The Texas Unmiracle

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1313810595' post='2291695']

You misconstrue. I am not apathetic in the slightest. Don't misread disenchantment with the current political establishment with apathy, because they are not the same.

Apathetic about one candidate over another? You might call it apathy, I suppose, but solely in that regard. Our current system is so rife with corruption that, in my most humble opinion, it is at the point where it is irredeemable in its present construct. To patronize one party or another with a vote is simply to perpetuate the same basic problems, to prop up the same power players. What is needed is a radical reinvention of the way politics is dealt with in this country, to return it to its most foundation level where people determine the extent to which they are governed, and not the present system where we're ruled at gunpoint and have no say in what happens. I just don't think that settling for the "lesser of two evils" choice is a feasible one any more. To use a blunt descriptor, our choices right now are to choose which party's candidate is going to try to shove ten pounds of cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap into our five pound bag. Neither of those choices really work. In the end, it's all still cr[acronym=''][/acronym]ap.

Being reticent to participate in the reindeer games of the current political establishment isn't apathetic. I simply have come to a point where I feel morally compelled to refuse to give support to candidates supporting the ideals of either party. The individual party planks no longer matter; the issues aren't the issue. The real issue is money, and who's going to bring more of it, and where special interests determine that it gets spent. Not being willing to lend my assent to that system isn't apathetic, it's the only way I can assuage my conscience and sleep at night. What I do support, vigorously, is a discussion that leads to a radical reformation of American politics. That's why I am involved in the present discussion.
[/quote]
Are you a libertarian?

If you want political change, you're going to have to work on uniting people behind a serious third-party candidate or such, and do a lot of campaigning at the grass-roots level.

Generally, I vote for the candidate I most agree with on principles if I get a chance to vote in a primary, then vote against the greater evil in the presidential vote.

Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.

(And yes, I'm something of a hypocrite in that regard.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314042006' post='2293320']
It's a mistake to view someone as stupid because he does things that you don't deem intelligent. Perry appears to be doing quite well for himself, as did Bush. That both have upset people who don't understand that they want by their political beliefs the very things both have done in their political careers.
[/quote]
Listen up. it's extremely simple.

Everybody and anybody anywhere to the right of Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and/or insane.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314140066' post='2293923']
Listen up. it's extremely simple.

Everybody and anybody anywhere to the right of Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and/or insane.

Didn't you get the memo?
[/quote]

If you didn't remind me all the time I wouldn't believe it.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314139885' post='2293920']
Are you a libertarian?

If you want political change, you're going to have to work on uniting people behind a serious third-party candidate or such, and do a lot of campaigning at the grass-roots level.

Generally, I vote for the candidate I most agree with on principles if I get a chance to vote in a primary, then vote against the greater evil in the presidential vote.

Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.

(And yes, I'm something of a hypocrite in that regard.)
[/quote]

1. Am I a libertarian? I would say that the libertarian platform most closely resembles the sort of government I envision. If you want to assign qualifiers to where my positions are in terms of politics, I would say that socially I am libertarian and economically I have an anarcho-capitalist perspective with some distributist/anarcho-syndicalist leanings, but more on the emphasis on the rights of the wage earner and not on the nouveau communist associations. I am completely opposed to Keynesian economic thought and favour a school of thought which more closely resembles the Austrian school (von Mises, etc.). I think that the capitalist system presently employed in the United States does not reflect a real fair-market environment and, thus, has acquired some of the moral deficiencies that socialism/communism demonstrate.

2. I agree. Third party (and more) candidacies are completely necessary to alter contemporary American politics. The two party system we presently have only serves to promote radicalism from both the right and the left. The moderate position is completely a non-starter because the only voices that get play are those shrieking from the crazies on the furthest sides of the aisles. The biggest challenge is that the MSM simply gives zero attention to the candidacy of a third party or (as in the case of Ron Paul) one who has chosen to run within the framework of an established party but whose candidacy does not reflect the typical views of the mainstream of that party. Again, that goes back to cash. Those candidates get no attention because the radical reformation of American politics does not earn them (here I refer to the media) a red cent.

3. Don't presume my "speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates s[acronym=''][/acronym]uck" is the end of my involvement. I just don't discuss what activities I participate in. I do partake in the political process and, if there is a candidate whose views reflect mine, I would vote for that candidate. However, I won't vote for the sake of voting. I don't think that casting a ballot is worth anything inherently. If there were a viable candidate who seriously championed the sort of radical reinvention of government that is needed, and their views reflected mine, I would patronize that candidate with my vote.

4.
[quote] Not voting for anybody or partaking at all in the political process and speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates smell of elderberries doesn't do squat to make government any smaller or less oppressive.[/quote]

True. And continuing to vote for the same cronies and perpetuating the same system doesn't make government any smaller or less oppressive either. It's actually the opposite. Better to abstain from participation until there is a better option than to compromise my personal integrity.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1314149853' post='2294003']

1. Am I a libertarian? I would say that the libertarian platform most closely resembles the sort of government I envision. If you want to assign qualifiers to where my positions are in terms of politics, I would say that socially I am libertarian and economically I have an anarcho-capitalist perspective with some distributist/anarcho-syndicalist leanings, but more on the emphasis on the rights of the wage earner and not on the nouveau communist associations. I am completely opposed to Keynesian economic thought and favour a school of thought which more closely resembles the Austrian school (von Mises, etc.). I think that the capitalist system presently employed in the United States does not reflect a real fair-market environment and, thus, has acquired some of the moral deficiencies that socialism/communism demonstrate.

2. I agree. Third party (and more) candidacies are completely necessary to alter contemporary American politics. The two party system we presently have only serves to promote radicalism from both the right and the left. The moderate position is completely a non-starter because the only voices that get play are those shrieking from the crazies on the furthest sides of the aisles. The biggest challenge is that the MSM simply gives zero attention to the candidacy of a third party or (as in the case of Ron Paul) one who has chosen to run within the framework of an established party but whose candidacy does not reflect the typical views of the mainstream of that party. Again, that goes back to cash. Those candidates get no attention because the radical reformation of American politics does not earn them (here I refer to the media) a red cent.

3. Don't presume my "speaking with an unpleasant disposition a lot on the internet about how all the candidates s[acronym=''][/acronym]uck" is the end of my involvement. I just don't discuss what activities I participate in. I do partake in the political process and, if there is a candidate whose views reflect mine, I would vote for that candidate. However, I won't vote for the sake of voting. I don't think that casting a ballot is worth anything inherently. If there were a viable candidate who seriously championed the sort of radical reinvention of government that is needed, and their views reflected mine, I would patronize that candidate with my vote.

4.


True. And continuing to vote for the same cronies and perpetuating the same system doesn't make government any smaller or less oppressive either. It's actually the opposite. Better to abstain from participation until there is a better option than to compromise my personal integrity.
[/quote]
1. Cool. I was just curious. I hadn't read enough from you to really know where you stand.

I consider myself primarily conservative rather than libertarian, though I generally agree with the Austrian school of economics, and my economic views tend to be more free-market/libertarian


2. I'm afraid I must totally disagree with you on this one, at least as pertains to your claims of "radicalism" from the "right." While I'd agree that a left-wing radicalism (neo-Marxist socialism) unfortunately has infected the thought of much of the national Democratic Party leadership, I honestly have no idea what this alleged right-wing radicalism is you are talking about (which you appear to believe dominates the mainstream Republican Party).

I say that far from being dominated by "radicalism" from "the furthest sides of the aisles," the main problem with Republican Party leadership in recent years is that it has too little to distinguish itself from the liberal Democrats, and that it has not been truly conservative enough - the problems with the Bush administration were not because Bush was a "right-wing extremist," but because he spent money like a Donkey. I certainly don't see a "moderate" position (if you mean some kind of midway compromise between conservative and liberal positions) as being desirable. Political "moderates" are invariably spineless liberals-in-all-but-name

In fact, whenever I see whining about Republican "right-wing radicalism" and "extremism," it's always some liberal unhappy that there are actually people who disagree with left-wing positions. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to dismiss opposing political views as crazy without having to actually engage arguments.

I'm actually quite surprised to see a libertarian type like yourself engaging in that sort of rhetoric. Most of the people who like to complain about "extremism" on the right would most certainly regard Ron Paul's views as "extremist," "radical," or "crazy."

(I don't agree with Ron Paul on all things, but I give him credit for actually sticking to his principles, a rare thing in today's political climate. I voted for him in the 2008 GOP primary.)

Exactly what are these "radical" right-wing positions that you think are predominant in the GOP?
Are Republican politicians too fiscally conservative? Too opposed to big government spending? Too supportive of traditional moral values? Too adamant about constitutional limitations on government power?
How do you think they would benefit from becoming more "moderate," or moving towards the "center of the aisle"?

Where's all this "radicalism" and "extremism" on the right?

I honestly don't see it.


3-4. Pardon the phunny phatmass ph[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]ilt[/font]er.
Call me a godless pragmatist, but I think there's simply too much at stake to simply sit this one out until Jesus returns, and we have a completely perfect candidate to vote for. The reign of Obama is absolutely disastrous to the direction of this country, and must be opposed. How many more trillions of dollars of debt do we wish to lay on our children? How much more destruction of our country are we willing to stomach?
If substantial numbers of conservatives/libertarians sit this out, we'll simply get . . . four more years of Obama, nothing more, nothing less. I think the damage will simply be to great to be worth preserving one's pristine personal ideological purity in the voting booth. But I know that's where we disagree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont know why people would talk about keynesian economics, as if it wouldn't 'work'. i could see that you might not agree with the government supporting an economic system, or that you dont like 'helping' people, or whatever. 'socialism' if that helps make it simple for you.
but the key factor of keynesianism is almost indisputable. the government spends money, and it creates economices, creates a system that spends so much, that a segment of the economy is at stake.
you stop spending on medicaid, whole segments of socieity fall, or become weak. instead of making twelve dollars an ohour, all the system can afford is eight. social security, instead of being able to live on your own, you have to go to a community center.
whether you agree or disagree... keynessianism 'works' at stimulating the economy.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's somewhat ironic. many conserativs, and i know cause i used to think this way, would think we must cut spending and taxes, so that the rich will create more jobs and help the poor. but in reality, things like 'unemployment' (when justified, in my opition, another thread) are cutting out the middle man and getting it done. the poor now have jobs, or hte people who need hte help. any government system that gives directly to thepoor, is accomplishing the issue, without the inefficiencies of making sure the rich get a ninety percent cut, or for most, all of the money, minus taxes/.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314310900' post='2294912']
1. Cool. I was just curious. I hadn't read enough from you to really know where you stand.

I consider myself primarily conservative rather than libertarian, though I generally agree with the Austrian school of economics, and my economic views tend to be more free-market/libertarian


2. I'm afraid I must totally disagree with you on this one, at least as pertains to your claims of "radicalism" from the "right." While I'd agree that a left-wing radicalism (neo-Marxist socialism) unfortunately has infected the thought of much of the national Democratic Party leadership, I honestly have no idea what this alleged right-wing radicalism is you are talking about (which you appear to believe dominates the mainstream Republican Party).

I say that far from being dominated by "radicalism" from "the furthest sides of the aisles," the main problem with Republican Party leadership in recent years is that it has too little to distinguish itself from the liberal Democrats, and that it has not been truly conservative enough - the problems with the Bush administration were not because Bush was a "right-wing extremist," but because he spent money like a Donkey. I certainly don't see a "moderate" position (if you mean some kind of midway compromise between conservative and liberal positions) as being desirable. Political "moderates" are invariably spineless liberals-in-all-but-name

In fact, whenever I see whining about Republican "right-wing radicalism" and "extremism," it's always some liberal unhappy that there are actually people who disagree with left-wing positions. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to dismiss opposing political views as crazy without having to actually engage arguments.

I'm actually quite surprised to see a libertarian type like yourself engaging in that sort of rhetoric. Most of the people who like to complain about "extremism" on the right would most certainly regard Ron Paul's views as "extremist," "radical," or "crazy."

(I don't agree with Ron Paul on all things, but I give him credit for actually sticking to his principles, a rare thing in today's political climate. I voted for him in the 2008 GOP primary.)

Exactly what are these "radical" right-wing positions that you think are predominant in the GOP?
Are Republican politicians too fiscally conservative? Too opposed to big government spending? Too supportive of traditional moral values? Too adamant about constitutional limitations on government power?
How do you think they would benefit from becoming more "moderate," or moving towards the "center of the aisle"?

Where's all this "radicalism" and "extremism" on the right?

I honestly don't see it.


3-4. Pardon the phunny phatmass ph[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]ilt[/font]er.
Call me a godless pragmatist, but I think there's simply too much at stake to simply sit this one out until Jesus returns, and we have a completely perfect candidate to vote for. The reign of Obama is absolutely disastrous to the direction of this country, and must be opposed. How many more trillions of dollars of debt do we wish to lay on our children? How much more destruction of our country are we willing to stomach?
If substantial numbers of conservatives/libertarians sit this out, we'll simply get . . . four more years of Obama, nothing more, nothing less. I think the damage will simply be to great to be worth preserving one's pristine personal ideological purity in the voting booth. But I know that's where we disagree.
[/quote]

I can respect your viewpoint on being active in the elections and thinking that you are contributing to change at least on some level. It's not that I have a fundamental disagreement with political action; my stance is that, at present, there is not any significant difference between the candidates or in the party platforms to engender any confidence in me that they would be effective or healthy for the country on any level.

In terms of radicalism from the right, it does exist. Don't be misled by thinking that because you associate the majority of your conservative beliefs with the right that there is not fringe extremism at work there. In terms of what exactly comprises radicalism on the right, I'll give you my opinion. Right extremism involves severely curtailing personal freedoms and instituting an oppressive police-state regime in the name of "homeland security." That is an incredibly extremist position. It involves continuing to be involved in multiple financially unsustainable foreign military actions and trying to equate public support of a bloated, indefensible military complex with patriotism. (By the way, I come from a military family, grew up a Navy brat. Both grandfathers served in foreign wars. Three uncles, my brother, all military. I give hearty support to our military, but these days, if you suggest that you think the military could use restructuring and some significant spending reductions, people peg you as less than a patriot.) It also involves sheltering and sustaining a corporatist state mentality where you have to plead in court to argue that corporations should not be afforded the same rights as individuals. The economic innovation of our nation, which sprang from its heart of small business entrepreneurs, has been throttled by the money for the corporate lobby. The fringe right would do any and everything to keep that money source sheltered. (As opposed to the fringe left who think that you can simply tax your way to economic stability and that somehow working hard and earning wealth makes you worthy of derision and a target for punitive taxation.)

I don't see this view as rhetoric. I think I have concrete, defensible reasons for asserting that I can see the extremists at work on both sides of the aisle. My views certainly are much more conservative as an an-cap/libertarian but that doesn't mean that the right is covered in rainbows and unicorns. The truth of the fringe positions on both sides is what makes my argument that the current political choices vis-à-vis repub or dem are outmoded and irrelevant at best and downright harmful at worst.

[quote]Are Republican politicians too fiscally conservative? Too opposed to big government spending? Too supportive of traditional moral values? Too adamant about constitutional limitations on government power?[/quote]

To answer: no. No. No. No. Fiscally conservative? Opposed to big government spending? Laughable. The republicans do a great deal in terms of lip service to cutting spending, but in action it does not happen. They spend just as much, if not more, than the democrats. They just spend it on different things. The Prescription Drug Benefit, which is the biggest fiduciary expansion of the current Medicare system in a generation, was championed and passed by conservatives. I'm in the medical profession, and I see how those expenditures have dealt crippling blows to the system. (Not that I agree with that system, but that single piece of legislation made it a thousand times worse.) I referenced above the out-of-control military spending. In terms of limitations on gov't power, oh no. The power of the state has morphed into an entity headed rapidly to a police complex. Republicans spearheaded the Patriot Act, the single largest assault on American liberty ever written. They created the Department of Homeland Security. Warrantless wiretaps. No-knock warrants. Enemy combatant designations. Guantanamo. The list goes on. The rights of Americans mean nothing to a government who can write whatever rules it pleases to suit its own ends.

Point is, there are just as many ills on the right as the left. My position in voting is to lend support to the platform/candidate/etc. who can combat all these problems.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1314326594' post='2295038']
i dont know why people would talk about keynesian economics, as if it wouldn't 'work'. i could see that you might not agree with the government supporting an economic system, or that you dont like 'helping' people, or whatever. 'socialism' if that helps make it simple for you.
but the key factor of keynesianism is almost indisputable. the government spends money, and it creates economices, creates a system that spends so much, that a segment of the economy is at stake.
you stop spending on medicaid, whole segments of socieity fall, or become weak. instead of making twelve dollars an ohour, all the system can afford is eight. social security, instead of being able to live on your own, you have to go to a community center.
whether you agree or disagree... keynessianism 'works' at stimulating the economy.
[/quote]

Keynesian economics does not work. It does not stimulate the economy. It does NOTHING but contribute to the extreme oppression of the population by the government in the form of taxation. Governments do not and cannot create jobs. What they do is take money from the citizens in order to increase their own power. Just because there would be economic ramifications to the fact that the government has entrenched itself into the larger economy does not make the concept true or valid. The Keynesian view actually promotes the inhibition of the economy by taking the ability of the private citizen to determine his own financial future out of his hands and handing it over to a nebulous government bureaucracy. It stifles creativity and destroys innovation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]
Keynesian economics does not work. It does not stimulate the economy. It does NOTHING but contribute to the extreme oppression of the population by the government in the form of taxation. Governments do not and cannot create jobs. What they do is take money from the citizens in order to increase their own power. Just because there would be economic ramifications to the fact that the government has entrenched itself into the larger economy does not make the concept true or valid. The Keynesian view actually promotes the inhibition of the economy by taking the ability of the private citizen to determine his own financial future out of his hands and handing it over to a nebulous government bureaucracy. It stifles creativity and destroys innovation.
[/quote]

'work'. as i had been hintng at, you disagree with the concept, because it doesn't 'work' in terms of making the economy work for itself. when the government spends money, and stops, it creates and destroys economic systems... in those terms, the economy does work, as the government is taking the place of everything the private sector would do. eg, instead of a dude hiring another dude to teach his kids, now there's an economy involved when the government does.
you are against 'social welfare' 'socialist' etc ideas, generally. that means that you are against the government doing it, and keynes economies are just that. dopesmt mean it doesn't objectively 'work'. you also are against the right v left welfare etc type philsophy of it all, not that that means it doesn't 'work', unless again you're using a different sense of the word, and it doesnt of coruse mean you are right that it's 'wrong' objectively.
you can insist that it doesnt work or etc etc, but as i said in my past post, at least acknowledge what it does in terms of 'working'. now, there are legitimate debates about whether the government can spend its way out of recession, by stimulating the economy atl large, and certain other debates that are more murky or even debateable. but there is no debate about what i'm saying about this stuff otherwise, objectively looking at what im saying, as there's nothing in terms of opinion being said. eg, 'keynes is good', 'welfare is good, is right etc'.. thisis all objectively true.

Edited August 28, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

plus it does get into opinion territory, but that someone can talk so unequivically about the government spending money, 'it stiffles' 'it does nothing' etc, is pretty telling, that, as usual, when people talk so unequivically, they are missing the truth in favor of their radicalized world view.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1314501529' post='2296152']

I can respect your viewpoint on being active in the elections and thinking that you are contributing to change at least on some level. It's not that I have a fundamental disagreement with political action; my stance is that, at present, there is not any significant difference between the candidates or in the party platforms to engender any confidence in me that they would be effective or healthy for the country on any level.[/quote]
I can respect your viewpoint too, but I still disagree. Sometimes limiting the damage is better than letting it go absolutely unchecked.

[quote]In terms of radicalism from the right, it does exist. Don't be misled by thinking that because you associate the majority of your conservative beliefs with the right that there is not fringe extremism at work there. In terms of what exactly comprises radicalism on the right, I'll give you my opinion. Right extremism involves severely curtailing personal freedoms and instituting an oppressive police-state regime in the name of "homeland security." That is an incredibly extremist position. It involves continuing to be involved in multiple financially unsustainable foreign military actions and trying to equate public support of a bloated, indefensible military complex with patriotism. (By the way, I come from a military family, grew up a Navy brat. Both grandfathers served in foreign wars. Three uncles, my brother, all military. I give hearty support to our military, but these days, if you suggest that you think the military could use restructuring and some significant spending reductions, people peg you as less than a patriot.) It also involves sheltering and sustaining a corporatist state mentality where you have to plead in court to argue that corporations should not be afforded the same rights as individuals. The economic innovation of our nation, which sprang from its heart of small business entrepreneurs, has been throttled by the money for the corporate lobby. The fringe right would do any and everything to keep that money source sheltered. (As opposed to the fringe left who think that you can simply tax your way to economic stability and that somehow working hard and earning wealth makes you worthy of derision and a target for punitive taxation.)


I don't see this view as rhetoric. I think I have concrete, defensible reasons for asserting that I can see the extremists at work on both sides of the aisle. My views certainly are much more conservative as an an-cap/libertarian but that doesn't mean that the right is covered in rainbows and unicorns. The truth of the fringe positions on both sides is what makes my argument that the current political choices vis-à-vis repub or dem are outmoded and irrelevant at best and downright harmful at worst. [/quote]
I think the central big error on your part is that you apparently think that curtailing personal freedoms, oppressive government, militarism, and corporate welfarism are all somehow intrinsic to conservatism or unique to the right. And you blame everything Republicans have done that you disapprove of on "right-wing radicalism."

A quick review of American history and politics proves that view to be nonsensical.
You cite things like the Patriot Act as the result of "right-wing fringe radicalism," yet the very left-wing Obama administration did nothing to get rid of such programs, and seems quite content with the increase in government power. Such legislation may be big-government, but it's hardly the result of right-wing extremism. (Furthermore, everyone who considers G.W. Bush "ultra-conservative" or a "right-wing extremist" is a profound ignoramus, who knows absolutely nothing whatever about conservative philosophy.)

So when Obama kept and expanded the powers of government granted by the Patriot Act, had he suddenly adopted fringe right-wing extremism, or was it simply business-as-usual for a big-gov socialist liberal?
Likewise with the corporate bail-outs continued under Obama. Not "right-wing extremism," but simply more welfare-state socialism, perfectly in line with leftist principles of government interference in the economy.

If you look back in history, you'll note that it was very liberal Democratic president FDR who did more than any other single president to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government in all areas, including military spending. Nobody regards FDR as a right-winger or conservative, and he is still generally regarded as a hero by liberals.

And speaking of the military, it has been liberal Democratic presidents who have led the US into the majority of our major (and most costly) military engagements. Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson got us involved in the First World War, the bloodiest and most wasteful war in history. Socialistic Democrat FDR got us into World War II. Lyndon Johnson (liberal Democrat, and initiator of the "Great Society" programs) got us into the Vietnam War. Regarding Republicans, the Bush family seems to largely be an anomaly in this regard.

(I'm not going to get into arguments here about whether or not involvement in all these wars was justified or not, simply to point out that involvement in foreign wars and heavy military spending is not some preserve of the right-wing extremism or conservative ideology, but was more often engaged in by liberals. And much of what went on during WWII under Roosevelt was far worse than what is currently bemoaned by liberals regarding the Gulf War. The detainment of perfectly innocent Japanese-Americans into harsh prison-like camps, for instance, was a greater assault on civil liberties than anything Bush did, yet had nothing to do with "right-wing radicalism."


[quote]To answer: no. No. No. No. Fiscally conservative? Opposed to big government spending? Laughable. The republicans do a great deal in terms of lip service to cutting spending, but in action it does not happen. They spend just as much, if not more, than the democrats. They just spend it on different things. The Prescription Drug Benefit, which is the biggest fiduciary expansion of the current Medicare system in a generation, was championed and passed by conservatives. I'm in the medical profession, and I see how those expenditures have dealt crippling blows to the system. (Not that I agree with that system, but that single piece of legislation made it a thousand times worse.) I referenced above the out-of-control military spending. In terms of limitations on gov't power, oh no. The power of the state has morphed into an entity headed rapidly to a police complex. Republicans spearheaded the Patriot Act, the single largest assault on American liberty ever written. They created the Department of Homeland Security. Warrantless wiretaps. No-knock warrants. Enemy combatant designations. Guantanamo. The list goes on. The rights of Americans mean nothing to a government who can write whatever rules it pleases to suit its own ends. [/quote]
Yes, Republicans have been guilty of their share of crimes too, as well as Democrats.

However, my rhetorical questions actually involved conservative principles, while your examples of Republicans behaving badly did not - they were simply big-government measures.

Government has an unfortunate tendency to grow and increase whomever is in power. And it has nothing to do with extremists from the far left and right fringes of the aisles. It's "mainstream" politics as usual. There's no reason to think "center-of-the-aisle" politicians would govern more wisely or spend less - it would be just more of the same.


More "moderate" politicians (in the usual sense of "moderate" meaning "centrist") are not the answer. There are plenty of centrist "moderates" in government, and they're completely worthless. (You may mean by "moderate" libertarian-minded persons like yourself, but that's certainly not the usual meaning of the word in politics. Most "mainstream" politicians consider anyone at all serious about decreasing government power or spending an "extremist," and would no doubt label you as such. That's part of why I think the whole "far-right extremist" labeling is absurd and unproductive - it means simply one who disagrees with one's own views.)


[quote]Point is, there are just as many ills on the right as the left. My position in voting is to lend support to the platform/candidate/etc. who can combat all these problems.[/quote]
Which is who? Surely not an Extremist like Ron Paul!


[quote]Keynesian economics does not work. It does not stimulate the economy. It does NOTHING but contribute to the extreme oppression of the population by the government in the form of taxation. Governments do not and cannot create jobs. What they do is take money from the citizens in order to increase their own power. Just because there would be economic ramifications to the fact that the government has entrenched itself into the larger economy does not make the concept true or valid. The Keynesian view actually promotes the inhibition of the economy by taking the ability of the private citizen to determine his own financial future out of his hands and handing it over to a nebulous government bureaucracy. It stifles creativity and destroys innovation.[/quote]
I know this part isn't directed at me, but I agree whole-heartedly.

[Winchester]

Can we get a punctuation version of TARP going for dairy? floopy sake, post less and take more time proofreading.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1314571215' post='2296562']

'work'. as i had been hintng at, you disagree with the concept, because it doesn't 'work' in terms of making the economy work for itself. when the government spends money, and stops, it creates and destroys economic systems... in those terms, the economy does work, as the government is taking the place of everything the private sector would do. eg, instead of a dude hiring another dude to teach his kids, now there's an economy involved when the government does.
you are against 'social welfare' 'socialist' etc ideas, generally. that means that you are against the government doing it, and keynes economies are just that. dopesmt mean it doesn't objectively 'work'. you also are against the right v left welfare etc type philsophy of it all, not that that means it doesn't 'work', unless again you're using a different sense of the word, and it doesnt of coruse mean you are right that it's 'wrong' objectively.
you can insist that it doesnt work or etc etc, but as i said in my past post, at least acknowledge what it does in terms of 'working'. now, there are legitimate debates about whether the government can spend its way out of recession, by stimulating the economy atl large, and certain other debates that are more murky or even debateable. but there is no debate about what i'm saying about this stuff otherwise, objectively looking at what im saying, as there's nothing in terms of opinion being said. eg, 'keynes is good', 'welfare is good, is right etc'.. thisis all objectively true.
[/quote]
[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1314573338' post='2296581']
plus it does get into opinion territory, but that someone can talk so unequivically about the government spending money, 'it stiffles' 'it does nothing' etc, is pretty telling, that, as usual, when people talk so unequivically, they are missing the truth in favor of their radicalized world view.
[/quote]

Uh.

From what I am able to discern from this, your point is that because Keynesian economics is practiced, and people use it, that you somehow have a platform to argue that it "works." That might be the single most laughable argument for any policy I ever heard. I could argue with equal vigour that murder is an effective route to problem solving, and many a person does, in fact, employ a good shootin' or stabbin' to solve a problem. However, the fact that murders solve problems, and that a related industry of criminal justice, prisons, etc. is utilized in relation to the aforementioned murders, does not make murders-as-solutions a choice that "works." There is so much wrong with that argument, I am not even sure where to begin.

And in terms of radicalized world views, anyone who can wholeheartedly support an economic system that is nothing more than a government-propped, nouveau socialist philosophy, can lay claim to a pretty hefty radical view, imho.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314576547' post='2296625']
I can respect your viewpoint too, but I still disagree. Sometimes limiting the damage is better than letting it go absolutely unchecked.[/quote]

Well, I think the fundamental area where we disagree is that while you believe that voting for one as opposed to another will limit damage, I don't think that there is enough difference in the two main parties for there to be any limitation of damage, no matter who is elected.


[quote]I think the central big error on your part is that you apparently think that curtailing personal freedoms, oppressive government, militarism, and corporate welfarism are all somehow intrinsic to conservatism or unique to the right. And you blame everything Republicans have done that you disapprove of on "right-wing radicalism."

A quick review of American history and politics proves that view to be nonsensical.
You cite things like the Patriot Act as the result of "right-wing fringe radicalism," yet the very left-wing Obama administration did nothing to get rid of such programs, and seems quite content with the increase in government power. Such legislation may be big-government, but it's hardly the result of right-wing extremism. (Furthermore, everyone who considers G.W. Bush "ultra-conservative" or a "right-wing extremist" is a profound ignoramus, who knows absolutely nothing whatever about conservative philosophy.)

So when Obama kept and expanded the powers of government granted by the Patriot Act, had he suddenly adopted fringe right-wing extremism, or was it simply business-as-usual for a big-gov socialist liberal?
Likewise with the corporate bail-outs continued under Obama. Not "right-wing extremism," but simply more welfare-state socialism, perfectly in line with leftist principles of government interference in the economy.

If you look back in history, you'll note that it was very liberal Democratic president FDR who did more than any other single president to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government in all areas, including military spending. Nobody regards FDR as a right-winger or conservative, and he is still generally regarded as a hero by liberals.

And speaking of the military, it has been liberal Democratic presidents who have led the US into the majority of our major (and most costly) military engagements. Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson got us involved in the First World War, the bloodiest and most wasteful war in history. Socialistic Democrat FDR got us into World War II. Lyndon Johnson (liberal Democrat, and initiator of the "Great Society" programs) got us into the Vietnam War. Regarding Republicans, the Bush family seems to largely be an anomaly in this regard.

(I'm not going to get into arguments here about whether or not involvement in all these wars was justified or not, simply to point out that involvement in foreign wars and heavy military spending is not some preserve of the right-wing extremism or conservative ideology, but was more often engaged in by liberals. And much of what went on during WWII under Roosevelt was far worse than what is currently bemoaned by liberals regarding the Gulf War. The detainment of perfectly innocent Japanese-Americans into harsh prison-like camps, for instance, was a greater assault on civil liberties than anything Bush did, yet had nothing to do with "right-wing radicalism."[/quote]

Well, here's the thing. I don't blame every point of disagreement I have with republicans on right-wing radicalism. I am simply stating that there are some actions which did, in fact, arise from a fringe right perspective. The fact that something like the Patriot Act came from the far right doesn't preclude, however, someone from the opposition from keeping and expanding it, as we've seen with the Obama administration. Government is government, no matter if their hat is red or blue. When someone drops a hefty amount of power into their lap, regardless of origin, they are loath to part with it. Ideologies are fluid when power is at stake; even the most stringent of the fringes might bend from time to time in order to compensate when a giant gift-wrapped power play falls into their laps. Control is an ideology that knows no party. And in specific reference to the Patriot Act, while G.W. Bush was the prime mover on that (and yes, you are correct in that his 'compassionate conservative' viewpoint did not generally reflect the accepted conservative viewpoint in some cases, nor was he a far-right radical in his general political stance), the impetus behind such a piece of legislation does, in fact, originate from the thinking of the far-right. While I am sure that Bush felt he was doing the right thing, the fact is that that sort of government intervention "for your own good and protection" is a firmly right-fringe concept.


[quote]
Likewise with the corporate bail-outs continued under Obama. Not "right-wing extremism," but simply more welfare-state socialism, perfectly in line with leftist principles of government interference in the economy.
[/quote]


Now here I will agree, but with a caveat. I would argue that the corporate protectionist stance is entirely one ensconced on the right. The bailout system Obama has participated isn't, however, protecting business, no matter what they might say. What they are doing is a large-scale version of good old Chicago politics. They are paying off the local toughs and when the time comes, they'll call in a favour. "One they can't refuse," to continue the metaphor. The concept of government involvement/Keynesian theory is definitely one attributable largely to the left. So, while the action might seem to be similar on both sides, the motivation really isn't. One side favours unchecked growth of large corporate entities because those entities can obtain power through the dollar. The other side favours saving those entities because they can eventually hand over some of those dollars when the time for payback comes. Might seem to be semantic, but it's an essential difference in philosophy and what makes me insist that there is radicalism in equal streams from both directions. "Build a bigger business to make more money" on one hand, "protect a bigger business in order to eventually make more money vicariously" on the other.

In terms of the military, of course history is going to point out disparity in terms of whose party was the primary mover on what military action. However, we all know that the focus of the two main parties has shifted significantly and the republican of 50 years ago is not the republican of today. I think that for framing contemporary arguments, those sorts of comparisons rarely lend themselves to equivalency. My point was that the contemporary republican platform was the one which supported the majority of the present military action and the related military spending. There has not been a democrat in the last 20 years, aside from Obama, whose actions can even remotely compare to the nearly unchecked military growth championed by present republicans. That's just a basic fact, not even name-calling. The numbers don't lie.

[quote]However, my rhetorical questions actually involved conservative principles, while your examples of Republicans behaving badly did not - they were simply big-government measures.[/quote]


Aha! Precisely my point. These are big-government measures precipitated by republicans, the party of small government. The fact is, the actions of the republican party generally do not reflect actual conservative principles. They may pay them substantial lip service, but they don't walk the walk, so to speak.

[quote]Government has an unfortunate tendency to grow and increase whomever is in power. And it has nothing to do with extremists from the far left and right fringes of the aisles. It's "mainstream" politics as usual. There's no reason to think "center-of-the-aisle" politicians would govern more wisely or spend less - it would be just more of the same.



More "moderate" politicians (in the usual sense of "moderate" meaning "centrist") are not the answer. There are plenty of centrist "moderates" in government, and they're completely worthless. (You may mean by "moderate" libertarian-minded persons like yourself, but that's certainly not the usual meaning of the word in politics. Most "mainstream" politicians consider anyone at all serious about decreasing government power or spending an "extremist," and would no doubt label you as such. That's part of why I think the whole "far-right extremist" labeling is absurd and unproductive - it means simply one who disagrees with one's own views.)
[/quote]

On the point of government, you are correct. It is the nature of the beast. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Ultimately the squabbles betwixt right and left don't involve actual ideology so much as they do two groups of an oligarchy jockeying for position.

As to the labeling, it's sometimes necessary. I doubt anyone would hesitate to label the Third Reich, Pol Pot, the Hutu government of Rwanda in the 1990s, as some of the most radical extremist regimes in modern history, but by your reasoning such a label is unproductive and those are simply people whose views with which we disagree. Sometimes you need to call something what it is.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so at least i'm not stating the obvious, and the simplistic, things of that nature, as an argument in opposition. 'im against the government spending money, keynes involves the government spending money, therefore, i'm against it'. wow, what a profound conclusion. i'm trying at a minimum to say let's not just rush to that conclusion, or at least, if you dont accept that conclusion, at least for teh sake of argument... i'm trying to establish that there's things that the theory accomplishes, and efficiently too, or at least equally to the private sector. of course, if the government is justified in spending money, it's not as if it's the same as permitting muirder given murder can sometimes accomplish an end, the analogy doesn't work, unless you have the overly simplistic notion that hte governmetn can never do anything justifiably.
there's so much more involved with the theory of keynes econ. does it improve econonomic effieciency, at least sometimes? does it at least match what the private sector does? does it stimulate, cause economic micro to macro systems to be supported? (an obvious, 'yes' if you are willing to acknowledge how it sometimes 'works', and not insist how it doesnt due to your preexisting definitions and standards of being against anything the government spends money on) these are the key tenants that advocates proclaim, where most of the debate lies, the academic and intellectual stuff. not the simplistic garbage being spouted by those against it, here. of course, i was trying to have a debate with someone who would actually say the government serves no purpose except to hurt taxpayers, where except in fringe corners like this where it might be acceptable, would be the laughing stock of the day. perhaps that was my mistake.
and for the record, it obviously does make a difference who one votes for, even if the difference is small, and even if it's all so insitutionalized that it becomes twiddle dee and twiddle dum getting pulled by strings of the system, for the most part. the poster above could acknowledge the point, but instead insists on mental gymnastics, a bunch of pseudo intellectual speak (obviously not a dumb poster, granted) that sometimes makse a decent ultimate point, but that usually just ends in pscyho psueduo babble (eg, that stuff about the dollar, v. reaping benefits of the dollar... there's some truth to it, but it's so detached from a decent argument, especially per whethere there's any effect of voting, that it's just babble) when it deals with how there's no chance voting will change anything. it's easy to find tons of concrete examples, that a president did, that the other president wouldn't have did, or couldnt have accomplished. the poster would rather go to great lengths to defend a bogus theory than concede the points... a credibility issue, probably, ultimately. socretes obviously won that debate.

Edited August 31, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c