View Full Version : Why DON'T they like Romney?
I guess I just don't get it. Why don't conservatives like Romney? It's almost like anyone but Romney. Why? It can't be because he is a flip flopper (which he is) but so is Newt, and Romney is a lot nicer than Newt. Newt is just mean and self serving. Even people in his own party will say that. Yet here he is, the newest golden boy.
The only thing I can think of is the religion thing. I know many conservatives think Mormons are a cult, and seeing the candidates they keep pushing to the front, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, tells me it's the ultra religious conservatives who are doing the pushing/polling. But maybe I'm wrong. I'd sure like to hear the conservatives here weigh in on this. And Huntsman too. Here are two very smart, capable people who aren't flame throwers, generally don't fall into nasty divisive rhetoric, and actually have a few grey cells to rub together. So what gives?
And Ron Paul? He seems to poll pretty high but is all but ignored by the right. What's that all about?
If forced to, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him the same way I did with McCain. however he strikes me as a slightly less objectionable version of Obama. His positions seem dispensable as circumstances dictate, and he strikes me as far too willing to adapt the statist approach to any given problem.
Right now the Left seems to be pullulating with reasons why conservatives don’t like him. He’s “too reasonable”, he’s contending with an imagined tide of religious bigotry, his haircut costs too much. I think they’re missing the point. Conservatives aren’t excited by him because he isn’t all that conservative.
Conservatives aren’t excited by him because he isn’t all that conservative.
But isn't it so much more delightful to use his candidacy as an opportunity to smear conservatives with all sorts of fun labels? Can't let that pass by!
Conservatives aren’t excited by him because he isn’t all that conservative.
I think its really just about that simple. A lot of conservatives seem to be on the fence waiting to see if someone with a platform a little farther to the right will move to the front of the pack. Mr. Romney manages to stay out front, usually in the #2 spot behind the flavor of the week, because he isn't objectionable beyond the MA healthcare plan. I don't think his religion has much to do with anything one way or the other. I do wish he would have kept his wager with Rick Perry to somewhat less than either spends on their hair.
ApatheticNoMore
12-12-11, 3:19pm
Conservatives aren’t excited by him because he isn’t all that conservative.
Probably the same reason progressives don't like Obama, why oh why can't they get all excited voting for a complete corporate sell out, a man who is basically the George W Bush II administration, with all the wars and civil liberties violations to boot, no additional financial oversite, crummy environmental record, and only a few bones thrown to any of his contituency (really what has he accomplished: repealing don't ask don't tell, passing a health care bill almost noone really understands that doesn't even go into effect until years later, and continually passing unemployment extensions because noone can get a job, which are better than not passing the extensions but ...). *That* is the grand list of what he has done for his base. I just don't know, what's not to like, why isn't his base all riled up for him? It's a mystery .....
If forced to, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him the same way I did with McCain. however he strikes me as a slightly less objectionable version of Obama. His positions seem dispensable as circumstances dictate, and he strikes me as far too willing to adapt the statist approach to any given problem.
Right now the Left seems to be pullulating with reasons why conservatives don’t like him. He’s “too reasonable”, he’s contending with an imagined tide of religious bigotry, his haircut costs too much. I think they’re missing the point. Conservatives aren’t excited by him because he isn’t all that conservative.
Well I can certainly appreciate the notion that you think he isn't 'right' enough, but that's where you lose me. Newt held all those positions too, before HE flip flopped. He was for health care mandates, he was for reproductive choice and i think he didn't give a hoot one way or the other about gay marriage. And he certainly isn't the 'value' vote! And he's just a nasty, mean person who doesn't really care about anyone except himself. This is a guy who really doesn't care which direction the country goes as long as he is on top. So why him over Romney?
Is it because Newt is a nasty bulldog? Is that why y'all like him? And by y'all I mean the collective y'all. I have to believe in my heart, to maintain my sanity, that conservatives wouldn't actually put a divisive, nasty person who would rather sell his grandmother than talk to/deal with a democrat (Newt) or someone who is wildly incompetent (Cain, Bachmann, Perry) in the most important position in the world just because of their dislike of Obama. Would conservatives really do that to our country?
Now before you start reading between the lines, which some posters here love to do in a huffy faux outrage, please note that I didn't say all the republican candidates are this. Granted I don't want any of them to win but if there is a small chance of a republican winning, well, this is my country too. I'd like to think that conservatives are actually thinking of the country and it's future in their choice. When people actually put forth a Herman Cain as a viable choice, this tells me they don't really appreciate the magnitude of the job.
So this is why I'm confused. I don't want any of them to win, but I can see one or two who are at least competent, and probably up to the task. And isn't that, really, the main thing? Electing someone who won't trash the country, at home or abroad?
So what's the deal with Ron Paul? Even the right don't seem to want to talk about him.
I'm a progressive and am quite pleased to support Obama again. He's implemented many things I support, especially in the current context & framework of an economic system I absolutely depise. There are many of us too.
Well I can certainly appreciate the notion that you think he isn't 'right' enough, but that's where you lose me. Newt held all those positions too, before HE flip flopped. He was for health care mandates, he was for reproductive choice and i think he didn't give a hoot one way or the other about gay marriage. And he certainly isn't the 'value' vote! And he's just a nasty, mean person who doesn't really care about anyone except himself. This is a guy who really doesn't care which direction the country goes as long as he is on top. So why him over Romney?
Is it because Newt is a nasty bulldog? Is that why y'all like him? And by y'all I mean the collective y'all. I have to believe in my heart, to maintain my sanity, that conservatives wouldn't actually put a divisive, nasty person who would rather sell his grandmother than talk to/deal with a democrat (Newt) or someone who is wildly incompetent (Cain, Bachmann, Perry) in the most important position in the world just because of their dislike of Obama. Would conservatives really do that to our country?
Now before you start reading between the lines, which some posters here love to do in a huffy faux outrage, please note that I didn't say all the republican candidates are this. Granted I don't want any of them to win but if there is a small chance of a republican winning, well, this is my country too. I'd like to think that conservatives are actually thinking of the country and it's future in their choice. When people actually put forth a Herman Cain as a viable choice, this tells me they don't really appreciate the magnitude of the job.
So this is why I'm confused. I don't want any of them to win, but I can see one or two who are at least competent, and probably up to the task. And isn't that, really, the main thing? Electing someone who won't trash the country, at home or abroad?
So what's the deal with Ron Paul? Even the right don't seem to want to talk about him.
Newt wouldn't have been my first choice. He's smart and tough, but he's got some personal baggage and he seems more gaffe-prone than anyone except Joe Biden. That still makes him preferable to a bloodless chameleon like Romney or Obama. I would have liked to see Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels, but they both seemed unwilling to participate in the ugly muckfest that 2012 is shaping up to be. Also, all things being equal, Romney's apparent status as every Democrat's choice for the Republican nomination is not the strongest recommendation I could think of. In any event, i'm starting to think that the composition of Congress may be more important to our future than the Presidency next time around.
Democrats probably fear Romney the most. He could attract independent voters like Obama did. The independent voters are the key to the election. Obama also fears Romney the most would would much rather run against him than Newt. Newt has a lot of baggage.
But isn't it so much more delightful to use his candidacy as an opportunity to smear conservatives with all sorts of fun labels? Can't let that pass by!
Funny, isn't it, how so many of the people who sneer at the idea of "values", are so quick to reflexively apply their own? Only polling second? Clear evidence of bigotry! Cheated on his wives? Run his bedsheets up the flagpole!
Worst of all is anyone with the temerity to object to the current march to collectivist Utopia. Divisive and nasty!
Worst of all is anyone with the temerity to object to the current march to collectivist Utopia. Divisive and nasty!
I've already got my bags packed, and my alpha site arranged. Never again.
Well, good, I'm glad you have your hidy-hole all picked out and your MRE's safely tucked away. Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to live in this country and make it the best we can.
The only reason we liberals ask is we can't believe conservatives would really pick the dumbest guy in the room as their candidate. I'm not endorsing Romney. Really, I'm not. And to be honest, he is probably the only candidate who has any chance of beating Obama, which I don't want to happen. (I was rooting for Cain to be the candidate)But, we're neighbors here. I'm just asking, me to you. Why wouldn't you all go with a smart, fairly likable candidate who actually has a chance of beating the President?
You don't care for Newt either. Good enough. But what can you do? You still have to choose. So who do you choose?
By the way, I like Obama. He isn't the far left liberal that the right keeps trying to portray him as. I accept that. Sometimes I'm disappointed in him, but in those quiet moments when I really think about the office and the responsibilities of the position, and what's good for the country, I'm glad he is not a divisive flame thrower. I'm glad he wants to compromise and negotiate with the other party, although sometimes I think he negotiates too much and expects to much from the other side. I also realize that makes him look like a patsy to some, and certainly the right sees him as such, since they wouldn't give even the time of day, much less anything else. But at the end of the day, it's every one's country, and he is every one's President. I think he understands that more than anyone else. But he has accomplished some very important things.
Well, the conservative choice of Newt(for now) is troubling. It tells me conservatives are willing to give away the country for, what? Revenge? Whatever. I guess the only bright spot is watching them have to give up, in one stroke, the whole "values vote" branding they worked so hard to cultivate. There are no values in that man.
freein05
12-12-11, 10:47pm
Newt signed his 4th I won't cheat on my wife pledge today. He broke the other three he signed but says he will not cheat on his current wife. Now there is a true social conservative.
iris lily
12-12-11, 11:34pm
Like Kathleen Parker, I've assumed that Mitt will be the choice all along. Today I got a Christmas card from him and the wife.
I don't mind his foray into nanny state healthcare in Mass. because 1) it's not my state and 2) it's an interesting social experiment to watch from afar. Let the states do things like this, it's fine with me.
mtnlaurel
12-13-11, 6:11am
So no one has answered yet - what's wrong with Ron Paul among Republicans?
Newt signed his 4th I won't cheat on my wife pledge today. He broke the other three he signed but says he will not cheat on his current wife. Now there is a true social conservative.
If the Clinton years taught us anything, it was that the voting public will tolerate a high degree of sleaze in politicians.
ApatheticNoMore
12-13-11, 8:11am
He isn't the far left liberal that the right keeps trying to portray him as.
Yea really the man is corporatist to the core (our health care bills are made with cooperation with the insurance industry, and our "job bills" consist mostly of tax cuts and free trade agreements) and somehow gets portrayed as a utopian socialist. It is just beyond bizarre.
So no one has answered yet - what's wrong with Ron Paul among Republicans?
Looks good on paper, but he's already got two failed presidential bids behind him. Strikes many as arrogant, and the Democrats would eventually dredge up his criticism of the Civil Rights Act.
iris lily
12-13-11, 8:20am
So no one has answered yet - what's wrong with Ron Paul among Republicans?
Ron Paul is not Presidential. He's twitchy and odd looking. He reminds me of Rumplestiltskin. Isn't that terrible of me? But it's the truth. I can read something Ron Paul writes and think "oh yeah, ok, I agree with that" but seeing him on the stage at the debates and hearing him talk--nope. Physically, he just doesn't have the package. I like that he tells us what's good for us, no one does that to that extent. I am sorry that there isn't a better Libertarian candidate.
ps: his son may be the total package, give him a few years.
Well, good, I'm glad you have your hidy-hole all picked out and your MRE's safely tucked away. Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to live in this country and make it the best we can.
The only reason we liberals ask is we can't believe conservatives would really pick the dumbest guy in the room as their candidate. I'm not endorsing Romney. Really, I'm not. And to be honest, he is probably the only candidate who has any chance of beating Obama, which I don't want to happen. (I was rooting for Cain to be the candidate)But, we're neighbors here. I'm just asking, me to you. Why wouldn't you all go with a smart, fairly likable candidate who actually has a chance of beating the President?
You don't care for Newt either. Good enough. But what can you do? You still have to choose. So who do you choose?
By the way, I like Obama. He isn't the far left liberal that the right keeps trying to portray him as. I accept that. Sometimes I'm disappointed in him, but in those quiet moments when I really think about the office and the responsibilities of the position, and what's good for the country, I'm glad he is not a divisive flame thrower. I'm glad he wants to compromise and negotiate with the other party, although sometimes I think he negotiates too much and expects to much from the other side. I also realize that makes him look like a patsy to some, and certainly the right sees him as such, since they wouldn't give even the time of day, much less anything else. But at the end of the day, it's every one's country, and he is every one's President. I think he understands that more than anyone else. But he has accomplished some very important things.
Well, the conservative choice of Newt(for now) is troubling. It tells me conservatives are willing to give away the country for, what? Revenge? Whatever. I guess the only bright spot is watching them have to give up, in one stroke, the whole "values vote" branding they worked so hard to cultivate. There are no values in that man.
"Everyone's President" has spent the past few years blaming scapegoats ranging from the previous administration to Congress to "millionaires and billionaires" for his problems, and his opposition is "divisive? I don't buy it.
For me the choice will be anyone who can beat Obama. Right now, Romney's a bit ahead of the president in the polls, and Gingrich a few points behind. Neither is my ideal choice, but either is preferable to Obama.
In any event, i'm starting to think that the composition of Congress may be more important to our future than the Presidency next time around.
Agreed. In my mind one of the longest lasting imprints of the next administration could be the make-up of the Supreme Court. Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are all in their 70's. It's not far fetched to think that at least a couple of them, and maybe all four, would consider retirement or face health issues sometime in the next five years. If Mr. Obama wins reelection there is a slim possibility that he could end up appointing a majority of the sitting SC Justices (having already appointed Sotomayor and Kagan). Even if the Republicans control both houses of congress after the elections, and that certainly isn't a given, that thought makes me a little uncomfortable.
"Everyone's President" has spent the past few years blaming scapegoats ranging from the previous administration to Congress to "millionaires and billionaires" for his problems, and his opposition is "divisive? I don't buy it.
For me the choice will be anyone who can beat Obama. Right now, Romney's a bit ahead of the president in the polls, and Gingrich a few points behind. Neither is my ideal choice, but either is preferable to Obama.
To be fair, Obama came into office under less than ideal circumstances. That said, he really hasn't strayed that far off the path of the previous administration, which has been a real disappointment for me.
"Everyone's President" has spent the past few years blaming scapegoats ranging from the previous administration to Congress to "millionaires and billionaires" for his problems, and his opposition is "divisive? I don't buy it.
For me the choice will be anyone who can beat Obama. Right now, Romney's a bit ahead of the president in the polls, and Gingrich a few points behind. Neither is my ideal choice, but either is preferable to Obama.
Fact is, when he came into office, the damage had been already done. It wasn't in fact his 'problem' as in created by him. The previous administration DID cause it. That's important to remember when so many with really short term memories want to return to the very same policies that got us here in the first place! And it wasn't all that long ago people! I remember!
He isn't really blaming the rich. I'm sure he has plenty of rich friends. It's actually those policies of the last administration, which benefited the wealthy, that did us in. That coupled with a totally unnecessary and unfunded war cause by, the last administration. But, Obama, being the grown up, has taken on these problems and made them his own. But you really can't fault the guy for reminding us just who caused these problems. Again, important to remember.
Obama has not failed. In fact, he has succeeded in pulling us from the brink of a free fall set up by the last administration. The auto industry alone, was a save worth his years in office. Just think how ingrained the auto industry is in our country/economy. From the big auto makers in Detroit to the gas station on the corner, and all the big and small businesses in between, if the auto industry had failed, we would be in such a huge depression, it would be hard to recover. Think about the steel industry in this country. Pretty non existent isn't it. Once an industry is lost and foreign companies step in to fill the void, it is all but impossible to gear up and bring it back.
Although I'm sure the republicans would have just LOVED to say he was the President who lost the auto industry, they won't be able to do that. Of course, what's not mentioned is that they were willing to sacrifice the auto industry just so they could do that. Just like they are willing to completely ignore a successful health care program (complete with government mandate) set up by one of their own simply because the democrats want this.
Nope, I'm sticking with Obama, because he has been a success, and that pisses off the republicans the most.
Macroeconomic trends can take years or even decades to play out. The Clinton boom years were in large part set up by Reagan policies. The tech bubble inflated under Clinton and burst under Bush. The housing bubble had been inflating since the early 80's, hit overdrive under Bush and burst under Obama. Regardless of who wins the election the US needs to take a longer term approach to solving our problems or we will be in dire straights.
A President's job is to inspire people, to be a cheerleader and a motivator. There's not anyone in the fold right now who does that for me, and I don't think it's in Romney's DNA to fill that role effectively, so, I don't think it has much to do with people not liking him. And, other than a few progressive sorts here, I've never known anyone to even bring up his religion so I don't buy that angle at all.
That said, if he's the Republican candidate, I'll take him over the other guy. He's at least had much more practical experience in the real world.
Macroeconomic trends can take years or even decades to play out. The Clinton boom years were in large part set up by Reagan policies. The tech bubble inflated under Clinton and burst under Bush. The housing bubble had been inflating since the early 80's, hit overdrive under Bush and burst under Obama. Regardless of who wins the election the US needs to take a longer term approach to solving our problems or we will be in dire straights.
I agree. For a President to claim he "saved" the economy with an avalanche of pork strikes me a bit like a shaman claiming he kept the moon from swallowing the sun during the last eclipse.
A President's job is to inspire people, to be a cheerleader and a motivator. There's not anyone in the fold right now who does that for me, and I don't think it's in Romney's DNA to fill that role effectively, so, I don't think it has much to do with people not liking him. And, other than a few progressive sorts here, I've never known anyone to even bring up his religion so I don't buy that angle at all.
That said, if he's the Republican candidate, I'll take him over the other guy. He's at least had much more practical experience in the real world.
Sort of makes you realize how special Reagan was, doesn't it?
Sort of makes you realize how special Reagan was, doesn't it?
Yes it does!
I would love to have someone who displays the strength of their convictions and the fortitude to remain on course for the long haul. I think there are a few young politicians who could fit the mold given a little more experience, and can only hope our current leadership doesn't screw up too much while we wait for the populace to recognize them.
Yes it does!
I would love to have someone who displays the strength of their convictions and the fortitude to remain on course for the long haul. I think there are a few young politicians who could fit the mold given a little more experience, and can only hope our current leadership doesn't screw up too much while we wait for the populace to recognize them.
Yea, too bad he didn't know squat about economics. Trickle down doesn't trickle down. Kind of like feeding the birds by giving the corn to the cows. You know what the birds got!
Yea, too bad he didn't know squat about economics. Trickle down doesn't trickle down. Kind of like feeding the birds by giving the corn to the cows. You know what the birds got!
20 years of prosperity?
http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/95D680E37D76F5A72E7656465722BEB6.gif?
mtnlaurel
12-14-11, 5:58am
In some ways I feel like the Republicans have missed a great opportunity to insert their ideologies into workable solutions for the country. Obama seemed totally open to playing ball with them at many points.
Instead, it seems like Repub's were more concerned with throwing their eggs on Obama's face rather than using them to bake the cake. What a waste.
In some ways I feel like the Republicans have missed a great opportunity to insert their ideologies into workable solutions for the country. Obama seemed totally open to playing ball with them at many points.
Instead, it seems like Repub's were more concerned with throwing their eggs on Obama's face rather than using them to bake the cake. What a waste.
They had an even better opportunity through most of the first decade of the millennium, although I wouldn't call much of what was accomplished workable solutions.
"They" are the problem. As long as its we vs. they and us vs. them not much else is going to get done. I really believe the President tried to compromise. Those efforts have mostly failed partly because of partisan politics and partly because he is not a strong or experienced enough leader to pull it together.
Fiscal conservatives I know lean Republican because they believe that we won't have a chance to solve social problems if we're broke and think the Reps will put a higher priority on those fiscal issues overall. For a lot of us its that simple. The biggest opportunity so far missed by the Republican party comes from alienating that more moderate part of the base by cowing to more extreme groups. That ideological shift by the party helped give rise to a large and so far unorganized block of independents. I don't think he could win, but don't rule out Ron Paul as a third party candidate rattling the cage.
iris lily
12-14-11, 9:42am
Another factor is that mainstream media prefers to chase the Republican flavor of the day, hyping him/her, and driving up his/her numbers. Mitt has made speeches and put out position papers that are not covered because Cain's women and Perry's gaffes and Newt's snarks are more sound bite for the buck.
But then, it is difficult to learn anything of depth and worth from Yahoo headlines and tv news.
+1, Iris lily. I was just thinking the other day 'when did presidential races get covered like horse races'? who's in front, who's lagging behind, who stumbled out of the gate? There's almost no thoughtful coverage or comparison of their positions, which leaves the average voter to spend time searching this him/herself. No wonder voters weary of the whole thing.
I think the debates are a waste of time. Sure they can be enlightening, as in the audience cheering for the death of someone who failed to buy insurance, or booing a gay soldier, but they really are a contest of sound bites. I much prefer the Sunday morning talk shows where each candidate gets to talk more about their positions and their opinions on current events. I know it's hard to have debates with more substance with a lot of candidates, but it would sure be more helpful. For instance, I don't think Ron Paul really wants someone with a catastrophic injury to die simply because they didn't have the forethought to buy health insurance, or Michelle Bachmann is probably smarter than she comes off as, but how will we know with these sound bite debate formats.
If you like what Obama is doing with the country but don't want to vote for a black guy, then Romney might be a good choice. Other than that, I don't see any reason for anyone to choose Romney over Obama. They would both move the country in the same direction, so if you think that's a good idea, why change conductors?
If you like what Obama is doing with the country but don't want to vote for a black guy, then Romney might be a good choice.
The problem is, you're describing liberals and they won't vote for Romney no matter what. Independants and Conservatives, being individualistic, tend not to allow race to color their decisions.
As to the OP's question "Why don't they like Romney?", I'll defer to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
The problem is, you're describing liberals and they won't vote for Romney no matter what. Independants and Conservatives, being individualistic, tend not to allow race to color their decisions.
As to the OP's question "Why don't they like Romney?", I'll defer to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:
I would choose Obama over Romney (I've had one for a president and the other for a governor). That said I don't see a huge difference between the actions of the two. Just the rhetoric.
BTW, the colors you paint labels could be construed as offensive.
....BTW, the colors you paint labels could be construed as offensive.
I'm not sure what that sentence means, but if you're talking about the use of race as a basis for political activity, I'd agree. Totally offensive!!
I'm not sure what that sentence means, but if you're talking about the use of race as a basis for political activity, I'd agree. Totally offensive!!
I agree - and the same for religion.
Selection based on any criteria that is predisposed at birth (gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.) is nonsensical unless the selector is attempting to "purify" the results. Selection based on conscious decisions made by the candidates, such as religious preference, makes more sense because those choices reveal something about the character of the individual. Character, or at least perceived character, is a very valid reason to prefer one candidate over another. If you refuse to vote for Mr. Romney because he is white you are a racist. If you refuse to vote for him simply because he is Morman you are apparently afflicted with a prejudice stronger than your ability to reason past it. If you refuse to vote for Mr. Romney because he is a Morman, and your decision is based on the fact that you have researched the LDS faith and learned you have a fundamental conflict with their doctrine that prevents you from voting for a leader with those beliefs, you are empowered. I think we could use more empowered voters right now (as in voters willing to research a little for themselves rather than rely on party lines or talking heads).
early morning
12-31-11, 10:21am
The problem is, you're describing liberals and they won't vote for Romney no matter what. Independants and Conservatives, being individualistic, tend not to allow race to color their decisions.
I'm a bit offended by your inference that liberals will make a political decision based on skin color - and I have a pretty thick skin. That is hogwash. I am a liberal, and have quite a few liberal, politically active friends (a few are even - *gasp* - LDS). We are looking hard at Romney and will continue to do so during the Repub primaries. He seems quite middle-of-the-road on many issues. His stance on abortion will probably have a big impact on our decision as to who to vote for - but honestly, Obama is NOT a liberal, and is not the "darling" of all liberals, as many seem to think. Overall, I have to say at this point I will probably go with Obama again, and hope that he listens to his base a bit better. But Romney is deserving of a lot of consideration, and many of us are giving him just that. I particularly agree with his statement during one of the debates:
If I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most.
I'm a bit offended by your inference that liberals will make a political decision based on skin color - and I have a pretty thick skin. That is hogwash. I am a liberal, and have quite a few liberal, politically active friends....
It's been my experience that the further left of the political center an individual is, the more they make of racial differences. As you move further right of center, you may notice that race becomes secondary to individual characteristics such as the content of their character. Of course, those on the extreme left might argue that the failure to group individuals racially is the ultimate proof of racism, in much the same manner that many felt it necessary to apply the racist label to anyone who disagreed with our current president.
This community would make an interesting case study on the subject.
It's been my experience that the further left of the political center an individual is, the more they make of racial differences. As you move further right of center, you may notice that race becomes secondary to individual characteristics such as the content of their character. Of course, those on the extreme left might argue that the failure to group individuals racially is the ultimate proof of racism, in much the same manner that many felt it necessary to apply the racist label to anyone who disagreed with our current president.
This community would make an interesting case study on the subject.
This would be saying anyone racist is liberal - and the more racist, the more liberal. Which would make KKK and John Birch types radically liberal. It just doesn't wash.
I agree people across the spectrum play the racist card too broadly - but the fault of it is lumping people in groups as apposed to individually evaluating the content of their character.
This would be saying anyone racist is liberal - and the more racist, the more liberal. Which would make KKK and John Birch types radically liberal. It just doesn't wash.
I agree people across the spectrum play the racist card too broadly - but the fault of it is lumping people in groups as apposed to individually evaluating the content of their character.
Well the KKK was founded as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. :cool:
From my perspective, racism will always exist because so many people use race as a means of segregating groups. Plus, I'm a little annoyed with those who constantly bring up race as a factor in their politics. Unfortunately for the liberals, it's always them.
Well the KKK was founded as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. :cool:
From my perspective, racism will always exist because so many people use race as a means of segregating groups. Plus, I'm a little annoyed with those who constantly bring up race as a factor in their politics. Unfortunately for the liberals, it's always them.
From my experience, people who bring up race usually do so as a factor in other people's politics, not their own. And you're doing the same.
From my experience, people who bring up race usually do so as a factor in other people's politics, not their own. And you're doing the same.
Except that I didn't bring it up. I just commented on someone else's thoughts and then found myself under scrutiny for doing so.
That's OK though. I do enjoy the feedback.
Except that I didn't bring it up. I just commented on someone else's thoughts and then found myself under scrutiny for doing so.
That's OK though. I do enjoy the feedback.
Not you - just some of the comments. Some of it didn't quite add up for me, so I was poking for more.
On race and politics, I will say that I was pleased to see that race was not an insurmountable factor in the last election. Beyond that I don't have enough information to say much else about it.
ApatheticNoMore
12-31-11, 9:39pm
Selection based on conscious decisions made by the candidates, such as religious preference, makes more sense because those choices reveal something about the character of the individual. Character, or at least perceived character, is a very valid reason to prefer one candidate over another.
I think perhaps it's not the candidates who need better characters (scumbags though most of them are :)) but the citizens. How are our characters in holding our politicians feet to the fire for all that they do that we oppose?
I guess I'm not part of the "thjey" who don't like Romney. I like Romney. I mean, he's ok. I'd vote for him. I've been assuming he would be the Republican candidate all along.
Isn't he the guy who strapped his dog (in some kind of carrier, I presume) on top of his car for a cross-country trip? Not as bad as Sarah Palin and her glee at shooting wolves, but still...I guess I'd have to go with Buddy Roemer.
Well the KKK was founded as the enforcement arm of the Democrat Party. :cool:
.
And southern whites left the democrats in droves after the civil rights act was passed. From that it would seem to me that for those people the appealing part of the democratic party was its racism and perhaps the fact that lincoln had been a republican, not the liberal aspect of the dems.
Yes it does!
I would love to have someone who displays the strength of their convictions and the fortitude to remain on course for the long haul. I think there are a few young politicians who could fit the mold given a little more experience, and can only hope our current leadership doesn't screw up too much while we wait for the populace to recognize them.
Ron paul seems to be the only candidate who has consistently held to his convictions through the years. For that reason, and the fact that his convictions are anti-corppratist and antiwar he may well get my vote this year. If he wins i feel pretty.confident that he'll follow through with his promises to the best of his abilities
And southern whites left the democrats in droves after the civil rights act was passed. From that it would seem to me that for those people the appealing part of the democratic party was its racism and perhaps the fact that lincoln had been a republican, not the liberal aspect of the dems.
I would disagree.
Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.
ApatheticNoMore
1-2-12, 1:20pm
Ron paul seems to be the only candidate who has consistently held to his convictions through the years. For that reason, and the fact that his convictions are anti-corppratist and antiwar he may well get my vote this year. If he wins i feel pretty.confident that he'll follow through with his promises to the best of his abilities
I hear you jp1. On the one hand the Paul agenda is not the agenda as such I want to advance. On the other hand, Obama is a horror (and I feel clean that I never voted for him and voted 3rd party, though I admit I advised those who were going to vote Dem come hell or high water to go with him in the primaries, however most other candidates like Edwards had dropped out by the time the primary came to CA anyway - so it was really just him or the known corruption of the Clinton machine). Most of the Republicans share the same positions as Obama on the issues for which I am most disgusted with him.
And why is the Paul agenda not the agenda as such I want to advance? Number one, I don't think libertarians in his mold take environmental issues seriously enough. And to me they are huge. And this is less to say that there are no theoretical libertarian proposals for environmental issues that may work, than to wonder how seriously they take the issue. Is being true to libertarian dogma #1 or is preserving a somewhat livable planet through libertarian or regulatory or whatever measures best achieve it?
But ho ho ho Obama. Where to even start? He is not strong on "Democratic" or "liberal" or whatever you want to call them issues. On the environment: the climate talks that went on recently actually went down in flames, they crashed and burned (yes I know this issue got no mainstream media coverage - well what do you know). The Obama administration covered up for BP and his regulators failed to adequately regulate it before hand. He's not strong on the environment. Entitlements are more something I grudgingly acknowledge a few of which have done a lot of good (social security, unemployment, food stamps) rather than cheer for. But really for the left: on economic and social issues: Obama is not really defending entitlements, he's put social security and medicare cuts on the table (in order to continue tax cuts), things like the social security tax cut hasten the demise of social security. His health care plan may or may not do some limited good but it is entirely corporatist at the core. Well these are plenty of reasons to say "Obama is meh", but why do I say rather that he is a horrror?
Because he's bringing on a total police state in America! Yes the NDAA and the threat of indefinite detention of Americans, yes continuing to hold the existing enemy combatants in the indefinite detention we already have, yes killing American citizens randomly without any due process, yes drone wars and slaughter all over the world (and I have seen what we do to the rest of the world we will do to our own - and it scares the heck out of me). It is madness. It must be stopped. Civil liberties as the #1 issue? You know for deep philosophical reasons I would say the environmental as the #1 issue as without a habitable planet nothing matters. However without free speech and the right to protest and with an increasing dictatorial CORPORATE state any hopes of achieving better policy tends to go out the window IMO (if we are an almost dictatorship it is in the corporatist model certainly not the the communist model - not that that is desirable either). Rights to protest and rights to free speech are threatened by the government holding indefinite detention over everyone's head (possibly by PIPA, SOPA as well though those are lesser threats IMO). I don't favor habeus corpus just because it leads to good policy, it is not a right-left thing. I favor it because without it you have endless destruction of peoples lives (those unfairly arrested) and tyranny plain and simple. The path we are going down is a horror, the entire of history warns against it: "don't go there!". And it is just a completely unjust way to treat human beings. But I do also believe little good policy comes out of a police state and we are there already legally, the only thing left to do is implement what is already legal and start locking people up for life for random accusations. So .......
"Because he's bringing on a total police state in America! Yes the NDAA and the threat of indefinite detention of Americans, yes continuing to hold the existing enemy combatants in the indefinite detention we already have, yes killing American citizens randomly without any due process, yes drone wars and slaughter all over the world (and I have seen what we do to the rest of the world we will do to our own - and it scares the heck out of me). It is madness. It must be stopped."
Agreed. But we should keep in mind the NDAA was approved by the House and Senate before it got to his desk. While Obama has done nothing to stop it, I think there's enough blame to go around.
... While Obama has done nothing to stop it, I think there's enough blame to go around.
But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?
In the end, I'm not surprised, and I am beginning to agree with those of you who see Mitt Barak Romobama as essentially the same guy. While the real action will take place in Congress, if the Prez has the power to stop something, then he should do so if he is against it. I do not buy that he's against it but bowing to the will of the people.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said ....
.... while he was signing into law the very act authorizing the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.
And poor George Orwell thought he was writing satire.
...And poor George Orwell thought he was writing satire.
"I do not believe that kind of society I describe (in 1984) necessarily will arrive, but I believe… that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere." ~ George Orwell
But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?
In the end, I'm not surprised, and I am beginning to agree with those of you who see Mitt Barak Romobama as essentially the same guy. While the real action will take place in Congress, if the Prez has the power to stop something, then he should do so if he is against it. I do not buy that he's against it but bowing to the will of the people.
I agree - basically "change" has shown itself to be "business as usual". And Obama has done nothing to stand in the way of it.
ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.
(House) "House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act in a bipartisan 283-136 vote. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) joined 189 other Republicans and 93 Democrats in voting for passage of the measure, while 43 Republicans and 93 Democrats voted against it."
(Senate) "Voting in favor were 45 Democratic and 41 Republican senators with just six Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed."
ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.
It's far worse than "he should have vetoed it". The Obama administration, according to testimony during the Senate hearings on the bill, *asked for* the changes to throw out our civil liberties for expediency.
"A curse upon you, Oliver Cromwell..."
ApatheticNoMore
1-2-12, 4:45pm
ETA: He should still have vetoed it, but it looks like it already had 2/3's support in the House and the Senate for an override.
He also had the bully pulpit (not that he has shown any capacity to use it), the bill of rights may have been an issue on which he could get widespread popular support (because see I don't think the majority has decided they want this so much as it was slipped through on them!). But he could have been attacked from that part of the right that is authoritarian (law and order) as not being "tough enough on terrorism"? He could have. And both them and a Dems could have wailed "but think of the troops! We must fund the troops, even though we refuse to remove the aweful sections of this bill to do so". Still he would have had the fricken founding document of the country on his side, you know, gotta be worth something.
"I do not believe that kind of society I describe (in 1984) necessarily will arrive, but I believe… that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere." ~ George Orwell
Yes for early 20th century evils, but as for year 2011 evils, I don't think intellectuals are much to blame. Except to the extent they make themselves Obama apologists, ah the apologists what fun!
I would disagree.
Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.
Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems.
Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems.
But that's when it started and the transition gathered steam over time. Why would you believe that it was solely a result of the Civil Rights Act when there were so many other contributing factors?
I would disagree.
Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.
Actually the. Ew deal happened in the 30s so i have a hard time believing that that is what tirned white southeners off from rhe dems. Even jfk, hardly a conservative, carried most of the south. With the exception of a few states voting for the racist strom thurmond in 1948 the south was reliably dem.
It's far worse than "he should have vetoed it". The Obama administration, according to testimony during the Senate hearings on the bill, *asked for* the changes to throw out our civil liberties for expediency.
"A curse upon you, Oliver Cromwell..."
Apparently the administration and Congress, and democrats and republicans, have no problem working together when they want to.
Iagree. I dont quite understand the whole concept that the dems and reps are so diffeent. Other then a few social issues that get trotted out over and over both parties seem to be in favor of war, big business and spending more money then gets taken in in taxes.
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
George Orwell, 1984
But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?
The presidential veto has been drastically underused in the past 50 years--by both parties. Only Gerald Ford averaged more than 10 a year.
Truman and Eisenhower together vetoed more bills than all their successors combined. No wonder Congress has become so dysfunctional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes
If the Clinton years taught us anything, it was that the voting public will tolerate a high degree of sleaze in politicians.
So, you do admit that Newt is a total sleaze. See, liberals and conservatives can agree on some things.
Macroeconomic trends can take years or even decades to play out. The Clinton boom years were in large part set up by Reagan policies. The tech bubble inflated under Clinton and burst under Bush. The housing bubble had been inflating since the early 80's, hit overdrive under Bush and burst under Obama. Regardless of who wins the election the US needs to take a longer term approach to solving our problems or we will be in dire straights.
That is ridiculous. That's what Republicans always say when their policies fail.
It's been my experience that the further left of the political center an individual is, the more they make of racial differences. As you move further right of center, you may notice that race becomes secondary to individual characteristics such as the content of their character. Of course, those on the extreme left might argue that the failure to group individuals racially is the ultimate proof of racism, in much the same manner that many felt it necessary to apply the racist label to anyone who disagreed with our current president.
This community would make an interesting case study on the subject.
Unbelievable. Wow, just, wow.
I'll tell you why I wouldn't like Romney if I were a conservative.
1. He was the governor of "Taxachussetts," and governed as a moderate. He reminds folks that Romneycare didn't ruin the state, so that kinda destroys the argument about Obamacare ruining the whole country and whatnot.
2. He's a flip flopper par excellence. I wouldn't trust him because he will say anything, literally anything, to get elected, depending on the audience. He has been known to say two opposing things in a single day. How much can a candidate stretch the "I evolved in my positions" meme?
3. If I hated Obama, I would not want a mild mannered establishment possibly centrist candidate. I would want a firebreathing, take no prisoners kind of guy, like Newt. I would want someone to validate my world view. Romney attacks Obama, but not with any particular relish that I can see. He's not comfortable throwing red meat to the base. He does it, but he doesn't love it.
4. Which leads to the personality thing. He is not a natural politician. He's awkward, stiff and sometimes appears like a phoney. He's polished up his act considerably, but still he has less authenticity, appeal and charisma than Obama. The base keeps thinking there's someone at least as good as Obama in the personality department, but right now none of the remaining candidates can match Obama. Those of you afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome can't see that obviously, but really, Obama is a charming and accomplished individual and the country is in better shape now than when he took office, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. So, the base is nervous. Even though a lot of folks (including those on the left) are not satisfied with Obama, he is still a very gifted politician, and Romney may not have the skill level to defeat him. So, in terms of electability, I would be concerned, but I also wouldn't be able to come up with anyone better.
4. Many folks on the right believe that this is a center right country and that if a "real" conservative ran for office and clearly pronounced "real" conservative values, then Americans would stop being confused and understand that this is what we need. This is kind of Santorum's argument. But in point of fact, the real conservative agenda is not particularly mainstream or attractive to the majority of folks not in red states. Witness: Wisconsin. Ohio. Michigan.
As a postscript, the Mormon thing is utterly irrelevant. Nobody really cares in the end. The only thing conservatives need to ask themselves is whether Romney has a good shot at beating Obama. He may not deliver everything they want but 75% of what you want is better than 0% of what you want. This is my argument to liberals as well.
In the end, I would be shocked if Mitt does not get the nomination.
I think Romneycare is fine for the state of Mass. States get to make their own decisions for their citizens, not forced by one-size-fits-all mandate by the feds. Vive la difference. That has not turned me off Mitt despite the constant yammering from my intellectual superiors who seem to think I cannot see the analogy. I guess that's why this point is played about 50,000 times daily on the mass media outlets, they only want what is best for me. Isn't it a shame that I'm too stupid to see this?
ApatheticNoMore
1-20-12, 4:14pm
1. He was the governor of "Taxachussetts," and governed as a moderate.
As an aside the "Taxxachussetts" nonsense is just that. Ironically MA has much lower taxes than California. I know what their state taxes in MA are with all their so called "high taxes". They aren't the 10% state taxes that a Califiornian pays (they are several % lower). I know what their sales taxes are with all their so called "high taxes" (they aren't the 9% or so a Californian pays, several % lower). If I wanted a significant tax CUT I'd move to "Taxachussetts", really I'd save hundreds probably thousands by doing so.
As an aside the "Taxxachussetts" nonsense is just that. Ironically MA has much lower taxes than California. I know what their state taxes in MA are with all their so called "high taxes". They aren't the 10% state taxes that a Califiornian pays (they are several % lower). I know what their sales taxes are with all their so called "high taxes" (they aren't the 9% or so a Californian pays, several % lower).
We're at the stage of thinking about retirement locations. While taxes in Massachusetts are much higher than in New Hampshire, they are lower than in any other northeastern state. They are comparable to Maryland and Pennsylvania, with reasonable treatment of retirement income.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html
The only issue is that my favorite cap may not go over so well with the locals.
http://compare.ebay.com/like/260757211947?var=lv<yp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar&_lwgsi=y&cbt=y
One of my main problems with Massachusetts is that simply moving my household goods there would make me a felon.
The Storyteller
1-20-12, 7:29pm
One of my main problems with Massachusetts is that simply moving my household goods there would make me a felon.
So don't move.
One of my main problems with Massachusetts is that simply moving my household goods there would make me a felon.
ohhhhh, do you mean guns?
I think Romneycare is fine for the state of Mass. States get to make their own decisions for their citizens, not forced by one-size-fits-all mandate by the feds. Vive la difference. That has not turned me off Mitt despite the constant yammering from my intellectual superiors who seem to think I cannot see the analogy. I guess that's why this point is played about 50,000 times daily on the mass media outlets, they only want what is best for me. Isn't it a shame that I'm too stupid to see this?
1. Unfortuately, as in other circumstances the states were not doing the job and thus we had the highest number of uninsured of all the western industrialized countries. We as a nation spent the most per capita. People were suffering and dying for lack of access. These are the facts. If the states had done their jobs properly no problem. Same deal with civil rights, worker protections etc. Clearly states don 't always do the right thing.
2. States are permitted to opt out and set up their own comparable systems.
3. I do not understand what is so objectionable about setting up a system of information so that citizens make more informed decisions. Picking an appropriate health care plan ain't easy.
iris lily
1-24-12, 12:30am
1. Unfortuately, as in other circumstances the states were not doing the job and thus we had the highest number of uninsured of all the western industrialized countries. We as a nation spent the most per capita. People were suffering and dying for lack of access. These are the facts. If the states had done their jobs properly no problem. Same deal with civil rights, worker protections etc. Clearly states don 't always do the right thing.
2. States are permitted to opt out and set up their own comparable systems.
3. I do not understand what is so objectionable about setting up a system of information so that citizens make more informed decisions. Picking an appropriate health care plan ain't easy.
your #1: That the States were not doing "the job" that you think they should have been doing is your construct. You wanna the Romneycare? You move there. Maybe I will too if I need it. And then soon, Mass. will not be able to afford it. But whatever.
your #2: Required to set up "their own comparable system" is still a Nanny G mandate. That is no argument against Obamacare.
your#3: I don't know particulars of what you speak which I assume is one of the 10 million points in the Obamacare legislation. But theoretically, anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection.
My brother moved to Louisianan a number of years ago. He is a native Californian and his wife is from Louisianan. He says the people there still say the did not need the federal Nanny G to force them to desegregate their schools and do away with white and negro restrooms in public buildings. They would have done it eventually. Sure they would have!!!!
...anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection....
My understanding is that our for-profit medical "care" system, designed to line the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies, costs us twice as much per capita as the state-run systems in the rest of the developed world. I don't care who runs health care as long as it's non-profit and affordable.
My understanding is that our for-profit medical "care" system, designed to line the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies, costs us twice as much per capita as the state-run systems in the rest of the developed world. I don't care who runs health care as long as it's non-profit and affordable.
Would you extend that philosophy to other goods and services needed for our well-being? Should producers of food, shelter or energy also be required to operate on a non-profit basis?
your #1: That the States were not doing "the job" that you think they should have been doing is your construct. You wanna the Romneycare? You move there. Maybe I will too if I need it. And then soon, Mass. will not be able to afford it. But whatever.
your #2: Required to set up "their own comparable system" is still a Nanny G mandate. That is no argument against Obamacare.
your#3: I don't know particulars of what you speak which I assume is one of the 10 million points in the Obamacare legislation. But theoretically, anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection.
You really don't do your argument much good. Y railing against this muthical nanny state.
Go to any other modern industrialized country and they wouldn't trade their nanny state health care for the risk of dying a premature death for the "freedom" we enjoy here.
They think we're insane.
Would you extend that philosophy to other goods and services needed for our well-being? Should producers of food, shelter or energy also be required to operate on a non-profit basis?
I might. "Non-profit" doesn't mean people aren't getting paid for their work; it just means there are no investors with their greedy fingers in the mix.
ApatheticNoMore
1-25-12, 12:08pm
co-ops :)
I might. "Non-profit" doesn't mean people aren't getting paid for their work; it just means there are no investors with their greedy fingers in the mix.
So you might prefer an economy where at least the basics are produced by governmental or quasi-governmental organizations? I would think that under those circumstances private non-profits would need to be so heavily regulated (to prevent the organization's leadership from allocating themselves crypto-profits) that they would in essence be creatures of government. No more family farms or private medical practices? Who would decide where to allocate capital?
We already have some infrastructure in place--like regulated utilities (I still shudder when I think of those Enron thugs yukking it up about wiping out retirement funds--Google "Grandma Millie," if you're in the dark.) Food profits are reportedly slim already (hard to believe re breakfast cereals). We have subsidized rent. In general, I'm fine with capital investment in R&D, high-end fashion, non-essentials in general. But I'm no policy wonk--too short an attention span.
We already have some infrastructure in place--like regulated utilities (I still shudder when I think of those Enron thugs yukking it up about wiping out retirement funds--Google "Grandma Millie," if you're in the dark.) Food profits are reportedly slim already (hard to believe re breakfast cereals). We have subsidized rent. In general, I'm fine with capital investment in R&D, high-end fashion, non-essentials in general. But I'm no policy wonk--too short an attention span.
If you wanted to nationalize or at least control though strict regulation privately owned capital, at least for the production of designated essentials, wouldn't you simply be replacing the "greed" of investors with the mendacity of politics? How would we avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union? How would we prevent capital from fleeing to friendlier climates?
How would we avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union? How would we prevent capital from fleeing to friendlier climates?
Ultimately you would do neither.
How would we avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union? How would we prevent capital from fleeing to friendlier climates?
Building some sort of wall is traditional.
With our current tax code, it is *almost* better for me financially to move 10 miles from my location, and become Canadian. Canada is lovely, the people are great, and it sure looks like you get more of your tax dollars' worth there. If we bump our taxes much, I'd seriously consider moving a few miles. However, our current tax laws establish a financial wall at the border, if I am attempting to leave the USA to become a citizen of another country, and take my capital with me, the US government will attempt to seize a large amount of it as I leave - pure banditry IMNSHO.
Mangano's Gold
1-29-12, 7:18pm
If you wanted to nationalize or at least control though strict regulation privately owned capital, at least for the production of designated essentials, wouldn't you simply be replacing the "greed" of investors with the mendacity of politics? How would we avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union? How would we prevent capital from fleeing to friendlier climates?
If certain markets are not serving the needs of the people, then the people should make adjustments. This isn't a slippery slope to bread lines and secret police.
ApatheticNoMore
1-30-12, 12:02am
If certain markets are not serving the needs of the people, then the people should make adjustments.
What's the question? Does anyone know the complete solution to the cluster@#$# that is the U.S. healthcare system? Noone knows that, especially that can be actually achieved in a bought and paid for political system. Obama's plan afterall was a compromise and a very crony capitalist plan.
What's the question again? Possible alternatives to government or capitalist ownership? Co-ops maybe but not that widely tried, small businesses. Or .. you just try to apply laws and regulation, in a way that lessens the mess that is being created. Like for instance how is it that insurers are basically seeming to reap oligopoly profits anyway?
This isn't a slippery slope to bread lines and secret police.
Not from that, it's simply not going to come from that, not here. A truly left wing dictatorship in America is inconceivable (short of revolution I guess). But the police state will come? Well .... yea I think so, it is almost here. Economic collapse may come too.
Apparently Floridians like Mr. Romney. Interesting that around 1/3 of the exit polls still say he isn't conservative enough. The question raised is whether or not that sentiment will turn into voter apathy in November? I hope not. I do have to say I enjoyed his speech at the victory party, one of his better efforts to date. Off to Nevada (where Mitt will likely steamroll Newt).
Apparently Floridians like Mr. Romney. Interesting that around 1/3 of the exit polls still say he isn't conservative enough. The question raised is whether or not that sentiment will turn into voter apathy in November? I hope not. I do have to say I enjoyed his speech at the victory party, one of his better efforts to date. Off to Nevada (where Mitt will likely steamroll Newt).
I don't think it will turn into voter apathy - ABO (anybody but Obama) has been drilled into people's heads for years now, I expect it's going to pay off regardless of who is running on the Republican ticket.
I think apathy is actually more likely on the Obama side if Romney gets nominated - Obama disappointed a great many that are more to the left. Although I expect Romney will do the same and disappoint those more to the right if he wins the election.
I don't think it will turn into voter apathy - ABO (anybody but Obama) has been drilled into people's heads for years now, I expect it's going to pay off regardless of who is running on the Republican ticket.
I think apathy is actually more likely on the Obama side if Romney gets nominated - Obama disappointed a great many that are more to the left. Although I expect Romney will do the same and disappoint those more to the right if he wins the election.
Given a general election contest between Romney and Obama, I suspect voter apathy to play a significant role. Even George Soros has remarked that he see's no significant difference between the two, although I personally see much reason to seek a change in administration simply to modify the department heads which come and go by administration preference, not to mention a hoped for shift in prioritization.
There's also the matter of the Congress. If we could get a Senate which would actually consider legislation, or maybe even give an up or down vote on a budget, a lot of our current political problems would be relieved, if not corrected.
Regardless of candidate, I think this is no time to sit on our heels, although I'm not sure enough of our citizens will rise to the occasion.
If you wanted to nationalize or at least control though strict regulation privately owned capital, at least for the production of designated essentials, wouldn't you simply be replacing the "greed" of investors with the mendacity of politics? How would we avoid the mistakes of the Soviet Union? How would we prevent capital from fleeing to friendlier climates?
Perhaps we could study social democratic countries like Germany, in which regulated capitalism co-exists with robust pro-labor policies. They seem to be doing pretty well. Though we shouldn't have to go much further than our own years between FDR and Reagan, when we had a robust middle class and policies in place to limit monopolies and inhibit the kind of blatant corporate racketeering so prevalent today.
From what I observe, the "mendacity of politics" is almost completely associated with the unbridled flow of money into political contests. The Citizens United decision is the ultimate effect of this trend. Serious campaign finance reform is a first step.
As far as Cayman Island capitalists and their ilk are concerned, they can all go to hell and take their money with them. They are traitorous, IMO.
As far as Cayman Island capitalists and their ilk are concerned, they can all go to hell and take their money with them. They are traitorous, IMO.
Maybe you should come round me up and shoot me then.
Because, you know, I already have plans to leave the USA if/when necessary, and locations picked out. You have no moral claim on my life, or the products of my life's energy. Yet you denounce me as a traitor, and condemn me to hell, for simply investing prudently and protecting my capital. And treason carries the death penalty in the USA.
I guess that tells me where you are coming from...
.....You have no moral claim on my life, or the products of my life's energy....
Isn't it a shame so much political capital is spent trying to dispel that ultimate truth?
Isn't it a shame so much political capital is spent trying to dispel that ultimate truth?
It's a shame how many people put on a show of being all progressive, polite and moral, while openly willing to use violence to enforce their beliefs upon you.
Maybe you should come round me up and shoot me then.
Because, you know, I already have plans to leave the USA if/when necessary, and locations picked out. You have no moral claim on my life, or the products of my life's energy. Yet you denounce me as a traitor, and condemn me to hell, for simply investing prudently and protecting my capital. And treason carries the death penalty in the USA.
I guess that tells me where you are coming from...
I can remember reading "Atlas Shrugged" in High School, and thinking how preposterous some of her villains were. Guess I owe Ayn Rand an apology.
Maybe you should come round me up and shoot me then.
Because, you know, I already have plans to leave the USA if/when necessary, and locations picked out. You have no moral claim on my life, or the products of my life's energy. Yet you denounce me as a traitor, and condemn me to hell, for simply investing prudently and protecting my capital. And treason carries the death penalty in the USA.
I guess that tells me where you are coming from...
Oh please. Of course I have no moral claim on your life or your wealth. I don't speak for my government or anyone else's. The rich, our de facto rulers, have passed laws enabling individuals and corporations to offshore monies to avoid contributing to the common good. Ergo, they don't have to worry about being executed. Fortunately, the Patriot Act (sic) hasn't completely wiped out free speech (the "IMO" part), so I'm allowed to exercise mine.
And I wish I had committed to emigrating while I still had marketable skills, frankly. I'd prefer not to live in an oligarchy.
I don't speak for my government or anyone else's.
Could that be part of the issue? Personally, I'm not quite ready to go all JG, but the requisite, constant defense of innovation and those who drive it is tiresome.
Perhaps we could study social democratic countries like Germany, in which regulated capitalism co-exists with robust pro-labor policies. They seem to be doing pretty well. Though we shouldn't have to go much further than our own years between FDR and Reagan, when we had a robust middle class and policies in place to limit monopolies and inhibit the kind of blatant corporate racketeering so prevalent today.
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Denmark, NZ, Australia, UK, Canada, Switzerland, etc. There are a lot of social democracies in existence that are solvent, have a strong middle class, have social safety nets, thriving industry, the opportunity to become wealthy through hard work, etc. and so on.
Lots and lots and lots of options to consider when looking at variations on healthy social democracies.
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Denmark, NZ, Australia, UK, Canada, Switzerland, etc. There are a lot of social democracies in existence that are solvent, have a strong middle class, have social safety nets, thriving industry, the opportunity to become wealthy through hard work, etc. and so on.
Lots and lots and lots of options to consider when looking at variations on healthy social democracies.
That is certainly a worthy subject of study. In addition to a comparison of the benefits such systems provide, I think it's also fair to ask if they are sustainable in the long term, which freedoms we might run the risk of compromising if we grant government the power to take from some of us to benefit most of us and how capable such states are of defending themselves against external threats.
I agree with what Jonah Goldberg said about conservatism being a distant cousin of cynicism, and therefore hostile to utopian promises. Its certainly possible to learn from the examples of others. I think, for instance, that we should have modelled our response to the credit crisis on how Canada dealt with theirs back in the nineties. I'm more reluctant to buy into the idea that you can tax and redistribute yourself to prosperity.
Indeed. It is important to look at the whole system and sustainability. Many of the countries that I listed above have set themselves up to be sustainable for several hundred years (norway, for example, using the money brought in from oil sales to 1. fund current infrastructure projects that benefit the lives of all norwegians and 2. set up what is essentially a savings account with dividends to support future projects with projections of the funds lasting, assuming they weren't growing in interest, etc, for 250 years). But, it takes money to make money in this instance.
I also like the way Sweden handled it's recession in the 1990s, which also prevented them from having a crisis in this current climate. It was a lot of fore-planning, whereas the US is following the Japanese process (what they did in the 1990s), and they are still pulling themselves out of that depression before this one hit.
It might also be worthwhile to note that a lot of social democracies have programs that are managed by taxation that everyone pays. For example, a large portion of social services here in NZ (housing stipends, food stamps, childcare/education stipends, and universal health care -- called ACC) are all supported by the GST (goods and services tax). It's a 15% tax on everything that a person purchases (except used goods via ebay and such). So, *everyone* pays it, even people who are getting food and housing stipends (people on welfare).
The reason that I note this is that it isn't really "wealth distribution" per se. It's simply setting up the safety net and an investment that everyone makes.
It goes to one of the core values here, though, too -- the idea is to reduce poverty and take care of our own. In a lot of ways, NZ feels like a "wild west" outpost -- quite isolated in a lot of ways -- and everyone "mucks in" when times are tough. In reading the journals and histories of the first settlers (after the Maori of course), they worked hard together to get things going. People needed each other, and were there to help.
Same thing happens here, now. For example, when the last quake happened in christ church, there was a massive volunteer group. It was advertised as the Quake Muck In. People volunteered to come bringing their own equipment (spades, rakes, boots, etc), and worked for several weeks to help clean streets, make sure isolated people were fed and that sanitation was back in order, and any number of things. People usually went for 1-3 weeks at a time, on rotation.
NZ took very little international money or help in cleaning up after the mess. Not because it's not grateful for the offer, but there's just a DIY mentality here. And so when it comes to fighting something like poverty or disease or illiteracy, NZ'ers take it upon themselves to make it work. Everyone Mucks In via the GST -- rich or poor, we're all paying for it. We're all mucking in.
It seems to be working well. I find health care here to be as excellent as in the US, but much more efficiently managed. Education here is really interesting, as well. And while I might grouse about people on welfare not working (and yes, I've experienced it and it's frustrating), the reality is that there are lots of people on WINZ (work and income NZ) who do not want to be on WINZ, but based on their circumstances, it is what is best for right now. One woman is in cancer treatment and cannot work, and this is how she can house and feed her two sons -- their father no longer in the picture. Another woman is a single mom of one, and he's younger than Hawk, and so she not only gets housing and food, but she also gets day care provisions so that she can work part time. When her son goes to school, she'll work more hours, decreasing the amount of stipend she receives.
Yes, there are people who use/abuse the system -- and I think there always will be that element. I don't' think that means we need to get rid of the system altogether, though -- which is what many claim. I think that these systems are beneficial, and so I support them.
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-12, 2:00am
And I wish I had committed to emigrating while I still had marketable skills, frankly. I'd prefer not to live in an oligarchy
+1 Believe me the thought of emigrating has occured. I hear it's not easy to get a job elsewhere :\ And no I probably wouldn't prosper from it economically, I'd probably lose out on a lot financially (maybe in terms of taxes but also in terms of future retirement benefits like social security etc. - but I half expect those not to exist in the future anyway). And I wouldn't be doing it for economic reasons anyway. Way more to life than economics (but I would likely have to be able to get a job).
I have my doubts an oligarchy is even compatable with basic civil liberties and functioning democracy anyway. Oh I don't have many case studies: I have the history of one u.s.a. where the correlation between rising degrees of oligarchy and wealth inequality and the loss of civil liberties and breakdown in democracy were striking. One for the history books. Banana republics also tend to be oligarchical and without many civil liberties or functioning democracies either. It's not the only road to heck but it seems to be one road .... Oh for a good, if imperfect, social democracy rather than this.
Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Denmark, NZ, Australia, UK, Canada, Switzerland, etc. There are a lot of social democracies in existence that are solvent, have a strong middle class, have social safety nets, thriving industry, the opportunity to become wealthy through hard work, etc. and so on.
Many also have far more income mobility than the U.S.. So they actually score far higher on the ability to get wealthy though hard work probably (although you might not get as wealthy).
It was a lot of fore-planning, whereas the US is following the Japanese process (what they did in the 1990s), and they are still pulling themselves out of that depression before this one hit.
yea the Japanese process. It's not fore planning. It's bailing out the banks and so on. That's what is going on. It's not for the common good. It is extend, pretend, and bail out the big players.
ANM, I just want you to know I am not picking on you. Your post simply does an excellent job of illustrating the sentiment voiced by a lot of people in this country so I'm trying to respond to that.
+1 Believe me the thought of emigrating has occured.
When I hear someone say that the only thought I have for them is, "don't let the door hit you in the butt". I have yet to hear emigration talk from anyone who is actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country. If they head off to graze their greener grass it will just mean less work for the rest of us.
I hear it's not easy to get a job elsewhere.
Why do you suppose?
Many also have far more income mobility than the U.S.. So they actually score far higher on the ability to get wealthy though hard work probably (although you might not get as wealthy).
If wealth accumulation is your goal there is nowhere better to be than in the US. Nowhere. The problem is an antiquated definition of "hard work". If you want to put in long hours, lots of overtime, burn the midnight oil, keep your nose to the grindstone, etc, etc, etc. there are plenty of people, including me, who will be more than happy to hire you and get wealthy from your "hard work". We need people who work SMART, not necessarily "hard". The industrial revolution started roughly 220 years ago. Maybe its time to update our thinking.
yea the Japanese process. It's not fore planning. It's bailing out the banks and so on. That's what is going on. It's not for the common good. It is extend, pretend, and bail out the big players.
The Japanese have debt at 300% of GDP and now operate with a trade deficit. Their options grow more limited by the day. It would be nice to avoid their fate.
ANM, I just want you to know I am not picking on you. Your post simply does an excellent job of illustrating the sentiment voiced by a lot of people in this country so I'm trying to respond to that.
When I hear someone say that the only thought I have for them is, "don't let the door hit you in the butt". I have yet to hear emigration talk from anyone who is actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country. If they head off to graze their greener grass it will just mean less work for the rest of us.
Why do you think that? Most people who actually emigrate are usually the ones capable enough to do so. All the immigrants who came to this country emigrated from somewhere.
Also, I think the number of people "actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country" are few and far between.
Why do you think that? Most people who actually emigrate are usually the ones capable enough to do so. All the immigrants who came to this country emigrated from somewhere.
I agree. We were talking about emigrating OUT of this country to somewhere else, not people coming here. The people I know who are working to improve this country don't have any desire to leave it.
Also, I think the number of people "actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country" are few and far between.
Seriously? What about Red Cross volunteers? Shoot, what about the MILLIONS of people who volunteer helping in almost any way you can imagine every single day??? What about people working on political campaigns (whether you agree with their politics or not)? What about OWS participants (who I do not agree with, but believe a lot of them are working toward their version of improving the country)? Public servants of all kinds? Military personnel? Teachers?
I think the problem lies more with the few that are trying to tear this country apart than with the millions and millions who work every day to make it a great place.
When I hear someone say that the only thought I have for them is, "don't let the door hit you in the butt". I have yet to hear emigration talk from anyone who is actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country. If they head off to graze their greener grass it will just mean less work for the rest of us.
You have heard several times "emigration talk" from me. Yet I am actively engaged working to improve conditions here in the USA. I devote the bulk of my wealth, income, and time to public service. But if certain things come to pass in our country, I will move on. Which will *not* mean less work for "the rest of us", as you will no longer have my capital and labor working for the community here, but for some more reasonable community.
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-12, 12:53pm
+1 Believe me the thought of emigrating has occured.
When I hear someone say that the only thought I have for them is, "don't let the door hit you in the butt".
Like the thought is supposed to be some kind of plea "oh my won't you people miss my wonderful greatness when I'm gone, oh I'll never be replaced". When it is not supposed to be any kind of arrogant narcassism at all. It is 1) merely at face value, I have had thoughts of leaving the country and would like to explore the idea further - sure actually doing it and exploring it are two different things. Well I know, talk is easy it is true, but exploration sometimes does lead to action (it's the only thing that ever does really) 2) yea kind of meant to express disgust with the U.S. government, it pains me a great deal that I am even having to have thoughts of leaving, and yea I blame that entirely on the U.S. federal government, because it is the reason I want to leave. It's not about the people (although I am peeved they are so complicit!), the weather, the economy (although if this gets bad enough it becomes a reason to leave too), or the state government or local government or anything. Mostly I want civil liberties, a more peaceful country, and a functioning democracy that actually takes into account the input of the people (and not just the lobbyist etc.).
I have yet to hear emigration talk from anyone who is actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country. If they head off to graze their greener grass it will just mean less work for the rest of us.
How much is enough? You know it's hard. Hard to work full time, hard to commute 2 hours everyday (that I hope to change that whether I leave the country or not :)), hard to take a class every week to improve my skills (and unfortunately a rather demanding one). Hard to visit a relative who needs my support now. Hard to remember to pay my bills (I actually am becoming that scatterbrained!). Hard to keep up with some of what is happening politically. And hard to find time to ocassionally hang out with friends on top of it. And so my involvement in local community things has dropped. I feel bad about it but ... I'm not perfect. Why I sometimes even waste time doing nothing productive at all. :) I've been involved in local community building, I've written congressmen, heck recently I've even written letters to the editor, I've donated small amounts to political causes. Yes it might be better if I was one of those radicals involved in OWS, a radical and active group is perhaps they only real hope of transforming this corruption but ... I dont' know what is left to do, protest I guess.
I hear it's not easy to get a job elsewhere.
Why do you suppose?
Well the economy does stink many places, but also it would be harder to get a job places as an immigrant (or even guest worker) than as a native born. I think that's just kinda reality. I wish I had pursued more higher education, it might have helped me here. I hear countries favor people with advanced degrees.
I stand corrected bae and give you full credit for your good works in your community and beyond. My definition of what I "hear" is still somewhat rooted in the pre-internet version of conversation. I suppose it is the folks who are more inclined to want to be taken care of by a government or society when speaking of greener pastures that I can't stomach. To those people I say go for they will almost certainly be better off (as will we who stay). If, OTOH, we are not able to right the course in a way that encourages the actively engaged, the doers in all respects, to stay we will have done irreparable damage to this country. I can see how the pendulum swings too far either way. We need not run anyone out and we need not cow to anyone to get them to stay. Fairness lies somewhere in the middle. Most of the actively engaged people I communicate with are only looking to be treated fairly or, in lieu of that, to be simply left alone.
When it is not supposed to be any kind of arrogant narcassism at all. It is 1) merely at face value, I have had thoughts of leaving the country and would like to explore the idea further - sure actually doing it and exploring it are two different things. Well I know, talk is easy it is true, but exploration sometimes does lead to action (it's the only thing that ever does really) 2) yea kind of meant to express disgust with the U.S. government, it pains me a great deal that I am even having to have thoughts of leaving, and yea I blame that entirely on the U.S. federal government, because it is the reason I want to leave (it's not the people although I am peeved they are so complicit, the weather, the economy (although if this gets bad enough it becomes a reason to leave too) or the state government or local government or anything).
I won't worry about narcissism. This is a big country, there are very few people who would leave much of a void at the national level if they left. If someone thinks they have that stature I won't burst their bubble: I have too much to get done. The thing I have a hard time with is people who criticize how things are but don't do anything about it. If you (the proverbial "you") believe leaving is the most effective way to initiate change on a personal level, great, go for it. But keep in mind that most of the rest of us would like to stay.
Gregg,
When I hear someone say that the only thought I have for them is, "don't let the door hit you in the butt". I have yet to hear emigration talk from anyone who is actively engaged working to improve the condition of this country. If they head off to graze their greener grass it will just mean less work for the rest of us.
That's a pretty hefty accusation.
As a person who has immigrated to another country and is working toward residency in this country (and possibly dual citizenship), it's actually offensive.
I have done volunteer work since I was 14. I have worked/volunteered in both social and political arenas. I'm still involved with certain social and political movements in the US -- and I don't live there. I'm still a citizen, my family and friends live there -- I have a vested interest.
I didn't leave because the US is bad. I didn't leave because I wanted to be "taken care of" by another government.
I left for opportunity. Which leads us here:
If wealth accumulation is your goal there is nowhere better to be than in the US. Nowhere.
Really?
I started my business here because 1. it would require less capital, 2. there is less competition, 3. there is more opportunity for my husband's chosen work, and 4. we had the opportunity to make more money, and still maintain our basic lifestyle while we got the business off the ground.
I truly believe that had we stayed in the US, we would never have gotten ahead. The competition is fierce, it takes a lot more capital to keep a business running, and because you have to provide your own health insurance -- which is a crippling amount of money for a start-up -- or we would have had to keep my husband working in an job full time -- which meant that we'd have to put my son in child care, another crippling cost -- it is simply not tenable to our work/family life.
Work smart -- yes. Take advantage of opportunities -- yes. Earn more income and accumulate wealth -- indeed possible outside of the US.
NZ fights "brain drain." IF you are educated and on the skills shortage list, you can get work-to-residence without a job. about 1/3 of my clients work in recruiting firms, and they have more positions than they can fill. They need people who are educated and want work.
But, there is hesitance to hire people from other countries.
First, the laws are designed that it is extremely, extremely difficult to fire someone. So, when hiring someone, you think about "do I want to work with this person for 20 years?" It's not really the same mind-set as in the US when it comes to hiring, KWIM?
So, people are looking to hire people whom they think are culturally similar. Americans are liked, but there is a common belief that Americans will leave. I was asked about 4 times a day in our first year here "how long are you staying?" and "when are you leaving?" The reason for this is because many americans get here and then hate it. So, they leave quickly. And, Americans are seen as "different." (We are different.).
From there, your visa status is important. Two-year work visas (without residence attached) are typically seen as lesser than work-to-residence and of course, actual residents and nationals. That two-year visa says "you won't be here long" and so you'd pretty much be stuck with contract work only. But, work to residence and those who get residence right away are much more likely to get long-term work.
And, like I said, NZ is really fighting 'brain drain.'
NZ isn't "paradise" but it is a great place to live. I really love it here.
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-12, 2:36pm
But keep in mind that most of the rest of us would like to stay.
I'd kind of like to as well, but I don't like the direction this country is taking. And if activism (like anti-war protests, like occupy congress etc.) seems to be continually met with well apathy, I just don't know what can possibly change it short of complete economic collapse
I do realize that if I ever were to emigrate I'd have to find things to love about my new host country and not just want to leave because I want out of a getting worse all the time police state (though I do). Apparently some countries (Norway?) now accept us as political refugees.
I'm still a citizen, my family and friends live there -- I have a vested interest.
Oh yes interest always will be vested, but sigh ... wish there was more momentum for real change.
I agree. We were talking about emigrating OUT of this country to somewhere else, not people coming here. The people I know who are working to improve this country don't have any desire to leave it.
Seriously? What about Red Cross volunteers? Shoot, what about the MILLIONS of people who volunteer helping in almost any way you can imagine every single day??? What about people working on political campaigns (whether you agree with their politics or not)? What about OWS participants (who I do not agree with, but believe a lot of them are working toward their version of improving the country)? Public servants of all kinds? Military personnel? Teachers?
I think the problem lies more with the few that are trying to tear this country apart than with the millions and millions who work every day to make it a great place.
I volunteer around 150-200 hours a year. I would not call it "improving the country", there's too much baggage attached to that phrase. Most people are out there trying improve their own lives (a very worthwhile goal), some benefit the country in the process, some cause harm.
The people who are capable of emigrating are usually capable. And more likely a loss than a benefit. I think we should be saying more "what's making you leave?" than "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
ApatheticNoMore
2-2-12, 4:19pm
What "hard work" really consists of in the modern world is an interesting question. It is usually not hard physical labor these days. But great capacity to endure boredom has to be up there with what it takes to be a hard worker today. Can't let the attention wander to more interesting things. Some get so desperate they take drugs for this (mostly prescriptions). Combined with willingness to give up more hours of your life to such work than the average, with the hope it will pay off someday.
For my husband, he was working a desk job for many years (10), and it was largely simple work that underused his talents and ability. There was some tedium as well. BUt the hardest part for him was that it didn't feel productive.
His work went into -- essentially -- a black hole. He would do the work, and then when clients were surveyed, there was one question related to his work on that survey, which always came back negative because it wasn't clear in the question. And from there, his whole department's "status" was determined based on this -- how much money they would get, whether or not they'll get raises, etc, and so on).
So even though he did great work, was good at what he did, and seemed to do well with it and enjoy it for the most part, it just wasn't very rewarding. Without going into management and moving up the 'ladder' into work that he doesn't want to do, there was really no way to increase in income other than the paltry raises every year.
Certainly, there would be no way to get ahead.
He then transferred into a job (which was a promotion and a raise), which better utilized his skills, but also increased his stress levels. And, they promised him two raises -- the first when he took the job, and the second 6 months later. But, they ultimately didn't give him the second one, saying they'd never promised it, even though it was in the contract that he signed for the new position. Then, it was "a freeze on all raises" that was the reason given.
Luckily, we moved shortly after this, because to be honest, he was really tired of working that corporate job. The stress was high -- due to the deadline demands -- but the work went nowhere and did nothing. It kept him engaged, but there was no "output" or "reward" for the work -- seeing your work out there.
Now, everything we do has impact. He makes brochures today, prints, them and puts them around town, we see new clients, who found our brochure at X site. He puts things on the web, and people come in saying "i found it on the web at X site." People compliment his work daily -- as he does most of our marketing -- and we see a direct impact of that work on a daily basis. We see it in our bank account.
In addition, he has plenty of time each day to work on his own projects plus on-the-side contract work. It's much more rewarding. And, unlike a lot of dads, he spends most of the day with the Kid -- practically like a SAHD.
We still work hard. But it's joyous, rewarding work. And it's worth it. We see the outcome every day. Today, for example, I have two entirely full classes. That's marketing!
You have heard several times "emigration talk" from me. Yet I am actively engaged working to improve conditions here in the USA. I devote the bulk of my wealth, income, and time to public service. But if certain things come to pass in our country, I will move on. Which will *not* mean less work for "the rest of us", as you will no longer have my capital and labor working for the community here, but for some more reasonable community.
Oh please pretty please don't go Galt on us. However will we all survive without you?
Oh please pretty please don't go Galt on us. However will we all survive without you?
Wherever bae lives he can still participate on this forum. It's the internet, doncha know. We won't lose him.
Hey bae, Canada is a nice country. Personally I'd stay away from the cold places but would like the more temperate ones.
Hey bae, Canada is a nice country. Personally I'd stay away from the cold places but would like the more temperate ones.
It is indeed lovely, I used to go over to the Gulf Islands once or twice a week, before 9/11 made that more-than-a-bit-of-a-pain. Even though I can see my destination there from my house here. It's one of the leading contenders.
I really enjoyed Montreal myself. I'm more of a city person. Quebec city was also nice. :)
I agree. We were talking about emigrating OUT of this country to somewhere else, not people coming here. The people I know who are working to improve this country don't have any desire to leave it.
Seriously? What about Red Cross volunteers? Shoot, what about the MILLIONS of people who volunteer helping in almost any way you can imagine every single day??? What about people working on political campaigns (whether you agree with their politics or not)? What about OWS participants (who I do not agree with, but believe a lot of them are working toward their version of improving the country)? Public servants of all kinds? Military personnel? Teachers?
I think the problem lies more with the few that are trying to tear this country apart than with the millions and millions who work every day to make it a great place.
As one who has entertained the idea of emigration more than once, I think you are way off base. I've been a model citizen. Any country would be happy to claim me. I've volunteered and demonstrated, I've been in constant contact with my representatives to convey my concerns and opinions. I've donated money and time in the interests of bettering my country. At this point, I'm doubtful that I can counteract--in even a small way--the influence of corporations with unlimited funds to essentially buy off our government "of the people." Many of us are the descendants of people who took the initiative to leave countries when political or economic conditions became unbearable. I see nothing remotely shameful about that.
ApatheticNoMore
2-5-12, 4:30pm
At this point, I'm doubtful that I can counteract--in even a small way--the influence of corporations with unlimited funds to essentially buy off our government "of the people." Many of us are the descendants of people who took the initiative to leave countries when political or economic conditions became unbearable. I see nothing remotely shameful about that.
+1
At this point, I'm doubtful that I can counteract--in even a small way--the influence of corporations with unlimited funds to essentially buy off our government "of the people." Many of us are the descendants of people who took the initiative to leave countries when political or economic conditions became unbearable. I see nothing remotely shameful about that.
Nor do I (and well said Jane). And for the record, I've been off base a few times before. One of the hazards of brainstorming. Let me ask you this, if it were possible to initiate change in ways you see as beneficial would you rather stay here and do that? My answer would obviously be yes even with the understanding that change isn't going to happen overnight. I do think you're right about corporate influence being out of line, but I don't think we're (as in average citizens) helpless. Those corporations sell goods and services. We aren't required to buy those if the parent company is acting in ways we feel are irresponsible. We can work to expose substandard practices and demand change. I think we all know that it would probably be more work than packing up and moving to a place with a different take on your particular issue and there is certainly no guarantee of success. As much as anything I guess I'm trying to figure out at what point an intelligent, engaged citizen throws in the towel?
It's a moot point, as I'm in it here for the duration, so I have to keep swinging. If we can reverse the Citizens United decision (there are groups actively working on this) and accomplish real campaign finance reform, we will have made a solid start. Personally, I'd like to get profit and corporate interests out of the healthcare industry, as well. I believe they are the reason medical treatment costs far more here than it does anywhere else in the world. I don't know how you boycott insurance companies; they're much more likely to boycott you.
I've never heard a convincing argument that healthcare is actually less expensive outside the US. True, the citizens of countries with national healthcare write smaller checks to the providers, if any at all, but that isn't in any way what defines the real cost. I would guess an MRI machine costs about the same in Sweden as it does in New Jersey, if not even more. Medical educations in Denmark may cost the student less than in the US, but I don't know that they are actually cheaper in the end. Big pharma spreads their R&D costs across the globe. I don't believe they can completely subsidize Europe or anywhere else through the US market.
As far as the quality of care, there are some great facilities in southeast Asia, a few top hospitals scattered around Europe, one or two in Central America, etc. Overall though the US is still, IMHO, the place to be. Several years ago DD#1 had some significant issues stemming from a rare vascular disease that targeted blood vessels in her brain. Neurosurgery was required to save her. We had two choices of facilities that had experience treating her condition: Boston or Tokyo. We would have gone to either based on who we thought would do the best job. Fortunately, the staff at Children's Hospital in Boston had pioneered the procedure she needed so we went there. While we were there (about 3 weeks the first time, much less for follow-ups) we met literally dozens of parents who's kids were also facing life threatening afflictions. You have A LOT of time to talk to other people in that situation. There were several families from Europe on our floor. They were pretty obviously well heeled as a general rule meaning they probably had the resources to take their kids anywhere in the world. They all came to the same conclusion regarding quality of care that we did and so they came to the US. During that time we also had a chance to take multiple tours of the facility and learn about their research as well as their treatment philosophy. With that knowledge I just simply do not believe that environment could be developed under any European model of healthcare.
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-12, 1:15pm
Let me ask you this, if it were possible to initiate change in ways you see as beneficial would you rather stay here and do that? My answer would obviously be yes even with the understanding that change isn't going to happen overnight.
Of course, all one's friends and family are here. Well I'm a homebody I guess, I'd stay.
I do think you're right about corporate influence being out of line, but I don't think we're (as in average citizens) helpless. Those corporations sell goods and services. We aren't required to buy those if the parent company is acting in ways we feel are irresponsible.
I'd be down for a boycott of ALL large corporations as much as reasonable (I mean don't cut off your nose to spite your face, but really as much as you can). Not just localization but much more radical (and I've nothing against supporting small businesses in other states - I mean a corporate boycott). And sending as little taxes as possible to Washington (I don't mind state taxes). Because at this point I see the whole system as hopelessly corrupt. It's fast becoming a corporate police state IMO, and corporations and the Federal government are so in bad together they are for all intents and purposes the same creature at this point, the same incredibly corrupt creature.
We can work to expose substandard practices and demand change. I think we all know that it would probably be more work than packing up and moving to a place with a different take on your particular issue and there is certainly no guarantee of success.
More work? I don't know. How easy to you really think it is to get a job in another country? Much less to actually get citizenship (many countries like Canada it is not exactly giving citizenship away, it's hard to get). Moving to another state may be pretty easy, another country is a little more difficult. If you start considering countries whose primary language isn't even English and you are a native English speaker, add another layer of complexity.
As much as anything I guess I'm trying to figure out at what point an intelligent, engaged citizen throws in the towel?
It's personal. :) I know all the stories of why they left Europe too (my ancestors). Some left because they would have starved to death for lack of potatoes (and if you learn the history of this, the fatality rates on those ships coming to the U.S. was astounding, but the alternative was starvation). Some left because rigid class systems allowed no advancement. Sound familiar? That was one of the more benign reasons for leaving. Some left because Czars (yea the real ones) kept drafting their young teenagers in their wars (the Russian revolution did happen for a reason, as messed up as the results of it were). Many would have been GASSED to death if they had stayed in Europe. You grow up as a kid hearing what would have happened to them, how they would have been rounded up and murdered had they been born in Europe instead. It's just part of your legacy.
It's a moot point, as I'm in it here for the duration, so I have to keep swinging.
Yes as long as one is here I see no alternative but to fight to turn the thing around. Even if it is a losing fight.
If we can reverse the Citizens United decision (there are groups actively working on this) and accomplish real campaign finance reform, we will have made a solid start.
It needs to be done, I'm doubtful much can be accomplished without reversing the influence of money in politics. Our so called representatives hardly even listen to us anymore. But besides that my main concern is police state measures. I know I sound alarmist. Well I hope I'm wrong and just some nutcase crying wolf. But I just can't erase from my mind the fact that NDAA was REAL. So is government spying. So are the real crackdowns on the only real radical movement this country has (OWS) - but radical movements have always been cracked down on - so that is nothing really new. But yea NDAA is just a cincher, just such a shock to the system. Anyone can be locked up for any reason without a trial for mere accusations of "terrorism". Really? Anyone can be taken away, put in prison forever, send away and tortured? I'm pretty anti-totalitarian. All those stories of people who would have died in Europe, public school indoctrination, etc.
By the way since I'm such a lazy nothing that gives up the fight so easily. I took off Friday to protest NDAA (I get 2 weeks of paid vacation days in this extremely generous country afterall). I went to the local protest. Had to park my car first. The less than 10 protestors were gone by the time I parked my car, 1 hour into the protest. So demoralized. :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/business/18leonhardt.html?pagewanted=all
"In Greece, the government and individuals combine to spend about $2,300 per capita on health care each year, and the average life expectancy is 79 years. Canada, where the hospitals are probably cleaner, spends about $3,300, and people live to about 80. Here in the United States, we spend more than $6,000, yet life expectancy is just below 78."
I don't agree with the columnist's conclusion that our rampant over-treatment is the major contributor (I'll stick with the profit motive), but I'm with him in preferring a "less is more" approach to medical care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/business/18leonhardt.html?pagewanted=all
"In Greece, the government and individuals combine to spend about $2,300 per capita on health care each year, and the average life expectancy is 79 years. Canada, where the hospitals are probably cleaner, spends about $3,300, and people live to about 80. Here in the United States, we spend more than $6,000, yet life expectancy is just below 78."
I don't agree with the columnist's conclusion that our rampant over-treatment is the major contributor (I'll stick with the profit motive), but I'm with him in preferring a "less is more" approach to medical care.
US healthcare is about making money - so, in that respect, it's very overwhelmingly successful. And I would think like any other business it would lean towards models and practices that bring in repeat business and encourage consumers to spend as much as possible.
I've never heard a convincing argument that healthcare is actually less expensive outside the US.
I know, I know...kind of silly to quote myself, but I just want to clarify that I'm talking about an apples to apples comparison in as much as one is possible. I've been to a few places you can get a tooth pulled for a couple bucks which is a lot less than it would cost at my dentist's office, but I don't think that is the direction most of us want to go.
US healthcare is about making money...
That is true, just like it is with any market sector in a capitalist system. The problem is that people try to put a morality spin on healthcare that they don't apply to other industries. We were all taught that food, clothing and shelter are basic human essentials. Agriculture, the construction industry, the garment industry and all their various offshoots and overlaps provide goods and services that increase both the quality and duration of life, just like the healthcare industry. All three are as big or bigger, in dollar terms, than healthcare. Why then are people not up in arms that my sandwich costs 30% more than it did a few years ago? The shirt on my back certainly isn't getting any cheaper. My house may have fallen in price, but I don't hear anyone beating a drum telling me it is still too expensive so the government should take over the industry and provide a free house to everyone. The only real difference between healthcare and those other industries is the speed at which you could die without their products, the acuteness of the need. I'm curious how we got to this unlikely point?
I'm curious how we got to this unlikely point?
The natural progression of a social welfare state into one segment of the market at a time.
See, I would say "the natural encroachment of greed into one segment of the commons at a time."
Here's a chart showing comparative health care costs:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-12, 4:15pm
Why then are people not up in arms that my sandwich costs 30% more than it did a few years ago? The shirt on my back certainly isn't getting any cheaper.
Basically probably because these things are still quite affordable. And the percentage of income spend on food has mostly dropped (doubt the same is true for medical care!). Even the government programs that assist people who can't afford food (food stamps) are dirt cheap in terms of cost. But yea basically there are plenty of alternatives in these markets. Even housing is a market with alternatives (rentals, roommates, sometimes trailer parks etc.). Basically only a small portion of the population goes without these things, and the markets aren't totally oligopolized.
The natural progression of a social welfare state into one segment of the market at a time.
We are a social welfare state - the question is all over what things that will or will not cover.
That is true, just like it is with any market sector in a capitalist system. The problem is that people try to put a morality spin on healthcare that they don't apply to other industries. We were all taught that food, clothing and shelter are basic human essentials. Agriculture, the construction industry, the garment industry and all their various offshoots and overlaps provide goods and services that increase both the quality and duration of life, just like the healthcare industry. All three are as big or bigger, in dollar terms, than healthcare. Why then are people not up in arms that my sandwich costs 30% more than it did a few years ago? The shirt on my back certainly isn't getting any cheaper. My house may have fallen in price, but I don't hear anyone beating a drum telling me it is still too expensive so the government should take over the industry and provide a free house to everyone. The only real difference between healthcare and those other industries is the speed at which you could die without their products, the acuteness of the need. I'm curious how we got to this unlikely point?
That sandwich may be more expensive, but is cheaper overall due to government subsidies. Yank subsidies and food stamps and see what happens.
I know, I know...kind of silly to quote myself, but I just want to clarify that I'm talking about an apples to apples comparison in as much as one is possible. I've been to a few places you can get a tooth pulled for a couple bucks which is a lot less than it would cost at my dentist's office, but I don't think that is the direction most of us want to go.
Have you heard of "medical tourism"? Unfortunately it is the direction some folks are forced to go. And yes, there is "dental tourism" as well.
My dh was advised by our dentist that he needed 30K worth of dental work. She said we could do it over 2 or 3 years and we could finance it. If he had opted to go for that plan, it would have been smart for him to go to Latin America and get the work done for a couple of thousand bucks.
He opted for the "lousy teeth" plan.
ApatheticNoMore
2-6-12, 4:32pm
That sandwich may be more expensive, but is cheaper overall due to government subsidies. Yank subsidies and food stamps and see what happens.
The edible food-like substances the government subsidizes are NOT food.
The edible food-like substances the government subsidizes are NOT food.
Some of it is - here in MA you could get 2 for 1 with foodstamps at the farmers markets.
ApatheticNoMore
2-7-12, 1:42am
Really I think there are various reasons the healthcare market is so messed up (and housing and clothing markets aren't) well beyond whether or not it is subsidized. 3rd party payers always mess things up, one of the basic things that mess up the good functioning of a market IMO. The government is a 3rd party payer? Oh yea, and not immune to this, but sometimes better than say insurance companies (as in it is in many countries, but the U.S. government is indeed unaccountable to the people now so getting good policy out of it now .. well ...). Buying things on credit is another thing that always destroy the good functioning of a market (you can see this one with college tuition etc.). Credit has it's uses (for business etc.), but a consumer market on credit is more often than not problematic.
See, I would say "the natural encroachment of greed into one segment of the commons at a time."
Here's a chart showing comparative health care costs:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
yes, greed is part of it. Everyone thinks they are entitled to a heart transplant. a HEART transplant!
That was a Frankenstein oddity just a few years ago.
...With that knowledge I just simply do not believe that environment could be developed under any European model of healthcare.
Agreed. But, so? The U.S. is the biggest and the best and can always develop in the biggest and the best. Every citizen here think he is entitled to The Biggest and The Best health care approach and that's why ginormous multiple palaces of illness exist in every city cost a bunch to maintain. That's why I don't want to see us go further down the path of European healthcare, we cannot afford it. Our path is NOT their path.
How frightening for your daughter and you. One learns a lot about specialized medicines in those situations.
On you other point, I can't debate the real costs of Euro health care to compare with ours, but I do know that their hospital buildings, just the real estate, is modest. I suspect much else is modest as well. Same or similar results come out of their modest buildings although the 1% special cases like your daughter, possibly not. That 1% doe snot make it. I expect there are other simple measures in Euro clinics and hospitals, not necessarily driven by cost, but by culture. And I'll admit that perhaps--just perhaps--the profit motive is part of that culture.
Really I think there are various reasons the healthcare market is so messed up (and housing and clothing markets aren't) well beyond whether or not it is subsidized. 3rd party payers always mess things up, one of the basic things that mess up the good functioning of a market IMO. The government is a 3rd party payer? Oh yea, and not immune to this, but sometimes better than say insurance companies (as in it is in many countries, but the U.S. government is indeed unaccountable to the people now so getting good policy out of it now .. well ...). Buying things on credit is another thing that always destroy the good functioning of a market (you can see this one with college tuition etc.). Credit has it's uses (for business etc.), but a consumer market on credit is more often than not problematic.
Those are good explanations for why our education system seems to perform so poorly. We spend more with less result than our competition.
Those are good explanations for why our education system seems to perform so poorly. We spend more with less result than our competition.
As a simple starting point, our expectations are too low.
yes, greed is part of it. Everyone thinks they are entitled to a heart transplant. a HEART transplant!
That was a Frankenstein oddity just a few years ago.
Yes, wanting to LIVE is SOOOOOOO greedy.
Yes, wanting to LIVE is SOOOOOOO greedy.
At the forced effort and expense of others, yes.
It has always been that a human - that any creature - will thrash and fight against its own death, yes? The tools to thrash against death are just much more sophisticated now, and this high stakes game of "who gets to take advantage of the technology that will keep them alive" is far from a black and white issue. I suppose on paper, to some, it appears fair: the rich (who can afford the technologies) can live, while the poor must die.
Yet I know many people in the 99% who I wish could stick around longer, even if they can't afford expensive treatments, because they bring something important to the human party (other than money and the drive to accumulate more and more of it). Is there no solution that benefits all?
I find a heart transplant to be an extreme example. What about expensive cancer treatments, for example, that could guarantee a much longer life in a middle-aged person? Is there no way to assure that people of average income levels can take advantage of these life-saving developments?
Is there no way to assure that people of average income levels can take advantage of these life-saving developments?
People could *voluntarily* band together to fund such things for those who need them in their community.
Is there no way to assure that people of average income levels can take advantage of these life-saving developments?
Sure there is, the question is, who pays for it?
There is a safety net for everyone, the problem is, some people end up losing their savings or other personal property before the safety net kicks in.
I believe the question is better framed as, how can one achieve the benefit without paying the price?
I believe the question is better framed as, how can one achieve the benefit without paying the price?
I don't have the wisdom to offer a solution, but I'm pretty sure there really isn't such a thing as a free lunch.
At the forced effort and expense of others, yes.
That's heartless. And I'm not even making a pun there.
One of the primary reasons why you have nice things in the form of accumulated wealth and material possessions is because the "forced effort and expense of others" created the infrastructure for you to get and keep those nice things. Everybody pays taxes. Everybody benefits from society.
Not sure why everyone should be forced to pay taxes to provide the infrastructure for the accumulation of vast wealth in individual hands but somehow it's immoral for those fortunate individuals to be "forced" to pay taxes for anything else.
That's heartless.
Not at all, and your conclusion doesn't even follow logically. Not supporting using force against another to make them help against their will doesn't mean I'm against helping. Just that I'm against force.
I firmly believe in voluntarism, and I live my beliefs - I devote the bulk of my time and wealth to helping others, through my *voluntary* efforts directed by my own will.
Government is one instrument of banding together voluntarily.
Government is one instrument of banding together voluntarily.
Sometimes, yes. But sometimes the government uses force to carry out the demands of the majority against the will of the minority.
Yet isn't majority rule one of the basic tenets of democracy? Should we switch to a different system?
Rhetorical question. Because we already do have a different system. This nation, at least, is run by those with the most accumulated wealth. It is no longer one person, one vote (if it ever was, doubtful). Yet in terms of evolution, given human nature, I can't see it going any other way. Nor can I see any way to avoid violent conflict in the future over it. A good reason to live on an island.
The US was never intended to be a democracy, it is a constitutional republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic). From the link...
"Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify."
Yet isn't majority rule one of the basic tenets of democracy? Should we switch to a different system?
We are not a democracy, we're a republic.
It's important to draw a distinction between (a) the majority unlimited, in a democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of the individual and the minority, and (b) the majority limited, in a republic under a written constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.
Ben Franklin famously said that the founding fathers had created "a Republic, if you can keep it". He was a bright guy and understood the havoc a direct democracy would cause. We should be so wise.
Edited to add: Sorry Gregg, you beat me to it and I didn't see your post until too late.
ApatheticNoMore
2-7-12, 6:56pm
Most modern democracies have historically (yes as recent as a decade or two ago!) contained safeguards of various rights. Do they now? Hmm, well they aren't all as far gone as the U.S. is on this matter, though many are going in the general direction toward losing civil liberties. So yea the U.S. has completely jumped the shark but the trend is widespread.
Ben Franklin famously said that the founding fathers had created "a Republic, if you can keep it". He was a bright guy and understood the havoc a direct democracy would cause. We should be so wise.
There is minimal evidence that our problem on the federal level is an excess of direct democracy (in California - ok well yes the state government of California is evidence of the havok of direct democracy - propositions have really messed up the state). And yes propositions actually ARE direct democracy - the real thing (although often coopted by corporations), actually worthy of the term, with all it's flaws.
But anyway the devolution of the U.S. is a different matter ... we're not a democracy ... we're not even a republic .. we're an empire, a plutocratic, militaristic, propagandized, increasingly authoritarian and totalitarian, EMPIRE .... with mostly ritualistic elections held every few years.
And yea it took me the last month or two to actually see that in total (because I *believed* in many of the ideals this country was founded on once - even though I started feeling bad whenever I saw a flag under Bush etc. etc.) but ..... that is what the U.S. is now.
Not sure why everyone should be forced to pay taxes to provide the infrastructure for the accumulation of vast wealth in individual hands but somehow it's immoral for those fortunate individuals to be "forced" to pay taxes for anything else.
This got lost in the discussion but it really gets down to the crux of the issue. Entitlements aren't just for the poor.
This got lost in the discussion but it really gets down to the crux of the issue. Entitlements aren't just for the poor.
What is stopping "the poor" from using the infrastructure to gain wealth? It's there for bae, it's there for me, it's there for "the poor."
Sure there is, the question is, who pays for it?
There is a safety net for everyone, the problem is, some people end up losing their savings or other personal property before the safety net kicks in.
I believe the question is better framed as, how can one achieve the benefit without paying the price? -- Alan
I think that this is essential.
What is stopping "the poor" from using the infrastructure to gain wealth? It's there for bae, it's there for me, it's there for "the poor."
Nothing - other than the difficulties of going from poor to wealthy - some actually do. But is that what infrastructure should be for? Something everyone is forced to contribute to so that the few that gain wealth can benefit at the expense of the others?
Nothing - other than the difficulties of going from poor to wealthy - some actually do. But is that what infrastructure should be for? Something everyone is forced to contribute to so that the few that gain wealth can benefit at the expense of the others?
It pays to remember that as "the few" benefit from the use of the collective infrastructure they will pay a heavier burden to support it.
To answer the direct question of "is that what infrastructure should be for?" My answer is emphatically YES! Infrastructure equals opportunity. We get mired down in the fact that some have easier access to it than others, but the bright truth is that nearly everyone in this country does have access. Almost everyone can get to a highway, have power delivered to their house, connect to the internet, ship goods by road or rail, etc. Do we need to improve the safety and efficiency of every aspect of our infrastructure? Yes. Do we need to continue to work until everyone has access to it? Yes. We have a great base system, we just need to bring it up to speed for a modern world.
It pays to remember that as "the few" benefit from the use of the collective infrastructure they will pay a heavier burden to support it.
To answer the direct question of "is that what infrastructure should be for?" My answer is emphatically YES! Infrastructure equals opportunity. We get mired down in the fact that some have easier access to it than others, but the bright truth is that nearly everyone in this country does have access. Almost everyone can get to a highway, have power delivered to their house, connect to the internet, ship goods by road or rail, etc. Do we need to improve the safety and efficiency of every aspect of our infrastructure? Yes. Do we need to continue to work until everyone has access to it? Yes. We have a great base system, we just need to bring it up to speed for a modern world.
So we have one vote for forced redistribution. And that our infrastructure be treated as an entitlement. As for the wealthy few paying a heavier burden, that's a very hard number to slice - do they? In shear numbers of dollars, yes. As a percentage of income? Probably not.
As for the wealthy few paying a heavier burden, that's a very hard number to slice - do they? In shear numbers of dollars, yes. As a percentage of income? Probably not.
What does percentage of income have to do with it?
So we have one vote for forced redistribution. And that our infrastructure be treated as an entitlement.
WHAT??? I have no idea where that came from or what you mean so don't have any way to respond. If you do not believe infrastructure should exist to provide opportunity to those who pay for it then maybe you could share what you think it is really for?
As for the wealthy few paying a heavier burden, that's a very hard number to slice - do they? In shear numbers of dollars, yes. As a percentage of income? Probably not.
Infrastructure is built with dollars, regardless of percentages. If a trucking company uses our roads to make money it pays taxes (and yes, as a percentage of income). The owner of that company pays taxes on the AFTER-tax profit of his company (yes, also as a percentage of income). That company and that person will pay more dollars to support that infrastructure than someone who does not use it in commerce and as a result generates nothing from it. If you add the company tax and the individual tax together to show the true tax burden on income that person will almost always pay a higher percentage of income that someone who simply collects a wage.
If you want to get into the percentage of income debate then why not let everyone above the poverty line in this country pay 15% of every dollar that comes their way and be done with it? The more you make the more you pay. NOTHING is more fair than that (unless absolute "redistribution" is really your goal).
What does percentage of income have to do with it?
It would be nicer to see a system that was able to distribute costs more in line with usage than income. But for many things it would be incredibly difficult. Just as an easier example - enforcement of intellectual property rights - why not have the owners of intellectual property pick up the costs of enforcement than it coming out of more general funding? I pay for this and I have no intellectual property. But how to do that without creating a huge, expensive operation to run it?
WHAT??? I have no idea where that came from or what you mean so don't have any way to respond. If you do not believe infrastructure should exist to provide opportunity to those who pay for it then maybe you could share what you think it is really for?
Most everything the government does has some purpose - the argument appears to be that people should not be forced to pay for these things. Why can't the same argument be made for infrastructure? Endless examples of corporations at least trying to minimize this (tax deals, etc.), I'm sure many would like to outsource the entire cost of infrastructure if they could.
I am pro infrastructure - this country is falling apart and it should be fixed. Problem is that those with the money want someone else to pay for it.
It would be nicer to see a system that was able to distribute costs more in line with usage than income.
If you're talking about roads and bridges type infrastructure, that's already done through fuel taxes, which in this country acts as a user fee for the transportation infrastructure.
If you're talking about roads and bridges type infrastructure, that's already done through fuel taxes, which in this country acts as a user fee for the transportation infrastructure.
Given how bad off our roads and bridges type infrastructure is either they aren't taxing enough to maintain the infrastructure or the money is going to something else. But as a funding model, I think it would be worthwhile to see what else it could be applied to. The trick is finding a hook that measures usage. But even then it's not foolproof. Someone with a fleet of electric vehicles would not be paying those fuel taxes, but still using the roads and bridges.
And that our infrastructure be treated as an entitlement.
Personally, I prefer that our infrastructure gets treated as a resource.
Someone with a fleet of electric vehicles would not be paying those fuel taxes, but still using the roads and bridges.
True in a sense (as in they wouldn't pay gasoline taxes), but they would still be paying taxes to support infrastructure and other taxes to support government programs. They need electricity to power their EV's and, at least in my area, there are taxes on that. They would still pay sales tax when they buy the EV's. Still pay to license the EV's. It would be a lovely problem to have to decide how to make up for falling gas tax revenue because everyone is switching to EV's, but for now it is nothing more than an intellectual/hypothetical exercise.
There is a reason that giant fleets of EV's don't exist in the real world. It is still cheaper to purchase, maintain and buy fuel for traditional vehicles than it is to own and operate an EV's. I'm not generally a fan of higher taxes, but not entirely opposed to something like a significant hike in fuel taxes IF, and its a big IF, the additional revenue is directly applied to rebuilding out infrastructure. The idea is not 100% foolproof, none is, but it generally would have the heaviest users paying the heaviest price.
Personally, I prefer that our infrastructure gets treated as a resource.
It could be - but it still comes down to taking money from someone for someone else. Is this wrong as a principle, or are we just arguing under which circumstances it's appropriate or inappropriate?
When is it morally acceptable to use force against another person?
When is it morally acceptable to use force against another person?
Exactly - is it a question of "is it morally acceptable to use force against another person" - or "when is it morally acceptable to use force against another person"? The latter implies that it is morally acceptable to use force against another person - given certain cirumstances - or morals.
It seems a simple enough question....
When is it morally acceptable to use force against another person?
No one is forcing you to live in this great country. The minute you feel burdened by the expectations of a United, free, safe, democratic country you are certainly welcome to go find the happy circumstance which you can tolerate. Good luck with that.
So, no answer from Peggy but a personal attack of sorts.
Maybe it's not such a simple question after all, as some folks sure seem to twist and turn to avoid answering it.
Oh, it's a simple enough question. It's just nearly impossible to provide an answer without exposing the flaws in a preferred ideology.
It seems a simple enough question....
It is anything but a simple question, as I’m sure you already know. Is it right for me to force my five-year-old to get immunized against a disease? Is it right for the State to force me to buy a health insurance policy? If the Iranians try to close the Persian Gulf to shipping, is it right to use force to keep it open? Was Hiroshima justified by preventing an even more violent invasion? Is it right to use force to make you drive on the right side of the road, or to burn 10% ethanol while you do it? Is it right to use force to desegregate schools, or take a portion of your income to fund the nuclear deterrent, cowboy poetry readings or Mars probes?
I don’t think you can answer your question without reference to a specific situation.
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-12, 2:32pm
Is intellectual property force? Many people think it is. After all it is pretty arbitrary (and little is more arbitrary than the terms of copyrights etc.. - so coming up with an idea should entitle you and your descendents to exactly how many years protection?).
But but ... intellectual property provides an incentive for people to create things etc. etc. - yes to a degree, (I think the optimal point for this is reached way sooner than current IP terms) but this is a pragmatic social good argument for um the use of force (and even then breaks down in the face of SOPA and the like but that is an aside). So I'm hacking away and making endless copies of MS Word or making bootleg pharmeceuticals (ha they do all this in China). Really going to use force to stop me? Even if my pharmeceuticals are as safe as the name brand? To enforce what length of IP term again? Isn't it kind of arbitrary?
There are lots of seemingly simple questions and tasks that don't necessarily have simple answers. Is time constant, what is the beginning and/or end of life, does that lonely tree make a sound... Most questions of morality are no less profound and no less subject to change if the condition they are applied to were to change. I generally tend to agree with those that feel the use of force against another is only acceptable in defense of their home and family indicating that the actual question (for me) is: WHEN is it morally acceptable to use force? Overall, the simple answer may be that there will never be a simple answer in a free society.
As far as taxation in the US, my feelings aren't far from what peggy expressed. To live here is voluntary and, by extension, paying taxes here is voluntary. Not that everyone who wants to make a move can easily do it or do it at no cost, but the government imposing the taxation does not prevent their leaving. To pay a fair share in return for the benefits of living here is (or at least should be), as peggy said, expected if you wish to stay. If someone feels they are being treated unfairly we have multiple mechanisms in place allowing them to work to alter that condition. If those efforts fail the choice of stay or go still remains.
Agreed Gregg.
Sometimes, when people say they want to simplify a complicated idea/process, what you end up with is something that only makes sense to simple minds.
So, no answer from Peggy but a personal attack of sorts.
Maybe it's not such a simple question after all, as some folks sure seem to twist and turn to avoid answering it.
I suppose if you were spoiling for a fight, or looking for a personal attack, would you see it as such. But then some do seem to have the talent to see devils everywhere.
It was an invitation to find a place where you can be happy. This IS a free country, and there is no reason you should stay in a country which you so obviously find oppressive. If you are unhappy here, leave, by all means. There is a big world out there, and no one should have to live where they are so unhappy. But, knowing the nature of your personality, or at least the personality you project on this forum, I doubt you will ever find this happy place where you can enjoy all the benefits of living in a free, progressive, modern society, (fire/police protection, clean water, safe food, good roads, schools, and a thousand other benefits, large and small) without any of the responsibility. Again, good luck.
It seems a simple enough question....
It is as long as everyone has the same meaning for moral and they all apply it the same way in all situations. And force for that matter. And person.
Tell me what moral is and I can tell you when it is morally acceptable - under those morals.
Simple questions often don't have simple answers. And vice versa.
As far as taxation in the US, my feelings aren't far from what peggy expressed. To live here is voluntary and, by extension, paying taxes here is voluntary. Not that everyone who wants to make a move can easily do it or do it at no cost, but the government imposing the taxation does not prevent their leaving. To pay a fair share in return for the benefits of living here is (or at least should be), as peggy said, expected if you wish to stay. If someone feels they are being treated unfairly we have multiple mechanisms in place allowing them to work to alter that condition. If those efforts fail the choice of stay or go still remains.
Agree. All things considered, it is still a magnificent place to live, isn't it? There are places on Earth where simply having this conversation could land us in a very dank and frightening place. With cowboy poetry piped in. Aaaaagh!
I suppose if you were spoiling for a fight, or looking for a personal attack, would you see it as such. But then some do seem to have the talent to see devils everywhere.
It was an invitation to find a place where you can be happy. This IS a free country, and there is no reason you should stay in a country which you so obviously find oppressive. If you are unhappy here, leave, by all means. There is a big world out there, and no one should have to live where they are so unhappy. But, knowing the nature of your personality, or at least the personality you project on this forum, I doubt you will ever find this happy place where you can enjoy all the benefits of living in a free, progressive, modern society, (fire/police protection, clean water, safe food, good roads, schools, and a thousand other benefits, large and small) without any of the responsibility. Again, good luck.
Peggy, I am not generally a fan of the "love it or leave it" argument, but it does seem applicable in particular when confronting libertarians who complain about taxes and being forced to help other folks. There is no country they would like to live in that truly reflects those ideals in their purest form. Limited government is still government. Once you admit the need for government you've lost the argument and are really only arguing over who gets what and why you ahould get nice things but other folks don't deserve nice things. Real libertarians would live off the grid with no income no government services no bank accounts. Etc. Everyone else has to pay the price of living in the civilized world. They are always talking about how other people are free to leave crappy jobs or move to other states or beg for people to help them, but if policy decisions are not to their liking they don't like when you say well you are free to leave.
Privilege always finds a rationale for itself.
Impressive. A simple question, and the responses are mostly personal attacks, straw men, and sophistry.
Very telling.
Impressive. A simple question, and the responses are mostly personal attacks, straw men, and sophistry.
Very telling.
It wasn't a simple question though, was it. It was a question designed to make unclever people think it was clever. Unfortunately, by the responses, it would seem the 'appropriate' audience doesn't reside here. It would seem that people on this forum can think beyond sound bites and bumper stickers. In a modern, complicated world, 'simple' questions speak only to the mind that asks them.
If there is something you want to discuss, please, bring it up. We will discuss, as this forum is populated with some very insightful and reasoned minds. If you truly wanted input into a discussion, then form a real question, or thought, that we can speak to. Otherwise, gracing us with 'words of wisdom', then sitting back, waiting for accolades is kind of a waste of time.
And yes, it is very telling. But a tale we have all become accustomed to.:moon:
Sound bite:
http://images.betterworldbooks.com/052/Practical-Ethics-Singer-Peter-9780521707688.jpg
ApatheticNoMore
2-8-12, 9:08pm
At this point there is no tabula rasa state that is unaffected by force (and not just force often outright violence, wholesale murder etc.).
Like another thread here, at bottom the whole darn country was taken by force (not just force, by violence with some help from disease). Maybe we should give it back :) (I do think the descedents of native americans would make far better use of this country than the fools in positions of power now). Maybe we should all be paying native americans rent. Or reparations. But the actual people who killed the indians are all dead as are all the actual indians stolen from and most of the indian americans alive today are of mixed blood and thus wouldn't even exist without their conquerors. Yea, it's why the concept of reparations breaks down in reality. But do you believe in inheriting wealth? Think of the wealth the native americans could have inherited were it not stolen. The african american situation is analogous if less extreme.
Ok but that's a lot things that happened long ago, lets get down to the present, nowhere near such a large scale robbery but: the banks have just stolen a massive amount of money from the people (don't just look at TARP, look at the full total of the bailouts - the qualitative easing from the Fed, the games they played to borrow money from the Fed and invest it in treasuries, etc. etc.). Do the banks now just get to keep this money without us using any force to I don't know ..... say limit the interest rate they can charge on credit cards for example? Because that would be using force - tsk tsk. But they are kind of lending us back our OWN stolen money at this point! No clear point from which to start, no tabula rasa world. And the heist that started in 2008 was a game switcher, things weren't clean before but just huge IMO ..... (if noone believes in capitalism, freedom and democracy anymore its' because the last 10 years have proved the whole thing a lie ON EVERY LEVEL - not as theory, might be a nice theories - but in terms of those ideals having much to do with our reality).
Impressive. A simple question, and the responses are mostly personal attacks, straw men, and sophistry.
Very telling.
It would be nice if you would grace us with answer. I'd really like to know.
It would be nice if you would grace us with answer. I'd really like to know.
I have stated my answer to that question many a time on this forum, and its predecessor.
I am pacific. I do not in general believe it is moral to initiate the use of force against another except in self-defense, or defense of others, and a few other edge conditions. I think the use of force even rises to the level of an affirmative duty in some cases.
I'm very supportive of voluntary associations and actions for mutual benefit engaged in by freely consenting parties in good faith. I'm not supportive of imposing my will upon others against their will. Or of banding together with a majority to impose our will on a minority.
My conclusions are drawn from simple game theory. See Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" and Triver's "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" for some treatments of the ideas. Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" is also helpful.
I have stated my answer to that question many a time on this forum, and its predecessor.
I am pacific. I do not in general believe it is moral to initiate the use of force against another except in self-defense, or defense of others, and a few other edge conditions. I think the use of force even rises to the level of an affirmative duty in some cases.
I'm very supportive of voluntary associations and actions for mutual benefit engaged in by freely consenting parties in good faith. I'm not supportive of imposing my will upon others against their will. Or of banding together with a majority to impose our will on a minority.
My conclusions are drawn from simple game theory. See Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" and Triver's "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" for some treatments of the ideas. Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" is also helpful.
Thanks - that definitely would not fit in a simple question, and I was just looking at references :-)
As far as a simple answer to an simple question:
When is it morally acceptable to use force against another person?
When one decides it is.
Not that I really like the answer - it's every bit as vague as the question.
Well, for context, I grew up surrounded by Amish folks :-) Some of them don't even like to vote, they think of it as using force against another by proxy.
The problem with morality is that its individual. Sure, there are broad brush strokes almost everyone can agree on, but as definitions get more and more precise dissension becomes more and more likely. I do think most of us here would prefer to not live in a society where all behavior is dictated by the government (as we've all been guilty of thoughtcrime at one time or another). Guess we'll just have to keep wrestling with the issues and searching for the answers just like humans for all the millenia before us. I won't personally be all that worried about us unless we stop searching.
Impressive. A simple question, and the responses are mostly personal attacks, straw men, and sophistry.
Very telling.
So you are saying that you pattern your ethical foundation on the Amish?
So you are saying that you pattern your ethical foundation on the Amish?
I detailed what I base my ethics on in post #198 above. Which is quite different from the Amish.
I detailed what I base my ethics on in post #198 above. Which is quite different from the Amish.
Well, it is kind of funny to think about: Your ethics being informed by the Amish...since you're an atheist and you have a lot of money and guns. Just not what I think of when I think of the Amish. But, I respect the fact that you have spent a lot of time developing your moral code/ethical reasoning and certainly put a lot more thought into translating your ethics into policy positions than most people.
I have more of a utilitarian bent myself.
Have you read "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer?
Random thoughts:
Peter Singer is widely reviled among those who find his stand on what might be called "post-birth abortion" repugnant.
I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal or a progressive or a democratic socialist/libertarian. Not a bit. I have no use whatsoever for strict collectivism or communism, but if others want to live communally, I have no problem with it. Totalitarianism is something else altogether.
I'm generally of the "Don't tell me what to do!" persuasion, but I recognize that societies will make collective--or representative--decisions, and levy taxes, and I have no problem with that, either.
Air America was poorly managed, that's for sure. Fortunately, most of its talent is still on the air, and I listen to them regularly. Rachel Maddow is a particular favorite of mine.
I respect Michael Moore; he's one of the few filmmakers I'll pay to watch. Roger and Me was just a sad preview of events to come.
Democrats don't stand together very well. They could take lessons from Republicans in that regard.
Random thoughts:
Peter Singer is widely reviled among those who find his stand on what might be called "post-birth abortion" repugnant.
I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal or a progressive or a democratic socialist/libertarian. Not a bit. I have no use whatsoever for strict collectivism or communism, but if others want to live communally, I have no problem with it. Totalitarianism is something else altogether.
I'm generally of the "Don't tell me what to do!" persuasion, but I recognize that societies will make collective--or representative--decisions, and levy taxes, and I have no problem with that, either.
Air America was poorly managed, that's for sure. Fortunately, most of its talent is still on the air, and I listen to them regularly. Rachel Maddow is a particular favorite of mine.
I respect Michael Moore; he's one of the few filmmakers I'll pay to watch. Roger and Me was just a sad preview of events to come.
Democrats don't stand together very well. They could take lessons from Republicans in that regard.
I just think it is interesting that BAE cites Singer as one of his influences. I could swear that The Life You Can Save was squarely in favor of divesting oneself of excess cash to save other people from starvation. He's arguing that we have obligations to people across the globe from us both in terms of government aid and in terms of personal responsibility. The marginal utility of owning more than one car for example for most people does not outweigh the utility of not starving to death for other people. I'm going to get that book out of the library again. I know he specifically discusses foreign aid which of course comes from taxes...
I think Democrats are doing a better job of standing together this year Republicans. The Republican primaries have been so much fun! Rachel is my favorite MSNBC host. She does her research and treats all her guests with respect.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 2:42pm
I think Democrats are doing a better job of standing together this year Republicans.
I wish there was a challenger on the Dem side.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-12, 3:13pm
The marginal utility of owning more than one car for example for most people does not outweigh the utility of not starving to death for other people.
Actually technically neither does the marginal utility of owning ONE car, really. I could say just walk the mile to public transport, and then take the public transport which takes around an hour and 20 minutes to take me to work. Do the same thing going home. Perhaps 3-4 hours or so out of my day commuting. Am I going to? No :). But I must admit I'd rather do it than be someone who is starving to death. Better really to address root causes of starvation IMO, but oh that gets into a mess too (world politics, wars, etc.).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.