Who's Mad ?

[xaelia]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

While I'll grant you that Republicans are downright nutty on a lot of social issues, they are unlikely to signficiantly alter many things like abortion and gay rights that are settled issues.

Hmm...I have a hard time agreeing with this. It does seem to me that Republicans have been quite active at the state level in many states on poorly conceived anti-gay and anti-abortion platforms. To say these same forces wouldn't attempt to further their agenda at the federal level with a friendlier ear in the White House seems difficult.

E.g., for all the GOP whining about Obamacare's IPAB getting between a doctor and their patient, they sure push a lot of laws requiring ultrasounds etc. before doctors perform abortions. Hypocrites.

 

[diphenyl]

The difference is that the sources of Diphenyl's fears are statements made by Romney and the GOP. The source of your fears is Donald Trump.

Exactly. Not to mention the GOP's work at the state level to pass measures that would do exactly the above at the state level.

 

[Old_Mil]

This is one of the biggest delusions of the American Dream that the rich sells. They would like every Joe Smoe to believe that he has the opportunity to become a millionaire even though his chances, even with intelligence and good work ethic, are very very slim.

Obviously, not everyone has the opportunity to become a millionaire. Some people are too stupid. Some people are too lazy. However, being bound by chains of your own making is very different from being bound by chains crafted by society. There have been rich and poor people in every society in the history of the world - even the overtly communist ones. This is not an injustice, merely a reflection of the uneven distribution of human talent and drive which in turn is an aspect of human nature.

None of this addresses the fact that the pursuit of happiness is one of ideas the nation was founded on, not the pursuit of wealth or the equal distribution thereof.

 

[GeneralVeers]

None of this addresses the fact that the pursuit of happiness is one of ideas the nation was founded on, not the pursuit of wealth or the equal distribution thereof.

Excactly right. You have the spirit of the Constitution and its creators correctly expressed.

One of the big annoyances I have with Lefties is that they observe that capitalism doesn't work for everyone and we still have poor people. Therefore they conclude that capitalism doesn't work and we must throw out the most successful poverty-reduction system in the history of the world in favor of something "fairer" with more "equal income distribution". The end result is predictably more poverty, government cronyism and unemployment.

 

[diphenyl]

Obviously, not everyone has the opportunity to become a millionaire. Some people are too stupid. Some people are too lazy. However, being bound by chains of your own making is very different from being bound by chains crafted by society. There have been rich and poor people in every society in the history of the world - even the overtly communist ones. This is not an injustice, merely a reflection of the uneven distribution of human talent and drive which in turn is an aspect of human nature.

None of this addresses the fact that the pursuit of happiness is one of ideas the nation was founded on, not the pursuit of wealth or the equal distribution thereof.

Well to quote a wise man "If hard work equaled success in The United States, this country would be run by guys with lawn mowers and leaf blowers."

 

[deleted109597]

Well to quote a wise man "If hard work equaled success in The United States, this country would be run by guys with lawn mowers and leaf blowers."

That man isn't very wise then.
Mowing a lawn is tedious, but it isn't hard. Digging a ditch is tedious and hard.
But neither of those jobs require using your brain at all.

 

[Arcan57]

That man isn't very wise then.
Mowing a lawn is tedious, but it isn't hard. Digging a ditch is tedious and hard.
But neither of those jobs require using your brain at all.

Which proves the point that hard work =/ success in the US. Hard work, like intelligence and favorable starting conditions, is certainly a factor in the creation of wealth but in itself is neither sufficient or necessary. The important factor Romney was taught in his upbringing was using wealth to create more wealth by investing it in others' talents. This is a very different message then middle class kids get (which is to improve their earning potential by working hard at improving their own talents). If the majority of society is made up of investors and not producers, that society is going to collapse. And before it collapses, everyone is going to be complaining about how no one else is willing to work hard (because working hard for someone else's benefit is a sucker's game if you're raised as an investor).

 

[diphenyl]

Which proves the point that hard work =/ success in the US. Hard work, like intelligence and favorable starting conditions, is certainly a factor in the creation of wealth but in itself is neither sufficient or necessary. The important factor Romney was taught in his upbringing was using wealth to create more wealth by investing it in others' talents. This is a very different message then middle class kids get (which is to improve their earning potential by working hard at improving their own talents). If the majority of society is made up of investors and not producers, that society is going to collapse. And before it collapses, everyone is going to be complaining about how no one else is willing to work hard (because working hard for someone else's benefit is a sucker's game if you're raised as an investor).

Exactly. People like this can't really tout their success as hard work. People like Mitt Romney were born sliding into home plate. They had NO odds stacked against them and still managed to succeed. Wow what an accomplishment! 👍

 

[deleted109597]

Exactly. People like this can't really tout their success as hard work. People like Mitt Romney were born sliding into home plate. They had NO odds stacked against them and still managed to succeed. Wow what an accomplishment! 👍

So you're saying Mitt didn't put any effort into it? Never looked into what investments were useful? Never had any failures?
What about Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Did they do much differently?
Should we have a lottery so that we equalize the genetics and SES of childbirth?

And all of us work hard every day. The tax increases affect us more than the "super rich". However, while you rail against Romney, the rest of your party puts you in the same group.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Exactly. People like this can't really tout their success as hard work. People like Mitt Romney were born sliding into home plate. They had NO odds stacked against them and still managed to succeed. Wow what an accomplishment! 👍

What's your point? We should make government policy to address the inescapable inequity in life?

 

[RustedFox]

What's your point? We should make government policy to address the inescapable inequity in life?

To quote a wise man. - " The role of government is not to be the 'fairness nanny'. "

No idea who could have said that, but its right-on.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

To quote a wise man. - " The role of government is not to be the 'fairness nanny'. "

No idea who could have said that, but its right-on.

Exactly - the free market will take care of it. After all, what incentive would those with influence have to create mechanisms that solidify their position at the expense of others?

When you start to define "inescapable inequality in life" so broadly as to include certain SES(es) that by most reasonable standards (ex: HS graduation rate) confer an objective disadvantage to "moving up" on the socio-economic ladder, things start to take on a bit of a feudalistic tint. Or worse.

 

[Glitterbox]

To quote a wise man. - " The role of government is not to be the 'fairness nanny'. "

No idea who could have said that, but its right-on.

Lol. So that whole part where they talked about wanting "to establish justice" in the Constitution was just a misprint, I guess.

 

[RustedFox]

Lol. So that whole part where they talked about wanting "to establish justice" in the Constitution was just a misprint, I guess.

Said this before, gonna say it again, ain't gonna be pretty.

You've been warned.

Everyone who wants to pick and choose little quotes from the "founding fathers" to fortify their arguments needs to realize that what the "founding fathers" had in mind in terms of "democracy" was far different than what we have today.

Back in the day of seventeen-seventy-whatever.... only those who had a real, demonstrable interest in democracy COULD WIELD THE POWER OF A VOTE.

That's right ! Imagine that !

Can't read ? Can't vote.

Female ? Can't vote.

Slave ? Can't vote.

Not a landowner ? Can't vote.

Indentured Servant ? Can't vote.

Now, I'm not defending that system... Society has changed, and changed again, and "we" keep getting better at it. but I'm sure as hell going to be mad at the cherry-pickers that want to throw a "framer" or two behind their argument... because well... "Jefferson" or "Washington" once said this.... so... it HAS to be RIGHT !

Listen up, son. You can sit and cherry-pick rather dignified-sounding quotes from those parchments of old, and use them to your ends.... but here comes reality....

The world of 2012 is far different than that of 1776.

"Establishing Justice" as the forefathers meant it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Not here, not there, not in any other forum, forget about it.

Get back to us when you're an attending... and you are actually affected by things like taxes, malpractice, wages, debt repayment etc, etc, etc. ... No doubt you've already got one foot in the water... but the whole world changes once you're out in the "real world".

 

[RustedFox]

... and furthermore... I can't wait for you to find out that what I'm quoting is not the same source as what you think that you're quoting.

 

[diphenyl]

When it comes to voter eligibility I take a stance that is vastly different than my party. I think the level of knowledge of the average american as it pertains to how government works, the constitution, as well as american is disgraceful. We hole immigrants to such a high standard in order to become a US history citizen. Much higher than we would ever hold a natural born citizen to. I think in order to vote, one should have to pass a basic test on government and history. Giving the power of the vote to the clueless ignorant masses is like giving a monkey a loaded gun.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[EM2BE]

When it comes to voter eligibility I take a stance that is vastly different than my party. I think the level of knowledge of the average american as it pertains to how government works, the constitution, as well as american is disgraceful. We hole immigrants to such a high standard in order to become a US history citizen. Much higher than we would ever hold a natural born citizen to. I think in order to vote, one should have to pass a basic test on government and history. Giving the power of the vote to the clueless ignorant masses is like giving a monkey a loaded gun.

I agree with the fact people should be tested. But, this does also go almost against what you have been saying. Lower SES won't be able to pass the test, so then it would become racist to require tests and people would argue that they are being discriminated against for their income.

I don't know about all of you, but we did have go to government class and multiple history classes in grade school and in high school (and pass those tests). History classes included were American history, world history, and state history. And these were taught more than once.

 

[8654Marine]

When it comes to voter eligibility I take a stance that is vastly different than my party. I think the level of knowledge of the average american as it pertains to how government works, the constitution, as well as american is disgraceful. We hole immigrants to such a high standard in order to become a US history citizen. Much higher than we would ever hold a natural born citizen to. I think in order to vote, one should have to pass a basic test on government and history. Giving the power of the vote to the clueless ignorant masses is like giving a monkey a loaded gun.

👍👍

Common ground is fertile ground.

The key is preventing the abuse of this.

 

[WilcoWorld]

👍👍

Common ground is fertile ground.

The key is preventing the abuse of this.

It would seem to me that ensuring a high-school level education of all non-mentally disabled Americans would be in the country's best interest. It would also seem to me that the level of government/historical knowledge required to vote shouldn't be beyond the capacity of a high school graduate.

So, if we could ensure >90% graduation rates for every SES, then every "class" could be represented in the vote. This would satisfy diphenyl's requirement without being either classist or creating a nanny-state.

I do not support Robin Hood government programs, but I also don't support systems that ensure power and wealth get passed down from one generation to the next (such as nepotism or aristocracy). To me, ensuring a high school education for >90% of our populace creates neither.

 

[bob1234]

Technology has evolved in the last several hundred years, man has not. We remain the same, no superior or inferior to our predecessors. The distant animal instincts still present, we just apply them differently in this "new world" you seem to believe we have. Just because something or someone is old, does not discredit them in any way. Did you invent calculus, or was that someone hundreds of years ago? Philosophy, poetry, medicine, warfare, all from antiquity, but remain with us.

The degradation of the government can be blamed directly on the people. In fact, we voted or abstained from voting for the people in power to make these decisions. When they do stupid things, none of us demand any real justice. We are too comfortable. None of you would quit your health profession to go to Washington D.C. and protest. We are busy in our lives and aren't affected to the point where our comfort has been completely taken away. The majority of the population does the same. They stay in their comfort zone and accept the rhetoric or come to terms that they cannot protest or make a change to the system without losing their way of life possibly.

The recent passage of cannabis legalization in several states has given me hope that some people are paying attention. Most are far too busy to really look into candidates, rather they are "educated" by 30 second sound bites on CNN or FOX news.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The founding fathers were wise and created an enduring document because they understood the fundamental nature of Man. You can ridicule their wooden teeth and wigs all you want, but the fact remains that every single one of them was a scholar of human history, literature, law, and governance. Unlike our modern politicians they understood the fact that freedom was a relatively new concept in the human condition. Most people in the history of the world have lived short, brutal lives where their destiny was determined by others.

Although we have iPhone 5s, and internet, the fundamental nature of Man hasn't changed. The founding Fathers looked at the mistakes of others, and created a document to try to prevent those mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately we've completely disregarded history, and our modern leaders are well on their way to making the same mistakes that have been done over and over throughout all of recorded human history. Their refrain is always "This time it will be different!". Unfortunately it never is.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

The founding fathers were wise and created an enduring document because they understood the fundamental nature of Man. You can ridicule their wooden teeth and wigs all you want, but the fact remains that every single one of them was a scholar of human history, literature, law, and governance.

Which is why nobody has ever seen fit to modify that enduring document.


I agree that man hasn't changed. But I'll go back further - we're still animals. Why shouldn't it just be the rule of the strongest (or smartest, or most cunning, or whatever you want to choose)?

Because man's circumstances have changed.

 

[Perrotfish]

When it comes to voter eligibility I take a stance that is vastly different than my party. I think the level of knowledge of the average american as it pertains to how government works, the constitution, as well as american is disgraceful. We hole immigrants to such a high standard in order to become a US history citizen. Much higher than we would ever hold a natural born citizen to. I think in order to vote, one should have to pass a basic test on government and history. Giving the power of the vote to the clueless ignorant masses is like giving a monkey a loaded gun.

Have you ever read 'Lies my teacher told me'? Its one of the better popular books on government. It makes two major points that are salient to your plan:

1) Our common history is not common, and neither is our understanding of our government. Almost every fact about either is actually hotly contested in both the academic world and in popular culture. An examination of our civics textbooks shows that whenever the government attempts to give a basic lesson/test on history or government, when they produce is a series of asinine factoids, dubious assertions, and outright falsehoods. Any attempt to produce a civics test for voting would likely yield the same result.

2) When you look back at national polling in American history, very often the 'clueless' masses held the opinion that would eventually be viewed to be correct by history, while the eductated and the rich clung to the belief that would eventaully be seen as stupid and immoral. The 'monkeys', when given their loaded gun, chose for example to widely oppose intervention vietnam almost immediately, a war which was almost universally supported by the rich and educated during the first few years of the conflict. On the other hand they showed almost universal support for intervention in WWII, while a signficant portion of the educated class remained isolationist during the early conflict. The wealthy and educated elite does not have a record of being particularly wise or farseeing, I see no reason to let them decide who is educated enough to participate in our democracy.

I think that one of the problems that plagues both the Democrats and Republicans right now is a contempt for the common man. The manifestation of this contempt varies by party: Democrats pity and patronize, while Republicans simply despize. However the strategists of both parties seem to be in agreement that the right people to make decisions for this country are the privledged, whether than means the rich (Republicans) or the educated (Demoncrats) there seems to be a consensus that the common American is too dumb to run his own country without a steady hand to guide him. This is almost exactly the opposite of the principles our nation was founded on. You don't need a democracy for the Republican oligarchy of the well bred, every dictator in history has managed that. You don't need it for the Democrat's advancement through civil service and overeducation either: Communist china does that just fine. What makes America work, what's made this nation uniquely equitable in human history, is our belief that citizens of this nation do not need the approval of an elite to run their lives or their nation. I don't see any need to change that.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The "common man" can't govern this country when he votes to steal the property of his neighbor for himself.

 

[Perrotfish]

The "common man" can't govern this country when he votes to steal the property of his neighbor for himself.

I'm always amazed how, to conservatives, we are always a 1% tax increase away from socialism, and every tax is a simple robbery. The top marginal tax rate has gone from 90% (in the late 1950s) to 70% (in the 70s) to 50% (in the early 80s) to 40% (at the start of W's first term) to 35% (now) but yet we are always 1% away from the end of America. When we vote for any social program, regulatory enforcement, or infrastructure at all its nothing short of the destruction of everything the country stands for.

American's have always recognized that there are two fundamental threats to their freedom: the power of their government and the power of the wealthy. To prevent the wealthy from becoming an effective oligarchy Americans expand government regulatory power and give the government money to make opportunity for advancement, and safety from disaster, more universal, while taking enough from the wealthy to force them to keep working and creating to maintain their privlidge. To prevent the government from having regulatory control over their lives Americans work to strip the power and funding from the government that they gave them earlier to help protect them against their neighbors. It's a balancing act, and it can go wrong in both directions: when you give to much power to the government for the sake of equality you get soviet russia, with dissenters in the gulags and the productive class taxed and regulated out of existance. When you give too much power to the wealthy and neuter the government you get 1970s Latin America, with a 90% of the population living in a hopeless underclass, starving and dying shantytowns, while a completely non-productive upper class gorges themselves on the country's entire GDP. Both forms of government involve most of the population living painful and short lives, neither is desirable.

For the past 50 or so years the government has, conservative hysterics aside, gotten smaller and less powerful: tax rates have gotten less progressive, government regulation has become farsical (see wall street), collective bargaining has lost so many rights that it is effectively extinct from the private sector and is shrinking in the public sector, and the ability of the wealthiest to give to political campaigns has once again become unlimited and completely unregulated. The pendulum has swung a little to far in favor of the wealthy, and now its swinging back. It's a good thing.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I'm always amazed how, to conservatives, we are always a 1% tax increase away from socialism, and every tax is a simple robbery. The top marginal tax rate has gone from 90% (in the late 1950s) to 70% (in the 70s) to 50% (in the early 80s) to 40% (at the start of W's first term) to 35% (now) but yet we are always 1% away from the end of America. When we vote for any social program, regulatory enforcement, or infrastructure at all its nothing short of the destruction of everything the country stands for.

American's have always recognized that there are two fundamental threats to their freedom: the power of their government and the power of the wealthy. To prevent the wealthy from becoming an effective oligarchy Americans expand government regulatory power and give the government money to make opportunity for advancement, and safety from disaster, more universal, while taking enough from the wealthy to force them to keep working and creating to maintain their privlidge. To prevent the government from having regulatory control over their lives Americans work to strip the power and funding from the government that they gave them earlier to help protect them against their neighbors. It's a balancing act, and it can go wrong in both directions: when you give to much power to the government for the sake of equality you get soviet russia, with dissenters in the gulags and the productive class taxed and regulated out of existance. When you give too much power to the wealthy and neuter the government you get 1970s Latin America, with a 90% of the population living in a hopeless underclass, starving and dying shantytowns, while a completely non-productive upper class gorges themselves on the country's entire GDP. Both forms of government involve most of the population living painful and short lives, neither is desirable.

For the 50 or so years the government has, conservative hysterics aside, gotten smaller and less powerful: tax rates have gotten less progressive, government regulation has become farsical (see wall street), collective bargaining has lost so many rights that it is effectively extinct from the private sector and is shrinking in the public sector, and the ability of the wealthiest to give to political campaigns has once again become unlimited and completely unregulated. The pendulum has swung a little to far in favor of the wealthy, and now its swinging back. It's a good thing.

I actually quite like most of this. Having said that, I think the point is that you can definitely define taxation as legal theft. Especially if you'd...you know, rather not pay for those things that taxes (kind of) pay for. I've been thinking that maybe the better word/idea is "rent".

 

[GeneralVeers]

\

For the past 50 or so years the government has, conservative hysterics aside, gotten smaller and less powerful: tax rates have gotten less progressive, government regulation has become farsical (see wall street), collective bargaining has lost so many rights that it is effectively extinct from the private sector and is shrinking in the public sector, and the ability of the wealthiest to give to political campaigns has once again become unlimited and completely unregulated. The pendulum has swung a little to far in favor of the wealthy, and now its swinging back. It's a good thing.

Not true. For most of the post-war 20th century government consumed (stole) 18-20% of all private GDP for government functions. Under Obama that number is 24% and isn't going to go down. Rather I expect it to increase to 25-28%. Most of that money is for entitlements, wealth transfer, and other redistributionist policies. The actual amount needed to run the Federal government itself would be less than 10% of GDP.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[RustedFox]

The founding fathers were wise and created an enduring document because they understood the fundamental nature of Man. You can ridicule their wooden teeth and wigs all you want, but the fact remains that every single one of them was a scholar of human history, literature, law, and governance. Unlike our modern politicians they understood the fact that freedom was a relatively new concept in the human condition. Most people in the history of the world have lived short, brutal lives where their destiny was determined by others.

Although we have iPhone 5s, and internet, the fundamental nature of Man hasn't changed. The founding Fathers looked at the mistakes of others, and created a document to try to prevent those mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately we've completely disregarded history, and our modern leaders are well on their way to making the same mistakes that have been done over and over throughout all of recorded human history. Their refrain is always "This time it will be different!". Unfortunately it never is.

Don't get me wrong; my point is not to discount the powdered-wig crowd. A lot of their ideas hold up no matter what the situation. My point is: you can't just ridicule what I say with a retort of "But... Constitution ! LOLZ!" and think that whatever idea that it is that you hold dear is precisely the same idea or attitude that the framers had in mind.

Its the same reason that I get huffy when people hinge their arguments on the statement: "But the BIBLE says so!" Great... so you can throw some commonly respected book behind a loosely-related argument. The Bible (for example) also has lots of passages about how to properly discipline your slaves, how women should dress and be subservient, and how to do other things that we find completely reprehensible in the modern day and age.

... but its the BIBLE.... so it HAS to be right !

 

[diphenyl]

Have you ever read 'Lies my teacher told me'? Its one of the better popular books on government. It makes two major points that are salient to your plan:

1) Our common history is not common, and neither is our understanding of our government. Almost every fact about either is actually hotly contested in both the academic world and in popular culture. An examination of our civics textbooks shows that whenever the government attempts to give a basic lesson/test on history or government, when they produce is a series of asinine factoids, dubious assertions, and outright falsehoods. Any attempt to produce a civics test for voting would likely yield the same result.

2) When you look back at national polling in American history, very often the 'clueless' masses held the opinion that would eventually be viewed to be correct by history, while the eductated and the rich clung to the belief that would eventaully be seen as stupid and immoral. The 'monkeys', when given their loaded gun, chose for example to widely oppose intervention vietnam almost immediately, a war which was almost universally supported by the rich and educated during the first few years of the conflict. On the other hand they showed almost universal support for intervention in WWII, while a signficant portion of the educated class remained isolationist during the early conflict. The wealthy and educated elite does not have a record of being particularly wise or farseeing, I see no reason to let them decide who is educated enough to participate in our democracy.

I think that one of the problems that plagues both the Democrats and Republicans right now is a contempt for the common man. The manifestation of this contempt varies by party: Democrats pity and patronize, while Republicans simply despize. However the strategists of both parties seem to be in agreement that the right people to make decisions for this country are the privledged, whether than means the rich (Republicans) or the educated (Demoncrats) there seems to be a consensus that the common American is too dumb to run his own country without a steady hand to guide him. This is almost exactly the opposite of the principles our nation was founded on. You don't need a democracy for the Republican oligarchy of the well bred, every dictator in history has managed that. You don't need it for the Democrat's advancement through civil service and overeducation either: Communist china does that just fine. What makes America work, what's made this nation uniquely equitable in human history, is our belief that citizens of this nation do not need the approval of an elite to run their lives or their nation. I don't see any need to change that.

Actually it's exactly what the founding fathers wanted. The only people who could originally vote in their newfound nation were: people who could read (at that time only the well educated could read) and land owners (the rich). So that argument is null and void as to the founding father's desires as it pertains to the common man. The reason they also designed the government the way it was, was to PREVENT mob rule. They established a representative system of legislature so that EDUCATED individuals could devote their time to examine/ research issues and make the best decisions for those they represent using their own good judgement.

As to whether a test can demonstrate actual knowledge of civic. There are possible objective questions to adequately measure things like this. I would be willing to bet that over 50% of eligible voter couldn't tell you what the 3 branches of government are, what the difference between a representative and a senator is, who has the power to declare war, etc.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

Don't get me wrong; my point is not to discount the powdered-wig crowd. A lot of their ideas hold up no matter what the situation. My point is: you can't just ridicule what I say with a retort of "But... Constitution ! LOLZ!" and think that whatever idea that it is that you hold dear is precisely the same idea or attitude that the framers had in mind.

Its the same reason that I get huffy when people hinge their arguments on the statement: "But the BIBLE says so!" Great... so you can throw some commonly respected book behind a loosely-related argument. The Bible (for example) also has lots of passages about how to properly discipline your slaves, how women should dress and be subservient, and how to do other things that we find completely reprehensible in the modern day and age.

... but its the BIBLE.... so it HAS to be right !

In a very odd coincidence, I ran across this (due to a completely unrelated chain of searches) a couple days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion

I only skimmed it, so I'm not trying to comment on anything said here, I just thought the comparison was salient.

 

[deleted4401]

As someone that considers himself as a moderate Republican (read: what Obama's policies would have been called in 1980), I've found that every economic policy he proposes (even if it was initially a conservative idea) is destroying capitalism, according to conservatives. Reagan raised taxes 11 times, but every time BHO mentions it, there are cries of "socialism". Every single aspect of his health care program (even the parts that conservatives came up with in the early 1990s - individual mandate, insurance exchanges) will turn American health care into a Soviet style single payor system, say the conservatives. Every single social program he promotes is leading American down the road to Gonorrhea (Have you all noticed the collapse of the American military and cohesion of soldiers since DADT was repealed? Oh wait, nothing happened). Every single offer to reduce debt/deficit is being refused by the far right. Every single conservative presidential candidate said they would refuse a program calling for 10 parts reduction in spending with 1 part increase in taxes. Every single one. The debt ceiling debacle just to defy the president led to our first credit downgrade in our history. Did they ever do that to any other president? Nope, just to stick it to him. >60% of self-described Republicans as of last year still don't believe he is an American citizen. Almost a majority think he is a closet Muslim. Conservatives still can't admit that the GM bailout has preserved a significant amount of American jobs and was the right thing to do (even though the president basically won Ohio because of it), but last month Mitt finally said that the bailout was basically exactly what he was suggesting, just financing it a little different a shifting the ratio of payment to workers vs creditors. He even had the gall to take credit for it!

Thing is, the right hates the guy. I'm not saying that the same thing didn't happen before. Bush could have got rid of DADT and the left would have vilified him for not letting the gay soldiers perform musicals on the battlefield. He created a new entitlement (unfunded, of course) program for prescription drugs that comes in under budget most years, and you don't hear the left giving him any credit for this. In fact, they just keep saying that "See, see - Bush made the debt go up, too!" even the left championed the program more than the right did. Since 9/11 there wasn't an attack on American soil, but you don't hear the left saying, you know what, maybe it hurts losing a few civil liberties in the short run, but it may have protected us and maybe we can tweak it to make it more palatable.

I guess my point is that I just don't think it's about policies, programs, or outcomes. It's about tribalism and choosing teams. If you're on team Red, there is nothing BHO will ever do that will impress you or make you say, yeah, okay fine, he was right about that. If you're on team Blue, the other team is just warmongering, rich-favoring, women haters and it doesn't matter if they have some good ideas about job creation/growth.

Just saying ... not as straightforward as picking one guy over the other.
-S

 

[deleted109597]

Hey, ask all those Hostess employees if they think unions and Obamacare are the answer.

Wait, there aren't any Hostess employees anymore.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[GeneralVeers]

On this subject, a very thought provoking farewell speech by retiring Congressman Ron Paul, on where this country is, where it's been and where it may be going. An excerpt:

"To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be overcome. Number one is “envy” which leads to hate and class warfare. Number two is “intolerance” which leads to bigoted and judgmental policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better understanding of love, compassion, tolerance and free market economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When tried, freedom is popular....

...If you find this to be a worthwhile message, spread it throughout the land."

Unfortunately it takes a certain degree of self-awareness to understand that "taxing the evil rich" is just a form of envy. If people would stop envying their neighbors and work hard to create a better society, we would all achieve a free, stable democracy. Given that human emotion is difficult to overcome, I can never see such a utopia happening.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[Perrotfish]

Hey, ask all those Hostess employees if they think unions and Obamacare are the answer.

Wait, there aren't any Hostess employees anymore.

The unions argue that hostess became unprofitable when they were acquired by a pair of hedge funds, who strip mined them and then, having gone years without investing in the companies human assets or physical plant, were amazed when the employees refused to do a little more with a little less for a little less every single day.

They make a strong case that hostess was killed by the deregulated financial.market, which is devoid of transaction taxes or any real concept of shareholder ownership and therefore offers no incentive to plan for the long term.

 

[GeneralVeers]

The unions argue that hostess became unprofitable when they were acquired by a pair of hedge funds, who strip mined them and then, having gone years without investing in the companies human assets or physical plant, were amazed when the employees refused to do a little more with a little less for a little less every single day.

They make a strong case that hostess was killed by the deregulated financial.market, which is devoid of transaction taxes or any real concept of shareholder ownership and therefore offers no incentive to plan for the long term.

So what you are telling me is that the investors and managers of Hostess developed an unprofitable and uncompetitive business model, and subsequently the company failed and is going into bankruptcy? Sounds like free-market capitalism is working to me.

 

[Birdstrike]

.

 

[Perrotfish]

So what you are telling me is that the investors and managers of Hostess developed an unprofitable and uncompetitive business model, and subsequently the company failed and is going into bankruptcy? Sounds like free-market capitalism is working to me.

Free market capitalism requires that the people who make bad decisions be held responsible for those decisions. We have had two major changes in our model of corporate ownership that has divorced free market economics from corporate decision making:

1) A steady decline in shareholder rights: The legal protections offered to shareholder, and infact the legal definition of a shareholder, have become so legally diluted that they are almost worthless. The CEO and board who ostensibly make decisions on behalf of the shareholders are, in reality, not answerable to them in any practical way. Without shareholder oversight the natural inclination of the decision makers to loot the company has nothing to balance against, and the long term investment is rapidly transfered to the executives' short term bonuses.

2) A steady decline in the concept of stockholding as ownership in a company. The rise of unregulated corporate financial products means that most investors are, at this point, either completely unaware of what they're investing in (any kind of stock 'fund') or if they are they are not invested in the sense that they have any longterm interest in the investment (microtransactions now can last only minutes, dividend earning stock has almost disappeared as a financial product). Even if stockholders have leverage to control a company, it doesn't matter if they are not themselves invested in better longterm outcomes for that company.

The result is that we have corporates who are 'owned' by groups of shareholders who have no interest in looking more than a few hours down the road, and who are powerless to enfore their interestes if they do. It makes the drive for long term investment nearly non-existent. Which kills companies, like Hostess.

 

[pdxperson]

Unfortunately it takes a certain degree of self-awareness to understand that "taxing the evil rich" is just a form of envy. If people would stop envying their neighbors and work hard to create a better society, we would all achieve a free, stable democracy. Given that human emotion is difficult to overcome, I can never see such a utopia happening.

Maybe you're working in the wrong field. If you earned more of your money from investments the government would only "steal" 15% just like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney. Maybe that's the envy you have to overcome.

 

[diphenyl]

Can we fast forward 300 years to the Star Trek era where there is no money and people work to better themselves and the rest of humanity?

 

[8654Marine]

Can we fast forward 300 years to the Star Trek era where there is no money and people work to better themselves and the rest of humanity?

Ok, but I'll be damned if I wear the red shirt. Or was it the yellow?

 

[GeneralVeers]

Free market capitalism requires that the people who make bad decisions be held responsible for those decisions. We have had two major changes in our model of corporate ownership that has divorced free market economics from corporate decision making:

1) A steady decline in shareholder rights: The legal protections offered to shareholder, and infact the legal definition of a shareholder, have become so legally diluted that they are almost worthless. The CEO and board who ostensibly make decisions on behalf of the shareholders are, in reality, not answerable to them in any practical way. Without shareholder oversight the natural inclination of the decision makers to loot the company has nothing to balance against, and the long term investment is rapidly transfered to the executives' short term bonuses.

Those companies who make those decisions, if unprofitable will fail and the model will change. Look at AIG, BoA, Citigroup and all the other huge companies that received bailouts. They were practicing the sort of unaccountable management you described. They all should have gone out of business, yet some larger entity decided to take taxpayer money and bail them out. THAT is the larger problem. These companies can do as they will and Uncle Sam has taken away the consequences.

I say let all these companies fail. GM too.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Maybe you're working in the wrong field. If you earned more of your money from investments the government would only "steal" 15% just like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney. Maybe that's the envy you have to overcome.

I don't get your point. I don't "envy" warren buffet. I don't want to take his money and give it to myself. Rather I'd like to work hard like he did, make the right investments, and make capital gains income where "only" 15% is stolen.

 

[pdxperson]

I don't get your point. I don't "envy" warren buffet. I don't want to take his money and give it to myself. Rather I'd like to work hard like he did, make the right investments, and make capital gains income where "only" 15% is stolen.

How much money should a person earn? Is there no point in progressive taxation? Why would you work for the weakest and most underprivileged and have such a lack of empathy for their plight. Why not work on wall street? I don't think you envy their money, I think you envy their profession.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Can we fast forward 300 years to the Star Trek era where there is no money and people work to better themselves and the rest of humanity?

Thank you, Dr. Crusher.

You have just explained the socialist goal/dream. Barring drastic changes in human nature, such a thing can never happen.

 

[GeneralVeers]

How much money should a person earn?

An infinite amount

Is there no point in progressive taxation?

Yes. It's class warfare designed to appeal to the envy of the average voter. It punishes the productive in favor of the unskilled or lazy.

Why would you work for the weakest and most underprivileged and have such a lack of empathy for their plight.

On the contrary I am empathetic. I just know that the solution to improve their lives does not involve more taxation, more government programs, and more welfare. All of these things just lock in their cycle of dependency. The solution is to grow the economy and produce more jobs.

Why not work on wall street? I don't think you envy their money, I think you envy their profession.

I don't "envy" other people. If it's a path I really wanted, I would have done it. I can't imagine myself being happy working in a cubicle all day staring at a computer screen.