Modern American conservatism is simultaneously evil and insane

[Pangloss]

He was elected to push a more socialized solution for healthcare

 

I think what most people had in mind was fixing a broken system, not making it "more socialized".

 

Regarding whether his preferences should be seen as surprising, it's important to keep in mind that during the election he pushed moderacy and common ground. Though I think your point is still a good one; he may have tamped down his preferences (or he may not have), but he's a Democrat with a background of immersion amongst people obsessed with social justice and liberation theology, so perhaps we should have his more liberal side coming. (Not that I think that's a huge problem. I think the president's policies have been very transparent and well-communicated, as well as generally moderate.)

[jackson33]

Sure thing. Singapore. It's a pretty ridiculously fantastic country, and I'm speaking from experience. I only returned home from there last week. [/Quote]

 

iNow; Yes, I remember you mentioning your Singapore business trip, with a certain amount of envy, as do I remember 'bascules' trip to Europe (think Sweden) and his enthusiasm for their system. To the issue;

 

 

 

Although there is no historical value to determine a success or failure of the Singapore (assume separated from Malaysia) form of Monarchy/Parliamentary system of governance, other than a very low per capita income, I can't argue there current success. I also happen to like their Medisave Personal Medical Account System, which are individually maintained and used with in a primarily free market medical service or the Government. What is interesting in my world are the current growth patterns (10% in 1st Half 2010) and potential future, based on anything Asian and China's expansion programs. In the early 90's I also followed Taiwan and their Capitalism Program, which was as pure 'Free Market' as anything every tried, but has become dependent more and more on China and I expect them to literally vote themselves back into the Chinese Monarchy, over time. More recently, another Monarchy 'Republic of Dubai' then primarily Dubai, in anticipation of running out of oil reserves, also experimented with Free Market Capitalism (still is), but has since run into financial problems. Maybe some Monarchy will come up with an ideal system, but would suggest benevolence will have little or nothing to do with any success.

 

All this said, IMO your still missing the point; The US was formed/founded, has had a great deal of success, both with in the Country and influencing others on a particular form of Governing many otherwise Sovereign entities (States/Republics). Then we NOW have 50 States, 310 Million people, each with some basic differences in living stands, incomes and totally different National Interest (opposed to International) and that ship can't be turned around, at least without starting over and that scenario, I hope never to write about.

 

First, what policies has Obama engaged in that actually surprised anyone? On a range from "no change at all" to "campaign promise" he has managed to float somewhere in the middle. He was elected to push a more socialized solution for healthcare, and he passed a watered down one that is better than "no change at all" but sure didn't live up to the promise of a public option. He's pulled combat troops from Iraq but we still have DADT. [/Quote]

 

padren; In polarizing the electorate, opposed to the electorate being polarized, it was not so much the promises (political rhetoric) but the actions and policies pushed and to the degree they were opposes by both his base and adversaries. Where you feel he and again I'm going to emphasize the Administration and the ideology of those in the Administration, was in the middle (moderate), I'd suggest those methods, ideas, methods and policies have been extreme left (social justice) almost dictatorial in nature.

 

Verb: polarize 'pow-lu,rIz

 

(physics) cause to vibrate in a definite pattern

"polarize light waves";

- polarise [brit]

 

Cause to concentrate about two conflicting or contrasting positions

- polarise [brit][/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=polarizing

 

Yes, historically he had professed a desire for single payer 'Universal Health Care' and other 'Social Justice Policies' and was rated number two, behind only VP Biden, as the most Liberal Members of Congress, but I don't recall any major speeches or comments indicating this was going to be the basis for his administration, transparency and openness of Government was and you really don't want me going there. Yes, getting out of Iraq was mentioned and all that was done by following the previous administrations programs, then Biden and himself giving the credit to themselves, when most knew was otherwise. I can't blame the Afghan situation on the administration, since IMO there are many variables to any pull out, that he should now understand, namely the India factor. As for 'DADT', I'm sorry, but in this case, taking politics out of the picture, Obama the person probably opposes the issue, just has he opposes 'same sex marriages'. Like it or not, agree or not, he still must have a fundamental understanding of Islam in his mind....and that won't compute.

[mississippichem]

Perhaps because it was not as large as it should have been to counter the huge problem we faced? The only rolling in that particular burial ground is surely more aligned with my description than yours.

 

It wasn't large enough in areas that actually stimulate the economy:

 

Fiscal Multipliers; by Antonio Spilimberg...

 

You'll notice that this work is compiled from the work of many economists. You'll also notice the small or even negative multiplier values from some categories of spending. However, notice the gigantic 1.5 next to military spending.

 

The healthcare bill was meant to address issues in healthcare, not job growth or monetary policy.

 

True, but could they have picked a worse time to execute such a plan? In a time where many are already angry about government spending? It wasn't meant to address monetary policy. I wasn't even talking about monetary policy though. I was talking about fiscal policy, which it wasn't meant to address either, but that doesn't stop it from causing a weak market in a time of rampant market uncertainty does it? Only the federal reserve has much of a say in monetary policy anyway. Ben Bernanke refusing to switch over to "easy money policy" right now is the only thing keeping us afloat.

 

Unless you make more than $250K per year, you will not see tax increases. The hikes you mention impact only the richest top 1% of the country, and even there most impact only the top 1 tenth of 1 percent. See the Bush Tax Cuts thread for evidence in support of this assertion.

 

Who do you think buys most of the securities on Wall Street that keep the "working man's" retirement plan above water? Who do you think employs people in local and regional businesses? Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire now, regardless of your ideological opinion of them, is foolish. I have no problem with a progressive agenda. I just have a problem with one in times when we can't afford it. If our economy tanks, we can't afford all the nice liberal amenities.

 

There have been gains, though. Try to avoid phrasing things in absolutist terms or you become immediately wrong... Always... All the time. ;-)

 

I'll give you that, albeit grudgingly . I'm a victim of my own syntax. Care to explain the gains? pardon the rhyme.

[iNow]

Although there is no historical value to determine a success or failure of the Singapore (assume separated from Malaysia) form of Monarchy/Parliamentary system of governance, other than a very low per capita income, I can't argue there current success.

Appreciate you stipulating that.

 

 

All this said, IMO your still missing the point; The US was formed/founded, has had a great deal of success, both with in the Country and influencing others on a particular form of Governing many otherwise Sovereign entities (States/Republics).

No, sir. I am sorry, but you seem to be the one missing the point. I made a comment in the form of a question to try steering the thread away from personality issues and how we feel about posters. That question was in context of a suggestion that perhaps part of our problem might be that we have so many stupid people voting, and I wondered how people felt about a benevolent dicatorship to help us actually get things done. I very expressly stated I had not yet formed my own opinion on the matter, and was merely asking what others thought in some vain attempt to get us back on topic.

 

In reply, you asked me to provide an example. I did. I said Singapore. All of the rest is beside the point.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Who do you think buys most of the securities on Wall Street that keep the "working man's" retirement plan above water? Who do you think employs people in local and regional businesses? Letting the Bush Tax cuts expire now, regardless of your ideological opinion of them, is foolish.

And I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but you have not defined "foolish." I have demonstrated, multiple times and with an abundance of evidence and references, in the aforementioned thread on Bush Tax cuts why extending them brings with it costs which far outweigh the benefits.

 

 

 

I'll give you that, albeit grudgingly . I'm a victim of my own syntax. Care to explain the gains? pardon the rhyme.

Sure. Except, I'm going to let others who have already done the leg-work do it for me. Here, from PolitiFact:

 

 

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/17/stimulus-report-card/

 

Using updated estimates provided to PolitiFact, IHS/Global Insight estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created or saved during the first quarter of 2010. And Moody's economy.com estimated that 1.9 million jobs will be created or saved by that quarter.

 

So the president's claim of 2 million jobs created or saved is on the generous side, but most independent economic forecasters agree the stimulus has created something close to that number so far.

 

"Our short answer is that the stimulus has had a big impact, and has helped bring the economy out of recession," said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody's Economy.com.

 

So while unemployment rose through 2009, Faucher wrote in a December report, "Job losses would have been much more severe without the government's support. Yet a political problem remains; although the economy is expanding, it is still losing jobs on net. And until the labor market sees clear improvement, President Obama's political stature will suffer.

 

"Given political and economic realities, however, there's only so much the administration can do. Job growth will pick up as the economy improves, but federal action can only induce employers to hire at the margin. The stimulus is working, but we won't see the results in the labor market until early (2011)."

 

 

There are other sources which support my contention that there have been some gains. Here is one devoted to "What has Obama accomplished:"

 

http://www.kcfreepress.com/news/2010/sep/23/what-has-obama-done-us-lately-plenty/

 

 

There are too many to list, so I'll just share that link. Here's another:

 

http://www.whatisobamadoing.com/2010/08/17/so-what-has-obama-done-so-far-updated/

 

 

 

I don't know about you, but I would categorize MANY of those things as "gains." YMMV, I suppose.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I tend to agree. It seems the voting populace is reacting to prevent a continuation of the administrations policies which they seem to oppose rather than being misled. I suppose it was ignorant of the voters that many didn't recognize what they were getting in voting for this administration in the first place.

 

Couldn't people be misled into opposing a policy, through misleading statements on the impact of that policy and how it will be implemented?

 

e.g. "death panels"

[Pangloss]

Or mislead into supporting a policy, e.g. "fining individuals for not buying insurance is not a tax" (the opposite now being the basis for the government's response to the various states' challenge to the law).

[cypress]

Couldn't people be misled into opposing a policy, through misleading statements on the impact of that policy and how it will be implemented?

 

e.g. "death panels"

 

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates. Studies indicate propaganda is effective only when information is limited or other forms of coercion/control are employed. Some may have been misled but on the whole I would disagree.

[jackson33]

As Pangloss suggest CR; If I had a family, employed and was 100% happy with my policy or co-payment group policy, to hear "you will keep you plan", "keep your Doctor", "your cost will go DOWN", "it will reduce the deficit a trillion dollars over ten years","no one will pull the plug on Granny" and probably 100 other comments by members of the Administration or Congress, would have been music to my ears. Then imagine, we're going to allow 30 million uninsured folks into medicaid, saving additional deficits and INCREASE services, free medical check ups and other services (Andy Griffith) to again decrease cost. At some point even the most ignorant involved must question that reasoning.

 

As for death panels, otherwise known as regulation and those that interpret them, they already exist and will out of necessity reduce qualifications for service. I believe it's already Medicaid that turns down more request for services than any Insurance Company (by percentage).

 

No, sir. I am sorry, but you seem to be the one missing the point. I made a comment in the form of a question to try steering the thread away from personality issues and how we feel about posters. [/Quote]

 

iNow, Your comment is in order, I did realize you were trying to direct the thread, but keep in mind you (indirectly) asked if a benevolent dictatorship would be more in order (appropriate)than a democracy. The only major modern example of large central governing entities would be the USSR and maybe "The League of Arab States", which were/are not very benevolent. Basically the US was intended to provide a common defense and promote a common environment for the general welfare of the total, NO benevolence or inclination to do kind or charitable acts intended (suppose I should use IMO, here). For the nit pickers, I didn't/don't see the European League of Nations, today's E. Union or the British Commonwealth as Central Governing authorities. The British Empire, I would argue was closer to the US system and in many ways benevolent with distribution of a modern philosophy and culture, but certainly not at the cost to the homeland. Come to think about it, is Washington DC desiring an Imperialistic approach to the States???, oh well that's for another thread. Anyway there is no way, the US could conceivable become a Monarchy or Dictatorship without some troubling "unintended consequences".

[iNow]

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates.

This strikes me as a nice example of the equivocation which Bascule referenced in his OP. How cute that Cypress would inject it here right within a thread discussing it.

 

 

---

 

Anyway there is no way, the US could conceivable become a Monarchy or Dictatorship without some troubling "unintended consequences".

Like what? If it were based on merit, which you will recall was one of my key points, and if it were benevolent, which you clearly remember was another key qualifier, what do you presume would be troubling about the switch? My premise is that we are facing a time where we need to make huge things happen, we have crazy hard things to accomplish, and that our style of constitutional republic leads us to only achieve sub-optimal solutions.

 

I ask you... if based on merit, and if benevolent, what "troubling" consequences do you envision?

Edited October 4, 2010 by iNow

[CharonY]

Interesting thought experiment. Would you rather be ruled by able, benevolent dictators, or greedy, self-serving, imbecilic elected officials.

Of course the preference for the latter is based on the fear that the premise of the former (able and beneficial) might change.

 

Of course one could try to appoint a dictator for a time for kicks.

Edited October 4, 2010 by CharonY

[CaptainPanic]

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates. Studies indicate propaganda is effective only when information is limited or other forms of coercion/control are employed. Some may have been misled but on the whole I would disagree.

A democracy is based on the fact that voters have trustworthy information about the candidates they vote for, and any party that delibarately misguides voters therefore automatically undermines democracy and freedom itself.

 

Your argument stands only when you assume that voters actually make the effort to look up all the information available in their free country. But voters actually behave like consumers of toothpaste. They will not make an objective analysis of the patents and publications of the manufacturer, or the list of ingredients and their proven effect on the health of their teeth on the long term. They will base their decision on the advertisements, and the packaging and presentation in the shop... despite the availability of the information.

 

So, my point is that information is actually limited - not because of unavailability, but because of an overload of information. We can no longer process all available information... but parties are able to flood practically all the media with their nonsense. And we all help them by copying, changing, adapting and manipulating all the crap they say... flooding the internet's politics forums.

 

Note that this issue is worldwide, and certainly not limited only to the USA.

 

 

----------------

 

Just because invectives and name-calling are used by our presidential candidates nowadays, doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. Have some dignity people!

I applaud your suggestion, but I think it is in vain, and possibly even counterproductive:

 

If it is not allowed to call a right wing racist scumbag a right wing racist scumbag... If I must motivate my choice of words every time that I address the issue of politics with an elaborate and objective reasoning, and the right wing can undermine my argument by simply typing "Socialist left wing crap to get all our money!!", then - believe it or not - the right wing wins some votes. My argument is boring, too long, and perhaps too complicated. Their argument sounds powerful, simple.

 

Some people like to hang out with the cool kids rather than with the nerds - despite the fact that it's better for their future to hang out with the nerds.

 

... and this forum is just another place where people form an opinion. And therefore, we must realize that by posting here we also influence the readers and posters. By posting here, you (and I) are campaigning.

Edited October 4, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[mississippichem]

And I appreciate your opinion on the matter, but you have not defined "foolish." I have demonstrated, multiple times and with an abundance of evidence and references, in the aforementioned thread on Bush Tax cuts why extending them brings with it costs which far outweigh the benefits.

 

Yes, if the goal is to generate government revenue. What about the effects on market activity? Namely trade volume. Low trade volume serves to propagate uncertainty in the market, especially in these days were technical trend analysis is popular.

Cost/benefit analysis is subjective in the sense that you and I will probably not agree completely on the priority of benefits. You may site increased tax revenue as a benefit, where as I might look to less volatility in the S&P 500 as a benefit, as ultimately that leads to economic stability.

When I say foolish, I mean it in the sense that it seems counterproductive to create policies (or let policies expire) that will serve to propagate or even amplify the already rampant uncertainty in the financial sector.

 

In a society with open information, there is deception and misleading statements on every side of policy debates. Studies indicate propaganda is effective only when information is limited or other forms of coercion/control are employed. Some may have been misled but on the whole I would disagree.

 

Your argument stands only when you assume that voters actually make the effort to look up all the information available in their free country. But voters actually behave like consumers of toothpaste. They will not make an objective analysis of the patents and publications of the manufacturer, or the list of ingredients and their proven effect on the health of their teeth on the long term. They will base their decision on the advertisements, and the packaging and presentation in the shop... despite the availability of the information.

 

How does his argument only stand when voters have and use all available information? The more information that is available to the public, the less effect one piece of information will have. Of course voters don't make truly objective analysis of candidates and/or policies, but does anyone really? Democracy doesn't ensure that voters will make wise decisions, they never do, but it only ensures that they will have the complete freedom to make wise or stupid decisions without the influence of active coercion. Both parties in the USA are guilty of propaganda through misleading information. How is one liar better than another?

 

So, my point is that information is actually limited - not because of unavailability, but because of an overload of information. We can no longer process all available information... but parties are able to flood practically all the media with their nonsense. And we all help them by copying, changing, adapting and manipulating all the crap they say... flooding the internet's politics forums.

 

Note that this issue is worldwide, and certainly not limited only to the USA.

 

Captain Panic, I agree with this very much. Especially the part about an overload of information. It is unfortunate that we live in a society where there is so much bad information that much of the good information is buried under a pile of feces that no one has the time or will to dig through.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

P.S. What was this thread about to begin with?

Edited October 4, 2010 by mississippichem

[iNow]

Yes, if the goal is to generate government revenue. What about the effects on market activity? Namely trade volume. Low trade volume serves to propagate uncertainty in the market, especially in these days were technical trend analysis is popular.

Cost/benefit analysis is subjective in the sense that you and I will probably not agree completely on the priority of benefits. You may site increased tax revenue as a benefit, where as I might look to less volatility in the S&P 500 as a benefit, as ultimately that leads to economic stability.

When I say foolish, I mean it in the sense that it seems counterproductive to create policies (or let policies expire) that will serve to propagate or even amplify the already rampant uncertainty in the financial sector.

Except, you haven't established that expiration of the tax cuts will magnify uncertainty, will impact the S&P 500 negatively, or lead to economic instability. The heart of my suggestion is that there are benefits to extending the cuts, but the benefits of letting them expire are FAR greater. I supported this with a plethora of posts in the aforementioned thread already. Let's take the discussion there if needed.

 

 

 

P.S. What was this thread about to begin with?

How ignorant and misinformed the vast majority of self-described conservatives in this country are. It's about how they are being deliberately misled, and how News Corp/Fox are basically just a wing of the Republican party.

 

There was an interesting analysis recently about exactly this over at Politico, and how it's not so much that Fox news works for the Republican party, but how the Republican party works for Fox News.

 

 

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=506E9A42-0184-3BF7-6F2F8D12EC95F5F3

 

With Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee all making moves indicating they may run for president, their common employer is facing a question that hasn’t been asked before: How does a news organization cover White House hopefuls when so many are on the payroll?

 

The answer is a complicated one for Fox News. (See: GOP's struggles play out on Fox)

 

As Fox’s popularity grows among conservatives, the presence of four potentially serious Republican candidates as paid contributors is beginning to frustrate competitors of the network, figures within its own news division and rivals of what some GOP insiders have begun calling “the Fox candidates.”

 

With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office.

 

<...>

 

But it isn’t just competitors that are uneasy about the arrangement; there are figures within the network who, as the early jockeying for 2012 begins, are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the specter of paying candidates they’re supposed to cover.

 

Fox insiders, speaking anonymously about what is a sensitive topic for a network worried about outside perception, said no word has been conveyed from the corporate brass to reporters about how to treat what are, for now at least, their colleagues.

 

<...>

 

What worries some in the political and media community, though, is that behind Palin’s incessant attacks on what she calls “the lamestream media” is a strategy to de-legitimize traditional news outlets so as to avoid ever facing any accountability beyond Fox.

 

 

Further perspective offered here.

Edited October 4, 2010 by iNow

[JohnB]

Just dropping in for a quick and off topic "Hi bascule, long time no see".

[iNow]

Further perspective offered here.

If you get a subscription request here, you can usually get in through google without signing up.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+fear+and+favor+october+3,+2010

[jackson33]

My premise is that we are facing a time where we need to make huge things happen, we have crazy hard things to accomplish, and that our style of constitutional republic leads us to only achieve sub-optimal solutions.[/Quote]

 

iNow; Over the years and in there times, we had many "we were facing times, where huge things were needed" and we made those things happen. Pick your decade and I'll offer you many examples. The only real difference TODAY (IMO), is an apparent attempt to socialize that Republic, which according to that Constitution (however interpreted and as is today) cannot be legally achieved. Beyond this and knowing I'm going to get the same response always offered, "we are now a Union of 50 States" and you recall the rest, then those States and their people are not going to accept, certainly not to with the 37 States required.

 

"Sub optimal solution"; According to which political philosophy? Conservatism requires adherence to the established (as is), however achieved or when possible a return back to what was. Solution, then at the Federal Level optimal influence is limited. Progressive/Liberals, on the other hand already perceive the Federals responsibilities, well beyond the prescribed authority and are complicating those "huge things". These are State responsibilities and today with 50 States, if on comes up with a viable and working solution, the rest will follow. If tried at the Federal and not effective, all 50 States suffer, the recourse being altering trying again until either dropped or accepted, usually grudgingly.

 

I ask you... if based on merit, and if benevolent, what "troubling" consequences do you envision? [/Quote]

 

What is worthy or deserving (merit), is totally subjective and it's not the Federals responsibility to even show benevolence to the individual. Said another way, we have elections every two years and any change in the societies sentiments/attitudes (not the Government) can be shown in those elections. We just went through one complete change, Congress 2006 and the Executive 2008, probably based on things not political and will likely change back this year and 2012 and I'm not indicating party changes, rather direction/policy which may require party changes.

 

Troubling "unintended consequences" IMO may not be avoidable, even this year with our traditional elections. If in any way, Congress unilaterally tried to install a Monarch or Dictator (even if seen as benevolent by 55% of the people), technically this could be done over time, States would react much differently than they are today over Health Care. Of course, this is not going to happen well into the foreseeable future, because there is nothing left (money) for the current system (much less a monarchy) to be benevolent with.

 

Except, you haven't established that expiration of the tax cuts will magnify uncertainty, will impact the S&P 500 negatively, or lead to economic instability.[/Quote]

 

It's the uncertainty of NOT knowing what's going to happen, that's creating the uncertainty in the markets, but you already know I believe it's much deeper than this. Financial Reform Act, HC, Cap & Trade, Card Check and other monetary policy being explored to activate outside the use of Congress, that are concerns as well....Watch two things not even on the listed 20 lame duct schedule and the markets will react on them, the 2011 Congressional Budget and the National Debt Limit which has nearly been reached. If your really interest, watch the commodity markets which are indicator of US inflation projection.

 

 

Interesting thought experiment. Would you rather be ruled by able, benevolent dictators, or greedy, self-serving, imbecilic elected officials.

 

Of course the preference for the latter is based on the fear that the premise of the former (able and beneficial) might change.[/Quote]

 

Charon; Unfortunately if those that are elected are what you say, it's the electorate with at least two separate elections that chose them. A couple posters have mentioned an ignorant electorate (being polite) and I agree. Originally the President, VP and the two Senators were chose by State electorates who votes for P (VP second place) or directly (Senators) by the various State Legislatures and most States, required those that voted for State Officials or their House Representatives, be property owners or having a vested interest in the State or Country.

 

I like your "thought experiment" idea and maybe iNow or bascule will start a new thread on how they think the US could shift to a monarchy form of government. It could be done, even with out reorganization (bankruptcy) or a general overthrow, but it would take another 40 years of a single party control of Congress (D control 1954-1994) and another 15 States becoming too dependent on the Federal, for funding, no longer able to stand alone.

 

How ignorant and misinformed the vast majority of self-described conservatives in this country are. It's about how they are being deliberately misled, and how News Corp/Fox are basically just a wing of the Republican party. [/Quote]

 

Quote by iNow, but directed at bascule and iNow; Actually we have had a series of threads on Fox News and there influance, so I can only repeat what's been said before.

 

In assuming NBC, CBS, ABC and their affiliations are unbiased Networks along with the most read media, NY/LA Times, Washington Post, how can you attribute the ground swell movements opposed to the current Administration and Incumbent Congress members, to little ol Newscorp and in particular FNC. They have no means to force people to tune in or watch any show, much less influence voting patterns around the country. In fact folks today have hundreds of TV Station, they can watch and most today have access to the Internet and read or watch, whatever they want...

 

What's with this "self described conservative"; While you can say, wanting a smaller Federal Government (opposed to State), wanting all Government to practice "Fiscal Responsibility" or maybe the PEOPLES chosen representative actual reflect their opinions (who works for who), as Conservative Rhetoric, the fact is many members of all parties believe the same things, some even calling themselves Social Liberals.

[iNow]

iNow; Over the years and in there times, we had many "we were facing times, where huge things were needed" and we made those things happen. Pick your decade and I'll offer you many examples. The only real difference TODAY (IMO), is an apparent attempt to socialize that Republic, which according to that Constitution (however interpreted and as is today) cannot be legally achieved. Beyond this and knowing I'm going to get the same response always offered, "we are now a Union of 50 States" and you recall the rest, then those States and their people are not going to accept, certainly not to with the 37 States required.

You may have missed the point I was making where I was referring almost wholly to human induced climate change, population growth, and resource challenges with food and water.

 

 

"Sub optimal solution"; According to which political philosophy?

My reference to sub-optimal solutions has nothing to do with political philosophy. When measured on a metric of actual impact and effectiveness, on things such as the aforementioned climate change, or let's say infrastructure repair, or even education... Our political system leads us to sub-optimal solutions by design, since all solutions are a compromise away from the ideal to appease the many.

 

 

What is worthy or deserving (merit), is totally subjective and it's not the Federals responsibility to even show benevolence to the individual. Said another way, we have elections every two years and any change in the societies sentiments/attitudes (not the Government) can be shown in those elections. We just went through one complete change, Congress 2006 and the Executive 2008, probably based on things not political and will likely change back this year and 2012 and I'm not indicating party changes, rather direction/policy which may require party changes.

That's all well and good, but I would appreciate it if you could respond to the question I asked without being evasive.

 

 

Troubling "unintended consequences" IMO may not be avoidable, even this year with our traditional elections.

And I'm still waiting for you to add some clarity on what those troubling consequences might be.

 

 

 

It's the uncertainty of NOT knowing what's going to happen, that's creating the uncertainty in the markets

And as I've explained to you repeatedly before, uncertainty is ever present, and yet businesses still make investment decisions. The much more compelling reason explaining the market situation is lack of demand, but you don't believe in that whole supply/demand stuff, so I don't know why I bother.

 

 

 

 

I like your "thought experiment" idea and maybe iNow or bascule will start a new thread on how they think the US could shift to a monarchy form of government.

Why would I do that when I'm not advocating that?

 

 

Quote by iNow, but directed at bascule and iNow; Actually we have had a series of threads on Fox News and there influance, so I can only repeat what's been said before.

 

In assuming NBC, CBS, ABC and their affiliations are unbiased Networks along with the most read media, NY/LA Times, Washington Post, how can you attribute the ground swell movements opposed to the current Administration and Incumbent Congress members, to little ol Newscorp and in particular FNC.

First, NOBODY has claimed that the other networks are unbiased.

Second, you too have just equivocated in the exact manner elucidated in the OP. Good times...

 

 

 

What's with this "self described conservative"; While you can say, wanting a smaller Federal Government (opposed to State), wanting all Government to practice "Fiscal Responsibility" or maybe the PEOPLES chosen representative actual reflect their opinions (who works for who), as Conservative Rhetoric, the fact is many members of all parties believe the same things, some even calling themselves Social Liberals.

As Bascule already mentioned to you, your ideals are better represented under the label of libertarianism. You seem to have a misinformed view of what the "conservative" movement in the US actually represents right now... and it is that movement which is the topic under discussion in this thread.

Edited October 5, 2010 by iNow

[lemur]

What is worthy or deserving (merit), is totally subjective and it's not the Federals responsibility to even show benevolence to the individual. Said another way, we have elections every two years and any change in the societies sentiments/attitudes (not the Government) can be shown in those elections.

First, I think you are framing the individualism issue the wrong way around. The responsibility of government is not to show benevolence to individuals but to prevent them from interfering with each other's lives, esp. where they bond together in formal and informal organizations, corporations, and other collectives. The point is not that protecting some individuals against others is benevolent - it's that preventing some individuals from dominating others preserves the freedom necessary for a republic.

 

Second, elections do not actually express any collective will, as collectivists like to believe. Instead they represent political platforms created by individuals or elites that are put to a vote for validation. The only way elites could truly be prevented from claiming popular support for their platforms/ideologies would be to strongly encourage voters to abstain from voting unless they were absolutely convinced that a certain political platform was valid. If that would be encouraged, there would be very little voter turnout. Instead, popular media campaigns encourage people to vote because "it's their democratic right" and campaigns are used such as telling people that if they don't vote, the candidate that's been demonized will be (re)elected. This generates voter turnout, which generates the impression that the politics of elites are actually popular.

 

Mass democracy is simply not democratic. It's authoritarianism checked by popular power to not re-elect the tyrant. What IS democratic about it is that it provides an impetus for participatory civil discourse where individuals discuss politics and governance in their everyday lives, which encourages them to act consciously in their own daily activities, which is the ultimate exercise of popular democracy. Once people become resigned to elect dictators and obey their policies instead of criticizing them, 'democracy' becomes a legitimating tool for authoritarian submission.

 

 

[mississippichem]

Except, you haven't established that expiration of the tax cuts will magnify uncertainty, will impact the S&P 500 negatively, or lead to economic instability. The heart of my suggestion is that there are benefits to extending the cuts, but the benefits of letting them expire are FAR greater. I supported this with a plethora of posts in the aforementioned thread already. Let's take the discussion there if needed.

 

federalreserve.gov

 

-from the WSJ

 

-read page 66

 

Though not the major cause of market rallies, it is well documented that tax relief can cause market gains or keep values from falling. Should we split this thread or continue on an older one?

[jackson33]

Conservatism - from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:

 

A free market and the personal acquisition of property by individuals

 

Individual freedoms and property rights are representative of attendant moral, religious, political, and civil rights.

 

In accordance with the Constitution, the federal government is limited to acting in those areas wherein the states themselves do not have that ability, in inter-state matters and in foreign relations.

 

There is great importance placed on separation of powers, judicial review, and states' rights as opposed to federal power.

 

Simplified Definition: An ideal "conservative" believes in the importance of the individual person and the family structure; that it is the responsibility for the individuals within each family to do as much as they can for themselves before asking for assistance. When assistance is needed the route taken is community, city, county, state and federal, in that order, with the federal government the avenue of last resort. A conservative believes in the least government possible.

 

Liberalism – from the foregoing we find that this term conveys the following:

 

Government should correct economic deficiencies caused by an unregulated free market economy

 

Government should provide social welfare

 

It is right for government to impose progressive income taxation

 

Government should impose a minimum wage

 

The social security system should remain a system where those working support those who are receiving social security payments

 

Government should only support public education. forcibly paid for by taxpayers even though some object to certain subject matter and the manner in which it is taught .

 

Stringent government imposed safety and health regulations.

 

Consumer protection and environmental preservation laws.

 

Simplified definition: An ideal liberal takes the completely opposite position to an ideal conservative vying for a socialistic form of government working from the top down wherein the freedom of the individual is compromised for the supposed good of the collective group. [/Quote]

 

http://www.arationaladvocate.com/areyouliberalorconservative.html

 

iNow; If pinned down to define my political philosophy, I've called myself a "Constitutional Conservative", though having usually been a registered Republican. As such and using the term used from the founding meaning an Anti-Federalist.

 

Anti-Federalism is a political philosophy which opposes the concept of Federalism. In short, Anti-Federalists dictate that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states (state government). ...[/Quote]

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Anti-Federalist&sa=X&psj=1&ei=33KrTNOSAYuOjAfR9YjJBw&ved=0CBcQkAE

 

As Bascule already mentioned to you, your ideals are better represented under the label of libertarianism. You seem to have a misinformed view of what the "conservative" movement in the US actually represents right now... and it is that movement which is the topic under discussion in this thread. [/Quote]

 

To explain: So long as the powers of the Federal are limited to what they were designed to be and extensions of powers (legislation) does not exceed that of the States on matters that were intended for the States, I have no problems with any political ideology. This includes properly offered and ratified Amendments, which for the most part Libertarians do not accept. Even if I might disagree with one (A16 Income Tax, A17 Senators elected by popular vote), I'll accept, discuss and defend the amendments as part of the Constitution. In normal discussion (not necessarily what goes on here), most would agree with my viewpoint but might disagree on certain interpretations.

 

Why would I do that when I'm not advocating that?[/Quote]

 

Maybe democracy itself is the problem. Voting sucks when large portions of the people doing it are deluded paste eaters, and we remove the power of the propaganda if we remove the power from those who are influenced by it. How would you feel about some sort of a benevolent dictatorship, taking as given that some guidelines exist that the position be granted only based on merit instead of a vote? [/Quote]

 

In asking bascule a question and offering an example (Singapore), your certainly implying something, but it's not that important. Transforming from a 50 State Constitutional Limited Central Authority to a Monarchy, would make an interesting "thought experiment", however.

 

First, NOBODY has claimed that the other networks are unbiased.

Second, you too have just equivocated in the exact manner elucidated in the OP. Good times...[/Quote]

 

It would be my thought, your being "deliberately ambiguous" and evasive in answering MY question or conceding it's the public acceptance of a source for information, over being coerced to into believing something.

 

And as I've explained to you repeatedly before, uncertainty is ever present, and yet businesses still make investment decisions. The much more compelling reason explaining the market situation is lack of demand, but you don't believe in that whole supply/demand stuff, so I don't know why I bother.[/Quote]

 

Of course there is/has always a certain amount of uncertainty, especially for "start up" and/or small business, but along with the majors, who have the choice of WHERE and when to grow are being faced with unprecedented potential cost, not to mention an Administration/Congress that seems to intent on "Social Justice" over "Free Market Capitalism" and that's neither conducive to the Corporate Structure or the consumer (demand). TODAY we're being told ANOTHER artificial bottom, is being set for Housing Cost and many of the estimated 1M 2010 Loan Defaults or the estimated 1.2M in 2011, will not be acted on (repossessed). Some are suggesting, were looking at 2-4 or years before a bottom can be achieved, though I somewhat disagree.

 

As for "supply/demand", you always forget productivity which unfortunately will rule the roost in years to come. Manufacturing, Agriculture and much of the Service Industry, will go automation replace labor in the US, produce outside the US or simply move overseas. Wal Mart, Sams, Costco and other retailers will eventually replace "Mom and Pops", and by the way all of which is ONE unintended consequence.

 

You may have missed the point I was making where I was referring almost wholly to human induced climate change, population growth, and resource challenges with food and water.[/Quote]

 

Possibly, since I had no idea this thread was about AGW; However mankind's influence on this planet, its environment and reactions are nothing new. Think it was Caesar (not worth research), that banned burning in Rome during his period, claiming the smoke bothered him.

 

As for mankind being "wholly" responsible for climate change or more appropriately weather patterns, that's total nonsense. Not only does something tell me weather patterns formed and changed for billions of years before mankind ever existed (or my car), but even the most ardent advocates for AGW, feel human contributions are around 5-7% of the total, even then for CO2 contributions. I'm not going to argue population growth right now, but when I was in school, we were taught food supplies would never support 3B people or was their even room for them "ON THE PLANT". As of today, with a decent distribution system, the planet could support more than 10B and if I recall correctly every human on the planet could live in Texas, with a slightly higher density than any major city.

 

As for "resourse challenges" we can now desalinate sea water, even make our waste water pure enough to drink and water is the least of problems into the future. Unmentioned, though not a problem either are natural resources, coal, oil, natural gas and so on, what's available through technology today and 5000 years ago are totally different, with an ever increasing ability to use different resources for different purposes. Alloys are very common and we have barely touched the aluminum on the planet, which can be used for a variety of things.

 

First, I think you are framing the individualism issue the wrong way around. The responsibility of government is not to show benevolence to individuals but to prevent them from interfering with each other's lives, esp. where they bond together in formal and informal organizations, corporations, and other collectives. The point is not that protecting some individuals against others is benevolent - it's that preventing some individuals from dominating others preserves the freedom necessary for a republic.[/Quote]

lemur; Federal responsibilities were designed to the States, not the individual even if protection from each other, also known as law. They (the individuals) do select individuals from their State to represent them (majority vote) for State Government to protect or legislate on their behalf or at the Federal level, those that represent their "District" or today their "State" on issues that pertain to the interest of the total collective (all States) of the Nation. As for domination or minority rights (including business) it boils down to the same thing. If for instance, same sex marriage or legalizing certain drugs (marijuana), Congress can legislate (preferably in my world Amend the Constitution) to allow or not allow either. Amending and ratification, make which ever way they word the issue part of the Constitution, where legislation makes a statement or a challengeable law. Since showing kindness (benevolence) or not showing are neither illegal, I fail to see how it fits with governance to begin with.

[iNow]

Jackson - Digging through the layers of ignorance gets tiring. I'm done here now. You don't even accept that human activity impacts climate. How can I possibly expect you to appreciably understand and respond to the deeper and more complex economic, political, and philosophical arguments I am here now making? Fox news really is a brain cancer.

 

You seriously just responded to my request for you to clarify what unintended consequences we might encounter if we instead had a benevolent dictatorship rooted in merit and legitimate well-being to a maximum population sample by suggesting that Walmart would go overseas and mom and pop shops would close... as if that's not happening already. The mind just boggles... I fail to see how you could EVEN BEGIN to think that's a reasonable or rational reply to my question.

 

---

 

 

Though not the major cause of market rallies, it is well documented that tax relief can cause market gains or keep values from falling.

Except, I was asking you to describe how letting those cuts expire somehow creates greater uncertainty. Let's not move the goal posts, okay?

 

 

Should we split this thread or continue on an older one?

As I mentioned in my very first response, I personally think this particular discussion would be best held in the Tax Cuts thread.

Edited October 6, 2010 by iNow

[lemur]

lemur; Federal responsibilities were designed to the States, not the individual even if protection from each other, also known as law. They (the individuals) do select individuals from their State to represent them (majority vote) for State Government to protect or legislate on their behalf or at the Federal level, those that represent their "District" or today their "State" on issues that pertain to the interest of the total collective (all States) of the Nation. As for domination or minority rights (including business) it boils down to the same thing. If for instance, same sex marriage or legalizing certain drugs (marijuana), Congress can legislate (preferably in my world Amend the Constitution) to allow or not allow either. Amending and ratification, make which ever way they word the issue part of the Constitution, where legislation makes a statement or a challengeable law. Since showing kindness (benevolence) or not showing are neither illegal, I fail to see how it fits with governance to begin with.

First, I really liked your comments on population growth. I didn't know the area of texas was sufficient for the global population at a reasonable density but it is a good thing to know for discussions about "overpopulation."

 

As for the individuals versus minorities, states, etc. this comes down to a question of interpretation to me where the correct interpretation of "republic" may not become clear until you really think about what it means to apply rights and freedoms at a super-individual level instead of to individuals. E.g. consider protecting freedom of speech for groups instead of individuals. If that was the case, an organization could sue for infringement of its freedom of speech but if an individual sued the same group for infringing her/his freedom of speech, the court would tell the individual that the court doesn't protect individuals and that they would have to find another organization who would support theirs. Then, if that individual couldn't find such an organization, s/he would be effectively censored/suppressed. This would not fit my idea of people having freedom of speech.

 

Now take an economic example of an individual working independently in a "free market" with their own business. Imagine a trade-union, labor-union, or other professional organization would 'discipline' that individual for acting independently of the organization's rules or norms and the union was able to prevent the individual from doing business independently. Would that be a free market? What if one or several corporations monopolized demand for certain goods or services in a way that prevented individuals from entering or exiting those markets? Would that still meet the criteria of a free market?

 

In short, what situation in which individual rights and freedoms are hindered by other individual's coordinating their activities collectively DOESN'T interfere with the individual freedoms and rights of a free republic? In fact, if your main objective was to control individuals and curtail their rights and freedoms, what more effective method would there be than organizing individuals into corporations, organizations, etc. and then recognizing the rights of those groups over that of individuals thus obliging individuals to seek the mercy of group-based authorities?

Edited October 6, 2010 by lemur

[iNow]

First, I really liked your comments on population growth. I didn't know the area of texas was sufficient for the global population at a reasonable density but it is a good thing to know for discussions about "overpopulation."

Except, area is not the relevant metric. Resources is. We can always built skyward, so area matters not. What matters is food, water, and sanitation. Texas can hardly support what it has now on those three arenas, let alone the other 6-7 billion people on the planet.

[lemur]

Except, area is not the relevant metric. Resources is. We can always built skyward, so area matters not. What matters is food, water, and sanitation. Texas can hardly support what it has now on those three arenas, let alone the other 6-7 billion people on the planet.

I wish there was more information available on exactly what quantities of resources are needed per person and what the most efficient practices are and where the bottlenecks for refining them to increasing levels of efficiency are. What tends to happen in population vs. resource availability discussions, in my observation, is that people avoid even considering what maximum-efficiency living would or could be. It's like they hold some fear-based bias that prevents them from even touching that topic for fear they might have to actually live that way. To me there is no more progressive research, in terms of sustainability of population growth, than to model potential future cultures of living that would be required to sustain populations at particular levels of resource-availability. The biosphere project, for example, is a very good example of an attempt to create total self-sustainability for/by a handful of individuals. Projects to design long-term space-station or space-voyage vessels would be similar. I don't know if a region with the area of Texas could ultimately sustain 7 billion people, or how the resources would have to be managed to make it. I just think you have to discuss this in specific terms instead of just assuming it's not possible. Overpopulation fear, imo, has degenerated into an intuitive reaction against any large number of humans as inherently unsustainable. That's far from scientific, don't you think?

[iNow]

I wish there was more information available on exactly what quantities of resources are needed per person and what the most efficient practices are and where the bottlenecks for refining them to increasing levels of efficiency are.

You might explore sites like this, then. They have wonderful overviews, very articulate and accessible discussions on results and what they mean, and even share links to the methodologies used for these calculations (which is particularly relevant to the wish you've just put forth):

 

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/

 

 

 

What tends to happen in population vs. resource availability discussions, in my observation, is that people avoid even considering what maximum-efficiency living would or could be. It's like they hold some fear-based bias that prevents them from even touching that topic for fear they might have to actually live that way.

I appreciate your point, and I agree that this applies to some people, but I'm reasonably confident it does not apply to me. My concern surrounds the way our population gets larger faster as more people are born and they too continue to reproduce. My concern is that we are spreading like locusts without clear plans for food, clean water, clean air, and social cohesion (avoidance of war and conflict, for example). At some point our success with reproduction and survival which has helped us to propagate for so long will itself become our downfall... That is, of course, unless we plan and use these giant cortexes of ours to setup the future in a way which can sustain us... Focus on tomorrow and next year instead of just benefits of today.

 

I fear that politically we are no where even close to achieving that, and perhaps more so that humanity as a whole may not be either. I reserve some tiny scrap of optimism for the children who are growing up now considering these issues, but it's not something which inspires much confidence in me at this point as we continue to fight over the simple things like whether or not evolution is true and whether or not we're impacting the climate through our actions or whether or not Obama is a secret Muslim. As you may have noticed, it causes me great despair and frustration.

 

 

 

I just think you have to discuss this in specific terms instead of just assuming it's not possible. Overpopulation fear, imo, has degenerated into an intuitive reaction against any large number of humans as inherently unsustainable. That's far from scientific, don't you think?

Yes, I tend to agree. My larger motivation was to draw attention to the fact that Jackson was FAR FAR FAR oversimplifying things by suggesting that an area the size of Texas could support the entire population of the planet. Speaking from experience, having lived myself in Texas for some time, the concerns of water are especially relevant to such a suggestion. While climate change is altering the weather patterns, and increased energy in the system is leading to more severe and intense summer storms overall, and will continue to do so for decades to come... drought is still very much an issue in Texas, which impacts crop yields, what crops can be grown, and most importantly... how much drinking water is available for us and our children.

 

 

 

In short, what situation in which individual rights and freedoms are hindered by other individual's coordinating their activities collectively DOESN'T interfere with the individual freedoms and rights of a free republic? In fact, if your main objective was to control individuals and curtail their rights and freedoms, what more effective method would there be than organizing individuals into corporations, organizations, etc. and then recognizing the rights of those groups over that of individuals thus obliging individuals to seek the mercy of group-based authorities?

A very lovely point. I like how you've expressed this. It sort of grabs the heart of the matter by the short and curlies. The insanity and evil in this is that people argue using the rhetoric of freedom for things which will ultimately curtail it in the long run.