|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
Wait, what? They are political. What's the problem with that though?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:28 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote:
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?). Chew on this quote for a few seconds: "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman" First of all, capitalism isn't a political system. I can name socialist democracies and capitalist authoritarian states.
And I think Milton was wrong, at least as far as the untouched market is concerned. Black people weren't able to book hotel rooms in the South, but their money was just as good as anyone else's. You might say that creates a market for hotels that cater to blacks, except that there were a number of barriers to that, including the city councils as well as coalitions of the hotels who wouldn't serve blacks. Then you want government intervention to regulate discrimination, but in doing so the market forces are no longer in charge.
Eventually something might happen, but not within an election cycle. Therein lies the problem.
|
On April 16 2009 04:40 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Also just to point out that they are protesting big government: President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent. The last 8 fiscal years.
09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
It's doesn't mean that protesting big government is wrong. It's that if you trust the Republicans to shrink government when in power, you have to check your memory. Republicans were never the party of small government when they were in power. The party and its principles are disjoint.
People like to look at the Bush years and then project what they saw onto history and say that Republicans have always been like Bush. Its not a good way to think.
Table 1: Change in Real Spending for Each Presidential Term since LBJ
![[image loading]](http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_chart_derugy_20040610a.gif)
Table 2: How Many Departments' and Agencies' Budgets Have They Cut?
![[image loading]](http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_chart_derugy_20040610b.gif)
Also, when talking about who exercises fiscal restraint, it is tempting to simply think that whichever party has the presidency must control all of the government when this is not the case. We see in the above charts that there were some cuts during the Clinton years and yet it has already been admitted in these forums (in other political threads) that Clinton did NOT balance the budget, but rather the Republican congress led by Newt Gingrich. There were HUGE battles over this with Clinton wanting to spend more and Newt saying no...so much that the government was shut down for a time because the budget was not done on time (many here might be too young to remember this).
It IS true that recently Republicans have betrayed conservatives (for which we are all angry), they are still the (slightly) better option of the 2 parties for a person who is genuinely conservative.
Also one more thing to remember, when people look at the Reagan years, we see that he cut domestic spending but increased spending on the military (very large amounts of money), but trying to judge those actions by our own 2009 point of view is pointless. We think we have things to worry about today (like itty bitty Iran and N. Korea), but people from 1950-1980s had something REAL and very scary to worry about. And no matter how you analyze it and argue it, you can't get away from the fact that after 30 years of stalemate with USSR, it finally fell on Reagan's watch. So you can't judge his foreign policy by your 2009 point of view (which is hard to do since we are all so young here that we didn't experience it first hand).
|
He probably meant, that it's a Republican effort.
But actually, it is a Libertarian movement.
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association.
|
On April 16 2009 04:53 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 04:28 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote:
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?). Chew on this quote for a few seconds: "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman" First of all, capitalism isn't a political system. I can name socialist democracies and capitalist authoritarian states. And I think Milton was wrong, at least as far as the untouched market is concerned. Black people weren't able to book hotel rooms in the South, but their money was just as good as anyone else's. You might say that creates a market for hotels that cater to blacks, except that there were a number of barriers to that, including the city councils as well as coalitions of the hotels who wouldn't serve blacks. Then you want government intervention to regulate discrimination, but in doing so the market forces are no longer in charge. Eventually something might happen, but not within an election cycle. Therein lies the problem.
True, but would black people or anyone else hated in a totalitarian regime be treated better than they would in a capitalist democracy?
People are very hard to manage and no matter what you do, there will be injustices, but the (mostly) free market is the best thing to happen to humans since....(put in whatever you want)
Your realize that for almost ALL of recorded history, there was essentially 0 economic growth? That all changed very recently and capitalism had a LARGE part in that.
|
United States22883 Posts
When the USSR fell is highly misleading. Reagan certainly had a bigger impact than say Carter, but it would require an entire comparative analysis on the 50+ year period to really find where the greatest impact was had. I don't intend to do that here, but I'd wager that the majority of it fell on the other side of the fence (Soviet politics had more to do with it.)
I don't think comparing presidency figures like that is very good either. Both parties increase bureaucracy, in Reagan, Clinton, Bush and soon-to-be Obama. They just like it in their own direction. I don't think Reagan destroying the CDC's budget is evidence of fiscal conservatism, I think it's more representative of his take on their work and his inclination to spend for the military. Historically this is even more evident. The Southern Democrats loved government money as long as it didn't have anything to do with labor unions or black people.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:58 HeadBangaa wrote:
He probably meant, that it's a Republican effort.
But actually, it is a Libertarian movement.
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association.
Ok, lets clarify this because I don't think you and Savio are on the same page.
Liberalism = Limited federal governement and spending
Conservative values = promotion of family/religion/etc.
I think Savio falls in both. You?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:00 Savio wrote:
Your realize that for almost ALL of recorded history, there was essentially 0 economic growth? That all changed very recently and capitalism had a LARGE part in that.
I understand what fragmentation and competition does for growth, but that's the biggest explanation for why it happened in the last century.
|
Yes, I am half libertarian and half traditional conservative. But I disagree with both on several points
|
I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
|
On April 15 2009 15:51 Caller wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2009 15:40 Railz wrote:On April 15 2009 15:33 Savio wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
-
If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.  Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something? No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops. Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
That is incorrect; Congress always had the power to tax incomes.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
But, being a direct tax, an income tax would have had to be apportioned among the states in order to be constitutional as per article I section 2.
The Sixteenth Amendment merely lifted the apportionment requirement.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:15 Savio wrote:
Yes, I am half libertarian and half traditional conservative. But I disagree with both on several points
I think there's a libertarian movement going on, not so much a conservative one. But we'll see. I do think Beck and co. are just demagogues though. That includes bleeding heart liberals as well. Had McCain won, they'd be doing something similar, only they'd be stocking up on $5 Vitamin Water instead of ammunition.
Did you watch the President's speech last night? I haven't yet, but I heard it was a boring, economics lecture. Makes for terrible television, but it's much better to listen to than overdramatic crap.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote:
I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
|
United States12240 Posts
On April 16 2009 04:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 00:35 Excalibur_Z wrote:On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote:
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.
First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha.
Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism. First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog. The fact that he qualifies they might be taken out of context, or that he "desperately hopes he is wrong" is just as likely used as a cover to make extreme remarks. "I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's a fire in the theater" doesn't change the basic premise of the statement. Show nested quote +Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom. Do you seriously get your political theoretical analysis from Glenn Beck? Hell, I'm sure you can get Road to Serfdom on tape and maybe even Constitution of Liberty."Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush." No, it's not a surprise because he came about on the coattails of the conservative revivalism that brought Bush into power, not because he was a bipartisan figure. Being on CNN isn't really any better or worse than being on Fox or MSNBC, ie. Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs. You talk about defending freedom, but what was Glenn's take on the Patriot Act? He's against bureaucracy, but how did he feel about the creation of DHS? He calls himself a libertarian, but he isn't.
All fair points. Glenn was certainly a "me too" conservative talk show host, but what most people are missing is that he's been in the industry a lot longer than the few months he's been featured on Fox News. For some reason, people believe that once you appear on FNC you lose all credibility. I'm sure you believe that he had none to begin with, but I'll shy away from that partisan matter.
As for his positions on the issues you mentioned: he was apprehensively in favor of the Patriot Act, but didn't like the broad power increase of the government (which was also my position, I was a little more in favor of it), though after seeing how the government has begun to strip rights away and take advantage of the situation, he is now vehemently against its renewal (so am I). He was also not in favor of the creation of DHS (neither was I) primarily because it is yet another bureaucratic entity. Certainly sounds like a libertarian position to me.
|
United States22883 Posts
Are you sure? I remember Beck being on board for the Patriot Act at the beginning and unless he's changed within the past year or two, he was certainly for it in the latter years of the Bush administration.
I was mostly indifferent until I saw the rapture idiots he brought on to talk about Iran and how Ahmajenidad was the black knight in Revelations.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote:
I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much. I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
Rule of law is really important for large scale prosperity. China had many of the inventions but since their rulers had power to steal anything and everything from private individuals, nobody worked really hard in the private sector. The competition was over how to become part of the ruling class. This applied to inventions as well. Most inventions were introduced to the public knowledge during times of anarchy, and when one political power asserted its power over the entire land, inventions also stagnated.
All systems may experience a boom with discovery of steam engines, but innovation is only rewarded and encouraged under capitalism and rule of law. Other systems will have killed innovation long before they are able to see its fruits, and the steam engine would not have been invented under any other system.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:45 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 05:28 Jibba wrote:On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote:
I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much. I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable. Rule of law is really important for large scale prosperity. China had many of the inventions but since their rulers had power to steal anything and everything from private individuals, nobody worked really hard in the private sector. The competition was over how to become part of the ruling class. This applied to inventions as well. Most inventions were introduced to the public knowledge during times of anarchy, and when one political power asserted its power over the entire land, inventions also stagnated. All parts of what you said are true, but I think that's especially important since we always like to compare it to Europe, where the warring states created much of the drive for discovery.
Other systems will have killed innovation long before they are able to see its fruits, and the steam engine would not have been invented under any other system.
Science is science. If there were no competition at all, this might be true, but there are still other forms of competition such as in between states. The USSR and China were both able to develop atomic energy, and it wasn't because of the economic systems or just by stealing secrets.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On April 16 2009 05:09 Jibba wrote:
When the USSR fell is highly misleading. Reagan certainly had a bigger impact than say Carter, but it would require an entire comparative analysis on the 50+ year period to really find where the greatest impact was had. I don't intend to do that here, but I'd wager that the majority of it fell on the other side of the fence (Soviet politics had more to do with it.)
USSR fell because Communism is a failed economic system. The pressures of trying to keep up with the US in an arms race merely exposed that dysfunction to its ruling class. If not for Reagan's arms race, the leadership of the USSR might have continued in their blissful ignorance for a few more years before it collapsed. Reagan's spending was merely kicking them as they were falling down and probably unnecessary.
|
On April 16 2009 05:12 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2009 04:58 HeadBangaa wrote:
He probably meant, that it's a Republican effort.
But actually, it is a Libertarian movement.
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association. Ok, lets clarify this because I don't think you and Savio are on the same page. Liberalism = Limited federal governement and spending Conservative values = promotion of family/religion/etc. I think Savio falls in both. You?
I wasn't responding to Savio. You quoted someone as saying, "It's just political" and you said, "Of course it is, so?" And I think that guy meant, it's a republican vs democrat thing.
I was saying, it's not republicans versus democrats.
Secondly, there is a big problem in this discussion centered on a semantic confusion. I was not referring to social issues at all, in fact, I think social issues should be left to state governments and not meddled with by the federal government. The quibbling over social issues is counterproductive because it distracts people and saps them of their political energy. I was referring to economic policy; don't get stuck on the word "value".
And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
You can infer the answer to your question at this point.
|
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote:
Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
And many of our founding fathers signed a document under which secession was illegal titled The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mii.org/Minerals/Minpics1/CoalBituminous.jpg)
