PDA

View Full Version : conservative vs liberal



Pages : [1] 2 3

stan v
01-04-2002, 04:58 PM
what are you, and why? (please don't say independent. i'd like people who have their own strong opinions)

Tom Lathrop
01-04-2002, 05:01 PM
You think independent thinkers don't have strong opinions? That seems odd.

Jim H
01-04-2002, 05:33 PM
Stan, I have voted Independant for 22yrs precisely becuase I refuse to subscribe to the dogma's of the two parties. If you disagree with either parties platforms you're not a good ____________ (fill in the blank). I will not have anyone tell me what I have to support or beleive. I prefer to be a good American and make up my own mind.

Jim

Greg H
01-04-2002, 05:52 PM
Iyamwadiyam.
Call me whatever you want, just not late for dinner.
Stan---
Since YOU brought up the question, YOU should define the terms.



[This message has been edited by Greg H. (edited 01-04-2002).]

Kermit
01-04-2002, 07:14 PM
What Greg said--definitions please. I have been accused variously of being both. Not simultaneously, you understand. Seems I confuse folks by being a staunch supporter of both the First and Second Ammendments. Along with the others. Into what pigeonhole does one stuff an anti-war activist who is a firearms freak? Maybe the same one that might hold an Amishman who owns a gun and hunts deer. Liberal and conservative? Narrow-thinking humbug. If anything, call me a citizen of the world, and don't expect me to fall into lockstep with some sort of jingoistic patriotic (small p) right-think. And I eats me spinach too.

Sam F
01-04-2002, 07:51 PM
Liberal or Conservative? Looks like some folk don't like the terms. I'm not fond of them either, not because they're undefined, but that their meaning has been dissolved by politicians intent on fooling us. Take the term conservative. In America real conservatives are rare as hen's teeth. Conservativism should logically mean a resistance to radical change and a desire to save customs, ways of life, and the land but many so-called Conservatives never conserve anything except their money. The Capitalism that most "Conservatives" love is an engine of radical change which sweeps away every traditional society, value or landscape it comes in contact with. It subordinates everything to almighty cash. Most American conservatism is in fact old fashioned 19th century Liberalism. More "up-to-date" Liberals have abandoned liberalism's original belief in the enlightenment values of reason for rigid conformist ideology. Ironically, if you can get past the feminism/gay rights issues, those who call themselves Liberals are sometimes profoundly conservative. Who else wants to save old growth forests or preserve the village green? Given the current confusion these terms (and many more) are now essentially useless. It might however be worthwhile for people to at least think about what they mean by the terms. Stan v, is that a strong enough an opinion? :) Sam ... the what? Southern Agrarian? Distributist? Something like that...

Church of the Holey Wooden Boat
01-04-2002, 09:00 PM
What Sam F said! And welcome to the forum.

Shang
01-04-2002, 09:15 PM
Kermit:
"...being a staunch supporter of both the First and Second Ammendments..."

Yeah, some of us must be the politicians' ultimate nightmare: Armed Independents!

TomFF
01-04-2002, 09:39 PM
Conservative or liberal? Why suddenly the talk about political parties? Stan never mentioned them. When it comes to praising my kids I'm pretty liberal. I'm fairly conservative when it comes to cliff climbing.

PugetSound
01-04-2002, 10:06 PM
Why would you care to know such a worthless bit of information anyway??? Most people are conservative about somethings and not so conservative about others. Sometimes they even change their view when they learn more about what the real truth is about something.

Most people really don't appreciate others attempts to "pigeon hole them" but will tollerate it for the purpose of voting. As to independent type people, well all I can say is More Power to You.......

To non-independent type thinkers, Please provide a universally acceptable definition of all of the characteristics of liberals and conservatives. Provide appropriate bibliography and documentation.

Kermit: I like your answer. I have met plenty of people who simultaneously like firearms but are anti-war. Most of them are Veterans. All know that when the time comes to defend your rights, talking doesn't always sufice.

[This message has been edited by PugetSound (edited 01-04-2002).]

Frank Hagan
01-04-2002, 11:51 PM
Gee, no one wants to play. What's everyone afraid of?

Saying the terms are meaningless, reverting to what they meant in the 18th century, etc., just seems to me to be an attempt to avoid answering the question.

Like most people, my political beliefs include a mix of stands held by both conservatives and liberals. In truth, most of my "liberal" ideas are really libertarian ideas.

So here's a quiz to see if the terms mean anything. My political position on the various issues are identified as either liberal or conservative in the list below. Can you guess what the position is?

1) Abortion: Conservative
2) Gay Rights: Liberal
3) Death Penalty: Leaning Liberal (except when I'm enraged about an injustice like 9/11)
3) Smoking: Conservative
4) School Choice: Conservative
5) Teaching of Evolution in Schools: Liberal
6) Tax cuts: Conservative
7) Corporate welfare: Liberal
8) Mandatory School Prayer: Liberal
9) Church / State relations: Conservative
10) Federal money for schools: Conservative

Bateau Boy
01-05-2002, 06:28 AM
nonconformist conservative, independent thinker that just irritates freeloading sponges of the human race. That is a fact and thanks Stan for question. Now all knows my stance.

Good day

Mirelle
01-05-2002, 06:45 AM
I am a registered Liberal Democrat. I'm also English.

stan v
01-05-2002, 07:05 AM
here goes. are you for more government programs to solve problems - liberal. do you believe in less government so people can take care of themselves - conservative. independents? ah, that's what jumpin jim jeffords is, isn't it?

Bateau Boy
01-05-2002, 07:10 AM
http://www.floridasportsman.com/ubb/Forum20/HTML/002111.html

For those of you that discussed the misc. section of the WBF being limited check this out. Even in the great state of Florida, there are real smart people mixed amoung the Palm Beachers also.

Greg H
01-05-2002, 07:58 AM
Well Stan, if your talking abou Gov. programs, the fewer he better. What programs that we do have should be for the betterment of the nation and the population as a whole, do no damage to the enviorment, be efficiently run, respect civil rights and the Constitution, continualy re-evaluated, revised, and discontinued when no longer effective.
----Makes me sound concervative doesn't it http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

Chris Coose
01-05-2002, 08:10 AM
Brilliant Stan!
Your definition makes your topic as clear as the Penobscot River on a Spring day after 2 weeks of rain.
Chris

Scott Rosen
01-05-2002, 08:17 AM
In today's America, the labels Liberal and Conservative are nothing more than a Madison Avenue Huskster's way to garner support and money for the political parties. I think the terms are meaningless, except to the extent any of you need a banner to hide behind, because you're afraid to think for yourselves. The money makers in the two major political parties desperately need to make you think that the other party is the "enemy" and is anathema to all that is good in America. That's how they get you to send your checks to the Dems or the GOP, depending on your affiliation, and that's how they get you to vote for them.

If you think you can define yourself by the popular labels of Liberal or Conservative, then I think you really belong in a third catagory: SUCKER.

I expect people who are crazy enough to enjoy wooden boats to be strong, independent thinkers.

Is that a strong enough opinion for you?

[This message has been edited by Scott Rosen (edited 01-05-2002).]

Greg H
01-05-2002, 08:23 AM
Yowsa Scott!

NormMessinger
01-05-2002, 08:27 AM
Well then, definatly conservitive. There should be less govenrnment programs. People should be allowed to work out their own problems. Like the couple in Canada with the severely handicaped son. They handled it all right, as best they could.

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2002/01/04/kelowna_family020104

--N http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif R M

bud
01-05-2002, 09:19 AM
I hate the way the work "conservative" has been hijacked. The word means careful, prudent, with money & other things. That's what it's always meant, until recently.
Now it's been taken over by a group of people who have very different ideas. The "conservatives" of my youth, like Ike, or Barry Goldwater, or Harry Truman, would not recognize the notions of the headline-grabbers of today. Slash taxes for a small group of people and businesses knowing that it means having to borrow to pay the bills? How is borrowing money during times of prosperity considered conservative? How is funding our government with state sponsered gambling conservative?
Well, I guess another good word been taken.

stan v
01-05-2002, 09:26 AM
i didn't ask who was democrat or republican. most of you live your lives as conservative. if you didn't, you would continue to spend more than you earn, and then be upset with your employer because he's a conservative tighta** who doesn't pay you enough. the question is really simple. if you think americans are not taxed enough, you are liberal. in other words, you think the government is not doing enough to help the poor in this country. by the way, the richest poor in the world live in the usa. furthermore, i really intended this question for those who vote in the usa. i could care less about brits, or canadians. ask them about their health care system for instance.

Chris Coose
01-05-2002, 09:38 AM
3 weeks of rain

Ronald Rosen
01-05-2002, 09:38 AM
When "I LIKE IKE" was runing for President he said he would bring the boys home by Christmas. Since I was one of the "boys" I voted, absentee ballot for him. Never cared about his party affiliation. When I was discharged...went back to school on the G.I.Bill... $110 buck a month paid for everything connected to my schooling at N.Y.U..... didnt know whether the G.I.Bill was a Dem or Repub sponsored item.

After many years I am totally and completly convinced that most politicians, regardless of party affiliation, are corrupt to the core!! There may be some exceptions but painfully few. They are repulsive to listen to but a neccessary evil under our system.

For the sake of obtaining power and money they have sold the IDEALS of this nation down the tubes. They cater to the worst and laziest instincts in all of us.
We needed a WTC disaster to get these characters to sing "God Bless America" on the Capitol Steps.

There is no difference in the "essence" of these people.
The Tom Daschle's praise Bush's war efforts then tear him apart for his economic program.

These people are not patriots they are politicians. Keep them out of our pockets, out of our bedrooms,away from our gun racks and generally out of our lives and we would all be better off.

Force these people to do what they were Constitutionally mandated to do and again we would all be better off. Is that Republican or Democratic or Liberal or Consevative? I don't think so. It's just Old Fahioned American... maybe too old.

Cap'n Ron

stan v
01-05-2002, 10:14 AM
actually, cap ron, it's conservative.

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 10:54 AM
Yawn!

Wild Dingo
01-05-2002, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
i really intended this question for those who vote in the usa. i could care less about brits, or canadians. ask them about their health care system for instance.

oooohhh flamin heck! Is this the woodenboat forum that has a world wide listing and membership where most people in their postings consider others, or at least try to, even if they dont come from the country of the posters origin... or have I stubbled onto some USA exclusive club here??

Stan there are liberals and conservatives the world over... care less about brits or canadians???... well up your proverbial head outlet too mate and make damn sure its flamin full to bursting!

Me I am Aussie so does that let me off? you forgot us downunderites or dont we flamin well matter? Am I and my compatriots also excluded like the brits and canadians just because were not a member of the good old US of A?... Damn! were not that flamin different! Either in our polititians and their BS crap or the policies that the generally incompetent insipid, brain devoided bastards impliment that run, ruin and otherwise to a greater or lesser extent control our flamin lives!

We are here! Like it or not this WBF is a flamin community of like minded people from a world wide arena all of whos views on any posting has validity and worth...

I vote independant... I am conservative in many areas of life and work, but and liberal in others, WTF does it matter to you? Id suggest jacks**t... grow the hell up mate.

"care less about brits or canadians"?? well... I find your comment that I quoted above about the most obnoxious, arrogant and dowin right bloody insulting statement Ive found on the WBF so far! bloody pathetic... ahhh buggar it ignorant people like you just aint worth the bloody bother.

Take it easy
Shane

Okay so maybe I shouldnt have made it personal and maybe your not as ignorant as I think from your posting that comment and your actually an intelligent person... who knows? Could be, but from that comment you sure made it sound kind of a limited thing...

[This message has been edited by Wild Dingo (edited 01-05-2002).]

Ian Wright
01-05-2002, 11:15 AM
What the Farmers need is a shower of rain every night and a shower of s**t on Sundays.

Thatcher was/is a Nazi and should have been hung thirty years ago.

Never trust anyone who wants you to vote for them.

If you must have a teak deck make it a real one.

Real wooden boats contain no epoxy.

Gaff rig is best for a cruising boat.

Nobody I don't know should own a gun.

Many of the people I DO know shouldn't own a gun.

I should own a gun.

Just a few,,,,,,,,,,

IanW.

Shang
01-05-2002, 12:03 PM
Nobody I don't know should own a gun.
Many of the people I DO know shouldn't own a gun.
I should own a gun.


http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/p6c2f22b240074747dbcfb7b07d5d1813/fe05aac0.jpg

Right, Ian! Armed Independents, UNITE!
(...oh, wait a minute, then we wouldn't be independent, would we... Le'me work on this...)

Mirelle
01-05-2002, 12:40 PM
I will now vote for Ian Wright.

Mike H.
01-05-2002, 02:18 PM
Hi, Stan V, and thanks for asking! But, for the same reason that I close the curtain when I vote, I must tell you: It's Nunyadamnedbidness!

NormMessinger
01-05-2002, 02:18 PM
As would I. IF he would raise BB's taxes to take care of profoundly handicapped children who's parents simply cannot cope. That would counter balance the epoxy thing.

" i could care less about brits, or canadians."

Euwee! How steriotypically RWW. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/frown.gif
One would think the Ostrich is the National Bird.

--NoMess

Mike H.
01-05-2002, 02:19 PM
And Shane: Chill, Baby! You know the rest of us don't feel that way!

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 02:38 PM
Yawn!

Bateau Boy
01-05-2002, 03:43 PM
I for one like all the world mankind. Its' the individuals that I have a real problem with. Comments like I don't give a hoot about anyone but the U.S. persons creates 9/11 .

Love one another as you would have them love you. Nice crack of a smile on the corner of my lips for all persons breathing the poluted air in other parts of the world created by the policies of the United States and the big corporations. I feel your pain. Now a saddened face is shown to all.

Good day.

stan v
01-05-2002, 04:37 PM
my apologies. i didn't mean to suggest that i don't care for canadians, or brits. what i am interested in is the beliefs held by voting americans, since 2002 will be an important election year. don't know what we'd do without allies such as you. now, having said that, i am hearing a reluctance to state ones beliefs. do you believe we as americans are undertaxed? overtaxed? do you think we as americans don't do enough for welfare recipients? do you think every person in america is entitled to receive benefits of any kind they want without having to contribute something for that benefit?

Bateau Boy
01-05-2002, 05:15 PM
Stan, I don't think you have read enough of my post. I don't have enough time and keyboard to repeat to you my feelings about welfare and the project cohabitants this country has for two real generations and now breeding the third generation now.

Communities supported the real needs of the down and out and knew who really was down and out. Before the modern Great Society came about , we didn't have the give me all or you are cold hearted generation.

I can remember many stay at home Moms with their kids would sew and do seamstress work or were just real moms without having to work.

No need for the two person work force to survive to pay for medicare, as one example which no one pays in, and the receivers every year bitching that Congress owes them more benefits every election year and vote for the ones that runs on that pork barrel dead end street agenda. I use that as an example instead of straight welfare payouts for having babies.

That is a real drain on the work force. When the scales tilt to 60-40 outlay to producers wages this country done. We are almost at 50-50 now.

When anyone pays for any able body working person to stay home for nine months a years without out working and people go along with it, the countries revenue is severely damaged to run all the freebies. The snowball effect kicks in.

We have almost maxed out what the working man can keep sending to Wash. without getting totally disgusted with the whole system . Anyone ever wonder why the people shut down small businesses or just plain quit career jobs and crawl off in some mountain somewhere and grow potatoes and beards?

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 05:24 PM
Yawn! Still Boring.

AngWood
01-05-2002, 05:37 PM
Your follow-up posts, though posing as objective questions, mark you as a conservative. But I still like you.

I am a liberal. "Liberal" is another term that has been "hijacked," because to so many it has become a pejorative term. To me it means, among other things, valuing freedom, reason, human life, individuality, etc. Sometimes these values come into conflict and I do the best that I can.

Greg H
01-05-2002, 05:56 PM
I measure liberaly
Cut conservativly
Adjust to fit.

But I'm a Zappatista at heart http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/profiles/media/zappa.jpg

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 06:21 PM
Now here we GOOOOOO! Zappa and the muthas
were liberal pioneers! My heros! Give me a
five dollar bill and a florshiem shoe......
a five dollu bill and a overcoat tooo!

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 06:36 PM
http://www.timvp.com/heehaw1.jpg

And, the early pioneers of conservatism in our great country!!!! Take it away boys!

Greg H
01-05-2002, 06:38 PM
This one has been running through my head recently:
JESUS THINKS YOU'RE A JERK Lyrics

There's an ugly little wasel 'bout three-foot nine
Face puffed up from cryin' 'n lyin'
'Cause her sweet little hubby's
Suckin' prong part time
(In the name of The Lord)


Get a clue, little shrew
Oh yeah, oh yeah
Jesus thinks you're a jerk


Did he really choose Tammy to do His Work?
Robertson says that he's The One
Oh sure he is,
if Armageddon
Is your idea of family fun,
An' he's got some planned for you!
(Now, tell me that ain't true)


Now, what if Jimbo's slightly gay,
Will Pat let Jimbo get away?
Everything we've heard him say
Indicated that Jim must pay,
(And it just might hurt a bit)
But keep that money rollin' in,
'Cause Pat and naughty Jimbo
Can't get enough of it


Perhaps it's their idea
Of an Affirmative Action Plan
To give White Trash a 'special break';
Well, they took those Jeezo-bucks and ran
To the bank! To the bank! To the bank! To the bank!
And every night we can hear them thank
Their Buddy, up above
For sending down his love
(While you all smell the glove)


Jim and Pat should take a pole
(Right up each saintly glory-hole),
With tar and feathers too --
Just like they'd love to do to you


('Cause they think you are bad --
And they are very mad)


'Cause some folks don't want prayer in school!


(We'd need an ark to survive the drool
Of Micro-publicans, raised on hate,
And 'Jimbo-Jimbo' when they graduate)


Conviced they are 'The Chosen Ones' --
And all their parents carry guns,
And hold them cards in the N.R.A.
(With their fingers on the triggers
When they kneel and pray)


With a Ku-Klux muu-muu
In the back of the truck,
If you ain't Born Again,
They wanna mess you up, screamin':
"No abortion, no-siree!"
"Life's too precious, can't you see!"
(What's that hangin' from the neighbor's tree?
Why, it looks like 'colored folks' to me --
Would THEY do THAT...seriously?)


Imagine if you will
A multi-millionaire Television Evangelist,
Saved from Korean Combat duty by his father, a U.S. Senator


Studied Law --
But is not qualified to practice it


Father of a "love child"
Who, in adulthood, hosts the remnants
Of papa's religious propaganda program


Claims not to be a "Faith Healer",
But has, in the past,
Dealt stearnly with everything from hemorrhoids to hurricanes


Involved with funding for a 'secret war' in Central America
Claiming Ronald Reagan and Oliver North as close friends


Involved in suspicous 'tax-avoidance schemes',
(Under investigation for 16 months by the I.R.S.)


Claims to be a MAN OF GOD;
Currenty seeking the United States Presidency,
Hoping we will all follow him into --
The Twilight Zone


What if Pat gets in the White House,
And suddenly --
The rights of 'certain people' disappear
Mysteriously?


Now, wouldn't that sort of qualify
As an American Tragedy?
(Especially if he covers it up, sayin'
"Jesus told it to me!")


I hope we never see that day,
In The Land of The Free --
Or someday will we?
Will we?


And if you don't know by now,
The truth of what I'm tellin' you,
Then, surely I have failed somehow --


And Jesus will think I'm a jerk, just like you --
If you let those TV Preachers
Make a monkey out of you!


I said:
"Jesus will think you're a jerk"
And it will be true!


There's an old rugged cross
In the land of cutton --
It's still burnin' on somebody's lawn
And it still smells rotten


Jim and Tammy!
Oh, baby!
You gotta go!
You really got to go!

Now I gotta go, the lady is waiting.
---G

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 07:15 PM
Too bad ol Frank ain't still alive to sing
that one Greg! I think I'm gonna take it out
to the people at Six Flags over Jesus here
in Memphis and see if their choir won't do it. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

Shang
01-05-2002, 07:27 PM
Nobody's going to ask about the gun, huh? http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/p6c2f22b240074747dbcfb7b07d5d1813/fe05aac0.jpg

Bateau Boy
01-05-2002, 07:29 PM
TOO MANY SMILEY FACES AND TOO MUCH HAPPY EMOTIONS. RELAX. COOL DOWN. Shane bad example promoting happy faces. FROWN from check to check.

Good day.

Rob H
01-05-2002, 07:35 PM
Golly, Shang,
We're all too _scared_ to ask!

NormMessinger
01-05-2002, 07:44 PM
I was tryin' to butt out but okay, Is it a line thrower. Tell me tell me.

Please?

--Norm

Memphis Mike
01-05-2002, 08:00 PM
Yea, Me Tooo! I'd like to know! Sorry to leave ya outa the fun ol buddy! http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by Memphis Mike (edited 01-05-2002).]

stan v
01-05-2002, 09:47 PM
boils down to a simple question. americans taxed to little, or to much? there is a reason for this question. how much should the federal government take to redistribute?

Shang
01-05-2002, 10:17 PM
The gun is a "Jawa Blaster," from Star Wars.
If you think wooden boaters are a strange group, you should look in on the Star Wars-ers!

(Funny though, that Jawa Blaster reminds me a little of the Lee Enfield I swapped off...)

Wild Dingo
01-05-2002, 10:25 PM
Im cool... Im cool... Well now I see the thread has been hyjacked by the Jawa blasters and the trekkies I feel better.. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

Oh and Sue no worries I know most everyone here doesnt feel the way that posting of stans came out... oh well...

Take it easy
Shane

Mirelle
01-06-2002, 06:22 AM
Stan, you may not wnat to hear from foreigners, but this is relevant to you. I don't believe that any US Government has ever taxed to redistribute.

You have never had a Socialist party in power in the USA.

In Britain we have had Socialist governments (I certainly do not include our present Administration, because before they were elected they reformed the Labour Party Constition and expressly removed the Socialist elements from it).

We have had "redistributive" taxation - with top income tax rates in the region of 90%, very heavy inheritance taxes (we still have quite sigificant inheritance tax) and purchase taxes on "luxuries" (boats were a favourite, on two different occasions).

We don't have these taxes now, because they dont work. The wealthy can always hire lawyers and accountants to get round them.

stan v
01-06-2002, 07:05 AM
i wonder, do any of you americans on this board pay taxes? for the last 40 years america has indeed been redistributing wealth, from those that produce, to those who do not. in our country socialists do not admit to being socialists. they call themselves liberals.....very, very, very, reluctuntly. let me make the question as simple as i can. those of you who pay taxes, do you think you pay to much, or to little?

Bateau Boy
01-06-2002, 07:23 AM
I will reply to Mirelle and Stan. If allowed without rebutal, Four or five heads of the Democratic party in the Senate would get the rate up to 90 percent here. That would be the only way to fund the ever increasing policies of taking care of every need in life today.

One thing for sure, in this country a new civil war would erupt before it got to that point because of the class warfare that has been taught through the media with spokemen like leader Clinton and the Dashles and Kennedys, Leahy, and gang. Just look at the numbers on each side of the voting results.

This country has been fortunate in that the free enterprise system and small business by way of corporation laws have been allowed to create, and invent products to modernize the world on their own free will.

The desire to be better than the other guy was allowed to work freely. Capitalism allowed the multiplication of products by way of reinvestment. Economics 101

Greg H
01-06-2002, 07:26 AM
Relative to what Stan?
I pay for food.
I pay for bombs.
I pay for the highway system.

stan v
01-06-2002, 07:42 AM
greg, relative to your paycheck.

Greg H
01-06-2002, 08:11 AM
No.

I buy wood
I buy rocks
I buy the presidents socks

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 09:47 AM
It is very hard to stay out of the serious side of this discussion when some of you are so jaded. If you think that wealth is being
redistributed to the poor and the ones that do not contribute, go take a look at one of the inner city housing projects or city schools and come to that assumption. You are soo against Bill Clinten, Isn't he the one that made welfare cases go back to work? Or at least he tried with some success. Do some
of you really lead that sheltered of a life that you cannot tell what is really
going on without referring to the local paper or the T.V. to come to your conclusions? As far as taxes are concerned,
Stan, I pay enough that it prevents me from
living the kind of life that I would really
like to live. If you want to get real honest,
how about you? But then again, I take that back. Happiness comes from within and not
a large bank account. During the last election, it astounded me how people voted
with the only consideration in mind being thier pocketbooks. For me it wasn't about money, it was about trying to preserve the economy as it was with added continued growth. So those of you that voted that way
have no one to blame but yourselves. Check out the unemployment lines. The country will be operating on a deficit for a long time now. Do you think that does not cost YOU?
If my memory is correct, with the exception
of the bombings, all of this was predicted.

NormMessinger
01-06-2002, 09:55 AM
The flesh is weak. Oh well. Do we pay to much taxes? Okay, if so, what do we cut out? That question is seldom debated by the tax cut activists.

I'm more concerned with how those taxes are spent. Compare the price of a commuter expressway enterchange with the price of a dozen schools. The cost of bussing a pupil with the cost of another teacher. The cost of treating sick or injured in the emergency room vs preventive care. Compare infant mortality in the US with that in countries with dreaded universal health care. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Grrrrrr!

Greg H
01-06-2002, 10:15 AM
I live in a state where for about the last 8 years, both houses and the Gov have all been from the same nameless tax cutting party. One tax cut and spending program cut after another has gone through. We've gone from balanced buget to slight deficit to now a large deficit. The last act he left us with, is a final tax cut and no way to pay for it and due to some other laws , no way for local areas to raise local taxes. No extra programs left to cut so looks like we have to cut starting with mental health, transportation, education, libraries ect....
Can't even afford to pay for maintanence of what we have.
But he kept his promise....eegit

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 10:43 AM
Uh, I made a mistake. See, I am only human.
Along with consideration of your pocketbooks,
a lot of you voted, claiming morality to be an issue. Thats fine with me, Just don't try
pushing your moral garbage down my throat. I believe in compassion, understanding and yes,
rights for all human beings. I guess that makes me a "dyed in the wool" liberal to answer your main question Stan. Those of you
that hide behind the Bible and use that
publication to support your beliefs had better go back and read it again. Its about
compassion, understanding, FORGIVNESS and
again rights for all human beings.

Shang
01-06-2002, 11:05 AM
Are some Independent lizards tryin' to hijack this thread?

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/p1f20f1d527014a7c143a8272d775f240/fe05aac9.jpg

Show me the hang of this heah blaster and Ah'll vaporize the varments!

Allen Foote
01-06-2002, 11:18 AM
Registered Republican. Pro death penalty. Pro school prayer. Pro pledge alliagence in school and am still ashamed of the liberals that thought it was inhuman to require children to say it....UNTIL 911 happened!! @s! I do not give a rats ass what Brits Canucks or ozzies politics are. I was for dropping the BIG NUKE on Afghanistan until I realized that the Afghanis were killing the Pakistanis and Egyptions and Saudis and anyother nationality that showed up in thier country for Jihad. I HATE GP! I hate Oral Roberts and all those $ sucking maggots that prey upon emotional pandering in the name of God or Mother Earth....I see too many simulaities in Jerry Falwell and Al Sharpton...may they both share the same room in HELL. I LOVE DUBYA!!! Finally God graced the U.S. with a decent president....and I'll bet any dam one of yous that when the Bushes vacate the White House THE FURNITURE STAYS!!! No more trailer park Arkansawn HillBillys please, Mr. God. Now for the Quarks...I believe in a womans choice in abortion, and that GE should not have to clean up the Hudson River. Let the sleeping PCB's lie dormant for a few 1,000 years first...and then if it STILL doesn't cause cancer in residents....LEAVE IT ALONE! I call a Liberal a liberal cause I can't shoot them and maintain my current lifestyle. A Republican votes for the better person for the job and a Liberal votes the Democrat party line regardless of thier candidates inability to grasp reality....and YES, Jane is an ignorant slut!!! 80% of women voting for Clinton (in 1992) said "because he was SEXY". Repeal that dammed ammendment NOW! You DON'T give them the right to choose about abortion BUT you let them vote?!?! What the F***? Government spending....the governments role is to protect its citizens....not to hire minorities in order to boost Democrat turn out for the Democrat Primaries...and that exstends into Patriating wet backs....again, that arguement was shot down with a 737 on 911. Make Tyson's foods pay TRILLIONS of U.S. $ for thier "20 years of creating and maintaining a culture of illegal alien employment" then force the bastards to close thier doors...rewarding Perdue and other corporations with the former shares of market once held by Tyson's. My finger is getting sore....more ranting later.

Greg H
01-06-2002, 11:38 AM
Good one, Allen
http://www.duhspot.com/users/smiley/s/contrib/geno/rofl.gif
I'll laugh at it, 'cause if you serious, then your as frightening as those terrorists you condem.



[This message has been edited by Greg H. (edited 01-06-2002).]

stan v
01-06-2002, 11:59 AM
i believe w was elected because he tells the truth. straight shooter, and you won't hear him explain what the meaning of is is. great example memphis mike of the inner cities of this great country looking like third world countries. crime, unemployment, no business investment likely anytime soon. who would want to invest in an area where the likelyhood of a loss is imminent? or, invest in a neighborhood that could riot and the citizenry demolish the very neighborhood? i'm trying to recall where these areas existed prior to 1965. can someone help me with this? the great society started dishing out money about that time, and helping people didn't they? since i've only had one answer to the question of taxes, to much, or to little, i assume you all are willing to send in more of your earnings to uncle sam? maybe i have asked the question wrong, and have made it difficult. let me try this. how many of you tax paying americans send in more than you owe to the irs, and tell them to keep the change?

Allen Foote
01-06-2002, 12:18 PM
In the "perfect world" there would be no taxes. Don't raise mine until you learn how to manage what you've already taken.

Greg H
01-06-2002, 12:21 PM
Bush is serving as president because of a Supreme Court desicion, most of the voting population voted for someone else.
Are you seriously questioning the existance of poverty in the US prior to 1965?

Allen Foote
01-06-2002, 12:40 PM
Dubya is serving as President because he was legally elected to that position....grow up, liberal.

stan v
01-06-2002, 12:47 PM
there is poverty, there was poverty, there will always be poverty. there was a time when local communities took care of the disadvantaged, or the families themselves took care of special family members, or their elderly parents. my question was aimed at the inner cities quadmire. does anyone think america has been improved with almost 5 trillion dollars transfered to these communities? or better yet, do you think these people lives have been improved?

Shang
01-06-2002, 12:49 PM
Make LOVE, not war, Shang!


Right on, MMike!

Nice pinup...Look quick, guys; she'll probably be Scott-ed soon.

Mike H.
01-06-2002, 12:51 PM
Gee Stan, I don't know. Why don't you ask some of "Those People"?

Chris Coose
01-06-2002, 01:15 PM
Stan,
As Dita on SNL would say, "your discussion is begining to bore me".
There must be some other place on this giant internet where you could bring your mean spirited questions to folks who may give a fiddler's fart.
There are plenty of other sites where you'll find your fight.
Your profile would indicate that you might not be capable of engaging in a decent wood boat discussion if it were laid in your lap. Too bad.

Greg H
01-06-2002, 01:20 PM
censored

[This message has been edited by Greg H. (edited 01-06-2002).]

Sam F
01-06-2002, 01:44 PM
Stan v, Your revised question on taxes raises a lot of issues. In my case the answer is yes and no. For citizens to support taxes, they should see some tangible benefit either to themselves or to the community. Which brings me to the "no" part of my answer. As far as my local taxes go... they are a total rip off. I and my community get almost nothing for our taxes unless you count local land fill, which turned my County into the trash can of the region and looses a million dollars per year or the local schools which are simply pathetic. The national taxes are more of a mixed bag. In some ways they are a good deal. Compared to other industrial nations, the US is not highly taxed. The central govt does a fairly good job defending the nation, running the parks and weather service etc. It at least makes some minimal effort to protect the environment health and safety. The down side is that my tax dollars also go to many things I find morally objectionable. I particularly hate the billions of dollars spent on corporate welfare. While I can understand how someone would have an emotional response to an able bodied person on welfare; the Federal money wasted on that sort is simply chump change compared to the Niagara Falls of cash "we" shower on the rich. For instance, I used to work in the textile industry. (Note the words "used to") The US govt. subsidized the building of factories in Central America by "American" garment concerns. In effect they took my money and paid the garment companies to build foreign factories which were guaranteed to put me out of work! Did only the pinko pro-Union Democrats do this to me? What do you think? (Hint: the answer starts with an "R") So were my taxes too high? In that case you bet they were. But given the complexity of modern life I think big government and taxes are unavoidable. The "no taxers" seem to believe in some imaginary free market Golden Age of the past where everyone could do as he pleased to get rich and where community pressure would prevent my neighbor from sticking a chemical plant next door. If that world ever existed it's dead now. Let's face it, we live in a world where unregulated technology can and will kill tens of thousands in minutes if sloppily handled. Remember Bophal India and what Union Carbide did there? I may not like it, but Govt regulation, as imperfect and unfair as it is seems, is essential to our continued well being. Maybe the Amish are the ones to get this right. If we all lived like them we'd have no need for all the big government nonsense, but how many of us are willing to live as they do? BTW, I for one appreciate the international aspect of this forum and value input from all over. As Red Green says; "We're all in this together!" Sam

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 02:11 PM
That is a lot of the problem, Stan. You and your cohorts are still living in 1965 and
further back. It ain't 1965 anymore. I bet you believe in the "trickle down theory of
economics" don't you?

stan v
01-06-2002, 02:21 PM
i remember a particular year my son was attending college, not that it was a distant university, but he was away from home in a dormitory. had several high school friends with him and was having a great time, except for class. my wife and i were paying as you go, books, hours, etc. if you've been there you know what an expense it is, we required no work on his part. when he was placed on probation for a semester i wasn't sure if he'd go back and finish or not, a fear we all have at one time or another. but, he needed to learn the value of a dollar, and the satisfaction derived from having earned something. to accomplish something in life you set out to achieve is very inspiring indeed. i stopped financing. he got a job, went back to school and earned his diploma on the day clinton was impeached. he still thanks me to this day. from time to time we all need wake up calls. in my sons case i wasn't doing him any favors by allowing him to fail without penalty. i wasn't going to throw more money to continue the process. which brings us back to taxes in america. regardless of how much money our government takes, they will spend it, and more. then come asking for more. it's time we asked them, how are they going to afford those spending bills? that, or my liberal friends, you need to send more money.

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 02:48 PM
There wasn't any need to send more money until George W. Bush gave it all away.
Mark my words, in the very near future, he
will implement a tax increase to finance
the deficit he has created.

Allen Foote
01-06-2002, 03:19 PM
MM..."the deficit he created" You sound like Daschle. Qoute from Washington Post, page A2, January 4 2002 "Daschle will signal that Democrats plan to link many of the current economic troubles to the administration's policies." COMPLETELY ingnoring the affect of 911 on the U.S. economy. Qoute...Trent Lott (R Miss) "But where is the tax increase? We know its there. We know it is hidden. We know its inevitable from a DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED Senate" Nothings changed...the Democrats in congress vote in a tax increase and point a finger at the Republican President. As I said....I call Liberals, Liberals because I can't shoot them and mantain my standard of living.

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 04:04 PM
I don't need to quote the newspaper to come to an intelligent conclusion about what is going on in society today. I base my opinion
on my own perceptions. Is your life so sheltered that you cannot do the same? Are you now reduced to petty threats?

Ed Harrow
01-06-2002, 04:10 PM
LOL, don't know... Registered "Republican", but there ain't one of Hopkinton's Republican Town Committee that would give me the time of day (take that back, there's one, but I'm not certain of his role in the committee, and we share industry and kid connections...).

Anyway, here's a letter to the editor I wrote a while back; what do you think it makes me?

My grandparents were proud but humble people. 'Poppie' owned his own business; many called him a genius. Today, people doing similar things call themselves entrepreneurs. If you called him an entrepreneur he'd just laugh and say he worked for himself. With respect to politics, if you asked him he'd say, "I belong to the party of Lincoln." When my mother, as an infant, showed indications of being left handed he reportedly said, "There won't be any left-handedness in my family. The only thing worse than her being left-handed would be if she grew up and voted for a damn Democrat." He was certain that the former nearly guaranteed the latter.

As for those who called themselves "Republican" he said there were two kinds. There were those who took responsibility for things and respected things - he called them "Resp"publicans. The others were "Rayp"publicans. Those were the folks that thought anything and everything should be turned into money for their selfish benefit. He didn't want Democrats controlling land because "They'd just give it away to people that won't respect it." As for the "Rayp"publicans, he'd say they were worse, they'd sell it to anybody just for the money. "They don't respect the land and they don't take responsibility for their actions anymore than do the Democrats."

If he were around today, listening to all the sanctimonious sniveling about "property rights", I can only guess what he'd say. I hate to put words in his mouth, but here's my guess. "Do you have money in the stock market?" he'd ask. "Have you lost money? Have you gone raising a ruckus up to capital hill demanding your property rights and wanting your money back? What's the difference? Here you're expecting the government to guarantee you the right to make money with an investment. You're not only asking the government to guarantee your 'right' to profit from your investment in land, you're asking the government to subsidize you in the process. In September 1777, my many-greats back Grandfather Mickley smuggled the Liberty bell out of Philadelphia under a wagonload of your argument."

It's pretty lonely being a "Resp"publican these days wherein the "Rayp"publicans have taken control neither knowing nor caring about the origins of the Republican party in the mid 1800's, that of giving a voice to the voiceless. The very purpose of the ACEC designation is to give at least a semblance of a voice to the voiceless. Indeed, if 'Poppie' looked at what has come to pass with respect to the ACEC effort within Grafton, Hopkinton, and Upton, and the position taken by the "Rayp"publicans (that they deserve a guarantee to make every last penny that they can envision, off of land they don't respect), I know he'd think again of Great Grandfather Mickley's cover-up. 'Poppie' would say "Being a Republican is about taking responsibility for one's actions, and respecting those with whom you share this planet."

Gordon Wood wrote "private interests, selfishness, and moneymaking seem to be destroying social affection and public spirit…" James Tracy notes that, with respect to graduating students, those "devoted to serving the larger public good [is a concept that] is shared by fewer and fewer…" Phillips Andover Academy's constitution states that, of the several great duties that the graduate owes, the duty they owe themselves is at the end of the list. The designation ACEC, does not even put property owners "at the end of the list." Indeed, I know an individual who built a house within an ACEC. Sheffield, MA built a new school within the 14,000-acre Schenob Brook ACEC. Egremont is building a water-treatment plant within the 7,000-acre Karner Brook ACEC (though not without some complications). Nearly 50% of Easton is in either the 17,000-acre Hockomock or 17,000-acre Canoe River ACEC, and, amazing as it may seem, Easton has permitted three subdivisions within them.

However, of all the disappointments with the ACEC designation process, my biggest disappointment has been with the attitudes, misinformation, and deliberate baiting and fear-mongering tactics used principally by those who call themselves "Republican". I've heard rumors the "Rayp"publicans have now even created a group opposed to "state takeover". Interesting. The 13,000-acre Central Nashua River Valley ACEC was created in 1996 as an instrument to ensure local control. I trust these self-serving "Rayp"publicans have not suckered you into their den of falsehood and deception with Great-Grandfather Mickley's cover-up.

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 04:26 PM
O.K. I will. But you are right, Custom.
This is The WoodenBoat Forum and I think that
a lot of people don't reconize it as such.
They only come in here to insight and provoke
and cause general disruption. I am guilty as sin for taking their bait to begin with.
Personally I think they should take their
political crap to another forum of their
choice. One that agrees with them.

stan v
01-06-2002, 04:29 PM
ed, i couldn't agree with you more regarding some republicans currently in office. i believe some have adopted the party to take advantage of a growing conservative base. jim jeffords is a recent example, then became independent. republicans will eat their own, democrats don't have to as often, because the media will cover them simply by not reporting both sides of every story. watch how the media in your part of the country takes a stance on the economy. bet they agree with daschle. east coast moderates are another concern. by the way, are you sending in more money?

Memphis Mike
01-06-2002, 05:27 PM
Now lets hear it from the most backward of all you "Rayp" ublicans. I know you are lurkin. Take it away........

Ronald Rosen
01-06-2002, 05:31 PM
STAN V... as long as 2 and 2 still equals 4 you know how the story ends. We dont know when, but there may be a whiff of smoke in the air.
Was it Robert Burns that said " the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray" Remember how Zorba the Greek danced after his grand scheme collapsed? Cheer up!! It aint so bad starting over again. It's rather challenging!! Keeps the blood flowing. Cycles do seem to be the story of much in nature. Like it or not we seem to be a part of nature.
As long as there are wooden boats we'll be O.K. Now as far as taxes go........

Cap'n Ron

Frank Hagan
01-06-2002, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by stan v:
i wonder, do any of you americans on this board pay taxes? for the last 40 years america has indeed been redistributing wealth, from those that produce, to those who do not. in our country socialists do not admit to being socialists. they call themselves liberals.....very, very, very, reluctuntly. let me make the question as simple as i can. those of you who pay taxes, do you think you pay to much, or to little?

I think I pay too much in taxes. Its obscene that the federal government would overcharge on taxes and end up with a surplus, and then debate endlessly about how much of it they should return to the people who paid it in.

The liberal rhetoric about "tax cuts going to the top 1%" is simply a lie. The cuts in income tax should go to those who actually pay income tax, and the poor don't. Not a penny. (They do pay "payroll tax", our social security system taxes, which are racist and patently unfair to the poorest Americans.)

When politicians, on both sides of the party aisle, debate how much they are going to "rebate" to people who never paid income taxes, they are redistributing the money. That's obscene. Its not theirs to give to someone else.

Its interesting that whenever government gets a surplus, there's some reason for it to be spent rather than refunded. Like the old adage "work expands to fill the time allotted for it," government adjusts its budget to spend every penny it takes in.

Don Olney
01-06-2002, 08:36 PM
http://www.regalweb.co.uk/loony/animated/itchy.gif

PatCox
01-06-2002, 08:41 PM
I am a liberal. A liberal intellectual, for that matter.

I work and I have worked ever since I was 13 years old. Worked my way through college and law school. I have never taken a days unemployment benefits or any other charity. So, even though BB annoys me, you cannot call me a sponger. Unless you are a liar. Anyone want to make themselves one, go ahead.

I paid enough in taxes last year to support an E-2 and pay all his benefits, too. I have a right to my opinion on military salaries, I am the one paying them.

I never whine about my taxes. I am glad to pay them. I don't lie or cheat on them, either. I think I get a pretty good bargain for what I pay.

I get to live in the greatest, free-est, richest country on earth. Thats worth paying something for, to me. In this world, thre are many, many countries poorer than we are. They also have lower taxes. I think we have it bettr here.

In this world there are countries that are by and large as well off as we are, most of western europe, for example. They pay more in taxes. They get more for it, too. But I think we cut a good compromise here, so other than arguing the margins, a few percentage points here and there, I am okay with our system.

I wish we could be more conservative from a fiscal sense. For example, during Ronald Reagan's 8 years, our national debt went up about 4 trillion dollars. If we didn't hae to pay the interest on what Reagan borrowed, we could cut taxes big time, and still pay for everything.

You all know what the national debt is? Its a means by which the government transfers money from the poor to the rich. Look at the system; the national debt consists of government T-bonds, nice conservative investmentts, wealthy people love them, they make sure your capital never, ever shrinks due to inflation. Interest on th debt is about 20-25% of the federal budget. So, 20 to 25% of all taxes paid go to pay the people who own tbonds. If we paid off the national debt, these people would actually have to act like conservatives and go invest in actual private enterprise, but why do that when the government is in the business of collecting taxes just to give you a sure return on your money? So, we have a "conservative" president who cuts taxes to the point we have to start borrowing again, but thats fine, because the more we borrow, the more we pay in interest to someone, and it ain't me. It just means more of our tax money will go to the investors and less for those starving E-2s and less for roads and less for all the other basic jobs government is supposed to do.

Bush says he's giving you back your money, yeah, sure, but he's lso running up your credit cards, cause thats your debt and you're the one who will have to pay it, not him. Years from now, you'll be paying taxes just lie you are now and wondering why the roads are going to hell and servicemen are on welfare,and the answer is, its because we are paying off those bondholders, we are paying off the debt of Reagan and Bush.

I respect and admire the people who have fought and died for this country. I wish there were more veterans of our wars in public office. I think veterans know things that the people who stayed at home cannot know and will never know. Of course, George Bush stayed home, Rush Limbaugh stayed home, Trent Lott stayed home, Tom Delay stayed home, Dick Cheney stayed home, even though they were all of age and fit during a time our country was at war. They all got deferments.

Thats one of the funiest things to me, everyone, and BB, too, seems to think democrats aren't patriotic, yet while the so-called conservatives wrap themslves in the flag, their leaders all avoided serving this country. Yet among the democratic leaders there is a winner of the Congresional Medal of Honor and many other decorated combat veterans. Just shows their parents weren't rich, I guess.

I also wish we could be a more christian country. I follow the moral and ethical system Christ created. I believe, as Christ said, that we have an obligation to take care of those less fortunate than we are. I believe, as Christ preached, that we must forgive sinners and criminals if we wish to be forgiven ourselves. I believe, as Christ said, that we should not complain about having to pay taxes to a secular government, for as Christ said, render unto ceasar that which is ceasars. I beleive, as Christ said, that only hypocrites desire to pray in public and make a show of their piety, that truly pious men pray in secret in their homes; thus I am against organized school prayer. (Of course, I am generally in favor of prayer in school, everyone is free to do it and always has been, someone once said "there will be prayer in the schools as long as there are tests.")I beleive, as christ preached, that the desire for earthly wealth leads to evil, and that we truly live only insofar as we serve God in all those created in his image.

I am sick to death of people characterizing me based on their ignorant stereotype of what a liberal is; I am sick of people putting words in my mouth that I never said and never agreed with because they think I must agree with every asinine thing someone told them that liberals want.

That seems to be what's going on lately; if you disagree with someone, you just accuse him of something he never said and demonize that.

I wish we wouldn't even be talking about this ridiculous ditinction between "conservative" and "liberal" that is based more on propaganda than reality anyway. I have a suspicion its all just a show to divide the people so that the couple of thousand folks who control all the corporations and 90% of the money will never have to answer to us. They want us to fight each other over crap so that we won't look at all that they are stealing.

You asked, there it is.

Bruce Taylor
01-06-2002, 08:52 PM
Don, I strongly agree with your post. That mouse is really mean, and I hope the cat clobbers him good.

stan v
01-06-2002, 09:12 PM
it is our money. we earned it. we sent it in. they collect it. they spend it. they spend it. they spend it. they spend it all. the only way liberals won't spend is to deny them the funds in the first place. regardless of how much they collect, they spend it all. then blame us for not paying our fair share. reagan cut taxes. so did jfk. problem: liberals were in control of congress for 40 years, and never stopped spending. never. don't ever forget, it's our money. by the way, there is no other country even close to the usa. i never hear of anyone wanting to go anywhere else. liberal intellectual? impossible

Bateau Boy
01-06-2002, 09:14 PM
Pat I will not argue with you on your post. But I will like to say two things of issue. No smiley face , no frown, no provoking, no name calling, no liberal, no conservative.

Quote straight from Batty Boy keyboard. Yes from the stupid and misinformed leader of provocative comments as many feel.

Why is it that you feel every dollar extra that is not spent for a persons existance should be sent to Washington? Why is there never enough for the entitlement programs and it is okay for the demand to continue unchallenged by the working class of people?
Anyone that does buck at increases is labeled evil and cold hearted?

The same people sitting in Wash. giving it away and calling for more, are the same ones with such hatred to the ones working for a living and struggling every day asking for some of it back. It is so easy to spend someones elses money especially if you don't know them. That is the program of the liberal Democrat.

TomFF
01-06-2002, 10:11 PM
I diagree Bruce- the cat is the bad one.

I must admit at times I find taxes discouraging. But I like roads and schools and BTW did you know that a large portion of money designated "welfare" goes to the military. Indeed- I like taking care of disabled vets (even though some abuse the system).

I struggle with the unbelievably high denfense budget- but I also don't want to get whipped by some dictator sending terriorists to hijack our planes and blow up our cities.

I wish the poor were all working. I wish they didn't live in rural trailers or HUD buildings. BTW inner city poverty was awful in the nineteeth century. Just read Charles Dickens. And wasn't the WATTS riots in '65. Speaking of poverty, I hate it. It is an evil that crushes and destroys and puts people into a bondage that is tough to get out. I wish babies weren't born into it. I wish all those underemployed mill workers and rural families got paid more and were offered some kind of insurance. Rural poverty is awful stuff. Inner city poverty isn't much better. I wish people didn't have the need to resort to dumpster diving. I wish people didn't use drugs. I wish there was no injustice. I wish that inner city neighborhoods weren't "cut-off" opportunities most of use have. I wish, I wish.

But wishes don't mean anything. Neither does whinning about taxes.

Ronald Rosen
01-07-2002, 05:07 AM
It appears to this forumite that the Government of the U.S.A does not trust the Christian and other religious communities of this Nation to care for the needy amongst us. Therefor the Government taxes us so it can make sure the needy are cared for. I do believe Government does this for the purpose of buying votes and not out of great care for the needy. Trust belongs to the givers not the takers.I prefer the Christian community 24/7/365 eternally over any form of alleged "caring" by Government. Admittedly my views are ancient. If we care to give above and beyond what is taken ,taxed,from us we are free to do so.So be it.

Cap'n Ron

Scott Rosen
01-07-2002, 08:35 AM
Two-to-one odds for the cat. Anyone wanting to place a bet should email me off-Forum.

No disrespect meant to the sincere and thoughtful participants, but, man, this topic is getting mighty old.

Greg H
01-07-2002, 08:55 AM
Enough!
http://www.gifs.net/animate/nuke2.gif
Clean slate
One mo Time
On my mark, Evolve

Sam F
01-07-2002, 09:40 AM
Nicely put PatCox. It almost makes me wish I could be a liberal. I can't stomach it but perhaps I can be a fellow traveller? :)
One thing in all this discussion I've noticed is a shortage of facts. What kind of numbers are we talking about? The last time I saw a pie chart of the Federal budget, defense took up a bit less than half. Social services of various types (medicare, soc security etc. took about half and everything else (NASA, roads, parks, R&D) was a miniscule slice of about 2-3 minutes worth on a clock face. ( BTW - I recently read that the US spends more on defense than the next top 9 countries added together!) If we're to cut taxes and therefore programs, what do we cut? Defense? Social Security? Medicare? Most of the "conservatives" I've heard from, repeat endlessly the old saw about "its my money being spent". I agree. It is my money, which is why I hate paying more than my fair share. Come on folks, you are being manipulated by so-called pundits to the benefit of the wealthy. You should know perfectly well that the Govt. isn't going to pitch all those old folks out of nursing homes. The churches can't possibly take up all the slack. Someone IS going to have to pay for it (with deficit spending) and it won't be the rich. As Leona Helmsley said; "We don't pay taxes! Little people pay taxes!" Guess that leaves the rest of us stuck with the bill. Don't be a chump! How much did you get from the last tax cut? In my case "whoopee" wasn't the most obvious choice of reactions. Come on, turn off Rush, turn off the TV. Go to the library, do some research, engage in honest discusstions with others and start thinking for yourselves! After that act on your knowledge. That's the only way things will ever improve. Oh, and of course think organic. Wood houses, wood utensils, wood boats!

Allen Foote
01-07-2002, 10:35 AM
Amazing how the formites that don't agree with a prevailing train of thought call for the end of the discussion (boring?). You can see the liberals by the color of thier words (pink). Pat, with all your intellectual wisdom I'm surprised to find that YOU didn't know that CONGRESS controls spending. "Demacrat" means "tax and spend". Which military unit did Bill Clinton serve with? The same one that Jimmy Carter's son was in? Yes, its quite a stretch to think of a Demacrat as "patriotic". Patriotic...like the behavior of Hillary Clinton during President Bush's speech to Congress folloeing 911. Did you see her? Real Niiiiiice.

Bateau Boy
01-07-2002, 11:16 AM
Quote from the intellegent side of the Wodden Boat Community:
" wish we could be more conservative from a fiscal sense. For example, during Ronald Reagan's 8 years, our national debt went up about 4 trillion dollars. If we didn't hae to pay the interest on what Reagan borrowed, we could cut taxes big time, and still pay for everything."

Lets see, where was the check book from 1980 to 1988? Capital Hill or 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Kermit
01-07-2002, 01:09 PM
Pat: Thank you.

Stan: You think the R's aren't working to redistribute wealth?

All this over a question as to whether we each consider ourselves to be liberal or conservative. I think the votes are in. Most of us find the labels meaningless enough to not apply either to ourselves. If anyone wants to stick one or the other on their chest, go for it. Problem is that most labels, whether stapled on by ourselves or by others, are just too limiting. Chuck the dzmn labels and sit down for a chat. C'mon over. I'll buy ya a pounder.

Oh--and welcome to this world-wide forum, all you whose passports, like most of the world's population's, are not labeled "Made in USA."

PatCox
01-07-2002, 01:35 PM
Well, if you want to get all technical about it, the president proposes the budget and the congress must approve it. They usually change it before they approve it. Be aware that the Senate was republican controlled through most Reagan's presidency.

So, well, since its all conress' fault, that must mean the bad ole democrats must have taken Reagan's budgets and ripped them to shreds, and inflated spending by massive amounts over what fiscally conervative Ronnie proposed, right?

Nope. If you take away the difference between Reagan's proposed budgets and the adopted budgets, in other words, if Reagan's proposed budgets were passed as he proposed them, with no liberal tinkering whatsoever, then the deficit he ran up would be reduced by about 10%. So it would be $3.6 trillion instead of $4.0 trillion.

Hey, I know this is an article of faith, facts don't matter when you're debating on matters of hagiography. But thems the figures, just for those who might be curious.

But you think about it, Reagan did just what he wanted; because of that $3.6 trillion in debt, every year the government collects money from working people like me, and gives it to those people who own bonds, to the tune of, oh, $100 billion a year or so.

Now from a conservative free market way of thinking, don't you think the economy would be better suited if these people holding the $3.6 trillion in bonds invested all that money in private enterprise, in private businesses? Think of all that capital, all the industries that could be capitalized, all the jobs created.

And, of course, there's the expense.

Now the argument is often made that we have to run deficits in order to prevent the crazy democrats from spending all the money. But you know, its an awful wasteful way of winning your budget priority arguments to do it that way. I mean, here we are paying interest for 18 years now, just because the conservatives in 1982 wanted to cut welfare? The interest costs more than the welfare.

Thats like saying I am going to ask my boss for a pay cut to get my wife to stop spending so much. And then giving her a credit card.

And don't think its the democrats who got out the credit card. Bush's treasurer, Paul O'Neill, ex-ceo, good bidnessman, just sent a formal request to congress for permission to borrow more money.

Now, the government is short of money. Yet they just sent me and a 100 million other people a check for $300; gee, maybe they shouldn't go writing checks when they don't have enough money. To me, that would be conservative. (And this after the Bush budget was passed with very few changes by the republican house)

Kermit
01-07-2002, 02:16 PM
Pat, it's called socialism for corporations and the wealthy, a shaft for the working man.

The defense budget is the biggest welfare program on the planet. Very little, sadly, manages to make it into the pockets of the men and women who (maybe) get shot at. Combat pay? Peanuts. The lion's share goes to defense contractors and their stockholders, whose kids go to college and then work in the defense industry and dzmn seldom face the draft in wartime.

Out here in Boeingland, aircraft orders started to go south after 9/11 (maybe before), so the solution our Congress has is to create a program requiring the military to lease a batch of 767s as tankers. And it's blatantly to keep those folks beholden to the military-industrial complex and therefore re-elect their political hacks. Where is our national outrage? Focused on "welfare moms" and school test scores.

Greg H
01-07-2002, 02:54 PM
A bit more on redistributing wealth:
In another post I mentioned the Carlyle Group,
A major Backer of the Bush squad, Bush senior, J. Baker, Bin Laden family, King Saudh,and an Ex PM of GB all on the board of directors.... well seems that they want a nice defence contract (Tax Money)
From: Forbs Dec. 2001
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2001/12/05/rtr445176.html


" When military contractor United Defense Industries Inc. comes to market next week, it will be the first
initial public offering of a defense company since November 1996, when Firearms Training Systems
<FATS.OB> went public, according to research firm Dealogic. Another defense IPO will come in
January from ManTech International Corp. (nasdaq: MANT - news - people), which recently
decided to tap the market.

Demand for United Defense shares, which are expected to sell at between $18 and $20 apiece, is
strong, sources in the investing community say.

"We are at war, and defense stocks are going up in the broad market," said a banker, who
declined to be identified.

Defense stocks started rising after Sept. 11 and spiked after the beginning of the U.S.-led retaliatory
strikes on the Taliban in Afghanistan on Oct. 7.

Lockheed Martin Corp. (nyse: LMT - news - people) rose from $39.39 on Sept. 10 to $48.11 on
Nov. 12. It lately lost some ground, but is still trading above $46. Raytheon Co. (nyse: RTN - news
- people), the maker of the Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, traded at $26.85 on Sept. 10. Its
currently trading at $32.80. Northrop Grumman Corp. (nyse: NOC - news - people), the No. 4 U.S.
defense contractor, reached $105 in late October. The stock was selling at $81 before the attacks.

CAPITALIZING ON MOMENTUM

United Defense, which produces combat vehicles, artillery and missile launchers, is well aware of
the opportunity to capitalize on such momentum.

"The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have generated strong Congressional support for increased
defense spending," the company said in its filing with U.S. regulators.

Taking advantage of the favorable climate for defense companies, the banks managing United
Defense's IPO have sped up the deal.

The Arlington, Virginia-based company, announced the IPO, led by Lehman Brothers (nyse: LEH -
news - people), Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. (nyse: MER - news - people), and
Credit Suisse First Boston <CSGZn.VX>, on Oct. 24, just seven weeks before its expected debut.

Initially, the company said it would raise up to $300 million. A month later, when it set the price range
for its shares, its expectations had increased to $422 million.

In the meantime, another defense company had followed suit. Two weeks ago, defense information
technology firm ManTech International filed to raise as much as $92 million in an IPO scheduled to
be completed in January, according to lead underwriter Jefferies and Co.

The company did not provide details of how many shares it plans to issue or the price at which
they will be offered.

ManTech focuses on providing information technology and technological services to the federal
government's national defense and intelligence programs. "We are often called upon to support our
customers ... to identify evolving foreign and domestic threats, including terrorism," the company said
in its prospectus. ManTech also boasts that more than 1,700 of its 3,500 employees hold
government security clearances, including more than 600 with access to Top Secret Sensitive
Compartmented Information.

The recent new equity issues from defense companies comes on the heels of two successful
secondary offerings in the sector. Over the past month and a half, Northrop Grumman and
Raytheon sold a combined $2.3 billion worth of shares in secondary offerings, in a further sign of the
market liking for war-related stocks.

"That kind of activity is quite unusual in the sector," said Ernst. "But it is a great time for defense."

---- United Defense will sell 21.1 million shares, but the company's main stockholder, private equity firm
Carlyle Group, will get more than half of the money raised.---

Copyright 2001, Reuters News Service.

[This message has been edited by Greg H. (edited 01-07-2002).]

Sam F
01-07-2002, 02:58 PM
With all these assertions that the Democrats did this and the Republicans did that it's a good idea to remember that those in congress, whether in power or in opposition, have more in common with each other than they do with any citizen. That's why so many are horrified at the results regardless of who's in power. As GK Chesterton said:
"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular" Congress is the circus part of Bread and Circuses.

Greg H
01-07-2002, 03:09 PM
Yes Sam I agree, The same thing goes on regardless of who is in control. And it needs to be pointed out.
---G

Ed Harrow
01-07-2002, 03:18 PM
I like it. A very slightly refined version of WWF so to speak.

Scott Rosen
01-07-2002, 04:20 PM
Our entire US economy is based on credit and government debt. It's built in to the system. The only way to change it would be to convert the dollar from a fiat currency back to a metal-based currency. But we can't do that because we've sold off way too much of our gold reserves. As long as the government has the exclusive power to create money backed only by its own say-so, then there has to be government debt. And once government gets the power to do something, it doesn't easily give it up. I don't see how it can be any other way. It's worked pretty well for most people over the past 10 years or so, but I don't think it's going to work for the next ten years. If the dollar ever falls behind a different currency, say the Euro, which is a gold-backed currency, then the US economy could face serious long-term consequences.

There's a lot of strange things going on in the world markets these days. Despite what the "experts" are saying about gold being dead, there are an awful lot of governments, corporations and individuals around the world who are spending lots of dollars buying into the gold markets, or as some would say, controlling the gold markets.

Ironically, it was FDR, the liberal, who started killing the gold market, but it was Nixon, the conservative, who struck the final blow. I don't know. If you look back over the past 50 or 60 years, you'll see that the economy has grown most of the time and that prosperity has continued. But the US now has over a trillion dollars of debt, versus almost none in the 1930's. Our entire economy is built on that debt. That's one of the hidden costs of our prosperity, and one day we'll have to pay the piper. That day may come sooner than we'd like.

Check out this article, courtesy of Cap'n Ron:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_01/hamilton091001.html

Memphis Mike
01-07-2002, 04:45 PM
Does anyone see why I just like to post girlie pictures?

stan v
01-07-2002, 04:49 PM
our entire system is built on capitalism. the freedom to engage in any enterprise that is legal, and can provide a service to someone willing to pay for that service, or product. a profit must be made at some point. the problem with liberals is they believe all company profit has caused a loss somewhere else. that someone somewhere got the shaft because someone else made a profit, and the stockholders who invested in that company realized a capital gain. all companies are owned by big cigar puffing, landscape burning, animal killing, flesh eating, food stamp depriving, homophobic(have i forgot something), liars, and thieves. whew. wait a minute, i'll think of something else. you get the point. the fact is, most of us on this board are involved in the stock market, and if you'd bother to ask your parents you'd find they are to. this is hands down, the greatest country on the planet, ever. perfect, no. we've made mistakes. but right now, i can't think of any. but if i want my money to go the national endowment of arts, i'll write the check, not my government, please!

Scott Rosen
01-07-2002, 05:40 PM
Mike,

If you'd put more girlie pics up, we wouldn't have to hang around here. This is what Freud called sublimation. When your sexual urge is repressed, it surfaces in other forms--intellectual debate, for one. Boat building for another--forget it. I'm not going there.

Ian Wright
01-07-2002, 08:13 PM
So,,,,,, am I the only socialist here? Looks like the revoution may have to wait a week or two,,,,,,,

IanW.

stan v
01-08-2002, 05:23 AM
everyone in ameica needs to read this. www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20020108.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20020108.shtml) by the way. are you all sending in more money?

Alan D. Hyde
01-08-2002, 10:17 AM
The best answer is smaller, much smaller, government.

To answer all the excellent objections that can be made to this, many of which are made in posts here, would take a book.

Happily, that book has already been written. It is "Free to Choose," by Milton and Rose D. Friedman. I will resist the temptation to try to make the Friedman's arguments for them in a sentence or two in this post.

Please read the book yourselves (if you haven't already), Pat, Ian W., Scott, Ed, Cap'n. Ron, Mike, Sue, et al. You have sturdy mental equipment, and can evaluate the Friedman's ideas on your own.

You may not agree with all they have to say, but you likely will enjoy the experience of interacting with these remarkable individuals. And, wrestling with the ideas they discuss will make your minds even stronger.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan D. Hyde (edited 01-08-2002).]

PatCox
01-08-2002, 11:31 AM
Alan, a serious question. Friedman being an economist, he might be clever and construct a plausible alternate universe which you find appealing, but I have to ask, can you point me to a real world example of this wonderful state of affairs you desire?

I think its fair to say that with several hundred nations on earth, the world can be viewed as a huge experiment in political economy, or better yet, as a huge free-market in political ideas, in which the best ideas would win, and by win, I mean they would produce the best results.

So I ask you seriously, before I wade into Friedman, can you name a country that has this smaller government and also has greater freedom, greater prosperity, and a lower tax burden than the US?

If you name such a place, I will read Friedman's book.

What I am suggesting is that we have the greatest society on earth. And we have a big government. And that is not an accident or a coincidence. Our success has grown greater simultaneously with the growth of our government over this last century. The average american is wealthier, has a longer life, and is more productive, by every measure, than at the time the Income Tax was adopted.

I am suggesting that one of the greatest errors even very intelligent and educated people fall into is that of looking at an imperfect but effective system and seeing nothing but the imperfections, completely ignoring the successes.

I would suggest that the entire conservative movement is making this mistake with its attitude toward government itself. Focusing entirely upon imperfections in the system (and all human systems willl have impefections) too many conservatives ignore the sucesses.

When you go looking for this exemplar, it really shouldn't be a complicated comparison. Per capita GDP is a fine comparison point to start with, and please do not compare us with anomolous small countries with small populations and huge natural resources and/or no need to support an army.

Its a simple challenge, Alan; name that country in this world which, by dint of adopting Friedman's exceedingly brilliant thesis, even in part or in basic principle, has surpassed the United States in per capita GDP, freedom, and average standard of living.

Its all very well for Friedman to weave an ivory tower fairy tale about how much better things could be if only everyone did what he said. The fact is that in the real world of the "real world" and the millennia-long real-life laboratory of human existence, no system, anywhere, ever, has done better than this system we live under here and now in the United States.

To suggest that in his fervent mind Mr. Friedman has come up with the solution which will improve upon what is the most succesful system ever devised in the history of mankind is, well, a little more utopian, a little more naive, than I would ever expect of you. Its as silly as those liberal utopias that are routinely laughed at.

The funny thing about so many supposed conservatives is their willingness to throw out a system that works better than any system ever devised by man in the history of the world, in order to adopt some theory put out by some ivory tower intellectual. Thats not conservative, thats radical, dangerously radical.

Alan, I do not beleive that the liberal answer is the answer to everything. I beleive that both sides act in good faith and have valid beleifs. And I beleive both sides sometimes try to take their ideas and extend them beyond the area in which they work, and when that happens, we have the other side to act as a brake and bring things back into balance.

I take part in these discussions not to "win" or to prove anyone wrong. I do it, even when the dicussion gets kinda stupid, because I am trying to preserve the balance that got us where we are today, the richest, strongest, free-est country on earth. We didn't get here by being 100% doctrinaire conservative, and we didn't get here by being 100% doctrinaire liberal. We got here by compromising, sometimes closer to one side, sometimes closer to the other. Compromise, contrary to some,is not evil; it is in fact a prerequisite to a working democracy. Lets keep the system we have, I will pull one way at the margins, you will pull the other way, together we will make sure the other doesn't pull too far.

Ed Harrow
01-08-2002, 11:42 AM
Is there a better lunch room than this? http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

Alan D. Hyde
01-08-2002, 11:48 AM
Pat, Friedman's are deep enough you'll need to swim, not wade, but it will be a pleasant and refreshing swim.

Your "show me where it's been done" approach might have been taken by an English loyalist at the start of the American Revolution, and might have been directed at our founders. How wrong that would have been.

"They are poor discoverers who, seeing only sea, conclude there is no land."

(Sir Francis Bacon)

Alan

Scott Rosen
01-08-2002, 01:50 PM
I haven't read the book, so I have no opinion on it. But I would like to read it. Pat, who's to say you can't take the best and make it even better? That line of thinking would stop all progress dead in its tracks.

PatCox
01-08-2002, 02:18 PM
True enough Scott, my attitude would halt all progress; but it would also have the virtue of preventing any decline. I suppose that notion is now antiquated, that great societies have a life cycle, they flourish, enter a decadent period, then decline. But I still think avoiding decline is a worthy goal.

In human organizationsas unlike with tehnological innovations, I do think you have to be aware, very aware, of this principle, that social structures, whether religious movements or ideological movements, can evolve beyond their original intent and purpose and you have to guard against their going bad.

Thats why, unfortunately, in human history, radical change in the end usually turns out to be no change at all. The same human factors that corrupted the old will tend to corrupt the new until they are indistinguishable. As Peter Townsend said, "hello to the new boss, same as the old boss." Goodbye to the totalitarian Czar and his repressive regime, hello totalitarian Stalin and his repressive regime. Goodbye to the minority special-interest serving, bankrupt the country, liberal democrats, hello to the big-business-special interest serving, bankrupt the country conservative republicans. Lets trade the horrors of a government monopoly (I used to buy electricity from a government monopoly, boy they gave great service at a fair price) for the horrors of the unregulated free market, a-la Enron.

I honestly believe that maybe the constant clash of ideas and the continual compromising somehow keeps the corrupting influences in check.

The fact is that every single wealthy nation on earth has a system very similar to ours, with government spending that forms a very substantial portion of GDP (that means big government). Noone has ever attained our standard of living any other way.

Interesting sidenote on old Milton Friedman. He served with a team of chicago school economists as economic advisor to Pinochet when he took power by armed coup in Chile. Now rememeber, the thesis of the book Alan is touting is that free market capitalism fosters democracy, actually has a causal role in creating and promoting political freedom.

Yet their was Milton, advising a dictator on how to use death squads to force this "freedom" on the people of Chile.

Here's a short history of the chicago school of economics 16 year experiment with the Chilean economy. A conservative's dream, privatization of social services, deregulation of markets and international trade, shrinking the size of government, the complete banishment of keynesian monetary policy. Oh, yes, and an economic disaster. Not to mention death squads.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

[This message has been edited by PatCox (edited 01-08-2002).]

Jim H
01-08-2002, 02:24 PM
So Pat, if we doubled the current size of our government we would double our prosperity??

Bateau Boy
01-08-2002, 02:28 PM
Jim, when you double government, you double overhead not producers to create capital gain for reinvestment to produce a better nation and to produce a better lifestyle.

Alan D. Hyde
01-08-2002, 02:48 PM
Pat, the last paragraph of your last post is false, and it is defamatory. I would have thought that it was beneath you. I encourage you to use the "edit" function and remove it.

Friedman advised Chilean economists on economic progress through economic freedom. Both have been achieved; compare for example with Argentina, which has far more resources.

Are physicians to be held responsible for all the acts of each of their patients both before and after they cure them? This is patent nonsense, and smacks of a brittle and frightening totalitarianism.

Alan

Bateau Boy
01-08-2002, 03:44 PM
Gong.(

Ian McColgin
01-08-2002, 03:57 PM
It takes more moral compartementalization than I can muster to seperate giving advice - I'd not call it good but let's just go value-neutral on that part -

I can't seperate giving advice to help a regiem that was red in tooth and claw from having some culpability.

Those Chicago guys seem to justify 'might makes right' law of the jungle approach to markets. That's the same as deciding that planting and weeding and fertilizing are bad ways to farm - better to just let the strongest plants prevail, even if they don't feed us. In point of fact, a careful reading of Adam Smith shows that he knew this as well and was looking for ways to effectivly control and shape markets. One, but only one tool, is enlightened self-interest. Another tool, that really made it work in western history and is acknowledged (a bit off-handedly for my taste) by Marx was the liberal democratic tenor of the bourgois revolution.

Read the Nobel winning economist Sen for a more balanced view and

Pat,

I'm with you on that last.

Sam F
01-08-2002, 03:58 PM
This may come as a shock... are you ready?
The US was not founded as a capitalist country. It has turned into one but the logic of capitalism is profoundly undemocratic. Capitalism is sufferage for the almighty dollar not the people. The inequalities of Capitalism exist because it elevates a mere thing over human life. We in the US still have vestigal rights and responsibilities as citizens - in the public sphere - but just don't try it at work - unless you happent to own the place.

Alan D. Hyde
01-08-2002, 04:10 PM
The U.S. was founded based upon the unalienable rights of her citizens to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These valued rights were acknowledged, not created, by our constitution.

The founders were uniformly suspicious of large governments and high taxes. The inherent nature of man was such, they believed, that any man, however high his character, was likely to abuse power if he had too much of it.

Certainly our political freedoms are meaningless mouthfuls of air if not tied to economic freedoms. Are we to be free only to freeze and starve? This was not their aim. Franklin and his peers supposed that if taxes ever exceeded 10% of an average man's income, there would be a revolution.

Alan

Bateau Boy
01-08-2002, 04:10 PM
God gave the human being the will and drive to survive. The will to live better creates a direct drive to capitalism. The body doesn't say screw people to be better. It says that "I" wish to be better. Most all companies have started as a one or two person family run business.

The myth to screw your own family therefore doesn't apply. At such given point the demand for your product increases , at that time you are actually sharing your wealth and smartness with the employess you hire.

How is that screwing over people?

PatCox
01-08-2002, 04:11 PM
Alan, to the extent you might read what I wrote to imply that Friedman advised Pinochet to implement economic reform with death squads, that was not my intent and of course was not true. Friedman advised as to what economic reforms he thought would help Chile, and Pinochet used death squads to help implement them of his own (Pinochet's) initiative.

Pinochet used the death squads throughout his reign, not just after the "cure," so I am puzzled by the doctor-patient analogy.

As to your accusation that I am a totalitarian for bringing up Friedman's adventure with a totalitarian government, that smacks of the "I know you are but what am I" style of debate, which I gave up when I left the schoolyard behind. Friedman went to Chile and advised a totalitarian dictater, I didn't; therefore I find the accusation that I am a totalitarian more than a little odd.

Argentina's current situation has nothing to do with the issue; you'd have to compare Argentina's economic history with Chile's during the years of the Friedman-inspired reforms. Ironically, Argentina's current problems actually are related to chicago-school economic theories as applied by the World Bank.

BB, if you have any thoughts on Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, or Chicago School economic theory which you think is relevant, feel free to chime right in. I always enjoy your input.

stan v
01-08-2002, 04:32 PM
i like to keep things simple. will anyone here argue that liberals do not restrict growth? if you doubt that listen to daschle speak about taxes. to keep lower class workers in the back pockets of liberals to use as a voting block is outrageous. and this is done by constantly saying that any tax cut goes to the wealthy. conservatives would prefer to work their a** off and improve their lot in life. liberals tell us we won lifes lottery ( that's a quote from gebhart, minority leader in the house), when in fact it could be a family earning $60,000 a year. liberals use the homeless, welfare recipients, education, environment, clean air, global warming, health care, social security, guns, or whatever else will work to terrify old people, or influence college kids. pat, can you give us an example where socialism has worked? by the way, how much more did you send to the irs?

Ed Harrow
01-08-2002, 04:38 PM
Pat, interesting, very powerful link. Alan or Stan, or whomever - do you have one to post in opposition? I'd like to read some opposing opinions - specifically with respect to the link Pat posted re Chile.

Thank you, Pat, for that posting.

Ariane
01-08-2002, 04:47 PM
Republican with socialist leanings. Conservative in some aspects, liberal in others. Boyfriend is Green Party. Family all encompassing, Demos, Reps, Indys.

Don Olney
01-08-2002, 04:50 PM
One prominent Neoclassical economist whose theories are widely believed (How widely? Well, he admitted it himself) to have caused unnecessary misery in several foreign countries is Harvard gadfly, Jeffery Sachs.

Professor Sachs is known by some as the "hit and run capitalist" for the carnage he leaves behind. His neoclassical theory of "Shock Therapy" (aka Schlock Therapy) unnecessarily worsened the living conditions of millions of Russians.

A quote from the link below describes what happened in Russia in the early to mid-1990s:

“The privatization drive that was supposed to reap the fruits of the free market instead helped create a system of tycoon capitalism run for the benefit of a corrupt political oligarchy that has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars of Western aid and plundered Russia's wealth".

Within just a few years of the start of this crash privatization program, the shady billionaire businessman Boris Berezovsky (now in exile) was bragging that 9 multi-billionaires controlled nearly all industries in Russia and all the politicians. The policies of Jeffery Sachs and his team of economists were responsible for this havoc and chaos.

One of the attraction of Libertarianism, a similar theory, is that since it exists on paper, it is perfect, it has no flaws. Since no society has been organized entirely around its principles (and libertarians can't even seem to agree on what those principle are), its never really been tried, so it can't be said to have failed. Its adherents always contrast this perfect theory with the worst abuses of some other political-economic system. "In Libertopia, see, this wouldn't happen".

When someone says they have a better way and its all right here in this book, I don't think its at all inappropriate to ask where this beautiful theory has worked before. After all, your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness are on the line.

If Chile, Bolivia, Poland, and Russia are the best examples...

http://www.shobak.org/naeem/harvardrussia.html

Here is my favorite quotation describing the Chicago School of Economics and another sort of shock treatment. Is it fair? It sure is amusing:

“The Chicago School of Economics is a great center of contemporary scholasticism. The economists working there and produced by it are as important to the stagnation of useful thought as the Schoolmen of the University of Paris were at the height of the Middle Ages… Like that of the Paris scholastics, their mastery of highly complex rhetorical details obscures a great void at the centre of their argument… A large number of America's economic problems could be solved by shutting down the Chicago School of Economics… The purpose of closure would be simply to disentangle a tendentious ideology from its unassailable position within contemporary power structures. The same sort of liberating shock treatment was applied to European civilization in 1723 when the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) was disbanded. The effect was to set free the ideas of the Enlightenment.
--John Ralston Saul, 1994



[This message has been edited by don olney (edited 01-08-2002).]

stan v
01-08-2002, 04:56 PM
pat, regarding the chile failure, was there rule of law involved? ed, go to this site if you missed my earlier post www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20020108.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindabowles/lb20020108.shtml)

Sam F
01-08-2002, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
[B]The U.S. was founded based upon the unalienable rights of her citizens to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These valued rights were acknowledged, not created, by our constitution.

Agreed such rights come from God. At least the first two do! :)

The founders were uniformly suspicious of large governments and high taxes. The inherent nature of man was such, they believed, that any man, however high his character, was likely to abuse power if he had too much of it.

Agreed but don't you think they'd be equally suspicious of corporations as huge and powerful as governments?

Certainly our political freedoms are meaningless mouthfuls of air if not tied to economic freedoms. Are we to be free only to freeze and starve? This was not their aim. Franklin and his peers supposed that if taxes ever exceeded 10% of an average man's income, there would be a revolution.

True enough but remember Capitalism as an economic *system* had no influence on our founders. Of course the freedom to "freeze and starve" is a useful addition to Capitalism. It imposes "discipline" in the workforce.
The 10% figure is a chimera. 10% of a poverty income and 10% of affluence are very different things as no doubt Franklin and Co knew.

Bateau Boy
01-08-2002, 05:46 PM
Pat I address the capitalism issue from Sam's comment. I also addressed you stats on the great state of Ark. which reafirms the incompetance of the do nothing president that you support. Do you have something to share on those issues? I am glad to hear your thoughts.

As usual you duck the issue when challenged directly and change the subject,


Quote from the communist contributor.
"BB, if you have any thoughts on Keynesian, Neo-Keynesian, or Chicago School economic theory which you think is relevant, feel free to chime right in. I always enjoy your input."

Face the issue, Pat.

PatCox
01-08-2002, 07:14 PM
Ed, I meant to compliment you a while back for your post about Raypublicans and Respublicans. That did hit the nail on the head.

About 4 posts back, I said that I don't beleive either ideology is right all the time, each side is right sometimes and wrong sometimes, and we can count on the other side to serve as a check and balance on the engative parts of both liberal and conservative ideology.

I think a respublican would agree with that statement and try to turn this discussion towards agreement. I wonder if there are any, any more. Its "take no prisoners, if you disagree with me you are a totalitarian or a communist" from the other side. I have been called both things on this page.

Noone who calls himself or herself a conservative has said one thing evidencing a desire to find common ground.

I do not know what this phenomenon is. Politics is not a football game, "rah rah, we're gonna kick their ass." It is the serious business of trying to figure out what policies do the most good for everyone. Its not about who is right and whether that person is in the right ideological camp, its about what works.

This is evil stuff, this shrillness, this manichean polarization. Its bad for democracy, its bad for our civil life.

stan v
01-08-2002, 07:30 PM
actually, pat, socialism is an acid that drips itself so slowly that at some point one wakes up and finds they are living in another world. since socialism has never worked i can't understand why anyone thinks this country could be the first. the more the government requires, takes or dictates, the more freedoms are lost. you can quote all the great thinkers of all time, but none ever lived in a country as great as this. i believe people need to be inspired to succeed, it is human nature to bitch and complain and think someone else has it easier, or gets all the luck. that's why there are seminars on how to be successful. let me know when you see one being advertised on how to fail.

PatCox
01-08-2002, 07:41 PM
Stan, do you know the meaning of the expression "non sequitor"? Whats this about socialism? Why are you bringing it up with me? Is that your way of calling names, calling me a socialist? I already said this s the greatest country on earth. Why are you repeating what I said back at me as if you are telling me something I don't know?

Sam F
01-08-2002, 07:58 PM
Pat there is a "take no prisoners" attitude which I believe is fanned by Capitalist propagandists like Rush and his ilk. The sad thing about this is that is kills honest argument and degenerates it into a common quarrel.

stan v
01-08-2002, 08:11 PM
pat, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, i must have missed part of your post. but, i believe what could be agreed on by everyone on this board is this: if our government officials were as prudent on the spending as we are on boat repairing, or our home repairing, or auto repairing, then we would indeed have fiscal responsibility in washington. when i buy a product that doesn't work, i don't go back to the store and tell them maybe they need more money. that it's my fault. i believe there is dramatic difference in liberals and conservatives. i don't believe there is not a dimes difference in the two. actually, i wanted voting americans who have strong opinions and that's what i like. i'm proud to say i am conservative, and i pay to much in taxes. i pay taxes at the pump, on my home, income tax, sales tax, social security, medicare, school, county, etc. just like every one of you. i cannot accept waste. be it mahogany on my boat, or tax dollars. both parties are guilty when it comes to ending programs that don't work. now the real argument will begin when negotiations begin to cut spending. i want to live long enough to see that. but in the meantime, i support the party that encourages growth. conservative republicans

Bateau Boy
01-08-2002, 08:17 PM
Just a quick question or two. If Rush Limbaugh is so stupid, why is he quoted on many media outlets and for eight years listened to by the Clinton White House? Why do you people fear him?

For some reason, when all else fails he seems to be the stopgap measure for the left to bring all leftist back in the nest of thought and a crutch for lack of words.

Ed Harrow
01-08-2002, 08:54 PM
Pat, I appreciate the compliment. That editorial piece was not exactly welcomed by the local, entrenched raypublicans, LOL.

stan v, that is a very interesting editorial, but I'm looking for something comparible in academic quality to the link posted by Pat. Linda Bowles piece is neither in the same league, nor does it address the particulars of Chile.

Sam F
01-08-2002, 09:07 PM
Bateau Boy, I don't fear Rush. I pity him. When he went deaf the joke was; So what? He never listened anyway! He couldn't care less about accuracy or truth. When ever he's caught in some outrageous whopper his response is "well this is just entertainment". I do fear the effect he has on some. A friend's stepfather went from being an amiable country boy to a bitter semi-Nazi after frequent exposure to Rush. I watched the transformation and it wasn't pretty. He died recently filled with bile and hatred for people he'd never met and who'd never done him ill. It's sad, really sad...
Ironically, that pinko liberal program medicare paid most of his medical bills.
May I make a suggestion? Why don't you read "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken. It's a funny book which documents many of Rush's ... well the correct word is, lies. Sam

Don Olney
01-08-2002, 09:33 PM
If anyone believes that Rush is on the radio for the purpose of telling the truth, I would suggest that you call his agent and ask if Rush would come to your community to speak on any subject at any time and day convenient to him and that you would be greatly honored if he would do so. Offer to cover his transportation costs and lodging too.

You'll get all the truth you can afford.



[This message has been edited by don olney (edited 01-09-2002).]

Ed Harrow
01-08-2002, 09:58 PM
ROTFLMDFHO! I love it. In this great country Rush figured out how to make a buck, and it wasn't by being a part of the great liberal media conspiracy, LOL, it was just taking advantage of an opportunity. You've got to admire that kind of talent, or, well, maybe you don't.

stan v, thanks for the link to that website. Hopefully there I'll find some intelligent conservative commentators. (Please don't take that as an insult, everyone here is, of course, very intelligent.) The one's handed out in our regional paper are a sad lot. Betsey Heart (sp?) is positively pathetic. "Like a candle, the better part burnt out..." Talk about whining, she takes the concept to ionospheric levels.

Well, I think it's time to do battle with the blankets... G'night.

stan v
01-09-2002, 06:23 AM
well i woke up this morning and something was bothering me and i couldn't quite put my finger on it. now i have. after being ripped yesterday of having suggested someone of being a socialist, i apologized for ruffling feathers, that i hadn't paid enough attention to someones earlier post. well, the fact is, if you are liberal, and have the courage to admit it, which few do, you are indeed a socialist. there can be no other label. socialists/liberals believe in big government, and that they, big government socialists/liberals can solve problems. of course, that requires taking money, which can only come from producers who pay taxes. and then when the programs fail, more money is taken from those producers who did not pay their fair share to begin with. because, we all know taxpayers (conservatives) lie, and cheat and hire accountants to avoid paying anything at all. who was it that quoted helmsley? the top %5 of wage earners pay roughly 50% of taxes collected in the usa. how much more do you think americans should be taxed? why is that a difficult question for some of you to answer?

Bateau Boy
01-09-2002, 07:15 AM
Stratergies of the left. ignore, bait and switch, lie on emotion based agendas.

King of the kings-I did not have sex with that woman. If you lie to the public, what all did he do through his hatchet men.

The hatred that James Carvelle spouted and all the lies for years and seconded by the attorneys was one of the biggest and most cruel displays of lies for the country.

You are starving children if you cut spending on social food programs. The cuts are still increases just a reduced rate.
The right wingers want to kill old people.

The tax rebates caused the recesssion.
Reducing taxes will put many more people out of work with the recession.

Well I have received info on an new boat so I will be away for a while. Keep up the good work Stan.

And you U.S. based socialist remember the give away system will pretty soon bring down your quality of life down if the methods of removing incentives are continued by your renegade leader Tom Dashle, the represenative of the great wall of prosperity.

Good by and good day.

Sam F
01-09-2002, 08:48 AM
Stan v, I quoted Ms. Helmsley, bless her miserly little heart. There are some distinctly odd features of your latest post. Is it possible, just possible that you might consider a distinction between liberal and socialist? How about a continuum starting on the right with a list like this: Fascism - Plutocracy - Democratic Conservatism - Democratic Liberalism - Democratic Socialism - Totalitarian Socialism. There are other ways to organize the list but surely you'll agree that living under those different regimes would be a varied experience. Look, the way I see it, you fit into the "Democratic Conservative" category and no one is saying your a Fascist. Why not extend the same courtesy to Patcox and others?
Another thing that's odd. Have "conservatives" lost all sense of proportion? Why shouldn't the rich pay a higher percentage of their incomes?
After all they derive greater benefits from a well organized society than a pauper. Why is it so hard to see that the widows mite comes from her substance while Bill Gates' taxes come from his outrageous abundance?

Ian Wright
01-09-2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by stan v:
you can quote all the great thinkers of all time, but none ever lived in a country as great as this.

Oh Really,,,,,, you think so?
IanW

Ian Wright
01-09-2002, 09:55 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sam F:
[B]How about a continuum starting on the right with a list like this: Fascism - Plutocracy - Democratic Conservatism - Democratic Liberalism - Democratic Socialism - Totalitarian Socialism

Along those lines,,,,,,, but in a circle.

IanW.

Alan D. Hyde
01-09-2002, 10:08 AM
Ian W.-------

That's a good thought, far better than the "right to left" continuum commonly used.

I personally think a more helpful approach is to use a continuum stretching from totalitarianism (communism, fascism, etc.) at one end to anarchy at the other.

Constitutional democracies would be spread along the middle of such a continuum.

Alan

Allen Foote
01-09-2002, 10:13 AM
Thankyou Stan for pointing out to some, the Liberal/Socialist fact. Oh,will They freak! But let THEM look into THEIR mirror. B.B. you left out the NAFTA act brought to us by Bill Clinton and Demacrats of his ilk. Pat, the Nixon administration was the last to have a balanced budget UNTIL Newt Gingrich and his "Contract for America" arrived and the balancing of the Nations budget was laid out by Republicans.

Sam F
01-09-2002, 10:42 AM
Along those lines,,,,,,, but in a circle.

IanW.[/B][/QUOTE]

Ian, of course you are right the ends do curve back to meet. There is a reason I didn't use the circle analogy and we are talking analogies - not reality - here. A circle is inclusive but I thought a line would admit something, say at right angles to it. Traditional societies under which people have lived for almost all our time have very little in common with modern political economy systems. (with the possible exception being Oriental Despotism)
The nature of power is much more unchecked in modern systems. No medieval king could have ever decreed, as Hitler, Stalin (and apparently Mr. Bush) what all children would study at a given time on a given day. Sam

Sam F
01-09-2002, 10:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stan v:
[B]i like to keep things simple. will anyone here argue that liberals do not restrict growth?

Me too! So will anyone here argue that unrestricted growth does not share the logic of cancer?
Sam

Ed Harrow
01-09-2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
[QUOTE]unrestricted growth does ... share the logic of cancer?
Sam

That's my line, but you used it well http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif.

I'm thinking that, perhaps, rather than a circle, perhaps a better picture might be to think of it as one turn of a helix... Perhaps little difference between the begining and the end, but there is a difference - The commies take your two cows and give you milk, the facists take your two cows and make you buy the milk.

stan v, Alan, Allen, somebody? Can you give us a link for a well-written, footnoted, comparible in academic rigor to the one posted by Pat?

Oh, as Poppie would say, with freedom comes responsibility (Or was it the other way around?). Finbar has learned that he gets a lot more freedom if he comes when called.

Frankly I don't particularly care how much money somebody has as long as by their behavior they are not dumping on those* down wind, down stream, down range, down time, etc.

*"those" does not refer specifically to humans.



[This message has been edited by Ed Harrow (edited 01-09-2002).]

PatCox
01-09-2002, 11:44 AM
Allan, my friend, your memory is short, so short. Richard Nixon, by the way, good republican that he was, had such faith in the free market he instituted a wage-price freeze, the closest our country ever got to a stalinist style planned economy. But I digress, and not to demonize Nixon, rather just to point out another example of how this ideological divide that supposedly exists between us, really doesn't exist except in your perception.

What I wanted to point out is that Bill Clinton did balance the last two budgets and produced the largest surplus primarily because of the Tax Increase (gasp) he pushed through in 1992. Please remember, the Senate vote was tied on this tax increase, Lott, Graham, Gingrich, all the reublican leaders were screaming at the top of their lungs that Clinton's budget would destroy our prosperity (the next 8 years produced the longest, largest sustained period of economic growth in history) but Clinton's budget, including Clinton's tax increase, passed because Al Gore, the vice president, cast the deciding vote to break the tie in the Senate.

This might, Alan, be the best example of what I am trying desperately to say above the baying of the ideological wolves; that both sides have good points and that compromise produces the best result because it prevents either side from running amock.

Because we would never have balanced the budget without that tax increase; thats a simple matter of mathematics. It would never have happened. So the Tax increase, which apparently didn't discourage any economic growth, helped to balance the budget.

But, if congress had passed every liberal social program that was proposed after the tax increase was passed, we probably would have pissed away the extra income and the budget would never have balanced even with the tax cut.

So, the conservatives, by resisting excessive spending on social programs, helped balance the budget, too.

But the conservatives could not have done it alone, because if they controlled everything they'd go too far, they'd lower taxes and give corporate welfare and run deficits. And the liberals could not have done it alone, because they'd go too far with social spending and then they'd raise taxes too far and that would discourage growth.

So instead, we had both sides, one got a little of what it wanted, a necessary tax increase; the other side got a little of what it wanted, they reined in social spending somewhat, and as a result, we balanced the budget and ran a surplus.

By the way, it was pretty good of the republican congress to pass Clinton's proposed legislation to reform welfare and remove 50% of people from the rolls, don't you think?

Now I know its really really really hard to admit that any ideas or beliefs other than your own have any validity, so if you can't do it, I understand, we all know what that means. You can just argue that conservatives are responsible for everything that is good and everything that has ever been good, and liberals are responsible for everything that is bad and everything that has ever been bad.

And reasonable men will gauge your opinion accordingly.

It really is funny, Nixon the conservative instituting a wage price freeze, government control of the economy, and Clinton the liberal slashes welfare. The theory of cognitive dissonance would say that anyone who finds this disturbing because it fails to gibe with their world view will simply ignore it and deny it, shouting louder and louder to drown out the uncomfortable facts. People are fascinating.


even louder

PatCox
01-09-2002, 12:04 PM
Here's something interesting; I know that as a liberal, everything I say is considered a lie by some. So, I refer those who are sceptical of my assertion that the balanced budgets are attributable to both Clinton and the republican congress, to this web page:

www.senate.gov/comm/budget/releases/budget.html (http://www.senate.gov/comm/budget/releases/budget.html)

This is a press release put out by Republican senator Pete Domenici, gee, wasn't he chairman of the senate finance committee? And a conservative republican? Why, he has actual knowledge of tax policy, and of politics, and he's not an evil liberal. He says pretty much exactly what I said in my last post; that the credit for reducing the deficit should be shared between Clinton for his tax increase and the republicans for resisting spending.

Don Olney
01-09-2002, 12:07 PM
Weren't those "W.I.N." buttons (Wipe out Inflation Now) one of the wackiest ideas anyone ever came up with in government?

As if to control inflation we just needed to wear some buttons to remind us to keep inflation down. Ha! Anybody still have one?

Scott Rosen
01-09-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Ed Harrow:
The commies take your two cows and give you milk, the facists take your two cows and make you buy the milk.

I heard it like this:

The commies take your two cows and give you one cow's worth of milk.

The capitalists take your two cows and make you buy back the milk.

The facists take your two cows and then shoot you.


Has anyone considered this: No nation has ever had
A pure form of capitalism or
A pure form of socialism

Every country, successful or not, has a blend of the two. Seems to me the argument shouldn't be about which system is better, either in practice or in the abstract, but rather what's the right blend?

Some of you are confusing ethics with economics. That doesn't work for me.

I don't think any economist, Marx and Smith included, has developed or can develop a theory that accounts for all of human nature. To mangle the Bard: "There's more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy."

Ed Harrow
01-09-2002, 12:36 PM
From the cow's mouth, so to speak:

A COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk.

A FASCIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and sells you the milk. You join the underground and start a campaign of sabotage.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

From our own Art Read http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif. Hmmm was this Art's way of telling us this subject is of no more interest than a pile of, well, you know, LOL.

Alan D. Hyde
01-09-2002, 01:12 PM
Ed-------

Steve Kengas' piece was a political hatchet job dressed up with footnotes and academic jargon.

There's a lot of ad hominem language: "the Chicago boys?" is academic rigor?

That essay is an evil-hearted collection of unsubstantiated allegations based on surmise, conjecture, and sleight-of-hand.

Perhaps I should try a analogy that's more on point than the physician analogy was. Remember Paine's book, "The Rights of Man?"
Paine was an inspiration to the French revolutionaries, and was one of their heroes.
Was Paine responsible for the worst excesses of the French Revolution?

There is a good conversation along these lines in Shakespeare's "Henry V," between Henry and one of his soldiers: "Every subject's duty is the King's; but every subject's soul is his own." (Act IV, I think).

When we turn on the lights, as Edison did, we must hope they will be used for good ends. Are we to stay in the dark because the same light which may be used for life and loving may also be used for mayhem?

The means of such rationalization are disagreeable, and its ends, too fearful to contemplate.

Alan

Don Olney
01-09-2002, 01:43 PM
Alan, The phrase "The Chicago Boys" has been widely used for years in the press and in academia, without pejorative connotation, to refer to Pinochet's team of Chilean economists who studied monetary policy at the University of Chicago ("the Chicago School").

Here is a review of a book by Cambridge University Press. Note the usage.

Pinochet's Economists
The Chicago School of Economics in Chile

Juan Gabriel Valdes

"This book tells the extraordinary story of the Pinochet regime’s economists, known as the ‘Chicago Boys’. It explores the roots of their ideas and their sense of mission, following their training as economists at the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. After their return to Chile, the ‘Chicago Boys’ took advantage of the opportunity afforded them by the 1973 military coup to launch the first radical free market strategy implemented in a developing country."



[This message has been edited by don olney (edited 01-09-2002).]

Alan D. Hyde
01-09-2002, 02:02 PM
Don, I appreciate that in a review, such offhand or informal language may be used, perhaps without pejorative intent or effect.

However, my point was that, at least in the academic journals with which I am familiar, the writer would have said something like:
"Dr. Friedman contends in his article entitled xxx, published in the Journal of Economics, Vol. x, Number x, that..." & c.

The formality of the language is not the point. The freedom from ad hominem attacks, and the attempt to engage in objective and reasoned discourse, is the raison d'etre behind these protocols.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan D. Hyde (edited 01-09-2002).]

Sam F
01-09-2002, 03:04 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

"That essay is an evil-hearted collection of unsubstantiated allegations based on surmise, conjecture, and sleight-of-hand."

"evil hearted'? Oh MY! That quote looks an awful lot like an ad hominem attack. Look Alan, that's not how it's done; You're supposed to read that article, pick out at least one fact or conclusion and prove it wrong. The more the better of course.
Oh, and appeals to superior academic credentials like: "at least in the academic journals with which I am familiar..." aren't effective either.

PatCox
01-09-2002, 03:06 PM
Alan, if your horse were any higher, you'd need oxygen. Kanga's piece is not a "hatchet job," and your characterization of it as such is as ad hominem as anything you are decrying as ad hominem.

Interestingly, other than your blanket condemnation of Mr. Kanga's work, you fail to point to one statement of fact which is incorrect. You fail to cite one reputable source for a factual assertion to counter Mr. Kanga's data.

You don't even take Kanga's data and point out logical flaws or equally plausible alternate conclusions.

Well, Alan, is that reasoned debate? Rather than pointing out to us the empirical data regarding the performance of the Chilean economy which supports your position that Friedman has something to say which could help the US econoy, instead you cavil because the phrase "the chicago boys" is insufficiently respectful to suit your sense of decorum. And, you sniff ever so frostily from that great height, we need not take note of Kanga, it is only pseudo-intellectual, dressed up with footnotes. How exactly, Allan, is it reasoned debate for you to wave yoour hand and dismiss the facts like that?

Do you think we won't notice that you are ducking the substance of the issues because you quote Shakespeare?

This is reasoned debate, you are simply shocked to find that intelligent people can be fully aware of Milton Friedman's economic theories and still be completely unimpressed.

Alan D. Hyde
01-09-2002, 04:07 PM
Pat-------

I don't have a website to which to send you, but that doesn't make me right or wrong.

Mr. Kengas article, I contend, didn't make a prima facie case. No causal link to Friedman was established by probative evidence.

Therefore, by the long-accepted rules of debate, no refutation is necessary. Lead balloons, having never risen, don't require shooting down.

Alan

Ed Harrow
01-09-2002, 04:39 PM
Hmmmmm, well anyway...

Seems like the term "The Chicago Boys" is not unknown in the literature. I grant you most of the hits could be considered derogatory, but there was this:

"Both candidates aimed for credibility more over the domestic economy rather than on international issues. Gore needed to show that he was not an old fashioned big spending liberal Democrat[14] using up the entire surplus on ‘bigger government’, the choice of Joe Lieberman, a moderate ‘New Democrat’, as a running mate was an attempt in this direction. However, Lawrence Summers, the current Treasury Secretary, and indirectly Robert Rubin, former secretary, were the real guarantees for the international financial community.

For Governor Bush, underlining the fact that his economic plan had been endorsed by several Nobel laureates (the Chicago boys’) did not seem a guarantee for economic soundness. He should prove that the Texan propensity for: dollar devaluation[15] and accommodating monetary policy is false. Instead of intimidating the Fed through the recruitment process of"

Which I quote from: http://oikonomia.net/oikonomia.html?http://oikonomia.net/dollarandpresident.html which was one of over 70 hits I got on a search for "The Chicago Boys". If one was writing a research paper on Teddy Roosevelt what term would one use for those who rode with him up San Juan Hill?

Perhaps Kengas's article is flawed, but thus far I've seen no authoritive, or otherwise, independent refutation of his statements.

stan v
01-09-2002, 04:40 PM
do i understand some of you are arguing that capitalism doesn't work because a bunch of chicago grads failed in chile? must be my slow conservative intellect not picking up. however, let's talk about attitude. i'm optimistic, believe in hard work, fair play but also understand some don't always play by the rules. i keep plugging away in this great land because i know persistence pays off to the betterment of everyone involved. i could care less how much more you earn than me, or how much less you earn. if you are more successful, i might try to find out why. if you're not, i might try to instruct how to be more successful. that's my job as sales manager. but, we all have the same rule book. why is it some cultures can come to this country and excel, such as vietnamese, and others who have been here for generations are such failures? life boils down to attitude, and i believe some people are just born to be negative. the greatest achievement in life is to attain something you had to earn. i don't ask to be given anything, just an opportunity to earn it. when people start thinking they are entitled to something simply because they live in the usa, and can then vote themselves those entitlements, we have a welfare state that simply cannot deliver the services. humans need incentives to be motivated. if america leans to the left, and continues to elect clintons, and daschles, that day of reckoning will arrive.

Chris Coose
01-09-2002, 05:14 PM
"and i believe some people are just born to be negative."..............."if america leans to the left, and continues to elect clintons, and daschles, that day of reckoning will arrive."

Two sentances almost next to each other.

Stan, do you take the time to read what you write?

stan v
01-09-2002, 05:19 PM
sometimes. but, these two sentences refer to different topics. you should read all of mine all the time.

Greg H
01-09-2002, 05:55 PM
Compartmentalization

PatCox
01-09-2002, 07:39 PM
stan v, I never said "capitalism" doesn't work because of the arguable and not at all certain evidence of the Chile experiment. What I suggest, over and over again, is that the current system we have here in the US, which is a result of compromise between liberal and conservative beleifs, is the best system ever on the face of the earth, and has made us the richest and strongest and free-est nation on earth. I don't beleive that liberals are always right, and I don't believe that conservatives are always right. I don't beleive Friedman is always right, and I don't beleive Keynes is always right. I beleive that we have to be able to see that the other side is not always wrong, and we have to be able to see that we are not always right, for democracy to survive. You don't seem to see anything but "us vs. them" and one has to be good and one has to be evil. Thats unfortunate. It makes compromise impossible, it leads to chaos, it is what Yeats spoke of, when he said the center cannot hold, and spoke of the the widening gyre.

All this talk about the situation with Chile was just to suggest that even where Milton Friedman's theories were given free reign, with any necessity to compromise with liberal/keynesian views having been obviated by the use of death squads, they failed to produce either a legal or economic system better than the US. Alan, we have yet to begin a debate, so you can throw those longstanding rules out the window; I challenged you to show me a country where Friedman's theories in action have produced a system as rich, as strong, and as free as the system we have here in the US. You came up with nothing. I threw Chile out there, because its widely regarded as the test crucible for Friedman's theories, and you decline even to offer any factual argument to support the thesis that the neo-liberal chicago school economic theory has helped Chile. I could cite you to many sources which claims it has, but I am not going to do your homework for you.

This talk of the burden of proof is absurd,Alan, when you simply have not entered into the fray, you remain hors de combat. You put foward the proposition that Friedman's ideas are so vast and lofty I could swim among them as if in the sea. Personally, I find that his entire view smacks of pre-scientific rationalism, based on so many unverified a priori assumptions that they are little more than empty intellectual exercises. Assuming perfectly informed, self-interested consumers making rational choices in an open marketplace with no significant barriers to entry is nice, but thats one hell of a set of assumptions.

So, here we are, living in the greatest, strongest, free-est country on earth. And during the time of our world domination, during the entire time over the last 60 years that we dazzled the world with technological innovations, powered the world economy with our production, and served as an example to the world with our freedom, we have been a country which is based on a compromise, a mixture of liberal and conservative ideas.

Yet not one conservative here will admit that maybe its the compromising, rather than the rigid ideology, which made us great.
Instead there is widespread pining for a supposedly ideologically pure past that never was, and a fierce insistence that things would be better if only we could bring into reality this theoretical scheme of pure conservatism never before seen anywhere on earth.

What is wrong with this picture?


[This message has been edited by PatCox (edited 01-09-2002).]

PatCox
01-09-2002, 08:25 PM
Chris, do you know who Stan is talking about when he talks about cultures which have been here for generations but just can't succeed, then says some people were born to have a negative attitude? Apparently, the reason those two sentences refer to different things has to do with "those cultures." From what I gather, stan is talking about two separate things, you see; there is the problem of "those cultures" who can't succeed, and there is the problem of the liberals.

Stan, if you want to talk about "those cultures," you might need to be more specific; which cultures might it be that seems to you to be congenitally unable to succeed? That is the meaning of "born to be negtive," isn't it?

Sam F
01-09-2002, 08:27 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stan v:
[B]do i understand some of you are arguing that capitalism doesn't work because a bunch of chicago grads failed in chile?

Stan, What do you mean by "work"?
It has been said that Communism didn't work because it couldn't deliver material goods.
I say that Capitalism doesn't work because it delivers nothing else.
We're practically drowning in stuff and making ourselves miserable in the process. How many people do you know who've found meaningful fulfilling careers? Precious few I'll bet. Heck, our national ambition is Retirement. That should tell you something.
As for "attitude" that's an atribute of individuals not ethnic groups. Some groups are more or less industrious because of *culture* - a very different thing from attitude.

Ed Harrow
01-09-2002, 08:39 PM
OK, I called my dismal scientist PhD buddy and told her we were going to play a word association game. "OK", she said. "The Chicago Boys", I responded. "Chicago Bulls basketball team", were the first words out of her mouth.

When I explained, she said, "Oh, the Chicago School." Anyway, the long and short of it is that she feels refering to them as "The Chicago Boys" is patronizing. She did note that Deidra McKloskey was an especially interesting member of that group...

PatCox
01-10-2002, 07:47 AM
I read in todays paper that President Bush is asking Congress to give food stamps to legal immigrants. You might recall that the 1996 welfare reform bill took food stamps away from legal immigrants.

Bush's people are pretty open about the fact that they are just doing this so they can get mexicans to vote for him.

Under the analysis used by many people here, doesn't this mean that Mr. honor and dignity has decided to take money from working people and give it to the sponges and leaches just so he can buy their votes?

Can any free marketeers defend Bush on this one? How about conservatives, how does this work with conservative philosophy?

One letter grade will be deducted from your answer for each time you mention the name "Clinton."

Allen Foote
01-10-2002, 08:43 AM
Pat...why don't you qoute a page, article ect so that we can read it ourselves. Instead of a general "bait".

Ed Harrow
01-10-2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Allen Foote:
Pat...why don't you qoute a page, article ect so that we can read it ourselves. Instead of a general "bait".

Geez, I've been asking the same question myself Allen. Wonder which of us will get our question answered first, LOL.

Don Olney
01-10-2002, 09:59 AM
January 10, 2002

White House Seeking to Restore Food Stamp Aid for Noncitizens

By ROBERT PEAR
NY TIMES

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — The Bush administration proposed today to restore food stamps to many legal immigrants, whose eligibility for benefits was severely restricted by the 1996 welfare law.

The White House said that at least 363,000 people — legal immigrants who have not
become citizens — would qualify for food stamps under the plan, to be included in the
budget President Bush sends Congress in early February. The proposal would cost the
federal government $2.1 billion over 10 years, the administration said. In October, 18.4 million people were receiving food stamps.

Mr. Bush's plan, or something like it, has an excellent chance of becoming law. The Senate is considering such changes as part of a far-reaching bill to reauthorize farm and nutrition programs. Under the proposal, the White House said, noncitizens with low
incomes could qualify for food stamps after living here legally for five years. A similar test already applies to legal immigrants seeking Medicaid or cash assistance.

The welfare bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 made noncitizens ineligible for food stamps and many other types of assistance financed with federal money. Supporters of the ban, mostly Republicans, argued that federal benefits drew immigrants to the United States and then discouraged them from working.

Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, expressed the intent of Congress in 1996 when he said, "Immigrants should come to the U.S. with their sleeves rolled up, ready to work, not with their hands out, ready to go on welfare."

But today, amid a recession that is hurting many immigrants, and with the government
waging a war on terrorism that has targeted some immigrants, Mr. Bush is eager to show
his commitment to them. He is also eager to address domestic problems — a transition
his father failed to make effectively a decade ago after the Persian Gulf war.

Many of those who could benefit from the food stamp proposal are Hispanic. The White House has been ardently courting Hispanic voters.

In an interview today, Newt Gingrich, the House speaker in 1996, said: "I strongly support the president's initiative. In a law that has reduced welfare by more than 50 percent, this is one of the provisions that went too far. In retrospect, it was wrong. President Bush's instincts are exactly right."

Mr. Bush is selectively disclosing parts of his budget in advance — specifically, those
proposals likely to win political support — as Mr. Clinton often did.

Antihunger groups and Hispanic groups praised the Bush plan. "This is an enormous step
forward, for which the president should be congratulated," said Cecilia Munoz, vice
president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group. "Mr. Bush did not speak out on this in the presidential campaign, and he had not done so since he assumed office."

As governor of Texas and as president, Mr. Bush has taken pride in his good relations with Hispanic Americans. Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser, said last year that capturing a bigger share of the Hispanic vote was "our mission and our goal" and would require assiduous work by "all of us in every way."

But the Republican Party is split, and some Republicans have alienated Hispanic voters
by espousing a restrictionist immigration policy.

Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, said he would fight the president's food stamp proposal because it would "entice people to come to the United States to be on welfare."

Mr. Tancredo, chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, with 55 members in the House, said: "The president has chosen to steal a page out of the Democrats' playbook. The Democrats have been enormously successful in buying votes through welfare. That's all this is, a sop to a Democrat-leaning voter bloc, an attempt to expand our political base by including the Hispanic vote."

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the government has detained more than 1,100 noncitizens for
questioning and has stepped up enforcement of immigration laws. Mr. Bush insists he is
waging war on terrorists, not immigrants, and his food stamp proposal can be cited to
support that claim.

James D. Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, said, "It's really positive that the administration wants to extend food stamp benefits to this group of legal immigrants." He said his group had been supporting a broader restoration of food stamps, as proposed by Senators Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, and Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. But Mr. Weill said, "Everybody is moving in the same direction, and we are delighted to see that."

The economy is worse now than in 1996, when Mr. Clinton signed the welfare bill.
"Immigrants have been hit hard by the economic downturn," Ms. Munoz said, "and there's no safety net for those who arrived after 1996."

Welfare and food stamp rolls have plummeted since 1996, and members of Congress express much less concern now about being overwhelmed with the programs' cost, even though budget surpluses have evaporated.

In general, food stamps are available to people with gross incomes up to 30 percent
above the poverty level. A three-person household can qualify if its gross income does not exceed $1,585 a month.

Federal officials said Mr. Bush's proposal would make it much easier for state and local
employees to determine whether an immigrant was eligible for food stamps. The immigrants are generally ineligible now, but there are some exceptions based on a person's age, work history and date of entry into the United States.

About 800,000 immigrants were removed from food stamp rolls in 1996, according to the
Agriculture Department, which runs the program. Two years later, benefits were restored to about 175,000 immigrants, mostly children and older people who were in the country before the legislation was signed in August 1996.



[This message has been edited by don olney (edited 01-10-2002).]

Allen Foote
01-10-2002, 10:10 AM
Bait & Switch...Bait & Switch. I could give a rats ass about Chilean politics or the economies of any other banana republic in the Southern American hemisphere. The Colonies broke from ENGLAND not SPAIN and NOT PORTUGAL. Apples & Oranges...Apples & Oranges. When will you Democrates understand that you cannot misdirect a conversation in order to declare a "victory" on some ass-o-taric obscure point. Are you happy with the amount of taxes you are now paying? Fill this thread with gooblygook of "Chicago Boys" and Pinochet....misdirect and dance around direct questions....THAT is what is EXSPECTED from your ilk.....and you haven't disappointed at all.

Scott Rosen
01-10-2002, 10:26 AM
Allen, I didn't realize it was hunting season for Ilk. LOL

PatCox
01-10-2002, 10:27 AM
Allan Foote, I am not baiting and switching, I keep coming back to it all the time, I keep saying that this is the best and greatest country on earth and I am happy with the amount of taxes I am paying. I think I get my moneys worth and then some. Thats why so many people elsewhere in the world wish they could come here and pay these taxes.

I also keep saying you have valid points, that conservatives ideas are good within limits just as many liberal ideas are good within limits and the great thing about compromise and give and take is it keeps both of us within those limits. And since compromise is what got us where we are, I am not going to knock the other side wholesale, the point of debate should be finding the right balance, not waging all out war to prove the other side is wrong, evil, and stupid.

On the other hand, your rhetoric makes plain that that is your intent. "That is what is expected from your ilk" is not the language of reasoned debate, is it, Allan Hyde?

The talk about other countries isn't misdirection, its a matter of evidence. Some people think this country would be better if we did this or that. Some people claim this country would be better if taxes were lower or the government smaller. I just said if thats the case, show me. Show me a country as rich as ours with lower taxes and a smaller government. Show me where these great ideas have been put into practice with favorable results. Anyone here want to move to Chile? Nope, Chileans want to move here. That says something all the vicious rhetoric doesn't. Despite all the whining about how taxes are slavery and are strangling us, people around the world are desperate to come here and pay thoe taxes so that they cold have the benefits and privileges we all have as citizens of the greatest country on earth.

Alan D. Hyde
01-10-2002, 10:33 AM
PatCox-------

I am not closely familiar with the specific issues in Chile. These are best left to Chileans. Given the current state of South American polities and economies, Chile seems to be doing relatively well.

As to many of your other points, while I enjoy the interchanges here, and often learn from them, I do not feel any obligation to cite chapter and verse to establish that water runs downhill. Absent a pump, in my experience, it just doesn't go uphill.

Despite big government, persistent, hard-working individuals of ALL backgrounds have more opportunities to better themselves here than they do almost anywhere else in the world.

However, these opportunities were greater 400, 300, 200, or 100 years ago--- when there was little or no government. The opportunities were greater, but so of course were the risks.

Back then, there were no governmentally-run health care plans, but go to an OLD (1600's) burying ground. Surprising how many people lived to their eighties and nineties, isn't it?

If the material things, past a certain point, just aren't that important (and they aren't), then why embrace a scheme of life that's focused on them?

Act, don't spectate; build, don't consume; venture out on the water; make yourself the kind of person you wish your children to be; cultivate a strong and honest relationship with your spouse and children; help your friends and neighbors when you can; get to know all the people with whom you come into contact in your daily life; read widely and deeply; plant and nurture a garden; waste not, want not; never stop learning.

All cliches? Am I Polonius again? Perhaps. From what I have seen so far, however, all these things make people happier than one more expensive new plastic gadget, soon to be discarded. Or than one more statute or federal program.

"Is man an ape, or an angel? Now I am on the side of the angels." (Disraeli)

Alan

PatCox
01-10-2002, 12:33 PM
Alan, I think perhaps our only difference is in our perception of the past. I tend to beleive "it has always been thus." There were heavily regulated markets and government-granted monopolies in the middle ages, and there are heavily regulated markets and government created monopolies today. There were buiding codes and there were lawsuits over property rights and pollution in earliest colonial times.

I just watched a discovery channel show about the Johnson County range wars, in Wyoming in the 1890s. I was surprised to learn that it was a war between wealthy "cattle barons" who made their fortunes by grazing vast herds on public lands, which means they made their money off a kind of government subsidy, and the homesteaders. The homesteaders were the american dream you speak of, brave hard working people building something out of nothing, making their way in the land of opportunity. The cattle barons had gained control of the legislature,controlled law enforcement, were able to openly murder the homesteaders in order to keep grazing their cattle on government land, not even their own land.

Now is that an example of how we had more freedom a hundred years ago? Less government interference when we want to murder people to protect our monopoly at the public trough?

I think that is the way it has always been; that is human nature. Wealth gives its holders power, and this power is then always, inevitably, used to protect the wealth, to restrict the market so that those who made it first can keep out those who want to try to succeed.

Ironically, the westward expansion of the US was perhaps the time of greatest equality of opportunity in our history, anyone brave and hardworking enough could have a chance to succeed. That was nearly the golden age you perceive. Yet even then, we saw in Johnson county the powerful seizing control of government to restrict the free market and restrict opportunities for others. We are not expanding anymore, power is entrenched everywhere.

I just beleive that the lesson of history, all history, is that the wealthy have no desire whatsoever for free markets; they much prefer to control the market so they will not have to compete. And once that happens, all of the benefits of the free market, and Friedman is right, there are enormous benefits, are lost.

And I beleive that what we see today is what we saw during the railroad boom of the 1850s, and its what we saw when that great republican Teddy Roosevelt earned his nickname as the trustbuster. Succesful businesses, as soon as they grow large enoough to have inordinate influence over government, will always and inevitably use that influence to consolidate their power by perverting the market to restrict competition, to destroy the free market. I beleive in the free market; its just that I beleive only a strong government can keep the markets free.

I will keep coming back to that idea of compromise. Your ideas and mine are not mutually exclusive; I beleive the history of the United States proves they work best when they work together.

Thats why I beleive in a big government; especially in this age when corporations are larger than most nations, a small government would be the play thing of the powerful. No matter how imperfect it might be, the government must be powerful enough to stand up for the people against those who wield economic power.

Oh, and Allan, assuming I am right (if water runs down hill I must be), I see no need to prove I am right, absent proof I am wrong. "I want to get circular, circular, logically circular," wasn't that an Olivia Newton John song?

And one last thing; Polonius gave good advice, he truly offered words to live by. Its just that they weren't very relevant or helpful in the particular situation facing Hamlet.

[This message has been edited by PatCox (edited 01-10-2002).]

Allen Foote
01-10-2002, 12:40 PM
Don Olney...SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!! You COMPLETELY REWROTE THAT ARTICLE!!!! Washington Post Page A17 "Return of Food Stamps For Immigrants Sought" by Amy Goldstein AND I QOUTE "The Bush administration proposed yesterday that poor immigrants who have lived LEGALLY in the United States for at least five years be allowed to collect food stamps, restoring part of the safety net that was removed in a 1996 overhual of the welfare system". Enphansis are mine. That would be the LEGAL immigrants that QUALIFY using the new restrictions of the 1996 act. TYPICAL DEMONcrat move....rewrite and censure.

Don Olney
01-10-2002, 02:03 PM
Allen Foote, I don't have a clue as to what you meant by that last post. As far as I can tell from your "QOUTE" there is no substantive difference between the two news reports.

Is "cut & paste" synonymous with "completely rewrote"? If so, I am truly ashamed.

Bruce Taylor
01-10-2002, 02:03 PM
I do not feel any obligation to cite chapter and verse to establish that water runs downhill. Absent a pump, in my experience, it just doesn't go uphill.

Precisely. So if you should happen to see water flowing uphill, look for a pump.

Same goes for oil.

Bruce Taylor
01-10-2002, 02:15 PM
Allen Foote, I've just been to the New York Times website, and Robert Pear's article is there, exactly as Don posted it. Here is the URL (you may need to register with the NY Times to view the document).

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/national/10BUDG.html

You certainly are quick to assume the worst about people. It reminds me of the time you accused me of lying.

I believe you owe Don an apology.



[This message has been edited by Bruce Taylor (edited 01-10-2002).]

brad9798
01-10-2002, 03:51 PM
Wow ... here comes another "Global Warming" thread.

Anyway, I've read a few times in this thread about "rape"-ublicans ... that's sounds so pleasant.

Does this mean Democrats are now
"dumb"-ocrats

Independents are now "indecisives?"

Just curious.

Brad

http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

JDD
01-10-2002, 03:51 PM
"I keep saying that this is the best and greatest country on earth and I am happy with the amount of taxes I am paying."

Pat I would like to ask two questions concerning your comment. I rarely get into a conversation about politics but I must ask you this.

If you are happy with what you pay and feel you get your moneys worth, then shouldn't there be a moretorium on more benefits?

We have a big surplus now so shouldn't you get the change back since you don't need anything to make your life better?

The call for more benefits will be a call for more money sent to Wash. ?

stan v
01-10-2002, 04:52 PM
i thought you had all agreed with me by now. just caught up on some posts and i want to start with regrets to those of you who feel guilty because you have (or you think we have) to many material things. please, send in mo money immediately to irs. pat, food stamps again for legal aliens? i got to find out what that's all about. i don't want this country to continue encouraging people to climb on board the welfare truck. be it conservatives or liberals behind the wheel, that's not how i want their vote. now, the only thing i can think of when i hear some of you happy to pay taxes, or at least think you're not paying to much, is because you're single? a couple of cars for teens, college, and marriage would bring you back to basics real quick. that's when that boat you're working on looks cheap.

PatCox
01-10-2002, 07:46 PM
JDD, thats a reasonable and fair question. I just don't like theea of a moratorium; thats like handcuffing yourself. If you do't want to spend money, then you just don't. And anyway, any particular program should be considered on its own merits; times change, needs change, we need the ability to be flexible.

To me, the best way to guarantee we do whats prudent and reasonable is to have that mix of opinion. The liberals will want to be compassionate and have a big government to cure all ills. The conservatives will want to use "tough love" and will favor business. Both have their special interests. As long as we have both sides represented, neither side will get away with too much. I honestly beleive thats how we got where we are, by being a pragmatic people, not by being ideological.

As to returning the surplus to the people, well, in my mind, its our debt thats been run up, so until that debt is paid down, there's no surplus to return to the people. Governments often ru a debt on purpose, and we all benefit from that governmentspending that we didn't pay for. Just because its a different calender year and we have a "surplus" for this 12 months doesn't mean we don't still owe for the last 30 years when we were borrowing money. And my kids will be the one paying that debt, if we don't.

And to be a little more selfish, I will be social security age in 2029. Thats just a few years before they say it will run out of money. Well, if we banked this surplus now and paid down the debt, there would be no problem dealing with the social security shortfall when it comes, in 2037. But if we decide that $300 in our pockets now is better than long term security, thats not a very conservative viewpoint. I don't want to be the guy who paid into social security all my life only to get nothing because they toook my money and used it to build cruise ships in Biloxi fora bankrupt cruise line.

Stan v, you are consistent and I admire you for that. George has been courting the hispanics for two years, he floated the idea of a big immigration policy change that woould let tons more people in, but they would have this inferior status as "guest workers", but there was too much opposition, so now he has decided to give food stamps for votes.

Personally, I think its the right thing to do, and I will tell you why. This is a society where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law (not in fact, thats where most liberals get it wrong). I'd like to see it stay that way; if you are here legally, you should have the same rights as everyone else. Either let them in as equals,or don't let them in at all, I could agree with both positions, but don't create a lower level of citizen who has fewer rights; thats not America. So, if citizens can get food stamps, they were wrong to take them away from legal, I mean legal, aliens. My grandfather and my grandmother were legal aliens for a while, and I bet most everyone here doesn't have to look back far to find a legal alien.

Bateau Boy
01-10-2002, 08:34 PM
Quote from Pat

"And anyway, any particular program should be considered on its own merits; times change, needs change, we need the ability to be flexible."

Pat try to take away part of your salary that you work for much less a free dollar given to you. Yea that would really work.

Now for the surplus paying down the so called debt. Nothing but pure vote getting give away got us to even have a debt. No way any family in America could overspend in the name of do good deeds or taking care of your neighbor.

In forty years if you encounter a debt and get to retirement age and owe four or five times the amount that you have in your retirement fund, I am sure your neighbors would just love to contribute to your dilemma.

The worse problem that we have now is that the free spenders are still in office in Wash. and still promoting the same give aways programs with large increases that created the so called debt.

Is that smart? Could you do that?

stan v
01-10-2002, 09:06 PM
pat, if we could only be so flexible. remember the contract for america, 1994? the demonization the media and liberals pulled on newt gingrich and conservatives in general? called it contract on america. conservatives were cutting spending, starving seniors, brutalized gingrich. cover of time called newt the grinch that stole christmas? republicans were being rocked in newspapers across this country. basically for simply slowing down the increases in spending, not cutting anything. teachers unions trashing us on education, when what had been spent for 40 years was incredible, and test scores continuing to fall with no accountability for the teachers themselves. no, pat, to liberals there is no such thing as a government program that doesn't work, only those that are underfunded.

Bateau Boy
01-10-2002, 09:23 PM
Stan you forgot one item in the education sector. Many overworked school employees buying yachts on the poverty paychecks.

I will say that I saw Bush hugging Kennedy and I had to take the foam brick and add a fishng sinker in it and throw it at the tv.

But I guess even the best have weak moments.

But then again on a high note, on the Enron issue I was able to enjoy the contrasting administrations on how they handled the allegations today.

Let me see if I can get this straight.

Clinton Administration and Justice department response would go like this:
Janet Reno talking, I can't comment on an ongoing investigation. Meaning I will do what I can to stall and bury all info and inquiries into the given issue.

Bush Administration and Justice department repsonse today: Attorney General Ashcroft removed himself and the Commerce secretary for any inquiry and would testify in any questioning on the matter.

Ed Harrow
01-10-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by brad9798:
"rape"-ublicans ... that's sounds so pleasant.

LOL, brad, I kinda think "respublican" sounds much more pleasant. http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Sam F
01-11-2002, 08:59 AM
Poor Pat, You are faced with an unshakable faith. It's time to quit casting your pearls. As one who has no belief in either liberalism or modern "conservatism", I find Pat's position of muddling though with compromise between competing positions, messy, practical and ultimately noble. In a system such as ours it's the only alternative to Balkanization.
I must say though, that my hat is off to stan v, bateau boy, Mr. Hyde etc.. You are the stuff saints are made of! Your steadfast faith in the "invisible hand" benevolently governing our affairs is impressive. To hold this view in the face of all contrary evidence, experience and reason humbles me. I can only pray that you can also find room in your hearts for a more spiritual and less materialist faith as well.

[This message has been edited by Sam F (edited 01-21-2002).]

Alan D. Hyde
01-11-2002, 09:32 AM
Sam-------

Alexander Pope said:

"For forms of government let fools contest,
Whichever governs best, is best."

While this is not wholly true, there is some truth in it. No system can be much better than the people who comprise it.

Adam Smith was a Professor of Moral Philosophy. The Friedmans' work also presupposes a moral underpinning.

Free markets, like wide freedom of all individual action, only works well in societies in which restraint, self-discipline, personal responsibility, and
a sense of duty, are fairly widespread.

Most of this country's founders made statements recognizing this stubborn fact.

If you wish to lump me in a group with whom you disagree, you'll find me with Washington and Adams, Henry and Jefferson, Warren and Putnam, Revere and Paul Jones, Marion and Knox, Clark and Madison.

I'd rather be wrong in the company of these men, than right in the company of Aneurin Bevin or Hillary Clinton.

Alan

Bateau Boy
01-11-2002, 10:35 AM
Quote from Sam.
"I can only pray that you can also find room in your hearts for a more spiritual and less materialist faith as well. "

Working for items of comfort and enjoyment is not greedy and materialistic. It is a God given instinct to survive and to do for ones self as it seems fit for you and your own excitement at any level that you wish to reach. Freedom not Socialism or Communism is what has made this nation.

If your instincts are less and you feel it is okay to take from the person that has gained success from doing it themselves, then 99 percent of the time it is as a result of breeding and surroundings.

Should I feel like a dirt bag? Nope

It is no ones elses right to tell me at that point that I have too much andI am evil. Give it away.

Different levels of success goes along most of the time with the drive and some luck. But in no way a person should feel guilty.

Look at Dave from Wendy's chain. Look at Hewlett -Packard. Many examples.

stan v
01-11-2002, 01:26 PM
sam f, no i'm not a saint, and i doubt the others you mentioned are either. but i am determined, and steadfast in my beliefs. no independent, or moderate am i. you can't sway me or convince me that i am incorrect that people who are given anything over a limitless period of time, who are capable of working, and do nothing in return for these benefits, will ever feel satisfied with their position in life. charity is one thing, being taken advantage of is another.

stan v
01-11-2002, 01:46 PM
americans! for your convenience i propose some form that would allow each and every one of you to send in additional monies to the u.s. federal government. this will be spent in a manner that the feds thinks best, since most of you can't do that for yourself. i couldn't help but notice that some of you may be right, so here's your chance to contribute. now, since i'm an ignorant conservative, and limited in the use of this stinking computer, i need some help with the format. so, let's see some ideas. you can start with mine. name, let's use stan v. my contribution? not another damn cent. what's yours?

Ian McColgin
01-11-2002, 01:59 PM
Free markets need restraint, self-discipline, responsibility and a sense of duty ??

No wonder the purely free market fails about as spectacularly (though in the opposite direction, as it were) as pure communism fails.

Actually, much of what I see wrong with the industries I deal with most - energy and telecomunications - is exactly the irresponsible greed of the people involved. But their dishonest rapacity keeps me gainfully employed in the gummit, so who am I to complain?

Greed can be partly harnessed, which is what correct management of markets is all about, and fortunatly there are enough people of rectitude in the business world that we can move forward, but inevitably there are things that go to being a total social investment - streets and highways to take an ever popular example - where 'fee for service' is an absurd idea. What? You gonna pay a toll to get onto your block? Some days reductio ad absurdam is the way to show that it's not all one way or the other.

Besides, I think we all support that great testimoney to village socialism, the Town Pier.

stan v
01-19-2002, 09:09 AM
ok, this is for you anti-capitalists. i know you can't wait to dive into enron. just remember, you're gonna be asked where were you when the feds were chasing microsoft?

Chris Coose
01-19-2002, 10:54 AM
On the contrary Stan, Us pinkos adore Enron just as much as you do but for different reasons.
It is a beautiful thing to watch thieves cash in, run and then blame it on somebody else. All in the name of the religion called capitalism.
Do they deserve scrutiny or adoration? Turns out that Enron has something like 880 cover set-ups in places all over the Carribean and they don't have to pay income taxes in this country. Oh yeah it's a beautiful thing that you adore Stan.

Bateau Boy
01-19-2002, 11:38 AM
Chris Who did Enron pay for the rights to the Lincoln bedroom? 71 Senators on the contribution list headed by Dashle, Gephart, Kennedy. By the way , how the the Kennedy family get so much wealth if it wasn't for capitalism and real estate interest right offs and thieving of the poor man during the depresion.

Chris Coose
01-19-2002, 11:44 AM
BB,
Did I mention anywhere that this is limited to Republicans?
They are all in bed together.
Please read my stuff more carefully before you attempt to blow smoke and deflect.

stan v
01-19-2002, 12:48 PM
chris, i don't agree with what enron has done. in my state of texas we take care of thieves, murderers, etc. i was waiting for someone to link capitalism in general to enron greed and collapse. adore? not me, not at all. my point when i raised this question was for all of you to come to the defense of the liberals seeking a solution to the lost monies by enron's employees. so be careful when you lump all capitalists as like minded. so be prepared to answer the question: when the feds were out to break up microsoft, i never heard a discouraging word about the stockholders. got it?

Chris Coose
01-19-2002, 01:06 PM
Where was I, you ask Stan?
Probably standing by watching the feds cave in. I am interested in the next moves the states who did not sign-off will make.
Some recent news indicates that most anti trust laws are going away. That will be a real joy to watch us return to the days prior to anti trust. Days that we seem destined to repeat because we have either forgotten or our leaders chose to overlook in the better interests of their bedfellows. Unleashed capitalism is probably not a pretty sight for anybody but the richest.

Memphis Mike
01-19-2002, 01:12 PM
Hu, Hu, This is really hard for me to say but
WELCOME BACK BATTY! http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/tongue.gif

Bill Gates
01-19-2002, 05:36 PM
Hmmmm, Bill here. Stan those guys know a good thing when they see one. They love our products and love to bring them home in their SUVs...

Bateau Boy
01-19-2002, 06:54 PM
Joe displayed capitalism at it highest. He had a dream to make money and whether it was legal he chose to do it. Al Capone wasn't as lucky to have the pull that Joe had.

stan v
01-19-2002, 08:36 PM
speaking of the kennedys, the liberals had to bring out that socialist of socialists to cover daschle and his bumblings on tax increases. old ted kennedy hates tax cuts, as apparantly most of you in the northeast. stand by, you're gonna hear a lot more from the tax takers. notice how reluctant they will be in asking for more. evasive is a better word. by the way, where's that form i requested for those of you who desire to send in more to the irs? bb, it is good to hear from you again.

Chris Coose
01-19-2002, 09:17 PM
Hey Stan,
How bout we get companies like Enron to throw in a few bucks first. Or is corporate welfare a reasonable sacrifice for your beloved capitalism?

stan v
01-20-2002, 02:42 AM
hey chris, are you suggesting that corporations don't pay taxes? and that they don't contribute to society? for whom do you work? corporation, or feds? believe me, enron corruption is being found out, and those old boys are gonna pay. but you are right about my love for capitalism. it's what got us where we are. at this moment america is sending supplies to the congo for volcano victims, i've heard no one else volunteering. damn right we're rich. let's keep it that way. work hard, get rich, take care of your own. god bless america, i'm going pig hunting!(literally)

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 06:51 AM
Yes Stan there are thousands of large corporations that avoid paying taxes. The process that the government allows this is called corporate welfare
BTW do you have a wood boat connection or are you here just to get us all up to salute your flag?

Bateau Boy
01-20-2002, 07:51 AM
Corporate welfare,lets see, farmers are substadized, college and instututions of higher learning get no payback grants, food stamps are distrubuted throughout this land, members of Congress go on Caribean and African vacations and discuss new programs for foreign aid.

Where in that list do you see BUT one word that has to produce something to receive the welfare beneifits as you call it? Where would the money come from if it weren't for the corporations large and small to fund these and so many other welfare programs and entitlements?

Crying about the amount of money corporations don't pay usually come from sponge politicians that live to be reelected by follow the leader voters, and blame game individuals to lazy to do much more than just show up to a job and wait for friday.

I don't know what the figures are, but your Microsofts, Ford and GMC Boeing probably make up only ten percent of the so called pay nothing companies. Look at the return on the dollars not paid to this country for what is generated.

Also to protect the workers of these types, unions were formed . They certainly have a lot say in the workings of the political program and process of this nations.

No one is crying for their lobbyist to be removed from Washington. Look at the misuse of pention fund money thru out history. You talking about covert spending and non accountabilty for the working mans money, makes for a great place to start in the interest of the working man.

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 09:16 AM
So, corporate welfare and tax avoidance is OK and poor people's is not OK?

Allen Foote
01-20-2002, 09:44 AM
Yes Chris ...its okay by me....because those companies that don't pay as much, earn those tax breaks by reinvesting in retooling and automation and other things that will make them even more competetive in tommarros global market....thus continueing to keep Americans working and the American economy moving. Look at WHY their tax rate is what it is.....there is a reason for this. They are not doing anything illegal (unlike the Kennedy patriarc) and those laws governing corporate taxes are there for a reason. Enron's Illegal activities will be published and we will all read of it in the papers.....with or without the libral medias opiniated slants. Bruce Taylor...I do not owe you an apology nor anything else and could care less about your Canadian policies. This thread is/was started about U.S. taxpayers and our $ paid to the IRS.

Bateau Boy
01-20-2002, 10:23 AM
Chris, the poor people receive direct welfare or in the case of the earned income tax credit, receive an additional gift once a year also. Just because there level of income is less , that is a reason and excuse to redistribute earned money from the gamblers of creativity.

I did do a post when the forum went down concerning Joe's great entreupenurship but it seemed to disappear into the darkness of internet.

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 11:24 AM
It has been said that sheltered accounts in off shore islands (of which Enron has somewhere around 880) is like the brothel on the outside of town.
Thanks to the likes of Enron and their ability to pay no taxes, more of these big guys will be seen with their pants down around their ankles and make a judgement on the morality of it. Just because it is not illegal doesn't make it OK, unless of course, you think whore houses on the outskirts of town is a good thing.
Re tooling, upgrading, making it better for the American worker? Have you missed the giant sucking sound that Mr. Perot referred too?

stan v
01-20-2002, 12:17 PM
that sucking sound was from perot himself. even texas is embarrassed. some of you people must work for uncle sam, which means you work for me. not only do i not like what i receive in services, but i'm tired of being told i'm not paying enough. just how much do you people want?

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 12:31 PM
Now that you know us for who we are Stan maybe you could share with us some of your interests in wood boats.

Greg H
01-20-2002, 12:43 PM
Ok Stan. You don't have to pay any more taxes and in exchange you will get no govt. services.
To start with:
Walk to work, but stay off the public roads
don't expect to be paid much or recieve any time off, lunch break, any unemployment benifits when you get fired for refusing to work 16hrs a day, 7 days a week (no govt. regulations for you!)
get you kids out of public school and stay away from the library
and that gov.insured mortgage,...fugedaboudit
cash on the barrel head
savings and checking accounts...sorry, we went bankrupt and they were not garenteed.... mail service.....ha
if the north Koreans want to invade your yard, well you're on your own...
You can leave the electric and phone lines ( both recievers of public money) connected for a while just so we can communicate with you
---G http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

stan v
01-20-2002, 02:24 PM
you know, this is to easy. i'm going from a sorry conservative, to a fiberglass owning, outboard powered, gas guzzling, smoke belching freak. fiberglass, fiberglass! i hate painting a wood as beautiful as mahogany! however, it does make the best frame for the windows i'm rebuilding on this old 24' offshore fisherman. and when she's ready, i'll be able to troll offshore for any number of big game fish i choose off my coast. i don't care if you each choose those little, safe 9' prams to play with. so why does it bother you what i choose? ex home renovator, cabinet maker, and currently taxed to much. i am what i am and that's all that i am. if you don't like it, send more money to the irs, it should make you feel better. by the way, didn't shoot a pig this morning, might be while i'm a little irritable.

Bruce Taylor
01-20-2002, 02:35 PM
with or without the libral medias opiniated slants. Bruce Taylor...I do not owe you an apology

Allen, you don't owe me an apology. You owe Don Olney an apology for falsely accusing him of doctoring the NY Times article he posted. He did not change a word of that article.

Ronald Rosen
01-20-2002, 03:28 PM
A bit of history for one and all.
The much loved Franklin Delano Roosevelt lived off the fortune made by his grand father Warren Delano.
Warren Delano II of Fairhaven,Massachusetts,was one of the consecutive heads of Russell and Co. in Canton, China.

In a letter home he described his endeavors as follows." I do not pretend to justify the prosecution of the Opium trade in a moral and philanthropic point of view, but as a merchant I insist that it has been a fair,honorable and legitimate trade; and to say the worst of it,liable to no further or weightier objections than is the importation of wines,Brandies and spirits into the U.States,England,etc."

So we have the beloved F.D.R. living off the drug trade and the much loved J.f.K. living off the ill begotten booze trade.

As I recall they were both Democrats and genuine Liberals...

AH, Memories. No I was not Captain of one of those Opium laden Yankee Clippers.

O.K. who can give us the POOP on some Republican Fortunes...???

Cap'n Ron

Greg H
01-20-2002, 03:51 PM
That's the point Stan we each get to choose.Trying to classify everyone into a or b is pointless. As long as we don't step on each other, and expect them to agree or conform to our individual version of how things should be, or do damage to the place we all live, it's fine with me.In exchange for this freedom we all have to throw something in the pot and compromise how it should be FAIRLY used to better everyones lot.
The tax system s@@ks, it's not fair, it's not efficient, far to complicated and it keeps getting worse rather than better, but I am not personaly overburdened by it, today. We need to deal with it. We need to look carefully at the proposals, in detail, rather than at the titles and hype that are paraded before us.
It's one nation, not a liberal vs conservative one or 250,000,000 seperate ones.
Peace----G

stan v
01-20-2002, 03:53 PM
capn ron, i'd just like to know if there are any democrats that ever participated in the private sector? must be, but i'm drawing a blank at the moment. for instance, since daschle has become an economic professor, has he ever had to meet a payroll? i know neither clinton, or gore ever had a job outside of government. for that matter, none of clinton's cabinet had much experience in working for a living. has kennedy ever had a job? any kennedy? leahy? jeffords? these are the people that will raise taxes in a new york minute, and that's what this topic is about.

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 04:05 PM
In my drinking days.......
The vessel Highlander made her annual visit or should I say splash into Northeast Harbor. Malcom Forbes invited his usual suspects to his big dinner on board. I was hired to tend the fan tail deck bar. After the cocktail hour had passed and I had closed the bar, I was looking to take my $$ and run.
I was asked to tend one table for dinner. Malcom Forbes, David Rockefeller and secretary of defense Casper Weinberger sat at this lonely table on the deck. Steve Forbes stood by. No wives.
It was all business with Cap doing most of the talking. Cap talked about contracts that were about to be awarded. I heard quite a bit about new tanks and the companies who were going to build them. Steve Forbes took notes.
I must say that it was a very nice boat.

[This message has been edited by Chris Coose (edited 01-20-2002).]

stan v
01-20-2002, 04:07 PM
greg h, i appreciate your response. on a previous post i stated how unlikely it would be to review any current government program that isn't working. things just don't work that way in washington, because whoever takes a look at reducing any spending will be on the media hit list for the heartless award of the day. that's how conservatives were labeled during reagan, and were steamrolled on spending which led to our debt. i hate waste. some people may think it's a waste to own a fiberglass boat, and then put mahogany on it. but, it's my boat, and my money. money spent on government programs need to be reviewed, and changed accordingly, not automatically increased with cost of living raises. that's real waste, and that to is my money. and i'm not at all happy with the republicans the last few years.

Ronald Rosen
01-20-2002, 05:06 PM
Stanv...I think I'd call Thomas Jefferson a Democrat. He was a farmer,inventor,architect,etc.
Not a good money manager,he died broke. His home at Monticello fell into disrepair and was falling apart years after his death. It was a Jew,Commodore Uriah P.Levy, who purchased Monticello,put it into perfect shape and gave it to this country.The Commodore's love and admiration for Jefferson knew no bounds. The Commodore also made a fortune in N.Y.C. real estate. He helped establish the Washington,D.C. Hebrew congregation.He also abolished lashing in the Navy. He was quite a character! He spent time in a British prison during the war of 1812. He went to sea at the age of 12! I dont know his political affiliation,but he loved T.J. and I do believe T.J. is considered the founder of the Democratic party. Of course, that is the party of the slave holders. Good ol Uriah P. Levy,a true wood boat sailor,entrepreneur,investor and war hero. He also had more court martials then any other Officer in the history of the U.S.Navy...still reached the highest rank available at that time. Say, what was this thread about???

Cap'n Ron

stan v
01-20-2002, 05:15 PM
i don't know what this thread is about. but i do know why i never received lashings while in the u.s. navy. thanks, cap'n ron. wait a minute! my last question asked if any "current" or recent liberal democrats ever worked for a paycheck?

Chris Coose
01-20-2002, 06:36 PM
Stan,
Both liberal house members from the great state of Maine were working stiffs. George Mitchell worked for pay.
Don't know where you are going with the answer to your question but then again don't know where you are coming from either.

LaMess
01-20-2002, 06:51 PM
Let's get back to what brought us here...wooden boats.


Jeez. A libertarian telling people what 'too' do and how to do it.

[This message has been edited by LAMESS (edited 01-20-2002).]

stan v
01-20-2002, 07:02 PM
chris, i would trust those in congress who have worked successfully in the private sector to have a better understanding of the real world. competition is a great motivator and instructor, make a mistake and you can lose a business. risk taking with ones own resources teaches conservatism. where taxes are concerned, and someone is asking me to send more of my money to washington, i would hope those asking are aware of the necessary and endless drive to succeed, and have been there, done that. in other words they themselves have had to make a payroll. thank you for remembering george mitchell, but i am at a loss as to his previous to government profession. donnwest, this aggravates my wife as well. conservative or liberal? that's who makes up congress, and they pass stuff. so who cares about the rest?

LaMess
01-20-2002, 07:22 PM
goodtoknowimnotcompletelywithouttalentsthankyouwha tisyoursbesidestellingeoplewhattodandinsultingthem
withallDUErespectlameass

[This message has been edited by LAMESS (edited 01-20-2002).]

NormMessinger
01-20-2002, 10:04 PM
All right kiddies, time out.

But if yaall really want to know how to properly use the langage wait'l I get Legget and Seafox to join me and we'll show ya.

Melvil Dewey is my hero.

--N http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/frown.gif R M

Art Read
01-20-2002, 10:24 PM
Politics, religion and spouses... Bad juju. Interesting reading perhaps, but I don't know a better way to bring out the worst in folks. Jesus! Is everybody here getting "henpecked" at home or something? Somebody ought to pass a law... http://media5.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Allen Foote
01-21-2002, 10:46 AM
Bruce...grow up.

Sam F
01-21-2002, 10:48 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
"No system can be much better than the people who comprise it."

Alan, That's an obvious truth. Given virtuous people, almost any system can work. There is however, a feed back system put in place when any form of government is installed. Since we humans are not immortal; the founders of a particular system die off to be replaced by people who were shaped by that system. As the years go by the social & moral underpinnings of the founders will not be reinforced if the system they created fails to do so or is supplanted by another. As I stated earlier, and which is an historical fact, the US is now Capitalist but was not founded as such. You simply can't use the founding fathers to bolster your pro-Capitalist argument.
Surely you won't disagree that some systems foster virtue and others discourage it? (For instance, growing up under the Taleban would seldom produce children tolerant of diversity.) This also is an obvious truth. I see little evidence that our economic system promotes virtue. It is hardly a novel observation that capitalism actively encourages at least 4 of the seven deadly sins: Pride, Envy, Greed and Lust. How can a system that does that ever produce a just society? I for one think that moving toward a more just society is a worthy goal.


"Free markets, like wide freedom of all individual action, only works well in societies in which restraint, self-discipline, personal responsibility, and
a sense of duty, are fairly widespread."

Leaving aside that "Free" markets may have never had more than a brief existence... It is true, but our economic system actively destroys those the very character traits it requires to function. It is autotoxic. This is the heart of what I'm trying to get across. We have embraced an economic system that is wrecking our democracy and the moral foundations of our society. No doubt you would categorize the tasteless crap spewed by our "entertainment" industry as the product of "Liberal permissiveness" but it's just ol' unfettered Capitalism at work: Provide a product, "service" a market, make a buck and to hell with the consequences.
BTW, Surely you can't use the term "restraint" in connection with American Capitalism with a straight face? Good Grief!

"Most of this country's founders made statements recognizing this stubborn fact."

Remember our founders weren't Capitalists. To say so is an anachronism. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

If you wish to lump me in a group with whom you disagree, you'll find me with Washington and Adams,... <SNIP>"

It is possible that maybe those folk would rather not be lumped in with you?

"I'd rather be wrong in the company of <SNIP> Hillary Clinton."

You're not mistaking me for a liberal are you?

Bruce Taylor
01-21-2002, 11:48 AM
Bruce...grow up

Allen -- Grownups don't publicly trash a guy's character and then try to pretend that nothing happened.

When grownups learn that they have been making false accusations against other grownups, they admit their mistake and retract their comments. If they're really grown up, they apologize. The other grownups are usually satisfied with that, saying something like "That's O.K., Allen...we all screw up, sometimes."

PatCox
01-21-2002, 12:22 PM
Alan Hyde, I think you deserve this comment regarding your remark along the lines of "if you wish to lump me with a group of people with whom you disagree, you can place me with Washington, . . ." Alan Hyde, that statement was deliberately dishonest in its substance and cowardly in its presentation.
It was weasely in the worst sense of lawyerly weaseling, it was a craven, passive-agressive criticism with no basis.

If you are going to say of a man "he disagrees with the values of the founders of this nation," then be a man and say so openly. Then people would be able to see that what you said has no basis, and you could give the person you are attacking the ability to respond directly to a direct charge. But no, instead, you tie it up into an insinuation and wrap it around yourself, so that you can, in weasel fashion, claim you weren't attacking anyone, you were just defending yourself.

What you said is indistinguishable from saying "when you attack me, you attack the founding fathers and all they stood for, for I am indistinguishable from them," and that is purest poppycock.

I fear that the only Cairn you are leaving around here is a reputation for ad hominen attacks delivered in flowery language, along with a complete inability to debate using facts and reason as opposed to slogans and smearing innuendos.

As to the issue of whether you really are standing with the founders, as you beleive you are in your positions, I think there is room for more doubt than you are willing to admit. Its an admirable goal, Allan, but do not rest too easy that you have acheived it.

Here's a little quote from Abraham Lincoln which I beleive gives some indication that he at least would not want to be lumped in with you:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching which unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the future of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands andthe republic is destroyed."

If you were truly familiar with the philosophic beleifs of the founders with regard to the acqusition of wealth, you might be aware of their admiration for the Spartans. There was a very widely held beleif among the founding fathers that great wealth and particularly great disparities in wealth were antithetical to and would destroy democracy. And they had absolutley no problems with sumptuary laws designed to limit wealth; yes, they had no problems with the ideas of the Spartans, that the government could legitmately set limits on the amount of wealth a man could permissably amass.

As stated in a pamphlet published in Charleston in the late 1770s, this view held that

Men in moderate circumstances, are most virtuous. An equality of estate, will give an equality of power; and equality of power is a natural commonwealth. . . the first seeds of anarchy are produced from hence, that some are ungovernable rich, and many more are miserably poor; that is, some are masters of al means of oppression, and others want all means of self-defense." "Rudiments of Law and Government Deduced From The Laws of Nature."

Are you familiar wth the works of Montesquieu, Allan? Would you like to be lumped with him? The founders wanted to be lumped with him, he could almost be called the architect of our Constitution. Here's what he thought about private property and the freedom to contract:

"[it is] absolutely necessary there should be some regulation in respect to all forms of contracting. For were we once allowed to dispose of our property to whom and how we pleased, the will of the individual would disturb the order of the fundamental law." Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws.

And here is what one of the founders had to say about private, individual virtue, Mr. Hyde, which you put forward as a prerequisite for the proper operation of republican ideals:

"The more a nation depends for its liberties on the qualities of indviduals, the less likely it is to retain it. By expecting publick good from private virtue, we expose ourselves to publick evil from private vice." Remember too, Allan, the vice they were worried about was greed, not sex.

By the way, how do Ben Franklins sexual mores compare with Bill Clinton's? Orare your blinders at work there?

All this is not to say you are incontrovertibly wrong or incorect in anything you say, Alan. Others among the founders took positions which are closer to the things you say. But many did not. The thing is that even back then, there was no uniform and absolute beleif in free markets, there was no orthodoxy on any issue, the founders disagreed just as we disagree today on may issues, and they compromised just as we must compromise.

You look back into the past, Mr. Hyde, and like narcissus, all you see is a reflection of yourself looking back at you. You will never learn anything from history if all it does for you is confirm your preconceptions.

rodcross
01-21-2002, 12:41 PM
Sam, take a moment to reflect on what you've said about the founders of the 13 states and the authors of our Constitution. For one thing, there's nothing in our Constitution about capitalism or any other economic system, for that matter. It is merely a foundation for a democratic republic and a statement of rights. I'd also be cautious in referring to the U.S. as a pure democracy. It isn't.
Some criticize capitalism by pointing out the abuses, but rarely do they choose to point out the benefits such as the recognition and reward of individual and shared accomplishments and flexibility. Although the benefits are self-evident over the last 200+ years, the proof of your flawed thinking can be found in that same experience over those 200+ years. Every time we found a flaw in the political system, it got repaired (including one dreadful repair in the 1860s) and it will continue to be repaired. When our form of capitalism failed, it got repaired and it will continue to be repaired. Industries and companies will fail when they forget their principal business.

(Anyone who uses Enron as an indication of the flaws of capitalism is missing the point. Those who see the failure of Enron as proof that capitalism is working, have a much better grasp of the situation. Rather than risk some reader inferring that I celebrate the fall of Enron, I don't. But I do think that every employee of every company in the country that has an interest in a profit-sharing plan, or 401(K) will review their plan and will take the steps necessary to assure that what happened at Enron won't happen to them. That's how capitalism and self-determination work. Governments won't have to do anything.)

You pick the industries that failed or are failing when we begin to control the market or the industry: shipping, steel, railroads, cotton, automobiles are the ones I can name. Left alone, capitalists will repair the discrepencies. There was a time when Japan was unbeatable in foriegn markets. Where are they now? Name almost any european country and at one time they ruled international trade. Where are they now? Capitalism doesn't wait for someone or some government to repair the system. It repairs itself, or it dies.

Before I completely run out of wind, I want to share something that has been winding around my head since the tragedy on September 11. Do you recall an encounter on the streets of New York when a young man on a bicycle berated a gathering crowd on how this attack was brought on the U.S. by its capitalist, war-mongering, abusive and invasive interference in the world? Fortunately for the young man, some policemen interceded before the crowd could kill him and sent him on his way. I had to ask myself if I'd be willing to risk my life, or even lose my life, defending his right to speak his opinion. It has been several months of personal conflict of my own, because I knew the answer was Yes.

Sam, preach your twisted interpretation of our history, if you wish. I am bound to defend your right to say it.

Hughman2
01-21-2002, 12:44 PM
Bruce Taylor
posted 01-21-2002 12:27 PM
Democracy attempts to hitch a dragon to the plough.

**Now there's an image! (Had to bring that quote to this thread)

stan v
01-21-2002, 02:12 PM
pat, when was ben franklin president? good to see you back on line. this thread was bound to upset anti-capitalists. taxes will be the turning point of this years elections, and control of the senate. taxes can only be collected from those who have earned income. no income, no tax. in fact, what is the minimum income allowed before taxes are due? that figure will reflect why so many in this country are not against tax increases. if you don't pay taxes, why should you care if they're raised? the founding fathers were about freedom. most paid for those beliefs. some lost all belongings, even family members. they knew government was not the answer, that's why it was limited.

Alan D. Hyde
01-21-2002, 02:38 PM
Pat, that was quite an outpouring. I intended, and so far as I can see, made, no ad hominem attacks. Nor did I endorse the actions of large corporations, or promote the benefits of an anarchic marketplace.

I did not say that the founders were with me; I said that I was with them. I may be the fly on the axletree, but I can see who made the dust.

I was merely pointing out that my ideas are almost entirely derivative; I do not claim to be a particularly original thinker. The source from which most of my political thought has been derived is the founders of this nation, this republic, and their successors.

When I evaluate the works and words of the founders, do I "see myself?" Well, of course, all of us, to some extent, see what we wish to see. Certainly, our perceptions are conditioned to some degree by our backgrounds. Does this mean there is no objective truth? I don't believe so.

Were the founders not capitalists? Probably they wouldn't have described themselves as such. They were farmers, builders, designers, lawyers, artisans, merchants, seamen, and many other things. They ventured their assets to create a living, and to create further assets. They were entrepreneurs, promoters, risk-takers.

They ventured their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor upon a bold and visionary ideal. Am I their peer? Certainly not.

But when our founders' ideas and contributions are forgotten in the swirling currents of events, and in commentaries on those events by individuals who often lack even elemental knowledge of our history, then you will perhaps acknowledge that it can be beneficial to recur to our birthright, and to recollect how we got where we are today, and why.

During a triumph, the ancient Romans had a man whisper in the ear of their hero, reminding him that he was not a God.

That's a procedure that our would-be social engineers would do well to emulate. This, in sum, is all my postings aim to suggest.

Alan

Sam F
01-21-2002, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by stan v:
sam f, no i'm not a saint, and i doubt the others you mentioned are either. but i am determined, and steadfast in my beliefs. no independent, or moderate am i. you can't sway me or convince me that i am incorrect that people who are given anything over a limitless period of time, who are capable of working, and do nothing in return for these benefits, will ever feel satisfied with their position in life. charity is one thing, being taken advantage of is another.

I can't argue with that! I doubt that any sane person would think that public dollars should support people "who are capable of working, and do nothing in return for these benefits". Who does? I don't think anyone on this forum has suggested any such thing.
My statement about "faith" concerned a faith in a particular economic system. I think your faith is misplaced. You obviously wouldn’t agree! From reading your posts, I assume that you believe that if the market is truly free it will make for a better society. (A better society is presumably something we all want.) One of the central tenants of the Free Market Capitalist faith is that an "invisible hand" will regulate markets to the eventual benefit of everyone. I know this is over simplified but at rock bottom that’s how it is supposed to work. Most economists seem to view this process as some sort of "Law" akin to the laws of physics. But economic laws are not the same as scientific laws. Economics is a function of human psychology and the human mind is…. not to put too fine a point on it… a mess. The belief is (and it is just that, a belief not a fact or a natural law that can be empirically “proved”) that if our economy is simply left alone everything will turn out for the best. That’s what separates the skeptics like me from the true believers.
I simply don’t see any evidence that has ever happened or will ever happen. A brief glance at recent (since say 1865 AD or so) history is a deplorable repeating cycle of Boom – Panic and Bust. The more unregulated the markets, the more pronounced the cycle’s swings become. (BTW, If you can cite any contrary historical evidence of when a Free market existed in a modern society and functioned for any significant period of time, I’d be glad to hear of it.) That’s not the only problem with Capitalism; our economic system is undermining our society’s moral foundation through promoting greed, envy and lust while polluting our air, water and land.
Sorry, I just can’t believe in it. I think I’ll place my faith somewhere more worthy of it.

Allen Foote
01-21-2002, 03:47 PM
Our founding fathers were "free masons" and knew that government wasn't the answer as stan pointed out. It was the idea for free men to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The absolute faith in the human spirit to rise up....not to be controled or subplanted. Ideas of government to protect the momentum of the human race in the progression of freedom...not to control nor deny but to protect and foster those truths that we hold so dear. Of course the liberal ideals of government "helping" those of lesser abilities came to be......but haven't those liberal ideals become perverted? Isn't the role in government to protect the momentum and not to say who can play what part in the progression of the human race? Our founding fathers believed in the truths that rightous men would always rise above tyranny and oppression and that any government that stood in the way of the momentum would fall. Pat...please?!? Comparing Ben Franklin to Bill Clinton?

[This message has been edited by Allen Foote (edited 01-21-2002).]

Ronald Rosen
01-21-2002, 04:17 PM
We are in the process of finding out just how powerfull a truly free market can be. The only truly powerfull FREE market on this earth is the international currency market. When the world no longer wants Dollars they will shove them down our throats. The U.S.Government has NO control over what foreign interests do with their dollars. When that day arrives the FREE MARKET will give the U.S.A. a lesson in the benefits of a CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy and a sound currency. The probability is extremly high that our Gold is mostly gone,our Silver is down from 1.5 billion ounces to barely 15 million. All we have left is lies,corruption,denials,political manipulation and a constitution that has been violated and torn to shreds by our elected officials. There is a price to pay for this behavior and it wont be the GOOD LORD that does it to us. We have painted ourselves into this corner and there is no painless way out. That's called a FREE MARKET solution.

Cap'n Ron

Sam F
01-21-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by rodcross:
Sam, preach your twisted interpretation of our history, if you wish.

Rodcross,
Twisted? Cool! That just what my teachers used to say!. Guilty as charged! I hate to say this, but maybe you've confused my posts with someone else's? It's not that I mind, but I shouldn't get the credit if it belongs to others. See comments inserted below:

Sam, take a moment to reflect on what you've said about the founders of the 13 states and the authors of our Constitution. For one thing, there's nothing in our Constitution about capitalism or any other economic system, for that matter. It is merely a foundation for a democratic republic and a statement of rights."

Uh... Right! That's what I've been saying all along. Capitalism and the US were born around the same time. Therefore it's impossible for Capitalism to have had any influence on the founding generation.

"I'd also be cautious in referring to the U.S. as a pure democracy. It isn't."

Yep it isn't. I never said that it was. Care to provide a quote from me on that?

"Some criticize capitalism by pointing out the abuses, but rarely do they choose to point out the benefits such as the recognition and reward of individual and shared accomplishments and flexibility."

Now this is silly. Why wouldn't I criticize something by pointing out it's abuses? Gee, the main problem with Capitalism is that it is SO prone to abuse. If it weren't, I wouldn't criticize it!
Let me get this out once and for all: Capitalism is the goose that laid the golden egg! I mean it. Now the problem is that maybe gold isn't the highest good and this particular goose is crapping all over the house, tearing up the furniture and biting the kids... Do I make myself clear?

"Although the benefits are self-evident over the last 200+ years, the proof of your flawed thinking can be found in that same experience over those 200+ years. Every time we found a flaw in the political system, it got repaired (including one dreadful repair in the 1860s) and it will continue to be repaired. When our form of capitalism failed, it got repaired and it will continue to be repaired. Industries and companies will fail when they forget their principal business."

I start to worry when people refer to things being "self evident" but forget that for the moment... I'd make a lousy revolutionary. I'm afraid I'm stuck in the muddling reformer category. I know Capitalism has failed and been repaired over and over. I am all for repair! The free marketeers want to forget and repeal those "repairs". That's something I can whole heartedly oppose.
I do refuse to think that Capitalism is the be all and end all of human existence; that nothing better can ever be conceived. What is this attitude I see? Have I stumbled into Candide or some variant of the old "Best of all possible worlds" notion?

"(Anyone who uses Enron as an indication of the flaws of capitalism is missing the point. Those who see the failure of Enron as proof that capitalism is working, have a much better grasp of the situation. Rather than risk some reader inferring that I celebrate the fall of Enron, I don't. But I do think that every employee of every company in the country that has an interest in a profit-sharing plan, or 401(K) will review their plan and will take the steps necessary to assure that what happened at Enron won't happen to them. That's how capitalism and self-determination work. Governments won't have to do anything.)"

I admit that I'm a bad man and deserving of your censure but I don't recall saying a word about Enron on this thread. Oh NO! Have you been bugging my house??!!!! :)
I did say mean things about Union Carbide and Ms. Helmsley. I'm not the least bit sorry for it either.

"You pick the industries that failed or are failing when we begin to control the market or the industry: shipping, steel, railroads, cotton, automobiles are the ones I can name. Left alone, capitalists will repair the discrepencies. There was a time when Japan was unbeatable in foriegn markets. Where are they now? Name almost any european country and at one time they ruled international trade. Where are they now? Capitalism doesn't wait for someone or some government to repair the system. It repairs itself, or it dies."

"Left alone, capitalists will repair the discrepencies.".... What you are saying is that in the long run everything works out under Capitalism. OK. Maybe I can "buy" into that concept. Just remember one thing; In the long run we are ALL dead. An economy finally coming around to a correction does me no good if it takes too long & I don't survive to see it happen. Those folks who were swindled out of their retirement by Enron executives are too old to make up the losses. (Now I HAVE said something mean about Enron. You are entitled to take me to task about it in your next post.)

"Before I completely run out of wind, I want to share something that has been winding around my head since the tragedy on September 11. Do you recall an encounter on the streets of New York when a young man on a bicycle berated a gathering crowd on how this attack was brought on the U.S. by its capitalist, war-mongering, abusive and invasive interference in the world? Fortunately for the young man, some policemen interceded before the crowd could kill him and sent him on his way. I had to ask myself if I'd be willing to risk my life, or even lose my life, defending his right to speak his opinion. It has been several months of personal conflict of my own, because I knew the answer was Yes."

Wow! Talk about wind! I've got three reefs in and a storm jib already. I too remember that account about Sept 11 but the version I heard didn't mention the word "Capitalism". (I may not remember it as well as you do.) Are you implying that I'm unpatriotic or something?
Don't you think that's going a bit beyond the evidence you have? Especially so since you seem to have me mixed up with someone else!

"Sam, preach your twisted interpretation of our history, if you wish. I am bound to defend your right to say it. "

Gotta love it! Thanks so much for the "twisted" comment. Seriously! It made my day!
BTW, You do realize that "twisted" is a subjective judgement don't you? How about providing some evidence where I'm wrong? Oh and do make sure that it's me you're responding to.

Sam F
01-21-2002, 04:51 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

Come on Alan. You're almost there... Now just change it from "Probably" which you know is absurd; to "Certainly" as in Certainly they wouldn't have described themselves as Capitalists"


Were the founders not capitalists? Probably they wouldn't have described themselves as such. They were farmers, builders, designers, lawyers, artisans, merchants, seamen, and many other things. They ventured their assets to create a living, and to create further assets. They were entrepreneurs, promoters, risk-takers.


Really it's not that hard is it? I'm not saying that in our past there was no money or business or risk takers. The rich we will always have with us, but do we have to have them SO powerful? I don't think the founders would have liked of our drift toward Plutocracy one bit! Do you think they'd approve?

stan v
01-21-2002, 07:10 PM
sam f, i can tell you what i think the founders would say. they would want to know what the h*** happened to our constitution? who made all these changes, and what happened to God? they were capitalists and didn't even know it.