure" households, where children are not provided with a secure food supply. They show percentages of WIC and food stamps and other programs giving "free" food, especially during the summer. Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work. I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi:
stats on childhood hunger in US
quote:Well, uh, yeah. What ABOUT the children? What about the children even of lazy, shiftless cons or addicts who can't be bothered to provide for their own kids? What about them? Are you really wanting to suggest that we should have no concern for these kids?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] "But what about the CHILDREN?" So the Gov't supplies freebies to meet a growing problem and well-meaning asses put working class people on a guilt trip because there are still "hungry" children.
quote:Based on what? The gospel according to Rush? You make this statement like it were self-evident, but it is not.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility.
quote:Actually, that's not always true. In fact, there are quite a number of programs that are run more efficiently by the government than by private enterprise. You just won't hear about them from the GOP.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost.
quote:And the average unemployment rate doesn't really tell the whole story: here is a study of unemployment vs. educational achievement. The job losses have been far more severe - and the recovery much more sluggish - for those jobs that don't require some college education. Factory and construction jobs have been particularly hard hit, and they represent some of the higher paying options for those at the lower educational levels. The unemployment levels in the lower groups are considerably higher than they have been anytime in the last 20 years or more. And, of course, those are the folks who are less likely to have enough savings to survive 6 or 12 or 18 months looking for work.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...do you have any evidence that everyone or even the majority of families on welfare would be able to find work if they were forced to through hunger? Really? 10+% unemployment, and it's all voluntary??? You know some secret hidden source of millions of jobs? I know a whole lotta people who'd probably be willing to pay for that knowledge...
quote:You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
quote:Seriously. My college-educated husband has been out of work for more than 2 yrs. Last year he filled out over 300 job applications-- online, in person, via snail mail, any way he could get it-- in a 3 month period alone. 300. We counted. He got 2 interviews. 2. No job.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
Maybe those who know how to find jobs so easily can help me find one. I would far rather have a job than collect unemployment. Which is running out soon anyway.
quote:A problem indeed.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
All the jobs around here come with the following conditions: "part time" (so they can legally give you zero hours if necessary), $8/hour, no benefits. Plus, you are expected to be available 7 days a week for work between 6 am and 10/12 pm. Your schedule will vary each week according to the business demands of your employer, so you can forget about getting another part-time job unless it happens to be incredibly flexible.
quote:I once drove three hours to an interview. The company made paper-making machines for newsprint and the like. The company had used a recruiter, who thought I was a good pick.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Seriously. My college-educated husband has been out of work for more than 2 yrs. Last year he filled out over 300 job applications-- online, in person, via snail mail, any way he could get it-- in a 3 month period alone. 300. We counted. He got 2 interviews. 2. No job.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
Maybe those who know how to find jobs so easily can help me find one. I would far rather have a job than collect unemployment. Which is running out soon anyway.
quote:I don't know why I'm even bothering to join the chorus. Several other people have already pointed out that 'motivation' to get a job does not automatically lead to getting a job. Just because the people in question don't have jobs doesn't mean that they are lazy no-hopers.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries!
quote:Um, yes. This is how the entire world operates. There are those who can't work, or aren't expected to. Children, the elderly, and so on.
Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:I don't know what I am. But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives. Any gov't system that doesn't include payback as part of the welfare is going to attract freeloaders in droves. That's what is wrong with the Fed controlled level: it can't operate a monolithic welfare system; there are too many loopholes that are exploited by the freeloaders, the leeches. That's why I advocate for State by State welfare and don't accept that gov't at the Fed level has any business being in the welfare business in the first place....
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...
I much prefer a system that holds out the same criteria for everyone, and occasionally helps people who don't "deserve" it, to a system that leaves people out in the cold due to prejudices or to their own lack of resources. In either system, mistakes (defined by the system's own goals) will be made; I prefer to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. That comes primarily from my own faith convictions, but also from my idea of what America is about. Naive and idealistic? Hell yeah. I'm a Democrat!
quote:That is uncalled for, if that's what you mean.
Originally posted by five:
And what sort of reaction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
quote:This is one of the most illogical things I have ever read. Do you know what 'charity' means?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives.
quote:I suppose this is true as long as there is someone to bail you out.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The European Social Model is a definite improvement on American-style capitalism.
quote:In an economy where jobs dwindle and unemployment increases and becomes an epidemic, "the system" (capitalism) doesn't provide: it can't: it only operates on a profit basis: it does not provide "meaningless" jobs (also called "busy work").
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
If what you mean is that there are people who don't work who 'should' work... well, that gets back to the question of whether there are in fact enough jobs to go around, doesn't it?
I do KNOW a system which ensures that everyone has a job, no matter how meaningless or inefficient. It was called communism. Are you a communist, Merlin?
quote:Again, what is your basis for saying that local is ALWAYS better? Have you never seen a state where corruption (yes, Louisianna I'm lookin' at you) and political infighting (yeah, California...) led to endless waste? Have you never seen a small town ruled by bullies or cronyism?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]]In an economy where jobs dwindle and unemployment increases and becomes an epidemic, "the system" (capitalism) doesn't provide: it can't: it only operates on a profit basis: it does not provide "meaningless" jobs (also called "busy work").
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK. This whole idea that some work is beneath one's education and skill level has always been an evil inherent in the capitalist system.
On a local level jobs can be created to assure that everyone receiving food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc., are not freeloading. ...If they have children, and they refuse to work at all, thus producing a poverty that the children are not responsible for, that's what social protection services are for: and again, the local level handles these things best....
quote:I had a look at the stats on hunger in the US including child hunger in other pages on the site MerlintheBad was dribbling about.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:These kinds of studies never address the CAUSE of the increase in hunger. They label "insecure" households, where children are not provided with a secure food supply. They show percentages of WIC and food stamps and other programs giving "free" food, especially during the summer. Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work. I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries! "But what about the CHILDREN?" So the Gov't supplies freebies to meet a growing problem and well-meaning asses put working class people on a guilt trip because there are still "hungry" children.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi:
stats on childhood hunger in US
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility. The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost. Sooner or later the sheer weight of Gov't spending on welfare programs (entitlements) will break the back of the economy. We can all then go hungry together, living as equals in poverty and squalor (well, except for the rich elite, of course, "they" never suffer).
To avoid this scenario we need limited Gov't, not bigger Gov't. No system is perfect: but big Gov't is the least desirable of all the systems mankind has tried. It's just a long road to the tyranny of the few over the many: the world's story for the last c. 6,000 years of recorded history....
quote:Merlin, I've reflected further on this and realised the problem with it. It's not simply a question of whether there is work to be done. It's also a question of someone being prepared to PAY for the work to be done, and having the money to do so. Employment is not merely the doing of work, it is the doing of work in exchange for money. You can't 'create jobs' merely by identifying a piece of work you'd like to see done.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK.
quote:Um, five was quoting Dubya, who said that to the head of FEMA when hell broke loose during Hurricane Katrina, and the gov't was worse than useless.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:That is uncalled for, if that's what you mean.
Originally posted by five:
And what sort of reaction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
The "racist card" has been played repeatedly on this thread by those who are critical of those here who are critical of His Oness.
quote:This, to me, is the nub of the issue. People wanting control over who gets aid and wanting to be able to have self-determination and self-knowledge about who they personally deem to be "worthy". People preferring a situation that makes 80% of "worthy" people are hard-up if that means that 20% of the freeloaders won't get anything.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
On a local level jobs can be created to assure that everyone receiving food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc., are not freeloading.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility. The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost. Sooner or later the sheer weight of Gov't spending on welfare programs (entitlements) will break the back of the economy. We can all then go hungry together, living as equals in poverty and squalor (well, except for the rich elite, of course, "they" never suffer).
quote:Yet, you have mentioned that your family benefitted from Medicaid, a federal program. I mentioned this earlier in the thread when you called for not increasing entitlements. Have you repaid?
But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives
quote:Its not. Its a common component of some people's ideas of socialism but socialism is surely about ownership and rights, not about regulations and welfare benefits.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If that's socialism, then I'm a socialist (although I wouldn't generally call myself a socialist...
quote:Well, its all theoretical, because as there is no actually existing entirely socialist economy or society (*) all we have to go on is what different people who call themselves socialist mean when they say "socialism". And many of them are very against nationalisation, and others in favour of it only very special circumstances. Others are quite happy with free markets and private ownership - its big corporations and great property that pisses them off, not private ownership as such.
...because for me genuine socialism requires an ideological commitment to nationalisation of industry and the eventual abolition of private productive property, which is a step further than I'd be inclined to go).
quote:But its exactly the same. The idea of distinct biological races is a social construction. So is your feeling that Obama isn't really American. If racism exists at all then you are being racist.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "racist card" has been played repeatedly on this thread by those who are critical of those here who are critical of His Oness.
Race is non existent biologically. Only in the perceptions of racists is the human species divided into races. So I don't look at His Oness as a "black man" anymore than I looked GWB as a WASP. I do make judgments of where a person comes from having something to do with their desires and agenda. Race has nothing to do with that.
quote:It seems that most of those who bitch so loudly about the evils of the federal government are in states that are net drains on the federal dollar. Let's let them all secede -- then we who are left can actually get things done with that money.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another fact to consider, Mr. Merlin: Were you aware your state receives Billions of dollars more in Federal revenue than it sends to Washington?
What will your self-reliant locals do without that money?
quote:The whole idea that some people are better than others, and that some work is beneath the education/class/caste/position/etc. of the better people, seems to be an evil inherent in human beings. I don't think the economic system has anything to do with it.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This whole idea that some work is beneath one's education and skill level has always been an evil inherent in the capitalist system.
quote:Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
quote:Many kibbutzim.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
Sometimes this experiment has been tried on a small community basis and almost worked. I don't know any example where it worked for very long or very well:
quote:...remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
Sometimes this experiment has been tried on a small community basis and almost worked. I don't know any example where it worked for very long or very well: check out early Utah history for Mormon attempts at it.
So, no, I am not suggesting communism here. I am suggesting a mixed form of gov't and economy. For the ambitious, advantaged and lucky, there is capitalism. For the unfortunate, lazy or easily satisfied, there is "gov't work". But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
quote:Yes, you've said that several times now, but, despite repeated requests, you have yet to supply a shred of evidence to support this. Do you have evidence that state and local governments are statistically any more efficient or less corrupt than federal ones? As I noted before, I can think of several examples to the contrary.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
quote:So that Joseph Smith could run for President.
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]...remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
quote:I didn't say it was always better in outcome, only less evil than BIG Gov't, and more easily fixed than BIG Gov't gone-bad.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, what is your basis for saying that local is ALWAYS better? Have you never seen a state where corruption (yes, Louisianna I'm lookin' at you) and political infighting (yeah, California...) led to endless waste? Have you never seen a small town ruled by bullies or cronyism?
quote:Because on the Fed Gov't level it imposes controls that cannot possibly adequately answer local needs: it's too big to be that intimately involved or even to care in the first place: any far-removed Fed bureaucracy is slow to change, if at all. When matters get corrupt (as they inevitably will) the locals are helpless to change their situation except through the ponderous, almost immovable machinery of the National Congress and its plethora of committies and departments. And if the corruption is on the Fed level, then said-departments and committies are also part of the problem, and if anything gets done at that point it is probably going to worsen rather than remedy the problems on the local level.
Why is it that when the government pumps $$ into the system to create jobs it's wasteful deficit spending/ socialism, but when done on the local level it's prudent social services?
quote:Perhaps in the worst-hit places. But not everywhere and not everyone....
And if there ever was anyone who had the idea that any honest job was "beneath" them, this economic downturn has thoroughly thrashed that outta them.
quote:This is an interesting position, but I fail to see how you can apply it in practice. Whether or not a State government is overstepping the mark is entirely a political judgement, and you can't write a Constitution setting out the respective powers of each level on a political basis. You have to write it in a more neutral way without knowing precisely what will happen in the future.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I didn't say it was always better in outcome, only less evil than BIG Gov't, and more easily fixed than BIG Gov't gone-bad.
Of course there will be plenty of examples of local excesses. People are nasty when they perceive themselves in a position of power. But that's what the Fed is for: provide for the general welfare. When States are guilty of excesses the due process allows the Fed to intervene on behalf of the Union's citizens - especially when those citizens importune their Fed Gov't for defense and redress. That's as far as the Fed ought to be permitted to go in controlling the States.
quote:That is an interesting assertion that I disbelieve.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another issue,Merlin; many of the ideals you and the Tea Party espouse might work with a 19th century level of population and industry, but not the current.
quote:In my post just prior to this one, I've begun to address this obvious requirement to "jump-start" the economy and provide the financial means.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Merlin, I've reflected further on this and realised the problem with it. It's not simply a question of whether there is work to be done. It's also a question of someone being prepared to PAY for the work to be done, and having the money to do so. Employment is not merely the doing of work, it is the doing of work in exchange for money. You can't 'create jobs' merely by identifying a piece of work you'd like to see done.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK.
quote:Precisely why the funding must come through the private sector and not gov't taxation and redistribution. That's why the Fed has to possess the power to compel lending institutions to get their kiesters off the cash; there's plenty of money already out there, it's just frozen because of the uncertain times.
Now, the average government at any level is not exactly flush with cash. If they try to get more money, then people cry foul. Similarly, if governments employ more people, everybody talks about wastage and inefficient bureaucracies and so on. It's no different at the local level than the national one.
quote:And you may have noticed, I do not propose any limiting of capitalism whatsover; anyone who can make a go of it ought to be free to try. But if s/he can't do it, there is always the "gov't work" safety net - and the self-respect of making the community/world a better place while you receive your fair share of the "general welfare".
Private businesses of course, maximise their profit by minimising the number of people they employ to get the job done, as wages is one of the biggest costs they have.
quote:I'm not complaining. I am pointing out fallacies in various assertions. And now I have moved on to proposing/discussing solutions....
Some choices have to be made. You can't simultaneously complain about all of these things. Well, you CAN, but it's not rational. You can't complain about people not being employed and also complain about means of achieving fuller employment.
quote:That isn't the point I am arguing: it is obvious that a "machine" of many integrated parts can be fixed where a part goes bad; and that a bad part doesn't break the rest of the machine. But if the entire machine is dependant on a single interface and the rest of the machine has no access to that interface, then when that interface goes bad the entire machine ceases to function. A dependency of the States on the Fed is bad enough (a necessary "evil" in the view of the Founders, with their "promote the general welfare" stipulation for the need of a Fed at all): a Fed lordship over increasing State minutia is not only a stupid system it is bound to become an evil one....
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Yes, you've said that several times now, but, despite repeated requests, you have yet to supply a shred of evidence to support this. Do you have evidence that state and local governments are statistically any more efficient or less corrupt than federal ones? As I noted before, I can think of several examples to the contrary.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
quote:Yep, that's exactly it. The tipping point was the Civil War. What emerged from the Civil War was a very different American "nation" and a very different US Constitution (never underestimate the importance of the 14th Amendment). The victory of the industrial-capitalist North over the agrarian-"feudalist" South standardised, homogenised and unified American society and culture around a single (Northern) norm. Suddenly the sort of federalism envisaged by the original US Constitution made a lot less sense. However, Noah Webster and Henry Ford probably did more damage to the "Framers' Original" version of the US Constitution than Lincoln or the 14th Amendment: the exceptionally high mobility of American society , both cultural and geographical, made the original federalism very difficult to sustain. By the Progressive era, the people were calling for "national solutions to national problems", this reached its apogee during the New Deal, but has never really gone away.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
quote:Yeah, unfunded federal mandates are so very popular with the states right now... cuz they're just flush with $$.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
I am proposing a simple fix: return obligation for welfare to the local and State govt's and get the Fed out of that "business" altogether. National healthcare is totally moving in the wrong direction. Those on the local level who provide healthcare will still do so for those not capable of buying their own medical insurance and hiring the docs of their choice, etc. It's just that the funding will be also on the local level, not Federal.
quote:The point I was attempting to make is the economies of the various states are interconnected to the point that a strong central government is necessary to regulate their interaction. The current population is such that this is an inevitability. I have not attacked the US Constitution in any way, shape or form.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:That is an interesting assertion that I disbelieve.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another issue,Merlin; many of the ideals you and the Tea Party espouse might work with a 19th century level of population and industry, but not the current.
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
quote:They could have quite easily done this by putting stipulations on the bailout.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Precisely why the funding must come through the private sector and not gov't taxation and redistribution. That's why the Fed has to possess the power to compel lending institutions to get their kiesters off the cash; there's plenty of money already out there, it's just frozen because of the uncertain times.
quote:How very socialistic of you. (FDR's ghost just rolled past)
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Once the lending apparatus us flowing again, the incorporated cities, counties and even State gov'ts can take out loans to pay for the virtually inexhaustible work projects that can be created (I don't care what it is, anything from painting curbs, eradicating graffiti, trash pickup, parks and public gardens beautification, even building projects for those possessing the skills; and for those who are physically incapacitated, there are all manner of needs for tutors, mentors, clerical or otherwise "intellectual" work).[/QB]
quote:That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:Yep, that's exactly it. The tipping point was the Civil War. What emerged from the Civil War was a very different American "nation" and a very different US Constitution (never underestimate the importance of the 14th Amendment). The victory of the industrial-capitalist North over the agrarian-"feudalist" South standardised, homogenised and unified American society and culture around a single (Northern) norm. Suddenly the sort of federalism envisaged by the original US Constitution made a lot less sense. However, Noah Webster and Henry Ford probably did more damage to the "Framers' Original" version of the US Constitution than Lincoln or the 14th Amendment: the exceptionally high mobility of American society , both cultural and geographical, made the original federalism very difficult to sustain. By the Progressive era, the people were calling for "national solutions to national problems", this reached its apogee during the New Deal, but has never really gone away.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
quote:It is possible for historians to make reasonable claims about what some of the major the Founding Fathers thought, what their intentions were, and how they understood the Constitution at the time they were writing it. Madison's notes from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the private and public papers of some of the people involved provide good sources of information. But the "original intent" school comes up with a number of problem, which the populist right tends to ignore:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
quote:They didn't choose to. They were conquered.
Originally posted by orfeo:
remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
quote:If I was being cynical I'd say it was because Congress needed three more territories that they could threaten to make into new states to balance the numbers in the slavery compromise in the 1850s. They didn't really care about Utah (or Nevada or New Mexico) as such but wherever they had a territory they could make a State and so change the balance of power in the Senate if needed.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Conversely, why did the US let them in?
quote:Dubious. What is the source? I'd be curious how they arrived at that.
Originally posted by ken:
Oh, and Utah is the most urbanised state in the Union (apparently even more than New Jersey - its the Australia effect)
quote:I should clarify that the Fed should not implement enforced lending upon the banks across the board: I was specifying loans to incorporated cites, counties and even State gov'ts. The capitalist segment of the national economy is not under that compulsion. It is in the best interests of the lenders to be smart about who they loan money too; that wouldn't be infringed upon. But to get the money flowing again, the banks must lend to all incorporated cities, counties and States that apply for the loans in order to fund the "gov't work". All such loans would be paid back through value rendered by said-work, but especially by general taxation upon the capitalist interests. If necessary a fairly considerable time would be allowed to pay back the loans. Obviously, in order for this to work and not turn into total socialism (or worse) the amount of capitalism needs to be considerable. I trust that still in the USA there are sufficient capitalist interests and reserves to take over the burden of repayment; and that as capitalism increases again and thrives, that the repayment burden is shared by more people, ergo paid back more swiftly.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Even better, Merlin just said that the Fed should compel private banks to lend.
A government institution should have the power to force a private company to act against its own best interest.
Yeah, Merlin just said he likes Big Government.
quote:A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
Originally posted by ken:
The crazy thing about their system isn't that it is private - because it isn't really - its that it is absurdly expensive. The way the British NHS is set up makes private healthcare cheaper. Doesn't happen in the USA.
quote:The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
quote:Census data, I'd gather: the proportion of the state population that lives in an urban/suburban area.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Dubious. What is the source? I'd be curious how they arrived at that.
Originally posted by ken:
Oh, and Utah is the most urbanised state in the Union (apparently even more than New Jersey - its the Australia effect)
quote:Thank you for spelling that out in a way I could not. I agree, though, 100%.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:It is possible for historians to make reasonable claims about what some of the major the Founding Fathers thought, what their intentions were, and how they understood the Constitution at the time they were writing it. Madison's notes from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, and the private and public papers of some of the people involved provide good sources of information. But the "original intent" school comes up with a number of problem, which the populist right tends to ignore:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
That's something that's always kinda bugged me. People on the right (tea-party types) tend to claim that we can know the intentions of the founding fathers, and that we must stick precisely to those intentions. For that reason, they tend to read the Constitution and founding documents like fundamentalists read the Bible. But it seems to me that the founders crafted the Constitution so that it would be organic enough to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.
Firstly, many of the Founders were well aware of their own limitations as constitution-makers. They'd had a bit of experience with State Constitutions and with the Articles of Confederation, but the "art or science of free government" was still very much in their infancy. Any clear "intent" is sometimes difficult to discern, because they were not quite sure what they were doing. They flip-flopped on lots of issues (the USA very nearly ended up with a single-term seven-year President elected by both Houses of Congress; the four-year term with re-election and the Electoral College were last-minute desperate compromises.
Secondly, not all Founders spoke with the same voice. Jefferson and Hamilton represent two extremes: Jefferson a champion of the small-government left, and Hamilton a champion of big-government right. There were lots in between. To say, "the Founders intended XYZ" is, at best, a gross summary of a variety of nuanced views, and it's impossible to tell exactly who voted for what and why. (Actually, although Jefferson was such an influential figure in early US history, he is arguably not even a Founding Father, because he was in France at the time and took no direct part in the Convention - just don't tell the Texas State Board of Education!)
Thirdly, there is the question of the source of the US Constitution's legitimacy. It was "constituted" in the name of the people, not by the convention delegates who drafted it, but by the State legislatures which ratified it. Are we to consider the views and debates of State legislatures in the ratification process as reflective of "original intent"? If so, the difficulty of separating out the one voice of "the people" or "the Founders" from all the separate voices which went into forming it are magnified.
Fourthly, as soon as we get away from the Founder's views on the issues of their day, and try to apply original intent to the issues of our day, we are on purely speculative ground. It is problematic to apply "original intent" to questions like gay marriage and abortion because the Founders did not consider or write about those issues. If the Founders were faced with the knowledge, technology and problems of our day, would they have produced the same Constitution? Almost certainly not.
Fifthly, we are in danger of misinterpreting and misunderstanding the views of the Founders, because we tend to see them through our own ideological lens. For a long time, from the Civil War to the present, the dominant ideological understanding has been one of individualist liberalism (using liberal in its classical sense, of a Lockean limited state which protects the natural rights of atomistic and contract-forming individuals). Recent scholarship since the 1970s, and the "rediscovery" of the civic-republican tradition, have some constitutional scholars and historians of political thought to challenge that dominant view, and to re-cast the Founders' intentions in a civic-republican mould. Either way, we run the risk of hearing what we want to hear according to our own pre-conceived notions.
Sixthly, why should "original" intent be all that important anyway? Surely a Constitution is supported by the current intent of its living citizens. Placing the intent of people who lived two centuries ago above the intent of those alive today is a sort of ancestor-worship.
I like Constitutions to be clear, simple and comprehensive. I think they they should be amended to reflect current needs rather than historical ones. I'm open to different levels of entrenchment, making certain provisions (e.g. distribution of competences between the federal and state levels) easier to amend in response to changing circumstances than other provisions (e.g. the Bill of Rights). I think an understanding of the historical process and of the ideas which informed the Constitution is important. I'd rather amend the Constitution than "interpret it" to the point of meaninglessness. But "original intent" is very shaky founds for constitutional construction, and it seems particularly perverse to use "original intent" to prevent, say, the national regulation of health insurance provision, while at the same time ignoring it on other issues (such as control of military force, which has become a presidential prerogative).
quote:YES! One hesitates to cite Michael Moore, since anyone opposed to health care reform writes him off as a Communist to avoid having to weigh the merits of anything he actually says, but I heard him interviewed around the time "Sicko" came out, and he made what I think is a brilliant point: Of course you're going to get your medical procedure more quickly if you exclude millions of people from the line ahead of you!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
quote:If I can insert a brief historical correction here, the U.S. Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures but rather by state Constitutional Conventions specially elected for that purpose and having no other duties. The drafters of the Constitution feared (rightly, in most cases) that since the proposed Constitution transferred a large amount of power from the states to the central government that the state governments would balk at the prospect. This was practical politics at its most basic.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Thirdly, there is the question of the source of the US Constitution's legitimacy. It was "constituted" in the name of the people, not by the convention delegates who drafted it, but by the State legislatures which ratified it. Are we to consider the views and debates of State legislatures in the ratification process as reflective of "original intent"? If so, the difficulty of separating out the one voice of "the people" or "the Founders" from all the separate voices which went into forming it are magnified.
quote:Trying to parse that out, I guess what there saying is that the rural areas (as well as probably the large amount of land that is state & federal parks) are very sparsely populated, so that the population tends to be concentrated densely in the few urban areas. Whereas other states such as NY and CA that have much larger and more densely populated urban areas also have rural areas with higher population density, so that it all evens out.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I should add, by way of clarity, that it has nothing to do with land area. A very high proportion of the land in Utah is rural rather than urban. However, the population of Utah is urban rather than rural, proportionally speaking.
quote:See, there's a key difference between Medicare in Canada and the NHS in the UK. Under the Canada Health Act it is illegal to pay privately for publicly-insured services. The federal government deducts the entire cost of such billing from health transfers to the provinces. Since these transfer can make up a third or more of provincial budgets, the provinces have banned private billing for public services, including extra billing.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:YES! One hesitates to cite Michael Moore, since anyone opposed to health care reform writes him off as a Communist to avoid having to weigh the merits of anything he actually says, but I heard him interviewed around the time "Sicko" came out, and he made what I think is a brilliant point: Of course you're going to get your medical procedure more quickly if you exclude millions of people from the line ahead of you!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The obvious thing about the "adding all those currently uncovered people to the health care system will lead to rationing" argument is that it tacitly admits that there is already rationing (i.e. those without health insurance must do without except on an emergency basis), it's just rationed in a way that favors anyone already in the system.
Originally posted by Martin L:
A not-insignificant number of the ever-graying population has been convinced that with a national system, services will be rationed or denied, probably due to age or complexity of the procedure. (This video clip, at about 1:00, reflects that line of thinking)
Since I, like Moore, am from Michigan, I have elderly relatives living in the Detroit suburbs, who claim when they're in their doctor's waiting rooms, they encounter a lot of Canadians (the way they tell it, you'd think they were the only US citizen in the room) who are crossing the border to get "good" medical care without the long wait they'd have in their own country. Well, obviously, anywhere you go, people who have enough money are going to opt out of common life (unless they're inclined to consider common life a good) in order to buy themselves privilege - perhaps a slightly shorter wait to see a doctor. However, all the Canadians I've ever met love their health care system and think ours in the US is insane. So I guess it's six of one sort of anecdote and a half dozen of the other.
quote:That's awesome. I recognized lots of kids I met in college in there... Especially the "Arrogant" and the one pushing Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Sorry for the double-post, but here's a handy cut-out-n-keep Spotter's Guide to Libertarians, which you can take with you to the next Tea Party gathering. I think it sums it up pretty well.
quote:How many straw men can a single post raise up?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it interesting that MtM's "simple" solution is for governments to seek credit from large corporations rather than private citizens/individual investors by issuing bonds. Apparently if there's not some huge corporate sponsor involved taking its cut, the plan isn't ideologically pure enough. The current rate of return on ten year U.S. government bonds is 2.97%. If there were an unwillingness to lend money to the U.S. government this ridiculously low rate would be significantly higher. Whatever the financial problems of today may be, they're certainly not that no one is willing to lend money to the government.
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the main issue is the unwillingness of the U.S. government to spend money on anything besides blowing shit up. For some reason the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford killing foreigners is never brought up with the frequency of the idea that the U.S. might not be able to afford treating its citizen's medical problems.
quote:Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
quote:Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
quote:I'm not attacking, just asking:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
quote:This is more than a patronizing vision. It's cruel and scary.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
One more thing: the food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education received by the unemployed (and under-employed) must be of a low enough standard such that it does not form an inducement to consider it "good enough", at least by most people.
quote:Not if people are denied "good enough" health, education,food, etc.
So the inducement to leave the "safety net" would always be there. And the opportunity to do so would increase to include more people as capitalism recovered and thrived.
quote:My plan for the "economic stimulus" was to create jobs in the "greening" of public buildings. Train able-bodied unemployed persons in various aspects of green industry to retrofit your various public buildings. Immediate savings would be found for cash-strapped municipalities in decreased utility bills, as well as the environmental benefits associated with that. Long-term you would be training people in a growth industry, so that when the economy picks up, hopefully they would find gainful employment putting that training to work in the private sector.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:Don't confuse "work" with "jobs." JOBS are what you get paid for within capitalism. WORK is in infinite supply. Call it "busy work" if you like: but if your city started to look like a paradise of the future (eradicated graffiti, beautified parks and roadways, beautified and improved private residences, etc.), I think the euphemism "busy work" would hardly describe what the "unemployed" would be doing! The real econimic value would be instantaneous: supply would go up as demand for materials and services increased: and such would come from capitalism. The loan to the city, county and State would pay for that as well as the food, clothing, housing, etc. of those working within the "safety net". With the increased demand on capitalism, the number of jobs available would increase, further diminishing the numbers of those within the "safety net"....
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Erm, if there's no work for them to be employed to do, what are they supposed to be doing in order to earn their benefits? Is it just busywork to keep them from sitting on their asses all day, but without any real economic value?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Therefore, those not employed (jobless within capitalism) must work for what their city, county and State gives them
quote:--Bruce Cockburn, "You've Never Seen Everything" (from the album of the same name)
Greed twists eternal in the human breast
But the market has no brain
It doesn't love it's not God
All it knows is the price of lunch
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
sabine, you make me think of this:
quote:--Bruce Cockburn, "You've Never Seen Everything" (from the album of the same name)
Greed twists eternal in the human breast
But the market has no brain
It doesn't love it's not God
All it knows is the price of lunch
quote:My feelings for the solutions put forth by Merlin wax and wane. I think some of them are, as you put it, hooked into a belief in the market that hasn't yet proved itself to be viable. Others so marginalize certain groups of people that I wonder if those solutions have been well thought out.
I feel a little sorry for Merlin, because it's sorta him against everyone else on this thread (more or less) and he does seem to be trying to come up with a constructive solution. I disagree with the premises of that solution, though - what seems to be a quasi-religious faith in the market, even if we have to prop it up a bit (shh, don't tell!). But at least he's admitting that the market can't work its magic all on its own.
I think that now we've found nothing substantial ever trickles down, we have to do more than shake the awnings hoping to find a pool up there that hasn't dried up yet.
quote:It would be taxed capitalism that would largely pay back the loans. Obviously I am talking about an "American fix", not proposing this kind of compromise as the basis for, say an African economy, which has virtually NO capitalism to fund such a payback. I am also not complicating this with the way the USA borrows money from other Nations. That is part of the complexity that I was talking about!
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...
How would city governments ever pay back their loans?
And, would these unemployed people be working in exchange for services, or would they get money too? I'm asking that question to try to figure out whether they would be taxpayers to the states and federal government, since I know you favor tax cuts generally.
Just seeking clarification.
quote:Ah, the power of words! to create such differing imaginations with the very same prose.
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:This is more than a patronizing vision. It's cruel and scary.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
One more thing: the food, clothing, housing, medical attention, education received by the unemployed (and under-employed) must be of a low enough standard such that it does not form an inducement to consider it "good enough", at least by most people.
We already have a system in which people with money get better everything, but to institutionalize that philosophy even further....
quote:Again, I am not suggesting that the "safety net" goods and services be of such a low quality that it isn't "good enough" to promote the general welfare.
So the inducement to leave the "safety net" would always be there. And the opportunity to do so would increase to include more people as capitalism recovered and thrived.quote:
Not if people are denied "good enough" health, education,food, etc.
This sort of "inducement" is not an inducement at all and may well backfire.
quote:It could be corrupted into that kind of tool. But we can only try and hope that we win and any such prejudices lose....
In fact, this seems to be a recipe for maitaining the so-called culture of poverty or at the very least, a replica of the status quo for too many people out there.
sabine
quote:Excellent! And that work would occupy a lot of people for a very long time and consume massive amounts of capitalist-supplied materials. Win-win all the way. That's a perfect example of what I envision when I say "There is literally no end to the work that can be done"....
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My plan for the "economic stimulus" was to create jobs in the "greening" of public buildings. Train able-bodied unemployed persons in various aspects of green industry to retrofit your various public buildings. Immediate savings would be found for cash-strapped municipalities in decreased utility bills, as well as the environmental benefits associated with that. Long-term you would be training people in a growth industry, so that when the economy picks up, hopefully they would find gainful employment putting that training to work in the private sector.
quote:Well, some of us are content with enough, and want others to have, too.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But human nature doesn't usually like just sitting with enough; it wants what others have too. And capitalism is the open door to that, not State welfare!
quote:I was sure these ideas are not original (every possible permutation of economics has been combined, by now, has it not?). But I have never heard of the dude or the book. I have no economic books or background. You don't need one, in order to see some possible solutions to our present mess. The one I have advocated for here is, as I said, the best I've seen so far. Surely it isn't the only one that could be better than the frozen pile of poo we are trying to invest with "life" again....
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Scratch every rabid Republican wingnut and underneath you'll find a corporatist Keynesian.
I'll bet Merlin actually sleeps with his dog-eared copy of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
BTW Merlin you owe royalties to the estate of Lord Keynes for copying his work.
quote:I am looking ahead, not describing anything I see already existing! Welfare tends to breed entitlement welfare mentality, a very, very bad thing: which my two-part "solution" would seek to eradicate from the getgo. Working mentality is the key to successful capitalism, therefore it must be part of the welfare system, i.e. we must change what has grown in this country, into a "promoting of the general welfare" system that emphasizes work. So yes, I aspire to see that happen: it must happen as part of the "fix", or else any and all "stimulus" (or otherwise money sent to cities, counties and States) would just be throwing good money after bad: it would largely wind up going to special interests who are already fat cats and benefit the unfortunate not at all except by "trickle down" -- which we all agree is a myth more than a reality. The loans to cities, counties and States must FIRST be used to put the unfortunate (unemployed/underemployed) to work: secondarily, it can be used to hire the skills of capitalists where required....
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:Well, some of us are content with enough, and want others to have, too.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But human nature doesn't usually like just sitting with enough; it wants what others have too. And capitalism is the open door to that, not State welfare!
ISTM that what you're describing - entitlements that are good enough to promote the general welfare - is something the current system would have to aspire to. I'm not familiar with any welfare recipients who are living large on the government dole - maybe it's different in your state. I think the picture of lazy welfare recipients who are unmotivated to work because they get so much for free is an invention of the far right for the purpose of dismantling social safety nets.
quote:How would you get this attitude from what I've said? Of course I know that: why else would I assume that most unfortunates would leap at the chance to work for their gov't provided goods and services?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Merlin--
Maybe you honestly don't know this, but most unemployed people, including those on welfare, ALREADY want to work, and want a better life.
quote:I recognize all of that as a huge part of the welfare mentality problem: indigent circumstances breed despair and once that sets in it tends to become habitual.
But sometimes there is no work available. And the deck can be heavily stacked against someone:
--racial inequities;
--lack of appropriate clothing;
--lack of transportation--not just no car, but no money for bus, and inadequate or no bus service;
--lack of child care;
--lack of education and/or education was in a very underfunded school where most students are just written off;
--lack of enough food (and nutritious food) to fuel you through the workday, and possible lack of a lunch to bring;
--growing up in a community where all of the above is so entrenched and people are so squished down that it's nearly impossible to even imagine anything better, let alone figure out how to try to get it, or actually have someone take you seriously enough to employ you, and you may have never seen anyone from your community make it;
--the impressions, stereotypes, and prejudices in other people's minds;
and many other things.
quote:Earlier comments of mine on this thread were directed at fallacious assertions. I was also engaging on the same emotional venting level common to threads like this one. I've changed gears back there a bit: no longer content to carp and whine and criticize, I would rather think "out loud" about possible solutions to the economic mess, and see where it takes us. If enough people do this all over the Net, the possible outcome just might be that our representatives will hear the noise and get the idea that there really is a possible solution. Right now, all I see and hear everywhere is a panicky reaction to the vision of "the American dream" ending forever, replaced by a waking nightmare. Nothing concrete is being proposed (or if it is, it's no louder than the squeak made by this thread), and the Media is self-served by spreading bad news rather than anything positive....
Merlin, FWIW, many of your posts sound like you don't know or believe any of this...and many other posts sound you don't really care. Now, maybe you really don't know, and maybe you're just trying to work out something within your understanding of economics.
But people's reactions to your posts aren't coming out of the blue.
quote:Employed as part of the capitalist network would not be how it starts up. "Employed" on gov't work projects isn't the same thing as having a job with a paycheck.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...
Tell me just how the city of Detroit's gonna put 30% of the population to work, even in exchange for services, when a third of the land is vacant - meaning no property taxes are being paid. The enclave city of Highland Park has finally been able to restore their police and fire departments - they were without those for several years due to bankruptcy. How would Highland Park have put unemployed citizens to work if it couldn't even keep its own police and firefighters employed?
quote:That's right: as we agree, the Market doesn't have any repair capacity built into it: We The People must supply that. Capitalism provides abundance of goods and services up till a tipping point. After that capitalism will cut pieces of itself (people) off in order to survive. The paying jobs go away, but the work does not ever go away. Those Detroit slums can be transformed into happy, clean neighborhoods. The people living there can do it themselves. With the means and know-how provided, the labor is just waiting to be galvanized. They'd be willing if they saw a vision like mine turn into reality: if they saw enough of their neighbors engaged in building instead of scavenging....
Our population dropped from 2 million in the '50s to less than 1 million by 2000. There's no market fix for that.
quote:Exactly. Which is why the sort of scheme Merlin is proposing would work only if you think beyond simple, immediate work-for-food mentality and think about how to help people leverage benefits to provide long-term future employment. In the example of an unemployed single mother, as sabine notes, finding her minimum-wage employment in a job which barely covers child care expense is rather futile, and does nothing to end the cycle of dependency Merlin is so worried about. However, a combination of child care credits and educational grants-- while more expensive initially-- could pay off handsomely long-term if, within 3-4 years, we have a college graduate able to make a good living, supporting her family and paying taxes.
Originally posted by sabine:
The inability to pay for adequate child care (or the lack of quality lo-cost child care) is one of the important obstacles for people going back to work where I live.
So is a public transportation system that doesn't cover huge areas of the city, doesn't run very often, and of course costs money to ride. Some people have to ride 3 buses to get to work, taking 2 hours each way. That's a 4-hour commute each day. (Ditto for the hospital--I met a woman on the bus once who was in labor, couldn't afford to call an ambulance and had to change buses twice to get to the public hospital.)
Now, let's say a person already has the children when s/he has to go on welfare (to stop a tangent about who should or shouldn't have children....) and then gets a minimum wage job (or slightly higher) and that job runs past the time the child care places close and the buses stop running (assuming that minimum wage would pay for child care and transportation).
How do you propose such a person advance out of dependence on welfare if they can't get to work, have a monumental commute or have no way to care for their child while they are there?
Most people who are trying to get off welfare are not going to be fast tracked into well paying jobs with on-site child care or relatives who can take on the job. I don't care if the film The Pursuit of Happyness makes it appear that anyone can do it....
...most people can't. I've spent most of my professional life trying to help people figure this all out, and the statistics are disheartening.
sabine
quote:Later perhaps. The rebuilding would follow naturally if capitalism "knew" that a profit was offered by doing so. If the inhabitants want business they must attract it. And to attract business you must make it profitable. Detroit's governing heads would love nothing more than to see those million-plus denizens return, bringing revenues and commerce with them. Money, properly applied to the challenge of rebuilding, could accomplish that. The "trick" is, how do We The People" get the bankers' fat kiesters OFF of "our" money supply?...
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Well then, Merlin, why don't you take some venture capital and start up a business or two on vacant Detroit land?
quote:I accept that reality. Many, many people wanting to get off welfare can't for a plethora of practical "roadblocks" like this one. Until the infrastructure is built to provide other opportunities, the kind of case you illustrate with would be limited to very local options: which, if not offering any real advancement yet, would necessarily have to be "gov't work" only or mostly, until such time as enough capitalism had revived to offer a real paying job closer to home, or the expanded public transit to get to a job further away. And child care services could simply be one of the endless "gov't work" tasks provided; so that roadblock, at least, would go away almost immediately. With the money flowing, almost all of these perceived problems would be "paid off" so to speak....
Originally posted by sabine:
...
How do you propose such a person advance out of dependence on welfare if they can't get to work, have a monumental commute or have no way to care for their child while they are there?
Most people who are trying to get off welfare are not going to be fast tracked into well paying jobs with on-site child care or relatives who can take on the job. I don't care if the film The Pursuit of Happyness makes it appear that anyone can do it....
...most people can't. I've spent most of my professional life trying to help people figure this all out, and the statistics are disheartening.
sabine
quote:Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
quote:Hmm... is paying states' bills a power expressly given the federal gov't in the Constitution?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
quote:Yes. The tea partiers seem to be against almost everything-- or at least everything Obama-related. But I've yet to figure out anything they're for.
Originally posted by sabine:
Merlin, I admire your willingness to brainstorm strategies to change the way the governments (federal, state, local) deal with a variety of issues.
It's this very willingness to actually try to come up with scenarios that seems to be absent with many of the tea party folks I know or have heard. They seem to have some sort of generalized anger and anxiety (culture of fear?) that doesn't allow them to do more than call people out and engage in shouting matches....
Polarization is the bane of problem solving.
sabine
quote:Okay, I concede that "organized crime" was not the most correct use of a term: it is venerable, "old world" in origins, and has nothing to do with economic situations per se. But there is less attraction to get involved with it when the economy and less committed (dangerous) options are available. The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing, and yes it is organized "crime" when it operates outside the official gov't.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Except none of that is true is it. You may be able to rewrite history in your own head but don’t expect anyone else to accept it. A strong economy has no effect on organized crime, only desperation crime. Firstly the 20’s were a period of incredible economic boom, not a tanking economy. They weren’t called the ‘Roaring Twenties’ and the ‘Golden Twenties’ for nothing. And the mafia and gangs in America were powerful throughout the twentieth century and even now – haven’t you ever seen Sopranos? Or Godfather, Casino or Goodfellas. They may be fictional representations but they are all based on real life and all are set long after WW2. In fact from what I understand, the levels of organized crime have only increased after WW2, not decreased. And this was nothing to do with the economy either. It was mainly to do with the ease of access to drugs. You don’t appear to have a clue about this subject.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I repeat: capitalism is the key to prosperity because it allows self-interested humans to earn and keep private property without hinderment. Get capitalism booming in Mexico and the crime bosses and gangs will lose their momentum: very few people turn to crime when legitimate opportunities to advance are on every hand -- as in the heyday of US expansionism before the Great Depression; which didn't happen overnight; the 20's were riddled with organized crime because the economy was already tanking; whereas after the 2WW the revived capitalist economy stabilized everything and organized crime faded proportionally....
quote:The federal government can't pay its own bills without massive deficit spending. Those 17 states that do send more to the federal government than they are taking in sure don't have the money to subsidize the other 43 states. What makes the federal government able to do it is more of a willingness to borrow money than is allowed by most states.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:Hmm... is paying states' bills a power expressly given the federal gov't in the Constitution?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Wonder if tenthers realize only 17 states can pay their own bills without federal help?
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Here's an interesting analysis of the 10th Amendment stuff:
"Tentherism"
quote:
First posted by MerlintheMad:
Get capitalism booming in Mexico and the crime bosses and gangs will lose their momentum...the 20's were riddled with organized crime because the economy was already tanking
quote:So crime is not a result of a poor economy any more, you've now decided off the top of your head that its actually a result of population growth. Brilliant. Except that's bollocks as well of course. But don't let that stop you.
And then...
If organized crime has increased it is because of population growth.
quote:I don't know about organised crime in Germany in the 20's, we were talking about the US. You claimed the economy was tanking in the 20's in the US. I said that was rubbish. The situation elsewhere isn't relevent to the point.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But your assertion that the "roaring 20's" was some kind of economic boom is qualified by the rest of the world.
quote:Maybe in the middle ages. Nowadays organized crime is about making money; basically just like your much vaunted unregulated capitalism.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing,
quote:Ah, so you agree with us after all? You are a socialist!
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "fix" to capitalism is to balance it with Fed welfare, so that those unfortunates who fall out of capitalism during "tipping point" episodes, fall into the "safety net".
We can argue about the nature of that safety net: how it ought to be structured, funded and managed and by whom, etc. But we require it all the same, in the end, and that's the real issue today being hotly debated.
quote:Are you intentionally obfuscating what I said? I admitted that "organized crime" wasn't the best term to describe what I meant by asserting that crime goes down in a boom economy.
Originally posted by Hawk:
So crime is not a result of a poor economy any more, you've now decided off the top of your head that its actually a result of population growth. Brilliant. Except that's bollocks as well of course. But don't let that stop you.
quote:I wasn't talking about organized crime in Germany, but its actual capitalist economy, tied to the rest of the world.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But your assertion that the "roaring 20's" was some kind of economic boom is qualified by the rest of the world.
quote:
I don't know about organised crime in Germany in the 20's, we were talking about the US.
quote:It sure is! Just because most Americans didn't see the crash coming doesn't mean that the "business is booming" at home wasn't a false picture. Capitalism is world-wide. That was entirely true in the 20's. What happened to Germany (largely France's fault, but condoned by the UK and USA) directly caused the Great Depression. So American economics were sabotaged by the harm done to Germany.
You claimed the economy was tanking in the 20's in the US. I said that was rubbish. The situation elsewhere isn't relevant to the point.
quote:Organized crime is clearly "feudal" in structure. Each boss has a bigger boss and sworn followers who will turn up armed and with deadly intent if commanded to. "Money" is a convenience. Where it is in short supply other commodities will suffice. Feudalism is always about making "money", i.e. getting rich and powerful and staying that way....
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The whole reason why organized crime got invented was as a clan/family safety net against the rest of the world; feudalism (so-called) is just a brand of the same thing,quote:
Maybe in the middle ages. Nowadays organized crime is about making money; basically just like your much vaunted unregulated capitalism.
quote:I'm not an economist, but this seems similar to the WPA programs that were implemented during the Great Depression.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have, above, outlined my fix; with loans to the cities, counties and States, to fund "gov't work" projects and galvanize capitalism at the same time. I am convinced it would work. Something like it needs to be implemented at once.
quote:Maybe a law, not an amendment.
If nothing else, some amendment needs to compel these kinds of loans, so that the bankers can't squat on the money we need flowing constantly. Flowing money is the life blood of capitalism. It is stupid to blame capitalism as the evil cause of our troubles: when it is selish people who are that cause....
quote:Do you agree with me, that capitalism needs to be unfettered? If not, then you are likely the socialist, not me.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:Ah, so you agree with us after all? You are a socialist!
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "fix" to capitalism is to balance it with Fed welfare, so that those unfortunates who fall out of capitalism during "tipping point" episodes, fall into the "safety net".
We can argue about the nature of that safety net: how it ought to be structured, funded and managed and by whom, etc. But we require it all the same, in the end, and that's the real issue today being hotly debated.
quote:With the obvious differences: that the Fed is not overseeing or attempting to fund the work projects at any level; that with a compulsory lending law in place, the money now will flow (where it did not then). The solution, it seems obvious to me, is to compel the money flow. Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
I'm not an economist, but this seems similar to the WPA programs that were implemented during the Great Depression.
quote:I get where you're coming from (I think....) but there have been some attempts at work-for-welfare already, and they tend to result in a two-tier system....
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
quote:There is, and I admitted that running this system would be complex!
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:I get where you're coming from (I think....) but there have been some attempts at work-for-welfare already, and they tend to result in a two-tier system....
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Cities, counties and States will draw loans, put their people to work in exchange for goods and services (welfare for honest, consistent work), resulting in a stimulated local economy: and the Nation-wide effect will be a rescued "national" economy as capitalism recovers, the "safety netters" diminish in number, and more paying jobs are restored and created, thus paying back the loans....
...two people doing the same job at the same pay level. One person gets a wage which s/he is free to spend on whatever s/he wants (because that person did not come to the job "needing the services") while the other gets foodstamps or a housing voucher or credit toward some other service and is not free to spend as s/he wishes. In the end, the work-for-welfare becomes as much a trap as straight welfare does.
If you bar the first person (the one who doesn't need welfare) from having the work-for-welfare job, you run the risk of diminishing his/her chances of obtaining employment and you create a "indentured" situation for the second person.
I don't know if there is a third or fourth option out there that would take care of things.
sabine
quote:But you wrote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am a "born again capitalist" through and through.
quote:Which is as good a piece of socialist analysis as anything. Its exactly that kind of dangerous thinking that set Marx off on the road to Communism.
...the answer to radical, long-term change is causing the laborers to see that what they do is effecting the changes: it is their own work which is changing their world. If the laborers perceive that they are controlled by outside interests, they will never believe in the changes: "That I individually am helping make the difference".
quote:So, what you propose is not that the state owns business, but that it controls them...which is mercantilism...which is what Mexico has. Ergo, you wish the US to be like Mexico.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I wanted to clarify that this system is all about intent. The intent of making banks let go of the money
quote:Thanks for the clarification of your vision. I'm not saying this to be contentious, but your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
First of all, the person employed with a paying (capitalist job) would declare income; that would either disqualify them from obtaining "gov't work" (and the welfare attached with it), or only a partial subsidy for "gov't work" by the underpaid. Second, the "gov't work" is not employment in the same sense that it is any sort of regular, guaranteed job: it isn't ever supposed to turn into some permanent competition with capitalism. In fact, the materials and training and supervision would all come from capitalists. Third, there is no "locked into" tier for the working welfare recipients: part of the services provided would be education. With the skills obtained "on the job" and at school, an out would be provided for those who become qualified for paying (capitalist) jobs....
quote:Not at all. I want "the State" to regulate the currency, "provide for the general welfare", so that it can afford to keep unemployed people busy working and get them back into capitalism as soon as possible. That is not mercantilism. I don't know what you call it: but the State does not regulate capitalism in my world view: rather, it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So, what you propose is not that the state owns business, but that it controls them...which is mercantilism...which is what Mexico has. Ergo, you wish the US to be like Mexico.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I wanted to clarify that this system is all about intent. The intent of making banks let go of the money
quote:Left of right, to be sure. But I am probably a "centrist" in just about every angle of politico-philosophy you'd care to bring up. I want unfettered capitalism, because that's how abundant productivity is achieved without gov't ownership or control over it (I am ultimately an advocate for private property, no matter how much some happen to acquire); and I want a "safety net" on the local level provided by money borrowed FROM capitalism (not taxation)....
Originally posted by sabine:
Thanks for the clarification of your vision. I'm not saying this to be contentious, but your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left.
sabine
quote:Not getting snarky here; how does one go about this without regulating capitalism?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
quote:The only regulation I am proposing is making it illegal for banks to refuse loans to incorporated cities, counties and States: this frees up the money. The Fed regulates the money in circulation so they have a special one to one relationship with banks, the ones compelled to make the gov't loans to fund the welfare for work programs.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Not getting snarky here; how does one go about this without regulating capitalism?
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
it protects people from the caprices of capitalism by providing a "place" for those, rendered null and void BY capitalism, to recover....
quote:That's a nice romantic myth, and it sells, but it's not true.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...as long as people are free to pursue their dreams and can get their hands on the money.
quote:Hmmm, Great Depression caused in large part by poorly regulated capitalism. The regulation which followed cannot have had anything to do with the relative stability which followed, can it? Loosening regulations contributed to the current problems, what is the solution? Unfettered capitalism!
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This perception that capitalism needs regulating (reining in, curtailing, moderating) is inimical to the very core dynamic of capitalism. When such controls are implemented and capitalism doesn't work the gov't gets blamed and more regulations are endlessly sought:
quote:Tomatoes, tomahtoes.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
a combined system does not need regulating beyond defining what is legal and what is not
quote:Please point to which laws/regulations caused the current mess.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
(which we have plenty of already)....
quote:No, it is not. Yes, it creates a few uber rich. Your envy is showing! Life on earth for humans is not fair. And the last thing anyone should expect is that Gov't will see to it that life is fair for everyone. What hubris! And the mass of envious fall for it every time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Unfettered capitalism produces monopolies and the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. This is hardly deniable given the history of capitalism in this country and the world. Capitalism without regulation is a recipe for poverty and exploitation.
quote:Leave off the personal attacks or take it to Hell.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Your envy is showing!
quote:I think some perfectly normal centrist policies are defined as "liberal" by the dominant right-wing voices in the media. And for a lot of Americans words like "liberal", "left-wing", and "socialist" have all been drained of meaning other than as insults (and are not even dfistinguished from each other or from "Marxist" or "Communist") Its all part of the almost complete domination of American media by the political right.
sabine replying to MtM:
... your ideas do seem to be in a slow drift to the left.
quote:The reason the government tries to make life fair for everyone is that by not doing so, it risks social unrest and revolution - i.e. Russia, France, China, etc.
No, it is not. Yes, it creates a few uber rich. Your envy is showing! Life on earth for humans is not fair. And the last thing anyone should expect is that Gov't will see to it that life is fair for everyone. What hubris! And the mass of envious fall for it every time.
quote:Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
Perhaps the answer is to be free to try and get rich too. The Law won't allow the super rich and powerful to destroy your efforts: not in the America of the free capitalists, it won't. But in the America of His Oness's "fair distribution" the reworked Law will absolutely prevent you from rising "above yourself": all the while preserving the uber rich who happen to be in power (wielding The Law in their own self-interest)....
quote:Besides, the lack of (upward) mobility for the lower and middle classes and the increased power of the "uber rich" has been a trend for a few decades now, regardless of which party is in power. I want to blame it on Reagan and his "trickle down economics" and deregulation, but I don't know enough about politics and economics to say that for sure. Plus I was a teenager during the Reagan years, so I don't have a lot of first-hand awareness of how things were before. At any rate, what's going on in the economy right now predates the current administration.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
Perhaps the answer is to be free to try and get rich too. The Law won't allow the super rich and powerful to destroy your efforts: not in the America of the free capitalists, it won't. But in the America of His Oness's "fair distribution" the reworked Law will absolutely prevent you from rising "above yourself": all the while preserving the uber rich who happen to be in power (wielding The Law in their own self-interest)....
It's a lovely myth that this can happen in the U.S., but the incredibly unequal educational system and ongoing economic/geographical apartheid prevent it in the vast majority of cases.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
- think of Henry Ford. He wanted to sell more cars, so he paid his workers enough so they could buy cars. The policies Republicans since Reagan have wanted to implement are the equivalent of Henry Ford saying that if he wanted more people to buy cars, he needed to give more people jobs, which he could do if he payed them very little so as not to reduce his own profits, which, of course, he would use to give more people jobs. You can see that wouldn't have worked, right?quote:Your mistake is in assuming that social mobility is only upward. The US has created an almost perfect engine for driving its citizens down the economic ladder...
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Ha! America has the worst social mobility measure of every western economy, save the UK and Italy. It is far more difficult for a person to move from poverty to wealth in the U.S. than it is in Canada, Scandinavia or Australia.
quote:Indeed it is. It seems to drive most of what Merlin says. I already picked up on it goodness-knows-how-many-pages ago when we had a little debate about why so many people are eager to emigrate to America.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This idea that everyone in American can get rich is a powerful myth.
quote:If I had a dollar for every refugee who has told me that they were shocked to find themselves (after resettlement) trapped in a system that doesn't allow them to create secure lives for themselves in the US (after enduring terrible hardship elsewhere) I'd be able to start a charity to help them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Indeed it is. It seems to drive most of what Merlin says. I already picked up on it goodness-knows-how-many-pages ago when we had a little debate about why so many people are eager to emigrate to America.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
This idea that everyone in American can get rich is a powerful myth. [/qb]
I think it's because they believe the myth. It's certainly one that America seems keen to perpetuate.
Perhaps it wasn't a myth back in the pioneering days.
quote:The rich and powerful usually aren't held to the same standards as everyone else. They can and do walk all over all sorts of people. (Though there are good folks with wealth and power who try to do good in the world.)
In a nation where individual civil liberties are held up as the most inalienable rights, the law defines behavior and policy for the uber rich too: they can't just walk all over the working classes.
quote:Your "tempered by realism" American Dream is almost as unrealistic as the original--a huge number of people never got any of those things, nor had a chance to get them. Even during the period when you thought they did.
The "American dream" is tempered by realism: very, very few workers are inventive, persistent and lucky enough to make it rich in any big way. But we all know that while getting more dollars is the goal, meanwhile we don't go hungry, we buy our own little house somewhere (temporarily, of course, while our dreams are alive), our children get educations and end up better and smarter than we are, etc. We never become anyone the world knows about, but we shop, grow older, change cars, houses and possessions numerous times and then we die and our STUFF gets grabbed by children and siblings, etc. Capitalism produces so much STUFF that there's more than enough for everyone to enjoy without ever being "rich" by American standards. The rest of the world, especially the developing world, looks on America with envy and wonder. And life is good.
quote:Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
Obviously, without these intents, "my" system will not work. But if the main mass of Americans possess these intents, then no matter how many hitches in our git-along crop up we will overcome them. The intent will make the corrections naturally. As long as money flows and people work for what they obtain nothing can stop us....
quote:This is where Merlin suddenly and dramatically reveals that he is, in fact, a Hollywood scriptwriter.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
quote:Of course I was not blaming it all on America (bold in your quote is mine, too).
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, maybe we need not blame it all on America (for values of America = people long since absorbed and assimilated). In my Vietnamese community the myth is eagerly propagated by many of the very people most hurt by it--namely, the new arrivals who are living in the slums. A few of the dimmer sparks among them do things like going to Cadillac showrooms and taking pix of themselves to send back home with the note "This is my garage." And of course there's always the idiot who wants to pick up points with a lovely Vietnamese-based girl he could have never lifted his eyes to before. "Yes, darling, I've earned my PhD in six months!" (= piled higher and deeper)
Oh, the humanity.
If only I had spanking privileges.
quote:I don't know if you're addressing what you think I said or believe. To repeat: I do not believe that America is or ever was a country where anyone can get rich. If people believed that it is only because there are enough exceptions to the rule to be popular urban legends: and, there is the very real productivity and prosperity here to make life good (unless life is only good for you if you're one of the rich, then in opinion you have an attitude and values problem, but that's another subject for discussion).
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...
So the idea that anyone can become wealthy in "free" America is a myth. America isn't free if you're poor. You are every bit as trapped as you'd be in an authoritarian state. There may be people who manage to move up, but that is as much luck as skill.
quote:"Rose-colored", not at all. I am an idealist. What's the point of working for less than the ideal?
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Merlin--
FWIW, you seem to have a rather rose-colored view of capitalism. I realize that, for anyone, that goes along with finding The Answer (tm) to a problem.
But...some of your comments seem divorced from the realities of everyday life.
...Has it been your experience that if you really want something and work really hard to get it, that you can always overcome obstacles???
quote:If someone was to say to me in person "But basically what you're saying is that it's perfectly ok for the state, county and city to fuck you up the ass, but God forbid the federal government make the attempt, right?" I'd probably just toss a quarter in their cup and move on.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Baseball game's over. Right now, and I suspect in common with quite a few participants in this thread, I'm not sure you've got any real kind of answer to Erin's challenge. But I'd be interested in reading a serious response, rather than an assertion that the challenge is asinine. I mean, if it is asinine, then it should be easy to demonstrate that. Please show us the donkey. Sometime soon?
quote:If you're talking about my post, it was something Erin posted as a response to one of my posts a few days ago. Those are her exact words. I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Well, I've lost the context of THAT response entirely. Care to bring me (us) up to speed?...
quote:Plenty of them in the tea party.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
quote:In any party.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Plenty of them in the tea party.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I guess some folks think hyperbole is the greatest thing ever.
