GostHacked Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a conservative. Perhaps as an individual he holds conservative values but a conservative is not really against a fiat currency. As for small government, as Paul advocates, even though that is the claim of Conservatism it has never been the reality. Paul is what is considered a classical Republican. But since the Reps have gone so far from their original doctrine, he had to almost rebrand himself to separate himself from the rest of the current stock of Republicans. Obama made a slip last week in claiming the GOP was nickeling and diming him on the budget. Yet he was so proud to announce it was the largest budget cut in history. Well, that only points to the fact that he is disingenuous as regards the debt and the deficit. Harry Reid, after a mere 38 billion in cuts to over a trillion dollar budget, made it appear like it was the most difficult and saddest thing he had ever done in his political career. I think Michelle Bachman had it right that Reid and Obama were laughing through their hat at Boehner. Quoting Obama, "....nickeling and diming us on the budget. What do they think we are? Stupid! Nyuk! Nyuk!" I agree with you on this. Why worry about the nickles and dimes compared to the overall US national debt at this point? How much of a difference will that makIe? Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 The same race to the bottom that has driven wages down on an international level in the new era of Globalization, has been going on for decades by businesses who pit one state or city against another to see who will offer the most goodies: sales tax holidays, tax loopholes, zero interest loans, corporate tax breaks, and union-busting so-called right-to-work laws. And what has it achieved, except to turn states like Michigan....one of the wealthiest states back when my uncles were working at the GM and Cadillac plants, into something on par with Mexico. This type of tax engineering becomes necessary when governments are overspending and are constantly looking for sources of revenue. Whether you like it or not they want those revenues. If they can't get them one way they will get them another. Businesses making a profit don't necessarily move, they will move or close when they can't make a profit or can't compete. Now, maybe this is why Snyder's grovelling is being criticized by some: Business Leaders for Michigan President Doug Rothwell told the Detroit News that swapping the MBT for a 6 percent corporate income tax would put Michigan “in the top 15 states in terms of lowest business taxes.” But the Michigan Manufacturers Association said many of its members *could* be hit with a tax increase under Snyder’s plan to reform business taxes. That’s because the corporate income tax would eliminate a 35 percent credit against the personal property tax in the MBT, which raises about $1 billion a year for local communities. Operative word "could". http://michigantruthsquad.com/snyders-proposed-budget-analysis/#21 So what kind of business is Snyder trying to reward with his tax plan? Obviously not manufacturing, which would be the kind of business that would provide the best spin-off effects for surrounding business. http://michigantruthsquad.com/snyders-proposed-budget-analysis/#8 I suppose they are trying to "buy" sources of revenue. I doubt they are trying to eliminate sources of revenue. Other highlights mentioned in the analysis of the State Budget include 18% cuts to the state's public universities, and a $470 cut per student in K through 12 public school funding. Any business that is thinking about relocating to Michigan, will not be lured in lured in with the expectation of finding a highly educated workforce! Michigan will just be full of sweatshops if anything. Threats of cuts to "rights"? Who can believe such a deplorable concept? Tax the rich, I say! There isn't that many of them anyway! If government is too timid then it's time to storm the Bastille - Or at least throttle John Stossel by the throat. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 Paul is what is considered a classical Republican. But since the Reps have gone so far from their original doctrine, he had to almost rebrand himself to separate himself from the rest of the current stock of Republicans. A classical "liberal". Classical republicans were proponents of a strong central authority. What happened is socialism, and socialist ideals of government social and economic engineering crowded out the classical liberal, and libertarian ideals in the nineteen-twenties and thirties leaving them with little choice but to align with non-progressive, status quo conservatives who now represented holding the line on government growth. He hasn't separated himself from the rest of the current stock of Republicans, has he? He includes himself in their ranks. Being for small government necessarily excludes one from being considered in the ranks of the left. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
GostHacked Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 A classical "liberal". Classical republicans were proponents of a strong central authority. And Paul wants to reduce the federal government giving more power back to the individual states. So yes he is a classical/traditional Republican. He hasn't separated himself from the rest of the current stock of Republicans, has he? He includes himself in their ranks. Being for small government necessarily excludes one from being considered in the ranks of the left. I believe he has. Who else talks about aboloshing the Federal Reserve and the IRS? And the only way to make changes is to become the leader and then implement those changes. But Paul never is going to get in, no matter how popular he gets. That would make a lot of people on boths sides very nervous. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
GostHacked Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 A classical "liberal". Classical republicans were proponents of a strong central authority. And Paul wants to reduce the federal government giving more power back to the individual states. So yes he is a classical/traditional Republican. He hasn't separated himself from the rest of the current stock of Republicans, has he? He includes himself in their ranks. Being for small government necessarily excludes one from being considered in the ranks of the left. I believe he has. Who else talks about aboloshing the Federal Reserve and the IRS? And the only way to make changes is to become the leader and then implement those changes. But Paul never is going to get in, no matter how popular he gets. That would make a lot of people on boths sides very nervous. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
bud Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 And if raised, you'll be crying for those lower corporate tax rates again when unemployment rises because those corporations moved offshore to greener pastures. because corporations aren't already moving offshore? taxes are not the main reason some corporations are moving offshore. it's the cheap labour. you can't be putting the tax burden on the middle and lower middle class and expect the economy to flourish. if people don't have money to spend, that is when the economy goes downhill. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Pliny Posted April 27, 2011 Report Posted April 27, 2011 And Paul wants to reduce the federal government giving more power back to the individual states. So yes he is a classical/traditional Republican. That would be decentralization. Classical republicans want a strong central authority and were proponents of traditional government. I believe he has. Who else talks about aboloshing the Federal Reserve and the IRS? And the only way to make changes is to become the leader and then implement those changes. But Paul never is going to get in, no matter how popular he gets. That would make a lot of people on boths sides very nervous. He is different, yes. By default, more than anything he includes himself in the republican ranks. People have to again learn to create communities and live without government handouts before Paul could get elected. He is way ahead of his time. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted April 29, 2011 Author Report Posted April 29, 2011 Japan is included in the same class as Sweden and Norway, now? I have never seen that alignment before. Yes! Now remember that we're talking about Japan before the Earthquake....so after billions of dollars worth of damage and a ticking time bomb of a nuclear power station, all bets are off for Japan's future prosperity. Lead author - Richard Wilkinson explained in an interview on NPR, that Japan does not have high progressive income tax rates like Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, but social convention prevented the exponential growth in CEO salaries that occurred in other developed nations over the last 30 years. Whether the smaller gap in incomes is caused by tax rates or social pressures, the net effect is the same: more equal societies perform better on the broad range of quality of life measures than low tax, limited government societies with greater disparities between rich and poor. Another example that consumption does not equal quality of life can be found in a story about two years ago which ranked Costa Rica highest on another quality of life index: Costa Rica comes top of the Happy Planet Index 2.0. Costa Ricans report the highest life satisfaction in the world, have the second-highest average life expectancy of the Americas (second only to Canada) and have an ecological footprint that means that the country only narrowly fails to achieve the goal of ‘one-planet living’: consuming its fair share of the Earth’s natural resources. http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html The home page explains how the HPI is calculated: It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that top the Index aren’t the happiest places in the world, but the nations that score well show that achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet’s resources is possible. The HPI shows that around the world, high levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of well-being, and that it is possible to produce high well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources. It also reveals that there are different routes to achieving comparable levels of well-being. The model followed by the West can provide widespread longevity and variable life satisfaction, but it does so only at a vast and ultimately counter-productive cost in terms of resource consumption. I believe that government debt and deficit spending with commitments to unfunded future liabilities is the biggest problem, not "conservative economic" ideas. Sorry but in the long run all those social ponzi schemes eventually bankrupt a nation. A few may initially benefit from them but they eventually collapse and even so-called conservative economic ideas won't save them - especially when it is impossible to get serious spending cuts because of entitlements that turn into "rights" - rights that must be funded by someone. Could you tell me why, once in power, conservatives here and in the U.S. let deficits go unchecked....so far, Harper is setting a Canadian debt record, and Dubya doubled the National Debt in the U.S. during his term in Office, and yet the right had nothing to say about deficits until a Democrat was in Office? My theory is that it just fits into the frame of "starving the beast" strategy of allowing spending to go unchecked, along with declining tax rates until rising debt service costs force government services and programs to be cut or dropped entirely.....except for military spending of course! I'd like to know if conservative Republicans in Alabama still feel the same way about destroying government services, now that so many of them have lost everything to a series of super-tornadoes. Easy to be a libertarian during good times! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted April 29, 2011 Report Posted April 29, 2011 Lead author - Richard Wilkinson explained in an interview on NPR, that Japan does not have high progressive income tax rates like Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, but social convention prevented the exponential growth in CEO salaries that occurred in other developed nations over the last 30 years. Whether the smaller gap in incomes is caused by tax rates or social pressures, the net effect is the same: more equal societies perform better on the broad range of quality of life measures than low tax, limited government societies with greater disparities between rich and poor. So, what is achieved by Japan is achieved socially, what is achieved by Sweden is achieved by government? It is a lame argument to state that more equal societies perform better on the broad range of quality of life. It is what is trying to be achieved in most societies - a better life for all. Your argument is it has to be achieved by the force and engineering of governemnt and that winners and losers be determined by government, punishing winners and rewarding losers at their determination. Japan proves it is not necessary. I would also argue that quality of life measures, as used by the staisiticians are based entirely upon materialist concepts. Happiness is not statistically quantifiable. But with the rates of suicide in Sweden, and the use of mental health services I would say it is lacking somewhat. The statistician would probably measure the availability of mental health services as being the "quality of life" yardstick, not the fact that the services are in demand. Another example that consumption does not equal quality of life can be found in a story about two years ago which ranked Costa Rica highest on another quality of life index: Costa Rica comes top of the Happy Planet Index 2.0. Costa Ricans report the highest life satisfaction in the world, have the second-highest average life expectancy of the Americas (second only to Canada) and have an ecological footprint that means that the country only narrowly fails to achieve the goal of ‘one-planet living’: consuming its fair share of the Earth’s natural resources. http://www.happyplanetindex.org/news/archive/news-2.html The home page explains how the HPI is calculated: It shows the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The nations that top the Index aren’t the happiest places in the world, but the nations that score well show that achieving, long, happy lives without over-stretching the planet’s resources is possible. The HPI shows that around the world, high levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of well-being, and that it is possible to produce high well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth’s resources. It also reveals that there are different routes to achieving comparable levels of well-being. The model followed by the West can provide widespread longevity and variable life satisfaction, but it does so only at a vast and ultimately counter-productive cost in terms of resource consumption. High levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of well-being, I'll agree with, but you insist that resource consumption be equalized by government in order that high levels of well-being be produced. It doesn't add up. Could you tell me why, once in power, conservatives here and in the U.S. let deficits go unchecked....so far, Harper is setting a Canadian debt record, and Dubya doubled the National Debt in the U.S. during his term in Office, and yet the right had nothing to say about deficits until a Democrat was in Office? My theory is that it just fits into the frame of "starving the beast" strategy of allowing spending to go unchecked, along with declining tax rates until rising debt service costs force government services and programs to be cut or dropped entirely.....except for military spending of course! I'd like to know if conservative Republicans in Alabama still feel the same way about destroying government services, now that so many of them have lost everything to a series of super-tornadoes. Easy to be a libertarian during good times! Entitlements that turn into rights, and rights that are threatened by politicians stand less chance of getting elected. Conservatives are not elected because they will cut spending they are elected because they will spend money on "their" interests and leave liberal interests alone and vice-versa. It's politics. This is why the tea party is not mainstream conservatism. They are demanding and voting for cuts in spending and the downsizing of government. Mainstream Republicans don't like the Tea party and neither do the democrats. The tea party only wants to hold the Republicans to their word. Democrats would prefer the Republican party remain the same. The tea party is saying the jig is up. it's game over. No more political shenanigans. Look at the difficulty there is in "nickeling and diming", to quote the current POTUS, the current budget. According to Harry Reid, et al, on the face of it the cuts are huge. In the backrooms of the Democrats the cuts are nickels and dimes. No democrat ever promises cuts in government spending. They promise to eliminate waste and be transparent to control the budget but it never seems to turn out that way. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Bob Posted April 30, 2011 Report Posted April 30, 2011 Since when is income disparity a problem? The entire OP operated on an unstated, yet obvious supposition that wealth disparity is something to be fought against. It would also appear that this study posited this supposition to those who it polled. So, the average person being the average schmuck that he or she is, sucked up that supposition and rolled with it - and wished to be in a place with less wealth disparity. Ridiculous. Quote My blog - bobinisrael.blogspot.com - I am writing on it, again!
WIP Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Posted May 2, 2011 So, what is achieved by Japan is achieved socially, what is achieved by Sweden is achieved by government? The reluctance to inflate executive salaries in Japan isn't explained, but it doesn't matter how it's done, since the authors point out that the end result is a society with greater income equality -- which results in less negative effects of social status competition that afflicts the societies with high inequality. It is a lame argument to state that more equal societies perform better on the broad range of quality of life. And the numbers back it up, whether comparing nations or states within the U.S. such as Vermont and New Hampshire with states with high inequality. It is what is trying to be achieved in most societies - a better life for all. Your argument is it has to be achieved by the force and engineering of governemnt and that winners and losers be determined by government, punishing winners and rewarding losers at their determination. Japan proves it is not necessary. Maybe because Japan has a long history of a large population living on a series of small islands, they don't have this lunatic libertarian mindset that cooperation is bad, and all economic and social activity must be based on competition! If you're a "winner" in Japan, like some of the CEO's of major corporations like Toyota -- you still live in a relatively modest 3 bedroom house instead of mansion, or carrying on showing off your money like Donald Trump and similar assholes! I would also argue that quality of life measures, as used by the staisiticians are based entirely upon materialist concepts. Happiness is not statistically quantifiable. And some statistics like physical health, are not materialistic concepts, but are about personal wellbeing. From Kate Pickett, co-author of The Spirit Level: over 170 studies of income inequality in relation to various aspects of health. Life expectancy, infant mortality, low birth weight and self-rated health have repeatedly been shown to be worse in more unequal societies. These studies have been reviewed in the journal Social Science and Medicine. Researchers sometimes disagree about the pathways leading from inequality to worse population health. The most consistent interpretation of all the evidence is that the main route hinges on the way inequality makes life more stressful. Chronic stress is known to affect the cardiovascular and immune systems and to lead to more rapid aging. Inequality makes social relations more stressful (see section on Trust and Community Life), by increasing status differences and status competition. These effects are important: Americans living in more equal states live around 4 years longer than those living in more unequal states. But with the rates of suicide in Sweden, and the use of mental health services I would say it is lacking somewhat. The statistician would probably measure the availability of mental health services as being the "quality of life" yardstick, not the fact that the services are in demand. Take a look at the national rankings by suicide rates and there is an obvious indicator that there are more factors than mental illness regarding suicide! Some of the most miserable hell-holes like squalid Mid-East countries, or the poorest countries in Latin America, have the lowest suicide rates (Haiti has the lowest suicide rate for God's sakes!), clearly indicating that religiosity has made suicide taboo in these places; while some of the wealthier, developed nations like Korea, Japan, Baltic states like Lithuania, and Eastern European nations including Russia, have the highest suicide rates. That is a clear indication that cultural acceptance or rejection of suicide is a strong determining factor.....I'd rather live in Sweden than in Haiti. High levels of resource consumption do not reliably produce high levels of well-being, I'll agree with, but you insist that resource consumption be equalized by government in order that high levels of well-being be produced. It doesn't add up. No, what happens is that societies with high inequality have greater anxiety over social status, and turn to consumerism to raise their self-perceived status where they live. People who feel less social pressure to keep-up-with-the-Jones's are not going to feel the same pressure to raise their status through consumption. This is why the tea party is not mainstream conservatism. They are demanding and voting for cuts in spending and the downsizing of government. Mainstream Republicans don't like the Tea party and neither do the democrats. The tea party only wants to hold the Republicans to their word. Democrats would prefer the Republican party remain the same. The tea party is saying the jig is up. it's game over. No more political shenanigans. The Tea Party groups are fraudulent front groups working on behalf of powerful interests. Why is all of their talk about downsizing government and cutting spending just focused on the spending that benefits the sick, the elderly, visible minorities, the poor etc.? Where are the tea party activists calling for cuts to the Empire? Specifically, the more than half of the Federal Budget that gets spent on military, weapons, and military contractors (mercenaries)? Why aren't they calling for cuts in that spending, or oil development subsidies, and farm bill subsidies that go to big agribusiness conglomerates like Archer-Daniels Midland? Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Posted May 2, 2011 Since when is income disparity a problem? The entire OP operated on an unstated, yet obvious supposition that wealth disparity is something to be fought against. It would also appear that this study posited this supposition to those who it polled. So, the average person being the average schmuck that he or she is, sucked up that supposition and rolled with it - and wished to be in a place with less wealth disparity. Ridiculous. It's not based on polling data! It's been gathered from meta-analysis of thousands of quality of life statistics that have been gathered, and comparing them by differentials in wealth and income levels. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted May 2, 2011 Report Posted May 2, 2011 The Tea Party groups are fraudulent front groups working on behalf of powerful interests. Why is all of their talk about downsizing government and cutting spending just focused on the spending that benefits the sick, the elderly, visible minorities, the poor etc.? Where are the tea party activists calling for cuts to the Empire? Specifically, the more than half of the Federal Budget that gets spent on military, weapons, and military contractors (mercenaries)? Why aren't they calling for cuts in that spending, or oil development subsidies, and farm bill subsidies that go to big agribusiness conglomerates like Archer-Daniels Midland? They are but I guess you haven't noticed. Besides defence and justice (not social re-engineering) are the legitimate mandates of a Federal government. They don't want subsididies for corporations or farms or anyone. Mainstream republicans want to continue business as usual and so do the Democrats. I don't see the cuts to military, weapons, and military contractors(mercenaries)from the Democrats either. Fraudulent front groups? Bussed to wherever they are needed I suppose. Nyuk Nyuk! As for the rest of your post I think Bob answered it as well as I could in his post before yours. Being poor seems to be the answer, in your view and if everyone is poor that is the best solution. I would just want to be a part of the class that ensures the wealth is redistributed and shared equally. It can't be shared equally because their isn't enough to guarantee any standard of living. Perhaps for awhile but eventually, once the rich are gone, who will they get the resources from? Once your goal is reached it's a downward spiral to hell. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Posted May 2, 2011 They are but I guess you haven't noticed. Besides defence and justice (not social re-engineering) are the legitimate mandates of a Federal government. They don't want subsididies for corporations or farms or anyone. Mainstream republicans want to continue business as usual and so do the Democrats. I don't see the cuts to military, weapons, and military contractors(mercenaries)from the Democrats either. Fraudulent front groups? Bussed to wherever they are needed I suppose. Nyuk Nyuk! And who supplied the buses for Tea Party express's cross country caravan to stop the health care plan two years ago? Tea Party patriots was started by the Freedomworks front group, which fronts the money for pro-corporate groups and propaganda campaigns all across America. Freedomworks was concocted by the "Citizens for a sound economy" so-called "think tank" and is run by former Republican politicians and corporate lobbyists...so anyone who ignores their Foxnews mouthpieces can follow the money trail of these mighty rivers back to their billionaire sources....and that's why they are called astroturf groups! They get a handful of mindnumbingly stupid followers to show up for small rallies, usually of less than a hundred people, and this is what Republicans call grassroots movements! Real grassroots movements are not created by corporate donors who provide free luxury coaches. Real grassroots movements start from the ground up, like the public service employees who occupied the capital building in Madison, Wisconsin. As for the rest of your post I think Bob answered it as well as I could in his post before yours. As usual, he doesn't bother to read anything to know what he's talking about, so he answered nothing! He thought the studies were taken from opinion poll data. Being poor seems to be the answer, in your view and if everyone is poor that is the best solution. Yeah, that's a good excuse for opposing progressive taxation! All the Ayn Rand disciples think the billionaires are going to close all of their operations and move out of their mansions, if they have to pay a higher percentage of income tax (which Obama didn't even have the guts to allow expire, I might add), and pay higher than the ridiculously low taxation rates on investment income. When Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage tax rate than her billionaire employer, something's wrong with your system....and it's a shame that Buffet is one of the very few super-rich to recognize the full repercussions of reverse-robin hood economic strategies. I would just want to be a part of the class that ensures the wealth is redistributed and shared equally. It can't be shared equally because their isn't enough to guarantee any standard of living. Perhaps for awhile but eventually, once the rich are gone, who will they get the resources from? Once your goal is reached it's a downward spiral to hell. Yeah, I think Ayn Rand was the first to come up with that bullshit premise when all of the hard-working businessmen go on strike in Atlas Shrugged....which seems to stink even worse as a movie, than it does as a novel, according to the box office numbers reported on Rotten Tomatoes. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted May 3, 2011 Report Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) And who supplied the buses for Tea Party express's cross country caravan to stop the health care plan two years ago? Tea Party patriots was started by the Freedomworks front group, which fronts the money for pro-corporate groups and propaganda campaigns all across America. Freedomworks was concocted by the "Citizens for a sound economy" so-called "think tank" and is run by former Republican politicians and corporate lobbyists...so anyone who ignores their Foxnews mouthpieces can follow the money trail of these mighty rivers back to their billionaire sources....and that's why they are called astroturf groups! They get a handful of mindnumbingly stupid followers to show up for small rallies, usually of less than a hundred people, and this is what Republicans call grassroots movements! Real grassroots movements are not created by corporate donors who provide free luxury coaches. Real grassroots movements start from the ground up, like the public service employees who occupied the capital building in Madison, Wisconsin. Financial support is not the same as bussing in Canadians and whoever you can to swell your ranks. That is astroturf. Grass roots is when the caravan shows up and the people are already there. Yeah, that's a good excuse for opposing progressive taxation! All the Ayn Rand disciples think the billionaires are going to close all of their operations and move out of their mansions, if they have to pay a higher percentage of income tax (which Obama didn't even have the guts to allow expire, I might add), and pay higher than the ridiculously low taxation rates on investment income. When Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher percentage tax rate than her billionaire employer, something's wrong with your system....and it's a shame that Buffet is one of the very few super-rich to recognize the full repercussions of reverse-robin hood economic strategies. Your vision is very limited by your ideology. You seem to think that money and wealth appear out of thin air and will always be there and that governments can always grow economies. Therefore, they can create great ponzi schemes out of social programs and commit the future growth of the economy to these liabilities. But the economy cannot and will not always expand, especially with government proclivity to overspend and expand itself. You, yourself make the argument of limited resources, and claim we have to stop our growth. At the same time, these ponzi schemes must be fed but, as all ponzi schemes end up, they eventually collapse on themselves. It just doesn't make any economic sense WIP. You can't create wealth and constrain it at the same time, and doing so to sustain a greater and growing portion of a dependent population is impossible. Yeah, I think Ayn Rand was the first to come up with that bullshit premise when all of the hard-working businessmen go on strike in Atlas Shrugged....which seems to stink even worse as a movie, than it does as a novel, according to the box office numbers reported on Rotten Tomatoes. Another illustration of your misconception of economics as being entirely a matter of accounting, surprisingly, a common mistake among quite a few capitalists as well. The movie was independently released with no big promotional campaign. Mostly by word of mouth and some tv news coverage in the non-liberal media. It still managed to place third in it's opening week at the box office. Edited May 3, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted May 3, 2011 Report Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Another illustration of your misconception of economics as being entirely a matter of accounting, surprisingly, a common mistake among quite a few capitalists as well. The movie was independently released with no big promotional campaign. Mostly by word of mouth and some tv news coverage in the non-liberal media. It still managed to place third in it's opening week at the box office. I can't speak for the movie, but if it's as good as the novel, then it sucks. Hard. Whatever one thinks of the philosophy, it is judged first and foremost by what it is and purports to be. As a novel, it's poorly written. And "non-liberal media" is th eusual implicaiton (of the opposite) and is not quite real. Movies that are, essentially, conservative are massively marketed all the time, and do very well. There is no conspiracy by Hollywood Jews...er, I mean liberals (the second false belief being a direct descendent of the fist) to undermine conservatism in entertainment media. Edited May 3, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Pliny Posted May 4, 2011 Report Posted May 4, 2011 I can't speak for the movie, but if it's as good as the novel, then it sucks. Hard. Whatever one thinks of the philosophy, it is judged first and foremost by what it is and purports to be. As a novel, it's poorly written. Some novels are well written and some aren't. The message in Atlas Shrugged is more important than the story or the way it is written, and admittedly Rand's writing, IMO is only slightly better than mediocre. She also had her ideological inconcsistencies which were apparent in her legal wranglings and concerns over intellectual property. And "non-liberal media" is th eusual implicaiton (of the opposite) and is not quite real. Movies that are, essentially, conservative are massively marketed all the time, and do very well. There is no conspiracy by Hollywood Jews...er, I mean liberals (the second false belief being a direct descendent of the fist) to undermine conservatism in entertainment media. This hasn't much to do with Conservatism although Conservatives are relishing in the swing from social progressivism. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted May 4, 2011 Author Report Posted May 4, 2011 Financial support is not the same as bussing in Canadians and whoever you can to swell your ranks. That is astroturf. Grass roots is when the caravan shows up and the people are already there. I don't know how much detail you want to go in to, but the array of conservative think tanks, front groups, and allied conservative religious associations, are run from the top down, not the bottom up! Most non-partisan watchers could smell a rat coming when that clown on CNBC made his speech about starting a "tea party" and all of a sudden every conservative hack on Foxnews and rightwing radio was giving information about tea party demonstrations and organizations in your area. It was a fraud from start to finish, and the idiots who form the rank and file of these groups have joined a movement that is directly attacking their own economic interests. Your vision is very limited by your ideology. You seem to think that money and wealth appear out of thin air and will always be there and that governments can always grow economies. Therefore, they can create great ponzi schemes out of social programs and commit the future growth of the economy to these liabilities. But the economy cannot and will not always expand, especially with government proclivity to overspend and expand itself. You, yourself make the argument of limited resources, and claim we have to stop our growth. At the same time, these ponzi schemes must be fed but, as all ponzi schemes end up, they eventually collapse on themselves. It just doesn't make any economic sense WIP. You can't create wealth and constrain it at the same time, and doing so to sustain a greater and growing portion of a dependent population is impossible. No! YOu're getting me confused with Paul Krugman...or other Keynsian economists that are trying to re-inflate the bubble economy. The results of economic, environment, and social data have returned me to the radical leftist roots of my youth, because the evidence from population and environment studies is telling us that we are reaching the limits of growth (for both), and sociology studies are telling us that inequality is much more important than economic growth. If I agreed that economic growth was the highest goal, I would still be a libertarian.....and I'm not! Another illustration of your misconception of economics as being entirely a matter of accounting, surprisingly, a common mistake among quite a few capitalists as well. The movie was independently released with no big promotional campaign. Mostly by word of mouth and some tv news coverage in the non-liberal media. It still managed to place third in it's opening week at the box office. I heard an interview recently on the subject of the "Atlas Shrugged" movie, and it could be that a lot of Any Rand devotees with deep pockets (and there's a hell-of-a-lot of them) were opposed to the man who scored the film rights to make the movie and refused to finance him. They were trying to wait him out, until his contract expired, and he was forced to rush the movie into production on a limited budget. Regardless, the movie must be crap, because the book is crap, because Ayn Rand's political and metaphysical philosophy is crap! In a nutshell, all she did with her political theory was to create a reverse-Marxism, where, instead of the Marxist principle that economic activity should focus 100% on labour and capital and capitalism should be abolished -- she presented an economic model where the investor class is the only source of economic progress, and labourers are paeons who perform assigned tasks, and shouldn't be entitled to prosperity until they take their meagre earnings and start their own business....total crap, and totally unimaginative as well! The only reason why she is idolized today, is because she provided a moral justification for men who previously had to work without any moral affirmation, and make huge offerings to church and religious authorities before they were at death's door! Ayn Rand provided a means for them to say: 'I'm doing the right thing by moving my manufacturing to Bangladesh and employing child labourers at 50c. per hour! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Pliny Posted May 5, 2011 Report Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) I don't know how much detail you want to go in to, but the array of conservative think tanks, front groups, and allied conservative religious associations, are run from the top down, not the bottom up! Most non-partisan watchers could smell a rat coming when that clown on CNBC made his speech about starting a "tea party" and all of a sudden every conservative hack on Foxnews and rightwing radio was giving information about tea party demonstrations and organizations in your area. It was a fraud from start to finish, and the idiots who form the rank and file of these groups have joined a movement that is directly attacking their own economic interests. I wouldn't doubt that conservatives united over issues such as the economy and Obamacare. The Tea party movement however is not about establishment Republicans who are just as likely to feel the heat as Democrats. The issues are the economy, government spending and it's unprecedented growth and intrusion into American society. You are making the whole scene a Democrat/Republican, left/right issue. Of course, traditional or establishment conservatives want change but mostly in power and the way they want to run things. The tea party is about change in a diofferent direction and even some Democrats see the necessity for a return to the principles of the Constitution in limiting government. No. It isn't conservative think tanks, front groups, religious associations, Fox news or right wing radio that is fomenting the tea party movement. The tea party movement is just as likely to turn on Republicans as Democrats on the issues. No! YOu're getting me confused with Paul Krugman...or other Keynsian economists that are trying to re-inflate the bubble economy. The results of economic, environment, and social data have returned me to the radical leftist roots of my youth, because the evidence from population and environment studies is telling us that we are reaching the limits of growth (for both), and sociology studies are telling us that inequality is much more important than economic growth. If I agreed that economic growth was the highest goal, I would still be a libertarian.....and I'm not! We are reaching the limits of growth of government. Stop growth and the government revenue tap turns off. There will be nothing for government to redistribute. People can live without economic growth. They can do all sorts of things to keep themselves going. Governments can't. They need revenues. People don't need paper dollars to survive - governments do - population growth alone means governemnt revenues and it's human resources must and will increase. Population growth to the people means we must be more productive and innovative. We can learn and create, doing more with less. It is impossible for government to do more with less - especially if they are re-distributing wealth. What occurs is government, when an economy goes into recession or depression, loses revenues, it can borrow "money" from the bank to keep itself going for awhile but pretty soon it can only feed itself and cannot provide the entitlements and liabilities it has committed itsself to. So it winds up distributing it's debt eventually taking over the production process altogether, and making determinations of, not just who it can take from and who shall recieve - ultimately they will determine who shall live and who shall die. I just don't think it should be in the hands of any man or group of men to make that decision. We must all do what we can do to improve our sustainability. Some will indeed not make it or be able to be supported but that to me is a far better scenario than having some politician determine human value. There is no honor or dignity in life or death when another man holds that power. I heard an interview recently on the subject of the "Atlas Shrugged" movie, and it could be that a lot of Any Rand devotees with deep pockets (and there's a hell-of-a-lot of them) were opposed to the man who scored the film rights to make the movie and refused to finance him. They were trying to wait him out, until his contract expired, and he was forced to rush the movie into production on a limited budget. Regardless, the movie must be crap, because the book is crap, because Ayn Rand's political and metaphysical philosophy is crap! In a nutshell, all she did with her political theory was to create a reverse-Marxism, where, instead of the Marxist principle that economic activity should focus 100% on labour and capital and capitalism should be abolished -- she presented an economic model where the investor class is the only source of economic progress, and labourers are paeons who perform assigned tasks, and shouldn't be entitled to prosperity until they take their meagre earnings and start their own business....total crap, and totally unimaginative as well! The only reason why she is idolized today, is because she provided a moral justification for men who previously had to work without any moral affirmation, and make huge offerings to church and religious authorities before they were at death's door! Ayn Rand provided a means for them to say: 'I'm doing the right thing by moving my manufacturing to Bangladesh and employing child labourers at 50c. per hour! Of course, no opportunity is better than 50 cents an hour. Even if I can live more comfortably on $4/day, or $5/day if I work ten hours, it is better to have no opportunity and to starve. What do you want? You are against materialist consumerism but you want to provide better capacity for materialist consumerism to the poor folk? What do you think would happen if you gave them $10/hr? The first ones to receive ten dollars per hour would be building houses and buying cars because they would be rich in relation to their fellow citizens. Prices of course would eventually rise, due to the increase in the money supply, to the point where those with the opportunity of making $10/hour would have to start borrowing to build their houses and buy their cars and those that couldn't find the coveted $10/hr job would be begging on the streets. Governemnts of course would be trying to create more of those $10/hr jobs because then there would be a source of revenues for them and they would look pretty good too. but they would have to maybe make some tax concessions or give some subsidies to those providing the $10/hr jobs as incentives because that's what a government that needs to finance itself, yet appear benevolent and not tyrannical, must do. You, it seems would prefer a tyranny that can just take whatever it deems necessary out of the economy. That has never worked for long without upset, wherever it's been tried. Edited May 5, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted May 9, 2011 Author Report Posted May 9, 2011 I wouldn't doubt that conservatives united over issues such as the economy and Obamacare. The Tea party movement however is not about establishment Republicans who are just as likely to feel the heat as Democrats. The issues are the economy, government spending and it's unprecedented growth and intrusion into American society. You are making the whole scene a Democrat/Republican, left/right issue. Of course, traditional or establishment conservatives want change but mostly in power and the way they want to run things. The tea party is about change in a diofferent direction and even some Democrats see the necessity for a return to the principles of the Constitution in limiting government. No. It isn't conservative think tanks, front groups, religious associations, Fox news or right wing radio that is fomenting the tea party movement. The tea party movement is just as likely to turn on Republicans as Democrats on the issues. And where were these Tea Party activists when George Bush doubled the national debt? And put two wars, a seniors prescription plan, and tax cuts for the rich on the lay-away plan? Funny that they weren't mobilized to do something about government spending until a black guy took over the Whitehouse. And, not that our national healthcare plans are perfect -- but, where the logic of the uprising against the watered-down Obamacare Plan falls apart, starts with the fact that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare costs than Canada and most other OECD nations, and don't even provide complete coverage! Over 15% of the U.S. adult population has no health care insurance, and these are usually the unhealthiest segment of the population...which is why private insurance companies cut off their insurance. With all the problems our Medicare systems have, the U.S. system of providing government insurance for old people, government hospitals for veterans, and leaving the majority to fend for themselves among private insurance and hospital management companies, is by far the worst way to run health care. And the U.S. has been trying to introduce national healthcare since the time of FDR. It was hard enough to get a national plan for seniors (which then Governor Reagan called "communist"), and have been continually set back by the special interests who profit from the dysfunctional health care system....and that is still the case today, and it's no surprise that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and private hospital corporations have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is, even as more and more Americans join the ranks of the uninsured. We are reaching the limits of growth of government. Stop growth and the government revenue tap turns off. There will be nothing for government to redistribute. People can live without economic growth. They can do all sorts of things to keep themselves going. Governments can't. They need revenues. If a government dept. has their budget cut, then they have to cut costs, which may often include cutting services, that has no relation to background problems of declining resources and climate change. I'm curious to hear something from the conservative bastions down south that were hit by category 4 and 5 tornadoes last month...and whether their Governors are still so adamant about cutting taxes and reducing the role of government where they live! Alabama may have payed the price in lives lost, since their State Government cut the budget for weather services that provided early warning radar installations of approaching storms...and shortened the warning time for people who needed to flee before that giant tornado cut through on its way to Birmingham. A lot of libertarian-types have become so full of themselves, and their own capabilities, that they've lost sight of why a commons is created in the first place. The only thing they seem to want as part of the commons is military and war-making. People don't need paper dollars to survive - governments do - population growth alone means governemnt revenues and it's human resources must and will increase. World population growth is fast approaching the level where large scale die-offs in the population are going to occur. World grain production is right on the edge of full capacity right now, thanks in large part to the increasing instability of weather over the last several years. Droughts and floods are causing grain prices to spike to levels that cause starvation and foment revolution, civil wars and migrations. If large parts of the world are going through a collapse due to famine and starvation, the repercussions are going to find their way here thanks to global communications, globalization, nuclear weapons, and terrorism. Taking steps to halt population growth and reduce world population would be the sensible step....but, that doesn't seem to be the course the world is following. Of course, no opportunity is better than 50 cents an hour. Even if I can live more comfortably on $4/day, or $5/day if I work ten hours, it is better to have no opportunity and to starve. What do you want? You are against materialist consumerism but you want to provide better capacity for materialist consumerism to the poor folk? What do you think would happen if you gave them $10/hr? The first ones to receive ten dollars per hour would be building houses and buying cars because they would be rich in relation to their fellow citizens. Prices of course would eventually rise, due to the increase in the money supply, to the point where those with the opportunity of making $10/hour would have to start borrowing to build their houses and buy their cars and those that couldn't find the coveted $10/hr job would be begging on the streets. Governemnts of course would be trying to create more of those $10/hr jobs because then there would be a source of revenues for them and they would look pretty good too. but they would have to maybe make some tax concessions or give some subsidies to those providing the $10/hr jobs as incentives because that's what a government that needs to finance itself, yet appear benevolent and not tyrannical, must do. You, it seems would prefer a tyranny that can just take whatever it deems necessary out of the economy. That has never worked for long without upset, wherever it's been tried. Set aside your complaints about government, my point is that the sociological evidence is showing that personal well-being is only improved by increased economic prosperity to a limited level. Once a society is able to provide enough food to eat, and some of the comforts of life, the crucial aspect of well-being is the relative equality of the society. The more unequal people are, the more the social fabric is frayed, and there is less trust, less sense of community, more crime, more physical and mental illness....pretty much everything that's bad increases as societies become increasingly unequal...and once a society is beyond a certain level, per capita income has no relationship to well-being...comparing the U.S. and Costa Rica would be a prime example. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bloodyminded Posted May 9, 2011 Report Posted May 9, 2011 A lot of libertarian-types have become so full of themselves, and their own capabilities, that they've lost sight of why a commons is created in the first place. The only thing they seem to want as part of the commons is military and war-making. Was it Milton Friedman who, when asked what portion of the Earth should be held in private hands, said "every square inch"? What a maroon. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Bonam Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Some novels are well written and some aren't. The message in Atlas Shrugged is more important than the story or the way it is written, and admittedly Rand's writing, IMO is only slightly better than mediocre. If you want to see Rand's philosophy put forth in a novel that's actually a really good read, I recommend Faith of the Fallen, the sixth book in the Sword of Truth series. It's fantasy and has swords and magic and all that (I dunno if that's your thing or not), but starting with book 5 onward, what the author seemed really interested in conveying was his take on Objectivism. I read Faith of the Fallen and found it to be far far more powerful and emotionally moving than any of Rand's works. You do have to read the 5 books leading up to it, but they're all really good if you like fantasy. Edited May 10, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Pliny Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 And where were these Tea Party activists when George Bush doubled the national debt? And put two wars, a seniors prescription plan, and tax cuts for the rich on the lay-away plan? Funny that they weren't mobilized to do something about government spending until a black guy took over the Whitehouse. Please note the Republicans were not re-elected. They lost Congress in 2006 and the Senate and Executive branches of government in the Presidential elections. Obviously, more than a few of those tea-partiers voted Democrat in that election. They voted for change and got hype. A President that spent worse than Bush, rammed even more goverment down their throats and started an agenda, of taxation, wealth redistribution and healthcare; government healthcare that Americans have refused to adopt since FDR and still don't want. Most of them know better and they had enough and started a grass roots movement. Most of them are the ones that are working, just trying to live their lives and government has finally gotten to the point where it's annoying them and they want to do something about it. The grass roots support is now there and they need financing and organization. You might ask where these guys doing the organizing and financing were when George Bush was President. The people tried for change with their vote but as I said got hype. Left wing front groups, financiers, Unions, etc., are ever present and constantly applying pressure to the media, and community groups to squeeze more out of government. They bus people all over to hold demonstrations. They are forever around especially when Democrats are in office cause that's when they get most of their rewards. And, not that our national healthcare plans are perfect -- but, where the logic of the uprising against the watered-down Obamacare Plan falls apart, starts with the fact that Americans spend twice as much on healthcare costs than Canada and most other OECD nations, and don't even provide complete coverage! Over 15% of the U.S. adult population has no health care insurance, and these are usually the unhealthiest segment of the population...which is why private insurance companies cut off their insurance. With all the problems our Medicare systems have, the U.S. system of providing government insurance for old people, government hospitals for veterans, and leaving the majority to fend for themselves among private insurance and hospital management companies, is by far the worst way to run health care. And the U.S. has been trying to introduce national healthcare since the time of FDR. It was hard enough to get a national plan for seniors (which then Governor Reagan called "communist"), and have been continually set back by the special interests who profit from the dysfunctional health care system....and that is still the case today, and it's no surprise that health insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and private hospital corporations have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is, even as more and more Americans join the ranks of the uninsured. They can still make changes to improve their healthcare system. We can't - even though we see it starting to crumble and services are negatively affected - with solutions like not treating those with certain lifestyles - like smokers but ensuring heroin addicts get their RDA. The American system will change. Obamacare, even in it's watered down state, will I think be found to be unconstitutional. You don't seem to understand Americans. Most don't want a nanny state. After three quarters of a century of eroding the work ethic their resolve is breaking down. The Tea party is a restoration of that work ethic where the idea of getting something for nothing is again repugnant. If a government dept. has their budget cut, then they have to cut costs, which may often include cutting services, that has no relation to background problems of declining resources and climate change. I'm curious to hear something from the conservative bastions down south that were hit by category 4 and 5 tornadoes last month...and whether their Governors are still so adamant about cutting taxes and reducing the role of government where they live! Alabama may have payed the price in lives lost, since their State Government cut the budget for weather services that provided early warning radar installations of approaching storms...and shortened the warning time for people who needed to flee before that giant tornado cut through on its way to Birmingham. You beleive that was the reason? The warning time was shortened by budget cuts to weather services. Everyone was waiting with baited breath for the warning from weather services which never came? A lot of libertarian-types have become so full of themselves, and their own capabilities, that they've lost sight of why a commons is created in the first place. The only thing they seem to want as part of the commons is military and war-making. On the contrary, you have lost sight of why a commons was created and think it should be adopted in all aspects of society. World population growth is fast approaching the level where large scale die-offs in the population are going to occur. World grain production is right on the edge of full capacity right now, thanks in large part to the increasing instability of weather over the last several years. Droughts and floods are causing grain prices to spike to levels that cause starvation and foment revolution, civil wars and migrations. If large parts of the world are going through a collapse due to famine and starvation, the repercussions are going to find their way here thanks to global communications, globalization, nuclear weapons, and terrorism. Taking steps to halt population growth and reduce world population would be the sensible step....but, that doesn't seem to be the course the world is following. World grain production is going towards energy production - ethanol. What a stupid idea that was. Taking steps to halt population growth and reduce world population would be the sensible step but governments can't afford the loss of revenues to fund their liabilities. They are trying to solve that problem with immigration but multiculturalism is a dismal failure. Reproduction naturally slows down when higher standards of living are reached. Western natinos are not replacing themselves. Set aside your complaints about government, my point is that the sociological evidence is showing that personal well-being is only improved by increased economic prosperity to a limited level. Once a society is able to provide enough food to eat, and some of the comforts of life, the crucial aspect of well-being is the relative equality of the society. The more unequal people are, the more the social fabric is frayed, and there is less trust, less sense of community, more crime, more physical and mental illness....pretty much everything that's bad increases as societies become increasingly unequal...and once a society is beyond a certain level, per capita income has no relationship to well-being...comparing the U.S. and Costa Rica would be a prime example. http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/remedies Who is compiling the sociological evidence? Governments? I don't know how you can read sites like the one you posted. It is so obviously political and so vaccuous on economics. It doesn't seem to pay any attention to the fact that there has to be something produced before they can even consider distributing. The big problem with socialist concepts is they expect prosperity to be around in a perpetual state and that all economic condition remain static. That is that there is always going to be wealth to redistribute. Future liabilites created out of entitlements that become "rights" are insanities, mere Ponzi schemes, that are not dissimilar to what Bernie Madoff ran. I see quite a bit of equality in incomes in Canada and the US, no thanks to government. There are indeed extremes of rich and poor as well. Confidence and trust in a country comes with respect for one's use of his property. Not with the threat of loss over your head from the very agency granted the mandate to protect it. Living collectively means dying collectively. It is a fragile, inflexible state. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Pliny Posted May 10, 2011 Report Posted May 10, 2011 If you want to see Rand's philosophy put forth in a novel that's actually a really good read, I recommend Faith of the Fallen, the sixth book in the Sword of Truth series. It's fantasy and has swords and magic and all that (I dunno if that's your thing or not), but starting with book 5 onward, what the author seemed really interested in conveying was his take on Objectivism. I read Faith of the Fallen and found it to be far far more powerful and emotionally moving than any of Rand's works. You do have to read the 5 books leading up to it, but they're all really good if you like fantasy. Well, thanks Bonam. I like some science fiction but am not into science fantasy too much. I will take a look. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
WIP Posted May 10, 2011 Author Report Posted May 10, 2011 Please note the Republicans were not re-elected. They lost Congress in 2006 and the Senate and Executive branches of government in the Presidential elections. Obviously, more than a few of those tea-partiers voted Democrat in that election. They voted for change and got hype. Wait! How do you know there were future teabaggers who voted Democrat in 2006 and 2008? But, if they are so bent out of shape by the growing Federal deficit, where were they when Bush turned the surplus into a deficit, and kept adding to it year by year, until he doubled the national debt? It seems to me that until Obama got the keys to the Whitehouse, most conservatives on radio and TV were saying that deficit-spending wasn't a problem...because the financiers of the U.S. National Debt had to keep buying Treasury Bills with the dollars they earned from all the crap they sell to U.S. consumers. A President that spent worse than Bush, rammed even more goverment down their throats and started an agenda, of taxation, wealth redistribution and healthcare; government healthcare that Americans have refused to adopt since FDR and still don't want. Most of them know better and they had enough and started a grass roots movement. It's not that Americans don't want a national health care plan, like Medicare-For-All; it's that the insurance corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and private hospital corporations don't want it! And, they have lots of money, and lots of lobbyists that are at the doors of every member of Congress. The biggest farce was the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats that posed as moderates, and went unchallenged by the MSM. Without exception, every one of those blue dogs that kept pushing Obama's people to water down the plan by moves that were without any justification, like removing the Public Option, and rules preventing the proposed Obamacare co-ops from bargaining collectively for cheaper pharmaceutical drugs, were taken off the table because so many Democrats were on the take from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. From the polls I read, a majority of Americans wanted a real healthcare reform plan, and not what's left of Obamacare...which does more to reward insurance companies than have any chance to bring down health care costs for the average consumer. As for deficits -- don't forget how much of that spending in the first year and half was already in place from the final budgets of the Bush Administration. Obama hasn't created the U.S. debt crisis, as conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers would like everyone to believe; the problem is that he has added to debt with increased military spending, extending the Bush Tax Cuts, and that timid stimulus package that included more unnecessary tax cuts than actual spending on infrastructure improvements. It's worth noting that all of the Republican governors quietly took the stimulus dollars that they claimed they would refuse....except for Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- the Governor who went AWOL to visit his Argentinian mistress was the only one who didn't take any stimulus money....which makes it his 2nd brilliant move! For my part, I was skeptical that even a big stimulus program of over a trillion dollars that Paul Krugman was lobbying for, would have ended the recession and reduced unemployment. FDR's stimulus programs occurred at a time when the U.S. had a much younger population and was still rich in natural resources...like oil. Today, the U.S. is an aging empire, with an aging population; so I don't think even the Krugman Plan would have fixed the economy. Left wing front groups, financiers, Unions, etc., are ever present and constantly applying pressure to the media, and community groups to squeeze more out of government. They bus people all over to hold demonstrations. They are forever around especially when Democrats are in office cause that's when they get most of their rewards. There aren't that many financiers anywhere left of center, except for George Soros and Warren Buffet. And those two are good examples of why the real political left in America refused their money to join Move ON.org and Center For American Progress etc. Soros is just trying to harness the left for his own purposes, just as all the rightwing billionaires only support pro-business libertarians and conservatives. There is not a lot of money to be made by making a principled stand on the left. Most of the money is offered to those who provide ideological support for increasing the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid. And, when it comes to unions -- get real! Organized labour is dying in America. Anti-union, so called "right to work" laws have been put in place in many states to bust collective bargaining, and make it impossible for unions to organize non-union workshops. And, in states from Wisconsin to Michigan and Indiana, one Republican governor after another, is trying to destroy the public service unions, since they are the last bastions of organized labour in many states. They can still make changes to improve their healthcare system. We can't - even though we see it starting to crumble and services are negatively affected - with solutions like not treating those with certain lifestyles - like smokers but ensuring heroin addicts get their RDA. If this is true, I don't agree with punishing smokers, since addiction researchers tell us that nicotine is almost as addictive as heroin. The biggest problem we have is deciding how much money should be spent on new and more expensive medical treatments and procedures...and on an aging population no less, that is going to require more medical attention. I don't see an easy way out of this dilemma, and it doesn't really have anything to do with how doctors and hospitals are funded. A lot could be accomplished if it was possible to motivate more people to adopt healthier lifestyles. Some medical researchers believe that 70 to 80% of all disease is ultimately self-inflicted through mental stress, poor diet, lack of exercise, lack of sleep etc.. But, since so many people these days are working longer and longer hours, and taking on 2nd jobs, it's harder for a lot of people to find the time to exercise, get a good night's sleep, and cook from scratch, rather than fast food and pre-packaged high fat, low nutrition frozen dinners from the supermarket. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.