|
On March 21 2010 17:38 Rothbardian wrote:
Dude Louder, no offense, but you need a history lesson. The bankers shat on America in 1913, thanks to Woodrow Wilson. Along with that we got the Income Tax (right out of the Communist Manifesto -- Progressive Income Tax), Wilsonian Trotskyite Foreign Policy of internationalism and interventionism, WW I, and his policies which led directly to WW II, Clayton Anti-Trust Acts which destroys market competition forces, instituted the Draft, started the Drug War with the very first prohibitions, and prosecuted the Anti-War movement. This is the legacy of Progressivism which dominated 20th Century America. The only people that confronted the Progressives in America were the Old Right -- H.L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane, Robert Taft, Albert Jay Nock, Howard Buffet, Ludwig von Mises, etc. and libertarians from the 70s onwards -- Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Walter Block, etc.
Seriously? People just let this go? World War I is universally accepted to have resulted from the European system of alliances that obligated the major power on the continent to go to war, and World War II was a reaction to the Versailles Treaty's punitive reparations and the power-seeking of a madman. That whole list is a truly bizarre twisting of history. Internationalism and interventionism predated Trotskyism in the forms of colonialism and imperialism, and before that in the numerous empires throughout history. The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals. The only things in that list that actually are progressive or a result of the progressive movement are an income tax, which you still lie about by sourcing it in the Communist Manifesto, a text that called for the end of capitalism entirely and thus would destroy any ability to tax anyone's income, and trust busting, which you somehow consider anti-free market on the grounds that monopolies allow for a free market.
Please, refrain from trying to give anyone else any more history lessons, they don't seem to contain much non-fiction history at all.
|
Lincoln Davis = no. RealClearPolitics now puts nos at 211 with yes at 207. Probably still up to Stupak's block, though.
|
Did CSPAN say Stupak was a yes?
|
By the way, how about not looking at "mainstream" governments but exceptional governments? Germany is the 3rd strongest economy in the world with the highest export revenues and has a progressive tax system (tax rate ranging between 0% and 45%).
You can counter Germany by invoking the example of Switzerland. The flaw in using progressive taxation as the sole variable determining prosperity is obvious. Comparing Nordic countries to Mediterranean countries whose laws are ignored by their own citizens is the basis for a thousand false comparisons.
The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals.
Was it not the two quintessential progressives, Lincoln and Wilson who introduced the draft to the United States? Did not the modern draft begin with Carnot's reforms of the French army during the French revolution? Did not Russel Kirk make loud noises against the very idea of the draft in his essays?
|
United States43964 Posts
On March 22 2010 02:53 Melancholia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2010 17:38 Rothbardian wrote:
Dude Louder, no offense, but you need a history lesson. The bankers shat on America in 1913, thanks to Woodrow Wilson. Along with that we got the Income Tax (right out of the Communist Manifesto -- Progressive Income Tax), Wilsonian Trotskyite Foreign Policy of internationalism and interventionism, WW I, and his policies which led directly to WW II, Clayton Anti-Trust Acts which destroys market competition forces, instituted the Draft, started the Drug War with the very first prohibitions, and prosecuted the Anti-War movement. This is the legacy of Progressivism which dominated 20th Century America. The only people that confronted the Progressives in America were the Old Right -- H.L. Mencken, Rose Wilder Lane, Robert Taft, Albert Jay Nock, Howard Buffet, Ludwig von Mises, etc. and libertarians from the 70s onwards -- Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Walter Block, etc.
Seriously? People just let this go? World War I is universally accepted to have resulted from the European system of alliances that obligated the major power on the continent to go to war, and World War II was a reaction to the Versailles Treaty's punitive reparations and the power-seeking of a madman. That whole list is a truly bizarre twisting of history. Internationalism and interventionism predated Trotskyism in the forms of colonialism and imperialism, and before that in the numerous empires throughout history. The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals. The only things in that list that actually are progressive or a result of the progressive movement are an income tax, which you still lie about by sourcing it in the Communist Manifesto, a text that called for the end of capitalism entirely and thus would destroy any ability to tax anyone's income, and trust busting, which you somehow consider anti-free market on the grounds that monopolies allow for a free market. Please, refrain from trying to give anyone else any more history lessons, they don't seem to contain much non-fiction history at all.
He's a troll, I think that's why people ignored him. Although if you're going to make a list of reasons why he was wrong it's worth bringing up the fact the US turned against Wilson's interventionism which left an absent superpower for great powers such as Germany and Japan to usurp. Had the US been a part of the League of Nations then Mussolini could have been stopped in Abyssinia and Japan in Manchuria. Hitler wouldn't have dared remilitarise the Rhineland, let alone follow it with greater ambition.
|
Pomeroy reportedly a "yes" vote.
|
On March 22 2010 03:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +By the way, how about not looking at "mainstream" governments but exceptional governments? Germany is the 3rd strongest economy in the world with the highest export revenues and has a progressive tax system (tax rate ranging between 0% and 45%). You can counter Germany by invoking the example of Switzerland. The flaw in using progressive taxation as the sole variable determining prosperity is obvious. Comparing Nordic countries to Mediterranean countries whose laws are ignored by their own citizens is the basis for a thousand false comparisons.
My statement didn't mean to prove the superoirity of the German taxation on economy, but to merely show the flaw in his logic. And as I explained taking Bulgaria (or Romania/Ukraine/Macedonia) as a positive example is rather wrong.
|
Rothbardian is not a troll. He is a Gnostic sectarian with one world-enlightening idea, and runs with it. In that respect he is no different from most outspoken people.
Had the US been a part of the League of Nations then Mussolini could have been stopped in Abyssinia
You realize that the British attempts to press ineffective sanctions on Italy during the crisis aborted any chances for Laval to bring Italy into the western camp?
Appeasement would not have been weaker, but stronger had the United States directly involved herself in European affairs. Revisionist interpretations on the First World War were well-entrenched in the United States by the 1930's, and Americans were even less inclined than the British to fight, to prevent Germans from being reunited with Germans.
|
Whats everyones bracket look like? All in all I am impressed with the preformance by a bunch of teams ive never even heard of. I got lucky with the Pomeroy (had a good season) but some of the other low seed upsets might ruin me. Stupak in particular i had going out in the first round but now... i dont know. He could make the sweet sixteen.
|
On March 22 2010 03:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals. Was it not the two quintessential progressives, Lincoln and Wilson who introduced the draft to the United States? Did not the modern draft begin with Carnot's reforms of the French army during the French revolution? Did not Russel Kirk make loud noises against the very idea of the draft in his essays? You are correct and I cede that point.
|
United States43964 Posts
On March 22 2010 03:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Rothbardian is not a troll. He is a Gnostic sectarian with one world-enlightening idea, and runs with it. In that respect he is no different from most outspoken people. Show nested quote +Had the US been a part of the League of Nations then Mussolini could have been stopped in Abyssinia You realize that the British attempts to press ineffective sanctions on Italy during the crisis aborted any chances for Laval to bring Italy into the western camp? Appeasement would not have been weaker, but stronger had the United States directly involved herself in European affairs. Revisionist interpretations on the First World War were well-entrenched in the United States by the 1930's, and Americans were even less inclined than the British to fight, to prevent Germans from being reunited with Germans.
I disagree.
|
Is there anything this bill doesn't do? It's pro-market while regulating, its deficit neutral while spending $900 billion, it covers everyone, with everything, without costing anyone anything. It's the answer to civil rights struggles, saving lives, saving money, helping small businesses, keeping insurgency companies ...accountable AND tastes great without any extra calories.
|
On March 22 2010 03:38 Melancholia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 03:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals. Was it not the two quintessential progressives, Lincoln and Wilson who introduced the draft to the United States? Did not the modern draft begin with Carnot's reforms of the French army during the French revolution? Did not Russel Kirk make loud noises against the very idea of the draft in his essays? You are correct and I cede that point.
He isn't correct at all, nor were Lincoln and Wilson true progressives. While they (well, not lincoln) may have come into power during the progressive era, there are marked differences between their actions and the flow of the progressive cause otherwise. The majority of Wilson's pro-progressive content was imported from Taft's presidency.
The draft is one of the most clear cut departures.
Ford, Taft and Addams are far more representative of the spirit of the movement, but even then they fail to capture the main aspects of the movement; It was one largely borne out of the will of middle class professional white men to ameliorate the quality of life for everyone, largely motivated by the stark squalor of urban areas.
|
We'll know the fate of the bill in 30 minutes when Stupak gives a press conference. I think he will vote No.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On March 22 2010 04:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 03:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Rothbardian is not a troll. He is a Gnostic sectarian with one world-enlightening idea, and runs with it. In that respect he is no different from most outspoken people. Had the US been a part of the League of Nations then Mussolini could have been stopped in Abyssinia You realize that the British attempts to press ineffective sanctions on Italy during the crisis aborted any chances for Laval to bring Italy into the western camp? Appeasement would not have been weaker, but stronger had the United States directly involved herself in European affairs. Revisionist interpretations on the First World War were well-entrenched in the United States by the 1930's, and Americans were even less inclined than the British to fight, to prevent Germans from being reunited with Germans. I disagree.
Good post. Succinct, concise, to the point. I'm serious about that. I believe that appeasement would never work in a thousand years.
|
On March 22 2010 04:27 L wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 03:38 Melancholia wrote:On March 22 2010 03:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:The draft is hardly a progressive idea. The drug war is pandering to the conservative morals of the largely Christian right, and follows essentially no progressive ideals. Was it not the two quintessential progressives, Lincoln and Wilson who introduced the draft to the United States? Did not the modern draft begin with Carnot's reforms of the French army during the French revolution? Did not Russel Kirk make loud noises against the very idea of the draft in his essays? You are correct and I cede that point. He isn't correct at all, nor were Lincoln and Wilson true progressives. While they (well, not licoln) may have come into power during the progressive era, there are marked differences between their actions and the flow of the progressive cause otherwise. The majority of Wilson's pro-progressive content was imported from Taft's presidency. The draft is one of the most clear cut departures. Ford, Taft and Addams are far more representative of the spirit of the movement, but even then they fail to capture the main aspects of the movement; It was one largely borne out of the will of middle class professional white men to ameliorate the quality of life for everyone, largely motivated by the stark squalor of urban areas.
Then I'll stick to a neutral opinion, I clearly don't know enough about the subject. Though it does seem that you are correct about questioning whether the two were as progressive as seems to be often assumed.
|
I disagree.
That is because you are treating states as coherent actors, whereas American foreign policy was paralysed by her very character. Since you do mention the matter though, Roosevelt did approach Chamberlain in a (necessarily) secret message in on January 11, 1938, proposing greater Anglo-American collaboration in foreign policy, perhaps leading to an international conference. Chamberlain rebuffed Roosevelt's approach. Anti-Americanism in the Tory party as well as Anglophobia among American isolationists precluded greater American collaboration in European affairs.
|
On March 22 2010 02:49 Mykill wrote:having the gov pay for your health care doesn't make you socialist china... >_> its not everything will change. the government pays for you. wowww sucks man getting somebody to pay for you 
"Having the government pay for healthcare" means:
Having the taxpayers pay for tax collection + government administration of the money + healthcare. It's inefficient. If done right, it probably wouldn't be much more inefficient (it might even be better) than the current corporate-provided insurance which dominates the USA due to sixty-year-old tax breaks, but it's not like that's saying much.
And (rant) this plan isn't even being done right. The legal fuckeries which only benefit the insurance providers and medical lawyers are being left in place (because most Washington legislators are lawyers). The corporate insurance tax breaks don't look like they're going away (because corporations run the Washington agenda via lobbies). In fact small businesses - which don't have the lobbyists - are being required to provide insurance, when they probably can't afford it. Something like 50% of the US population doesn't like the thing. Even if we're idiots, what kind of representative government is that? The "yes" votes are being outright bought with unrelated stuff and earmarks. Even if I liked the bill - which I don't - I'd want it voted down because of the shenanigans surrounding it.
Then think about the problems. It's doing nothing for health care. It's supposedly reforming the insurance industry, but it's got stupid provisions like saying that private insurers aren't allowed to charge less than the government plan being implemented. The damn thing is 2074 pages long (I just looked it up and downloaded it) before anything the House has tried to amend it with, and I would lay odds there's less than 100 people in the whole US who have read it, and none of them are in Congress (I've skimmed it, not read it). It's mandating that people need insurance. Why the hell does Bill Gates need insurance? Why do I need insurance? And having insurance doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of health care. In fact it adds in extra people who have to be paid. It just adds in bureaucracy costs. (/end rant)
|
On March 22 2010 04:47 Musoeun wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 02:49 Mykill wrote:having the gov pay for your health care doesn't make you socialist china... >_> its not everything will change. the government pays for you. wowww sucks man getting somebody to pay for you "Having the government pay for healthcare" means: Having the taxpayers pay for tax collection + government administration of the money + healthcare. It's inefficient. If done right, it probably wouldn't be much more inefficient (it might even be better) than the current corporate-provided insurance which dominates the USA due to sixty-year-old tax breaks, but it's not like that's saying much. And (rant) this plan isn't even being done right. The legal fuckeries which only benefit the insurance providers and medical lawyers are being left in place (because most Washington legislators are lawyers). The corporate insurance tax breaks don't look like they're going away (because corporations run the Washington agenda via lobbies). In fact small businesses - which don't have the lobbyists - are being required to provide insurance, when they probably can't afford it. Something like 50% of the US population doesn't like the thing. Even if we're idiots, what kind of representative government is that? The "yes" votes are being outright bought with unrelated stuff and earmarks. Even if I liked the bill - which I don't - I'd want it voted down because of the shenanigans surrounding it. Then think about the problems. It's doing nothing for health care. It's supposedly reforming the insurance industry, but it's got stupid provisions like saying that private insurers aren't allowed to charge less than the government plan being implemented. The damn thing is 2074 pages long (I just looked it up and downloaded it) before anything the House has tried to amend it with, and I would lay odds there's less than 100 people in the whole US who have read it, and none of them are in Congress (I've skimmed it, not read it). It's mandating that people need insurance. Why the hell does Bill Gates need insurance? Why do I need insurance? And having insurance doesn't do anything to reduce the cost of health care. In fact it adds in extra people who have to be paid. It just adds in bureaucracy costs. (/end rant)
What do you mean "if done right"?
The rest of the first world is 'doing it right'. Your tax collectors are going to get paid regardless of how much you tax, yet you've essentially created an entire industry which operates in parallel as a private form of tax collection under the guise of health insurance.
You're 100% right that this bill isn't what the US needs, but the only rational option has been taken off the table by rhetoric like yours. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
On March 22 2010 04:56 L wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2010 04:47 Musoeun wrote:On March 22 2010 02:49 Mykill wrote:having the gov pay for your health care doesn't make you socialist china... >_> its not everything will change. the government pays for you. wowww sucks man getting somebody to pay for you "Having the government pay for healthcare" means: Having the taxpayers pay for tax collection + government administration of the money + healthcare. It's inefficient. If done right... What do you mean "if done right"?
I mean rather than caving to the insurance system, focus on the actual health care problem. I'm talking either gov. takeover of hospitals, or construction of new gov. hospitals, either of which is insanely expensive. As a first step, mostly a gimmick, you might construct an optional federal insurance program which would just cover all costs (again, very expensive), to get people used to the system.
The problem is, in the US, both the cost and the fact that this would expand the federal government - a lot of us don't like that. You have to understand that many Americans - including myself - view the Federal government's purpose (even if it doesn't match reality for the last 120 years, okay, whatever) mainly as sort of a US-only UN: the country's really big, kind of spread out and (unlike places like China) doesn't have a history of centralized government being able to really order anything.
You talk about "rational options" but a lot of those are being ignored. Things like: removing taxes on all medical costs (rather than only corporate insurance), allowing more competition in the market (currently insurers cannot subscribe people out-of-state), reforming medical liability laws (currently medical lawsuits typically net huge damages, which most doctors cannot afford: as a result they have to carry malpractice insurance of their own which raises costs). These would all do a lot to alleviate pressure within the system, at which point if it still wasn't working people would be more amenable to government-based changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
