There’s no doubt there’s a fiscal mess that is suffocating the process and functions of our federal government. There’s also no doubt the economy has taken a dive when it comes to jobs and our standard of living.
Unfortunately that may be the only point of agreement Americans can find. That may prove tragic, for one party absolutely refuses to compromise on finding solutions.
The debt has been politicized by the Right, allowing them to manufacture and define a “crisis” to implement their radical agenda. Remember when Cheney said, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”? My, how things change when Republicans are out of the White House.
Now it’s all Obama’s fault, along with those liberals who’ve had so much unchecked power over Wall Street and multinational corporations. They’re the ones who did it. Just ask a Republican.
What happens when you ask a Democrat?
Asked by radio host Tom Joyner about the current state of the struggling economy, Obama replied: “George Bush left us a $1 trillion deficit, and so it’s a lot harder to climb out of this hole when we don’t have a lot of money in the federal coffers.”
That was understating the situation. Bush left us multiple catastrophes of war, recession, torture, and the destruction of our Bill of Rights with unchecked warrantless surveillance.
The Washington Post branch of corporate media said Obama was “playing the blame game”. Yes, That's what it is to them, a game. Nothing real, no substance here, as they get all excited about a dozen tea cult members carrying signs. Now THAT would be news.
What happens when you ask the American people about who’s to blame?
In a recent AP survey, 51 percent said that Bush deserved “almost all” or “a lot but not all” of the blame for the “country’s current economic problems”. Just 31 percent said the same of Obama.
The poll also shows:
Regardless of how you might vote, do you think President Barak Obama…
Deserves to be re-elected:
November 2010: 39%
August 2011: 47%
Deserves to be voted out of office:
November 2010: 54%
August 2011: 48%
This poll is yet another example reflecting why Republicans really dislike democracy. They want to blame Obama for the mess, and want him to fail in repairing the damage. They don’t want the people’s voices to be heard in government policy, especially when the majority wants the old tax rates restored on the rich. It conflicts with the demands of Big Money.
The Right’s campaign for the destruction of the US government as an entity of, by and for the people through “starving the beast” is proceeding as planned. Debt and deficit are the tools they deliberately use for this purpose. That’s why they always jack up the debt and then scream about it when they’re out of the White House. It’s an old pattern that cannot be denied, except, of course, by the fanatical Right.
The conflict is between Corporatist Republicanism and Democracy. Corporatist Republicanism has been gaining for over three decades and Corporatocracy has never been stronger.
Democracy is losing. People who need jobs are losing.
Obama will make a speech on jobs next week. Will it be more than just words? If he expects Republican cooperation in a jobs program it will not happen.
Because Democracy is losing, Obama may lose too, unless he can find the nerve to actually oppose Corporatist Republicanism. He still has the people behind him if he cares to lead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
89 comments:
Republicans didn't even let Obama deliver his "jobs" speech on the day he chose. I haven't followed that particular issue so maybe there's something valid that I missed. But it just looks to me like the 937th time the Republicans have said "No! Bend over!" and Obama replied "Oh, OK. I don't want any trouble."
I don't have respect for a guy who won't fight. There's no fight in the President, or the Democratic led Senate.
It's election time, so he will tell us what we want to hear, just like last election.
The mess is the Republican's fault, but if you think Obama can't lose, think again.
As for this speech "time" issue; Obama wimped out again. I'll be watching the Packers.
Government is at fault entirely for this economic and debt crisis. It doesn't matter if it's Bush's government or Obama's. It's still government. As long as our country runs a Keynesian model we can expect more of the same.
Bush ran one.
Obama has run one.
Even you admit there is no real difference between the two.
It's gonna be another election where we are blessed with the opportunity to choose between, a Douche and a Turd Sandwich.
Free, it seems a bit sad that you don't give the bankers any credit for their victory in getting the US converted to such a system..
Have you ever thought that it isn't the President the GOP wants to fail, but that his failed liberal policy's fail to become law of the land? So that these failed liberal policy's will not destroy America any further.
Tom H,
I think the White House wanted to get their own evening for the speech.
TOM,
Go Pack, GO!
Free,
Were it so simple. I don't know what Keynes had to do with two wars, tax cuts for the rich, giveaways to Big Oil, and no negotiated prices for Medicare drugs etc., but government does not operate in a vacuum. Its strings are pulled by wealth and influence.
Wease,
Either way, we lose.
Anonymous troll,
Your sharp insight, impeccable reasoning, cold hard facts and deep wisdom are needed to save the world. What are you doing here, for God’s sake? Surely you know we can't handle your brilliance.
Now run along. Go teabag Obama, before Obama teabags you.
No comment. Just subscribing.
TOM speaks for many millions of independents in saying, "I don't have respect for a guy who won't fight."
Unfortunately, that's not what polls have shown, not what Obama and his political advisers have deduced from poll results, not what several Democratic pollsters and strategists have advised. No, like Howard Fineman and some other media pundits were saying in 2007-2010, millions of independents wanted Obama, congressional Democrats and Republicans to sit around the camp fire singing Kumbaya and reaching constructive compromises.
Well, Obama tried to do that past the point of lapsing into abject, spineless nonsense. Look where it's gotten him. Within days of Rick Perry entering the GOP primary race, Gallup showed him tied with Obama if the election was held then. And that poll you quoted, Dave, take out the margin of error and it's too close for comfort.
In truth, independents think — and tell pollsters — they want one thing when in reality what they want is a president who tackles hard problems, puts forth workable solutions and, if necessary, fights like hell to make those solutions realities. Independents, Democrats and probably some Republicans want solutions and results.
Now, having done everything in their power to make Obama look like a sap and a weakling for trying to reason and compromise with them; after obstructing his every effort every way they could, Republican and tea party bullies, and their right-wing noise machine, are spewing their framing propaganda for the coming election: Obama is a weak, failed president who can't deliver results.
If Obama doesn't do a 180 and start fighting, he's going to lose in 2012. Independents, no matter what they've told or will tell pollsters, will lead the way in buying into the GOP's defining propaganda about him.
My twist on what TOM said is, when millions and millions of people see a president getting out front, fighting hard, long and in a determined way for what's right, what needs to be done, they'll line up behind him. Some might not be his biggest fans. Some might have reservations about aspects of his plans. But if they perceive their president is convinced his goals are right and his plans will work, and see he's doing whatever it takes to get his plans through and achieve his goals, they will support him.
They will not only support a president doing that, they'll start calling out the bullies, telling them to get the hell out of the way. (Remember when Obama asked people to call their rep and senators during the debt ceiling brouhaha?)
And, even if the president gets stymied one more time, they will remember he gave it everything he had, and they'll be willing to vote for him. They could very well vote for enough Democrats to get the obstructionists out of the way. That has happened before.
We'll see if Obama finally gets it, and if he's capable of waging the kind of fight required.
SW,
This bit from Maureen Dowd's August 20th column says it all.
LuAnn Lavine, a real estate agent from Geneseo, a rural town just up the road from Alpha, Ill., the last stop on the president’s Midwestern bus tour, told The Times’s Jeff Zeleny: “Everyone was so hopeful with him, but Washington grabbed him and here we are. I just want him to stay strong and don’t take the guff. We want a president who is a leader, and I want him to be a little bit stronger.”
President Obama bashed Congress on his bus tour. But after delegating to Congress time and again with disastrous results, he continues to play the satellite to Congress.
He shouldn’t be driven by the Washington schedule. He should be setting it.
Dave, you ask "Who's to blame" and "Who's fault?" Can you specify the "what"? Who's to blame for what?
I'm not trying to be intentionally dense; I just want clarity for the discussion.
Personally, I'm growing tired of trying to figure out who's to blame for our politics. Isn't it time we move forward with solutions instead of circling each other and pointing fingers?
HR,
I really wonder why you need to ask.
51 percent said that Bush deserved “almost all” or “a lot but not all” of the blame for the “country’s current economic problems”. Just 31 percent said the same of Obama.
There's not that much to figure. The blame lies mostly with Bush the Decider, and Obama is taking increasing responsibility. That is what the poll says.
But the “blame” goes further, of course. Clinton didn't bury us in debt like a Republican, but his "surplus" came with the huge price tag of significant, corporate-friendly deregulation of Wall Street and banks. Clinton additionally advanced the power of Corporatist Republicanism with his signing of corporate written trade agreements.
Presidents can do a lot of damage, but often they get help. Sometimes they have even been overridden by external pressure. It doesn't take a detective to figure it out. Most of their names are known to people who pay attention.
We're talking about who's to blame on the economy? That's what I was afraid of. You mentioned red herrings like wars on terror and torture, so I thought this thread might be going down a different path.
I'm getting tapped out on the economic blame games. The right points to Obama's economic record while the left performs amazing feats of verbal gymnastics to blame Bush for things occurring on Obama's watch.
You mention 30 years of corporatism, but we're only finding blame now because Obama's economy sucks. If the economy were strong, we'd be onto better topics. Corporatism (as you describe it) seemed to work just fine for most of the 90s. No complaints when things were booming from 2003 to 2008.
It just seems like an easy scapegoat when times are tough. If so-called corporatism was as bad as you say, we wouldn't have any good times.
Maybe I'll sit out this round if we're just rehashing the same old arguments.
How many jobs did the war cost exactly? How many homes were forclosed on due to the war? How many bankruptcies did it cause?
I'll grant it contributed to the invisible tax of inflation. About 1/14th of it.
The war didn't trash this economy, debt did. Private debt held by banks and by regular old normal people who were your neighbors. Every economist worth anything Austrian or Keynesian will tell you that. Hell, the Keynesians will tell you war helps economies... I belief I don't share. That aside, we could pay for a full FOUR global war's on terror with the stimulus spending that's gone on since 2008 and it has only made the problem worse. Much worse.
What made it much, much worse was bailing that debt out and thinking government is going to bring order to this economic chaos through manipulation of markets from D.C. What is needed is economic correction and regulator and tax stabilization. Our President isn't interested in any of that. He's running the Krugman model, and it's failure was predicted like we had an economic magic eight ball.
Quit crying about perverse economic incentives out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other screaming for more perverse incentives. The more you statists try to fix this with the state the worse off everyone is going to be. Markets and prices work, not micromanagment.
Heathen Republican, you said...
"Maybe I'll sit out this round if we're just rehashing the same old arguments."
Yeah, good idea. I guess your relative youth has kept you from seeing and understanding the rise of corporatism within our corporate-state over the last thirty years. You have nothing to compare it to. It's all you've experienced.
(I know, I know, as your comrade, Free0352, once replied to me when I made the same statement, "I can read." My reply: Why don't you?)
John Myste, you said...
"No comment. Just subscribing."
Subscribing is free. Commenting will cost you a pound of flesh.
The Republicans are attempting to launch a coup d'etat using a concerted and massive disinformation campaign as a springboard. I hope this time the electorate will see through their ruse.
I’m amazed at the selective thinking, or cult-like false beliefs, that the wars and tax cuts have nothing to do with our debt. And how the debt and job losses magically occurred on Obama’s watch after things were “booming from 2003 to 2008”.
There is simply no reasoning with authoritarian cultist beliefs. Their “reality” is Limbaugh’s lies and FOX(R).
Amazing. As fascism comes to Amerika, the true believers welcome it as their salvation from democracy and progressivism. The true believers are much like the “Good Germans” of the 1930’s.
I wonder what Krugman would say if he was told Obama is running the “Krugman model”? Those of us who read already know this is as absurdly false as thinking wars are not a huge source of our debt.
“Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.” This seems insane at first. But this inverted Orwellian thought control is alive and well here in Old Oceania.
Jack is right, although disinformation is too kind a word. It is outright lying and fear mongering, employing the classic “mobilization of resentments” the GOP is famous for using way back in the “Southern Strategy” days. They have mastered it now.
The Right should be very happy. Money is power and Big Money is getting its way. They’re doing just fine. And their only concern about the government debt is to use it to frighten people into voting for Republicans so they can have all the wealth, instead of almost all of it.
Anonymous says, "Socialism Fails & Kills."
Yes, there are more than 50,000 fatalities every year on public roads in the USA alone.
I don't think socialism means what you think it means.
Anonymous says, "Have you ever thought that it isn't the President the GOP wants to fail, but that his failed liberal policy's fail to become law of the land? So that these failed liberal policy's will not destroy America any further."
Good point, I wish these liberal policies had failed when Bush enacted them, and not been continued by Republican Plant President Barack Hussien Obama.
My dog is s Centrist. When I raise my voice, she rolls over on her back and wets herself.
S.W. Anderson says, "We'll see if Obama finally gets it, and if he's capable of waging the kind of fight required."
I'm with all the way up to this point.
I firmly believe that Obama has proven that he gets it.
He's doing exactly what he wants to do. He's achieving exactly what he wants to achieve.
He is clearly a strong winner that is accomplishing all of his goals.
You are just misinterpreting his goals by assuming he's telling you the truth about what they are.
Remember, "All war is deception." - Sun Tzu
I honestly believe that Obama is a Republican plant. The Republican party is well known for installing candidates in opposition parties.
His job is to destroy the Democratic Party from the inside, while promoting the Republican agenda. I believe he is one of the biggest Republican success stories we've seen in a long time.
The Republicans were once fond of laughing at the Russians, saying the stupid occupation of Afghanistan and the huge expense of their military buildup, played a large role in the bankruptcy of the USSR.
Then these same people told us that the US economy is too strong to be affected by wars. The booming US Economy (really? In 2002?) is going to keep getting better and better. If anything the economy will be booming during war time. After all, this time is different.
HR, we're engaged in a long process. It's instructive to understand how the varied players have contributed.
You make an interesting point about how the Economy was best under Clinton in the 1990s... But Dave was right. Clinton did a great job of masking the problems for a while, while contributing to the mess.
If you want to talk about other issues involved in this problem, I'll point you to the verifiable fact that in spite record breaking investments, energy production worldwide has been essentially flat since 2005. We had a peak in 'All Liquids' production in 2008, but even the EIA admits that BTUs per barrel has been steadily decreasing. Oil burned to make other oil products isn't subtracted so total production can count some energy sources twice.
Even in the US Natural Gas rigs cost more than ever and drilling has been breaking all time records. Yet, production has been relatively flat since 1970. We're running harder and harder to stand still.
The reason this matters is that all human industry requires the consumption of energy to operate. As our population grows and to power economic growth, our energy sources need to keep growing.
They aren't growing. And in spite of all of the talk about efficiency improvements to cars and such, it still takes about the same amount of coal to produce a ton of steel as it did thirty years ago. some of the most famous efficiency improvements don't really scale through all sectors of the industry economy.
So if energy is flat, industry must be flat, yet finance must keep growing to pay interest on debt. This devalues the value of money. He prints first, gets the most value. By the time consumers get a dollar, prices have risen and it's lost value.
This is the root cause of our economy woes. The end of growth in energy.
and yes, theoretically there is lots of energy locked up in shale and such.
But it's not the total amount of energy that matters.
It's the rate that you can extract and burn it that matters.
Weasledog wrote: "Anonymous says, 'Socialism Fails & Kills.'
". . .I don't think socialism means what you think it means."
When I was growing up, during the Cold War, millions of Americans who couldn't write two coherent, factual paragraphs about what communism is, where it came from, how it's supposed to work, etc., had a habit of labeling anyone they didn't understand, like or were suspicious of as commies. "Communist" was an all-purpose put-down and demagogs' epithet of choice.
Turns out all those communists under all those beds — the Birchers even said Ike was one — were as impotent as they were inept. The U.S. never succumbed to their evil plans, but the Soviet Union and East Bloc collapsed, and the People's Republic of China is now teaching us a thing or two about capitalism.
Currently, some of the same people, and millions of younger ones equally uninformed and misinformed, carry on the tradition by labeling those they don't like, trust or understand as socialists.
Someone cuts you off on the freeway? He's a socialist. The boss dumps on you at work? She's a socialist. Your fast-food order gets screwed up — surely the work of teenage socialist counter help.
No surprise, then, that our dark-skinned Kenyan president with a Harvard education and simmering grudge against white folks is out to enslave us all by bringing on a socialist hell on Earth right here in Murka. Just ask his adviser and ambassador to corporate America, Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, or the CEOs of GM and Chrysler.
Wease,
Aside from the end of growth for energy, the multi-nationals have insured the end of growth for American jobs and standard of living.
They are well on their way to dominating all governments in their own version of a new world order. It's not the UN that all the paranoids believe will take over. It is Big Money. What a surprise.
SW,
Don't you know Immelt is now a Socialist?
Breaking news, John Boehner has just introduced legislation to move Labor Day to China...
Wease,
And Labor Day will be officially replaced by Serf Day. No pay or time off for their lesson in austerity. Time to punish the little guy and make him work for his Lord for the privilege of being a laborer.
Because the socialist see's fascism in less government and freedom in greater power to the STATE.
This is of course why it's failed every where it's been tried. That's not Democracy, the ultimate serfdom to the STATE is what you advocate. Thank god that line of thinking has never been popular in this country and falls out of favor with the few who bought it every day.
Hold on true believers, I like hearing your woes.
Free / Dave,
I think you are confusing exchanging one master for another as freedom.
If a few corporations essentially rule everything, then they are the masters. If instead, the government controls it all through "socialism," then it is the master.
Either way you have a master. However, only in one case do you have vote on who the master is, though the vote may be puny, indeed, as your vote cannot easily compete with the power of the support of a large corporation or two.
Which scenario is democracy again?
I have to admit no one mischaracterizes quite like Mr. Free does. Nowhere have I seen greater power than what was seized by the Bush/Cheney cartel by their unitary executive usurpation of unconstitutional power. This meant torture, wars of aggression, warrantless surveillance, and building the security state apparatus, all without oversight or investigation. This is the fascism. This was the real greater power of the state, brought to us by Mr. Free’s Fearless Fuhrers.
Social safety nets are government public services. The Right hates the idea of government of, by and for the people. This is the “Tyranny” that the Greedy Old Plutocrats and Rand Cult fear. Medicare is tyranny. Social Security is totalitarianism. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. War is peace.
Mussolini understood fascism as corporatism. Business is not democracy, and government must be free of big business control for democracy to exist. There's no democracy when corporate power has super legal personhood and unlimited "free speech" in bribery money. The unaccountable, unconstitutional corporate state mixed with radical Right war-mongering is the death of democracy and root of fascism.
If a democratically elected government is powerless over the wealth and influence of the multinational corporations and economic Royalists, there will be no freedom, no democracy. And they are winning. Democracy is losing. Go celebrate that triumph of the will, Free.
Dave,
You last comment should be its own post (only without a reference to Free).
I would think people would not have to totally agree with it to agree that it a very well-expressed explanation of a common theme, and that alone makes it good.
John,
Alas, some of my best expressions are buried in the comment threads.
Yes, a return to a government that more closely resembles the one crafted right here in 1787 in our Constitution minus the slavery.
As opposed to your ideal in FDR that instituted internment camps, New Deal totalitarian control, and a sedition act. Heck, under your ideal, even booze was illegal.
Whose more closely emulates fascism?
Free,
No one but you mentioned an ideal of internment camps and prohibition.
Your logic would suggest that a pretty girl is not pretty if she also steals.
Finding something flawed in an ERA does not make the good things about the ERA bad.
You are an award-winning logician. So I know you know this already.
Myste
You're just ignorant of my position. Hayek proves in Road to Serfdom than socialism always leads to things like the Japanese internment camps or anti-chinese laws. The stronger the state, the greater the oppression. It's a 100% outcome, it's practically a law of nature.
I know your arguements back and forth, too bad you don't know mine.
Free,
I only addressed the arguments you made, which were logically flawed. I admittedly failed to address the arguments you did not make.
In the future, however, I can be persuaded to do this. You have but to ask.
Good John, now go back and read all my comments made on this blog the last couple of posts and this time try to remember them,
Try to keep up son, you're slow.
I hope everyone had a safe holiday celebrating socialism in the USA.
If you don't believe in the American labor movement, then I hope you boycotted Labor Day went to in for a hard day's work.
After all, you don't want people to think you're a socialist, right?
free0352 said... "Myste
You're just ignorant of my position. Hayek proves in Road to Serfdom than socialism always leads to things like the Japanese internment camps or anti-chinese laws."
So this is the inevitable result of a having a government that provides services in exchange for taxes?
If we don't want to lose all of our rights, we have to get rid of the socialistic aspects of our government, like the US Military, public roads, public sewer services and the like? Because these government provided services are destroying our freedoms?
Free, can you tell us about your own efforts to free yourself from the dependance on socialism?
Have you made any personal life choices to disconnect yourself from government socialism?
For instance, have you...
1. Shut off city your socialist city water supply?
2. Disconnected your abode from socialist city sewage services?
3. Dispose of your garbage without using any socialistic services managed by your city?
4. Arranged to use private police and fire services, and given notice to the city that people who work for those services are not allowed on your property?
5. Removed your mailbox and posted notice that the US Postal Service is not to deliver mail to you. Granted, the US Postal Service is a private corporation, but it operates under a government charter, and that aspect is socialist.
6. Avoid all public roads and right of ways? When you travel, you only use privately owned roads?
If you haven't started you fight in your personal life against socialism, do you plan to? Which services would you boycott first?
Weaseldog, just to remind you, Free0352 lives off the government by playing army man each day. He probably lives in government-paid housing, using government-paid or provided utilities. I'm sure his police is military, and his firefighting services are gratis of Uncle Sam. Unless he receives all his mail through FedEx, I'm almost positive he relies on the U.S.P.S. like every other libertarian in America.
You see, like many libertarians, Free0352 is a hypocrite. If he were true to his creed, he'd quit the military and get a position in the private sector. But, you know that's not going to happen. He's hooked on the outstanding benefits and he's looking forward to that military pension after twenty years.
He's playing the system for all it's worth. Then he gets on his blog and demonizes those who pay his salary, or have to resort to collecting unemployment benefits they've paid into all their life.
His beliefs are beliefs in thought only, never to be put into action, lest he'd have to give up the benefits that he's grown so used to and hasn't earned. He is what he purports to disdain. In a word, he is a phony.
Oh, I didn't realize or I had forgotten, that Free0352 was a member of the largest and most expensive socialist organization in the world.
Thank you for letting me know Jefferson's Guardian.
Weaseldog, you're welcome. My pleasure...
I have a lot to respond to, let me take it a step at a time.
1. Shut off city your socialist city water supply?
My house uses well water.
2. Disconnected your abode from socialist city sewage services?
I have a septic tank.
4. Arranged to use private police and fire services, and given notice to the city that people who work for those services are not allowed on your property?
I'm capable of defending myself.
5. Removed your mailbox and posted notice that the US Postal Service is not to deliver mail to you. Granted, the US Postal Service is a private corporation, but it operates under a government charter, and that aspect is socialist.
We don't have mail delivery in rural Kansas, I maintain a P.O. box at my expense.
6. Avoid all public roads and right of ways? When you travel, you only use privately owned roads?
No, or course not.
The point here is this, and it's one you already know so don't insult my intelligence.
LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT ANARCHISTS.
Anarchist- Most often, the term describes a person to adheres to a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.
Contrast this with
An a person who adheres to a political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.
Notice... the first one wants NO government, the second wants a limited government. These are not the same things. I'm the a Libertarian. Contrast this with
Socialist- Social democracy is a political ideology of the center-left on the political spectrum. Social democracy is officially a form of evolutionary reformist socialism. Social democracy supports class collaboration as the course to achieve socialism. Social democracy advocates the creation of legal reforms and economic redistribution programs to eliminate economic class disparities between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
That last one of course - would be you guys.
The issue where we disagree is redistribution. Not all government is socialist. When it becomes socialist is easy to determine. When money is taken for a public work like say a dam, or a road or the Army it's government doing what it was created to do. That is NOT socialist. When government takes money from group A and gives it to group B not because of services rendered but because government thinks group B deserves it more... that's socialism. That can take many forms. Social Security is a good example. Medicade is too. So are food stamps, or subsidy for large oil corporations or insurance firms.
It's not the concept of a state I'm against... as you already know... it's the practice of wealth transfer - which is destructive and oppressive by it's very nature.
As for the military, it's need is self explanatory. National Defense is as important as self defense. That in this day and age requires trained professionals. I'm one of them.
I am a bit amused however about some of the rather silly misconceptions some of you have about our pay and benefits package.
Firstly, we don't live on base, second if we do we pay to live there. Average Soldier pays 1400 a month in bills to live on post, the housing on which is run by the Picerne Corporation. That's right, it's privatized.
Further, we also pay co-pays on our insurance, and our once vaunted pensions are being transitioned to a 401k. All these of course we earn in exchange for our WORK... unlike the recipients of say - Social Security Disability, HUD, ADFC, Food Stamp recipients, people in public housing, adults on medicade, or any other number of government services designed to equalize the results of liberty the by depriving Group A for the benefit of Group B.
But you all already knew that.
5. Removed your mailbox and posted notice that the US Postal Service is not to deliver mail to you. Granted, the US Postal Service is a private corporation, but it operates under a government charter, and that aspect is socialist.
We don't have mail delivery in rural Kansas, I maintain a P.O. box at my expense.
So you're saying the postal workers do not place mail in your PO Box? Further that your PO Box is located on your own private property?
6. Avoid all public roads and right of ways? When you travel, you only use privately owned roads?
No, or course not.
Socialist. Using my tax dollars for your own personal benefit.
The issue where we disagree is redistribution. Not all government is socialist. When it becomes socialist is easy to determine. When money is taken for a public work like say a dam, or a road or the Army it's government doing what it was created to do. That is NOT socialist.
Actually it is. It very definitely is.
You have dedicated your life to socialism by becoming a ward of the US Military.
I can understand how your emotional attachment to an ideology makes you blind to this, but you're as socialist as anyone can be.
You're more socialist than I am, because I work in the private sector, where as, I pay your salary with my tax dollars.
And you have the gall to whine that other people are living off your tax dollars.
As for the military, it's need is self explanatory. National Defense is as important as self defense. That in this day and age requires trained professionals. I'm one of them.
You're the one preaching that socialism is destroying America and needs to be eliminated.
I pointed out that the world's largest socialist organization in the world is the US Military to show you that socialism can be beneficial.
It's difficult to see how your position isn't anarchist. you want all government programs eliminated because these socialist programs are destroying America.
I suppose the gov could keep taxing the oppositional and only provide services to elite clients. You might think that's better.
"I suppose the gov could keep taxing the oppositional and only provide services to elite clients. You might think that's better."
The spell checker can certainly turn a phrase...
"I suppose the gov could keep taxing the people, and only provide services to elite clients. You might think that's better."
Weasel, you seem to think you've stumbled onto a brilliant argument, but you're convincing no one but yourself.
The Heathen Republican said..., "Weasel, you seem to think you've stumbled onto a brilliant argument, but you're convincing no one but yourself."
I know. the Tea Party Ideology is a religious faith, applied to politics.
And faith is belief without reason.
I do understand why the Tea Party belief system is impervious to reason or facts.
It's the same reason that they come to believe in the most simplistic arguments handed down to them by the FOX News Disciples.
Much of the information that disproves their arguments is hidden in books. Thick books with small print and few pictures.
Books like, "The Federalist Papers". Some of that collection can be found online, but be warned it's a long read to get to the end... It's may not be nearly as interesting as the reality show, "Fish Noodling".
Thomas Jefferson, the many who wrote most of the Bill of rights, US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was well versed in classical literature and very interested in history and politics.
And though HR, you don't believe there is any reference in the Us Constitution to the 'common welfare', I assure you it is there, and it is any idea that comes from the idea of the commons.
The commons (you'll disagree here), is any resource held for the benefit of the community, and held in trust by the government to be shared according to agreed upon rules.
In medieval times, a commons was a place set aside in a township or community for the grazing of livestock. Each family was allotted the right to graze a certain head count for a certain length of time, and then the next family got a turn. A steward (person or council) would oversee the management of the commons to make sure that it was not abused or overgrazed.
In this model, there is still an authority in charge, making this a socialist construct.
The Diggers went further and claimed the commons as property of all with no central authority. This is considered one of simplest models for communism.
I know you've probably already decided that I'm making all of this up. But i assure you that this information is in fact hidden in books and on the internet.
I have to thank Free for introducing me to Hayek. I found his essay "Why I'm Not a Conservative" interesting.
Also according to Wiki, CATO's Ebenstein attributes to Hayek, "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
I will read more out of curiosity. Something tells me Hayek is more grounded that Rand. I have no further interest in reading her crap. One book was enough.
I'm guessing the socialism that Hayek is condemning is more like the Soviet central planning and government-as-sole-employer variety, which is communism, compared to socialized programs what we have, or Canada has.
Which illustrates the Right's great disconnect in their conflating socialism with communism.
I think we need to re-establish what Americanism is, since corporatism, fascism, socialism, and maybe even communism are all reflected to some degree by our government. Of the four "isms" socialism is clearly the most compatible with democracy.
Dave Dubya, you brilliantly observed...
"Of the four "isms" socialism is clearly the most compatible with democracy."
Bingo!
OK, I am sorry to butt in and vent a bit, but my sanity demands it.
It is funny how this label of socialism is bandied about in order to refute ideology. It is especially funny when award-winning logicians try it (if that ever happens). Ideologies are right or wrong for reasons other than the labels we append to them. “Oh yeah! That is tantamount to socialism,” is an argument someone would use if they had plenty of emotion and no rebuttal.
Everyone here is a socialist and everyone here is a capitalist, each to one degree or another.
No one here actually believes that any of the rest of us promotes true “equality of results” or ex-Soviet Union style socialism (cannot use Marxism because I am convinced not a single person who posts here knows what it is). Socialism as a form of government is shunned by all.
Anyone who pretends to believe that others here are promoting a true socialist structured society, a la Soviet Union, is lying for the emotional effect of the lie. There is no reason to believe such an absurd thing and you are all way too intelligent to think something that idiotic without a reason for thinking it. That someone disagrees with your ideology is not a reason for thinking they are a true socialist, meaning they advocate that form of government over capitalism.
Trying to reason with someone who is intentionally lying about your position is pointless. They are not mistaken in this case, but lying. You cannot reason someone out of a lie. It is a complete waste of time. If they could refute your argument without a lie, they would leave the lie in favor of logical rebuttal. If they do not, it means they are beaten and have no choice but to resort to lying.
We all falsely accuse each other at times. Those with integrity soon discover the false accusation and apologize. Then there are those whose main argument is a false accusation. They will not admit to this, as that would seem tantamount to offering a concession, and they cannot abandon a strong stance they have taken: how embarrassing.
Of course, I don’t mean to indict anyone here specifically. You are all gentlemen of the highest order, paragons of virtue and symbols of the utmost integrity. I just mean to express my frustration about liars who unwilling or unable to have an intellectual reason-based debate, and to thank God no one here falls into that category.
Weasel, I'm not sure why you decided to pick a fight with me, but I think I'm up for it.
But first, your bastardization of Free's position -- suggesting that he believes ANY GOVERNMENT is the same as SOCIALISM -- is not fooling anyone. And then extending the argument so that anyone who avails themselves of government services is thereby a socialist is just nonesense. But now to your main attack.
"HR, you don't believe there is any reference in the Constitution to the 'common welfare,' I assure you it is there, and it is any idea that comes from the idea of the commons. The commons is any resource held for the benefit of the community, and held in trust by the government to be shared according to agreed upon rules. [blathering about medieval times]"
First, you should be referring to the General Welfare Clause, not "common welfare." As such, your exposition on "the commons" is entirely irrelevant. (Look it up. It's in books and the internet and stuff.)
Second, instead of offering your own historical interpretation of what our Constitution says about the government's responsibility for maintaining the general welfare, why not just look at what the clause itself says, as well as the public discussion about it in the Federalist Papers. No need for medieval interpretation here.
Madison, for example, understood the preamble to the Constitution as prescribing the limited ends of our federal government, followed by the enumerated powers which define those ends more precisely. The General Welfare Clause expands the federal government's power beyond the enumerated powers, but only to accomplish the ends outlined in the preamble. (See Federalist 41.)
Finally, let me highlight that the General Welfare Clause is a primary area of contention between conservatives and progressives. Progressives use a modern definition of "general welfare" so that it is the government's responsibility to take care of our individual needs. Conservatives prefer the original definition in its original context. We will not agree here, so there's little point in going further, but let's just say our Constitution was not written to allow the federal government to provide for any individual's general welfare using a modern progressive definition.
To people like our friend Mr Myste, none of this will matter since he offers no reverence for those who founded our nation. But to those who appreciate the rule of law, it's nice to know that we don't get to make things up (like "common welfare") as we go along.
"I have to thank Free for introducing me to Hayek. I found his essay 'Why I'm Not a Conservative' interesting."
Dave, you have misunderstood Hayek, but you're not the first lefty to stop reading at the title. If you reread Hayek's essay Why I'm Not a Conservative, you will learn that he is not speaking of modern American conservatives. He states very clearly that American conservatives are the same as "a liberal in the European sense."
It's important to note that a liberal in the European sense is also not the same as an American liberal; American liberals are more closely aligned with European Social Democrats. He's referring to classical liberalism, not the American leftism to which you subscribe. (I covered this a few months ago.)
I think I just got whacked by loose shrapnel. I did not even know I was on the battlefield.
It would seem that what a few men 200 years ago wanted is our perpetual rule of law, regardless of what is right or wrong.
We think they wanted humanity's intellectual evolution to stop with their deaths.
We think that because they wanted humankind stunted, human kind should be stunted. It is the rule of law.
Are we sure they were morons?
WeaselDog,
do you work for the Post Office?
since we are discussing the benefits of Socialism, and one of top ones always mentioned is the US Postal Service, does anybody know what we can do to stop the profuse bleeding of it? it seems the solution is to have the taxpayers just "Lean Forward" and pull the wagon harder to fund that "progressively run" institution!
does anybody when Amtrak will make money?
is America's biggest monopoly, The Public School System, a big unaccountable sink hole of taxpayer money?
Dave, the old USSR Was ruled by a handful of capitalists that used their ownership of the government to maintain monopolies over all of the major industries in Russia.
This is neither socialist or communist, but pure fascist. It's not viewed that way I think, because people tend to think fascism requires a dictator, and in the USSR the major power rested with a committee. But it was a committee of the businessmen that owned everything.
HR says, "Progressives use a modern definition of "general welfare" so that it is the government's responsibility to take care of our individual needs"
Are you talking about the Progressive Republican mission to give $billions in free welfare subsidy money to donors that give bribes to friends and family?
Or are you talking about the Democratic Progressives who are exactly like the Republican Progressives do, but lie about it all?
Thanks for the meaningless quibble over general welfare and common welfare. I made a mistake. The framers quibbled a lot over words. The concept remains. Do you have an argument for the term 'common defence'?
Harry from Mass said..., "WeaselDog,
do you work for the Post Office?"
Nope. I work in private industry.
since we are discussing the benefits of Socialism, and one of top ones always mentioned is the US Postal Service, does anybody know what we can do to stop the profuse bleeding of it? it seems the solution is to have the taxpayers just "Lean Forward" and pull the wagon harder to fund that "progressively run" institution!
Raise the price of stamps. They can go higher and still remain competitive with the $10+ letter fees that other corporations charge.
If the postal service is closed, be prepared for a big increases in surcharges to cover billing costs for utilities and the like.
The Post Office saves businesses many $billions a year. It adds to the productivity of our nation.
But it should at least be breaking even on costs.
"does anybody when Amtrak will make money?"
Our freeways and highways don't turn a profit either, and enjoy many $billions in subsidies without anyone making a fuss.
"is America's biggest monopoly, The Public School System, a big unaccountable sink hole of taxpayer money?"
I think schools for the masses are on the way out. Our Federal government has been systematically destroying the quality of our education system. An uneducated population would be easier to control.
Television and Radio are a proven way to train a large segment of the population through repetition. It's been proven in numerous studies that if you simply repeat something over and over in different forms to a group of people, over a period of time, 20% of them will come to believe it, no matter how preposterous it is.
Another 40% can still be trained but it takes longer.
The latter 20% can be trained to some degree, but require constant reinforcement.
The last 20% are highly resistant.
Nobody really knows why this works out this way. It's the same techniques cults use to brainwash their members.
On television and radio, you'll see the media stay on a topic for days, with constant commentary on what you should think and how you should think about it. It might be a missing rich white girl and the scary dangerous foreign place, or the scary dangerous policies of an insane politician.
It works the same either way.
See Aldous Huxley for some excellent talks on the topic.
Wease,
Rightists seem to think the government should be profit oriented rather than service oriented. Money is their only measure of value.
Both Soviets and Nazis were totalitarians, but they had conflicting ideologies somehow.
But the bottom line is fascists prosper from fascism. Communists prosper from communism. Corporatins prosper from corporatism. The people benefit from socialism.
HR,
Hayek admits to the limitations and seeming contradictory and flexibility of the terms liberal and conservative. But his support of safety nets allows for some socialist programs. He mostly attacks communism, central planning. Govt ownership of industry, etc. He unfortunately uses the term socialism for it.
“You will learn that he is not speaking of modern American conservatives. He states very clearly that American conservatives are the same as "a liberal in the European sense."
So the title would more accurately be “Why I’m Not a liberal in the European sense.”?
From “Why I’m Not a Conservative”:
At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as "conservative," it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense. Note: (B. Crick, "The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism," Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that "the normal American who calls himself 'A Conservative' is, in fact, a liberal." It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.)
This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.
This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.
"Thanks for the meaningless quibble over general welfare and common welfare. I made a mistake."
Weasel, you didn't simply misspeak when you said "common welfare." You offered four paragraphs trying to justify common welfare and its place in our Constitution and government.
So no, I don't have any argument for the terms "common welfare" or "common defense." You've drifted off topic from Dave's post, off topic from any of my comments, and if you have an argument to make, you have your own blog.
More from “Why I’m Not a Conservative”:
***
Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.
I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.
And once more from “Why I’m Not a Conservative”:
***
Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all.
By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries.
In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others.
Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.Note: ( Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, ed. H. Paul (London, 1913), p. 73: "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class.")
Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.
Come to think of it, this is also why I am not a conservative.
Dave, you won't believe me but I feel compelled to set the record straight. You're uninformed on Hayek. I say that respectfully.
The proper understanding, given Hayek's European focus in that essay and the current American understanding of "conservative" and "liberal" would be to reverse the terms.
If you attempt to read Hayek using modern definitions of loaded political labels, you will completely miss his points and draw erroneous conclusions.
You are misleading your readers and being irresponsible.
HR says, "You've drifted off topic from Dave's post, off topic from any of my comments, and if you have an argument to make, you have your own blog."
You don't have to read comments from people who aren't FOX News Parrots. Unless of course it's your job to monitor blogs.
You're welcome to skip my posts.
My points about the commons remain, even though you are correct, the word 'general' was chosen instead of 'common' as the the exact wording of the US Constitution was debated.
You deny that the 'commons' was a concept the framers were familiar with or referred to in any of their deliberations, yet an internet search finds quite a few links. Here is just one quote.
a conceptual basis for partial, limited property rights, without completely collapsing the notion of property into the idea of a temporary, limited, utilitarian state grant, revocable at will. [At the same time it offers] a moral and philosophical justification for fencing in the commons, giving the author property in something built from the resources of the public domain—language, culture, genre, scientific community, or what have you. If one makes originality of spirit the assumed feature of authorship and the touchstone for property rights, one can see the author as creating something entirely new—not recombining the resources of the commons. - Thomas Jefferson on Copyright Law
The Heathen Republican said... "If you attempt to read Hayek using modern definitions of loaded political labels, you will completely miss his points and draw erroneous conclusions."
As I read those paragraphs, I felt that Hayek did a very good job in explaining precisely what he meant when he used those words.
It's your prerogative to believe that Hayek applied the wrong definitions and descriptions to the labels he used. You are welcome to feel that Hayek must be interpreted differently than Hayek clearly intended in these writing where he spelled out exactly what he meant.
But I respectfully disagree with you.
In fact, his description of a conservative fits the modern day definition very well.
Could it be that the reversal of labels you are actually intending to refer to are the labels 'Democrat' and 'Republican'? It is true that Democrats were once the conservatives and Republicans were the liberals. When those parties switched positions, the meaning of the words conservative and liberal were not also switched.
If you like, you're welcome to tell me you don't like what I'm saying, and that I should go away. It doesn't bother me when you write things like that.
"You deny that the 'commons' was a concept the framers were familiar with or referred to in any of their deliberations..."
No I didn't. You're boring me.
I still don't know why you introduced this topic or why you directed it at me. Please don't tell me. I've lost interest.
"If you like, you're welcome to tell me you don't like what I'm saying, and that I should go away. It doesn't bother me when you write things like that."
You seem to have me confused with someone else. Goodbye.
HR,
I have misunderstood nothing here. Hayek’s words speak for themselves.
The essay was published in the US in 1960, not in 18th Century Europe. Nixon was a conservative then. He would still be one, except to the radical Right, that has now gone off the map into delusional madness.
You confuse "proper understanding" with "Rightist revision".
Only your Orwellian Rightist redefinition of words would change Hayek's critique of conservatism into a critique of modern liberalism. He has described Republican American conservatism, whether you agree or not. He supports safety nets, whether you agree or not.
We've all learned when a Republican says we don't understand words, it is because we reject their unilateral re-definitions. This would be just as true in front of one of the "socialist" Obama "Death Panels".
Okay Dave. I don't know why I'm arguing with you about labels. Hayek was a man of ideas.
If you're a new convert to Hayek, then I welcome you to the fold.
The Heathen Republican said... "I still don't know why you introduced this topic or why you directed it at me. Please don't tell me. I've lost interest."
Of course you did. We strayed out of bounds for the Tea Party Talking Points.
I am posting a couple of paragraphs by Thomas Sowell that asks a question I'd like to see how those who post here, answer.
"With charity as with everything else, it cannot simply be assumed that more is always better. A “safety net” can easily become a hammock. “Social justice” can easily become class warfare that polarizes a nation, while leading those at the bottom into the blind alley of resentments, no matter how many broad avenues of achievement may be available to them.
Judging businesses or their owners by how much wealth they give away — rather than by how much wealth they create — is putting the cart before the horse. Wealth is ultimately the only thing that can reduce poverty. The most dramatic reductions in poverty, in countries around the world, have come from increasing the amount of wealth, rather than from a redistribution of existing wealth.
What kind of world do we want — (A) one in which everyone works to increase wealth to whatever extent they can,
or
(B) a world in which everyone will be supported by either government handouts or private philanthropy, whether they work or don’t work?"
If these were the only two choices we had for our type of world, which one would you want?
Anon,
What kind of world do we want — (A) one in which everyone works to increase wealth to whatever extent they can,
or
(B) a world in which everyone will be supported by either government handouts or private philanthropy, whether they work or don’t work?"
Put your false dichotomy away. I want both A and B, and I want the support included in B to be minimal.
As for your other statements, they are just regurgitation of conservative faith. There is no point to rebut or acknowledge. Your opinion on how things must be is noted.
Explain how you can have both A and B?
Other posters please,
A
or
B
?
I don’t answer irrelevant and misleading questions with false choices.
Anon,
I want people to have to work to Prosper. I want property to be a product of work. That is A. I want all those who are able to make a living to be forced to use that ability.
I want more oversight in entitlement programs to make sure they are not abused. This is more of A.
Now for B:
I also want all children in America to have food and clothing, regardless of how capable their parents are. I want all the elderly to have heat and medicine, regardless of how successful they were in the past. I want everyone to be able to afford housing. I want all single mothers with deadbeat Dads to be able to provide for their children.
I want both A and B, as do all people in America who want B. Your false dichotomy betrays a deep confusion about the main questions involved.
The argument Jefferson and Weasel make is false.
To sum it up, I'm a hypocrite because I support free market solutions but use government services and am a government employee. The reason it's false is simple... I'm not an anarchist. I believe some government is fine, we simply have far too much. My priorities for that government can be found in the United States Constitution. I believe "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean PROVIDE the general welfare.
But I can flip this line of thinking on it's head. It would seem the ideal of the ones making this arguement are creatures of the extreme. Their solution is one of a powerful state that provides all necessity to it's citizens. History shows us the consequences. When government is powerful enough to give you everything you have, it is powerful enough to take away everything you have.
For example, look as these two have suggested AT THE MILITARY.
The military does indeed have many socialist overtones... including an authoritarian power structure. If the military is socialist as these two suggest, then it should be the greatest arguement against socialism. Joining and staying in the military is a matter of choice and so when I join it I accept certain precepts of it. Jefferson and Weasel would force this socialism upon every American regardless of personal choice - leading of course to the inevitable authoritarian rule.
Ok,John and Dave,
I want B, how can I go about make that happen for me? Who should i support in the next elections, what group should I join?
Hope that's not a problem or too much of a "false dichotomy" for ya?
dichotomy
"A division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."
So my question is not representing two things that are not entirely different? Explain how that is?
"misleading questions and false choices"? What kind of questions do you answer Dave?
Anon,
LOL.
Look up "false dichotomy." It is a named fallacy in the soft science of logic and critical thinking where one commits a fallacy when he presents a false choice, choose A or B? He commits this fallacy one of two ways. 1. There are more options than just A or B and he left the rest out or.... 2. The options he presented are not mutually exclusive.
You looked up the wrong term, sir.
@Anon, I mean @Caw,
Ok,John and Dave,
I want B, how can I go about make that happen for me? Who should i support in the next elections, what group should I join?
Hope that's not a problem or too much of a "false dichotomy" for ya?
Very good. No dichotomy there. I did not realize you wanted B, but I am pleased. I think it is the more evolved desire. As for the one to support in the next election, you are screwed. Obama is more likely to give us more of B than Perry is. Support Obama and pray that he gets a democratic Congress and allows them to do his job for him.
That’s what I intend to do.
I am glad you are on board, Caw, my brother. My next advice is to use a name other than Anon, so no one mistakes you for some moron using the same name. We wouldn’t want that to happen.
Go SSA. Go Medicare! Go increased top marginal revenue! Did I miss anything, Anon?
P.S.
I don’t think I like calling half the blogging world Anon. It’s like naming all your kittens Boots. When you call for Boots, Boots comes running even though you didn’t call him.
It is like Jack Handy once said: “The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.”
So, I cannot have this. I will refer to you as Caw from now on. I would have chosen Boots, but that seems somehow disrespectful.
Well said, a vote for Obama and Democrats is a vote for "B".
Cant wait till Nov. 2011 to cast my vote for the easy life.
Caw,
I think your assumption that more than half the American population is nuts may be premature.
NEVER count on a conservative Teapublican to tell the truth---they're totally incapable of that!
Post a Comment