The right in this country tars Obama with the label "socialist." Their Exhibit A is the insurance reform he got passed. But it is hard for them to explain how Obama's use of the ideas of Senator Dole and Governor Romney in putting this package together is "socialist," while those two aren't. It is easy for them to make him an "other" because of his race.
I'll bite on this one, personally I like Allen West. I've heard him speak and interviewed a few times now and he is about the closest thing in Washington right now to hitting the nail on the head. I think this country would be better with a few more Allen's running around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
And, therefore, your choice would be......?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
In theory all of the partisan political blather should be confined to the political forum, but in practice it frequently boils over into other discussions, and unfortunately the mods don't make much of an effort to shut it down. This is the rare time when posters who are almost never seen participating in any discussion outside of the political forum turn up to pollute other threads.
It's a story about Steve Jobs visiting President Obama. Did you expect a discussion of 10.7?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.
That's a pretty far conclusion, and I wouldn't necessarily classify it as logical. There are many opportunities for the government to take a step back and rethink its strategies. I don't believe it's the libertarians looking for anarchy. I think the government over the years has done some good things, however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
... I think the government over the years has done some good things, however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
You mean like gutting regulation of financial institutions? That's certainly destroyed entire communities, and more.
Or did you mean something like repeal of those pesky civil rights laws that have so increased the white man's burden?
Ron Paul recently said that people should be able to opt to pay 10% of their income and the government stay out of their lives. What exactly does that 10% do for you? How exactly does the government stay out of your life?
Does that mean you are no longer provided with police and fire services?
Do you get to continue to use the state funded highway system?
Does the government stop regulating the safety of your food and water?
His statements are so broad as to be meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
I believe the saying is: Teach a man to fish and you're out 2 bucks and fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you can sell him a rod and reel, a fishing vest, waders, a funny hat, a boat, and get him to finance it all and ream him on the interest.
Reagan gutted federal social services programs just as AIDS and crack cocaine became rampant. He wanted government to get out of the way and let people take care of themselves. Crime rates soared and AIDS was free to spread without a coordinated effort to battle it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorpit
however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth. The difference is in which direction it ought to be redistributed. Republican economic policies favor redistribution from middle class and poor to the rich, and these policies have become much more actively aggressive over the past 30 years. Democratic policies tend to favor redistribution in the opposite direction.
As far as either approach supports the goal of a free, open and democratic society, it seems to me that one that tends to hinder the development of a moneyed aristocracy is the correct approach. So, while it's easy to complain about, "taking money away from those who have worked hard to make it," -- as though the poor and middle class are entirely a bunch of idlers who never put in a hard days work in their lives -- and to pretend that wealth isn't very much due to the accidents of circumstances (for every rich person who became rich because they had a "good idea" (defined in retrospect based on their success) and profited from it, there are at least a thousand people who had equally good ideas, worked hard and didn't succeed) the reality is that unless a society has a mechanism (or mechanisms) in place to hinder the development of hereditary wealth, the power that that wealth gives its possessors will ultimately undermine any democracy.
The question therefore, is not whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong -- it will happen in one direction or the other in any case -- but which direction and degree of redistribution is best for maintaining a healthy democracy.
(And, as far as tax policy goes, a flat tax is utterly regressive and favors a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's hard to imagine a less "fair" tax system, nor one which threatens the foundations of a democracy more, in and of itself. That doesn't mean our current tax system is the best of all possible systems, it just means that while emotionally appealing to some, a flat tax would be ultimately destructive of our society.)
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
What is the great Steve Jobs doing meeting with that loser for? Apple is a very successful company, one of the biggest, and Obama is anti-business. If I were Steve, I'd rather spend a few hours visiting a horrible Microsoft Store instead of meeting with Obama.
I think Steve is a Democrat, which I still find very odd. Regardless, I buy Apple products for what they do for me, not what I do for them.
He's right that every system redistributes wealth. The difference is in how this is accomplished.
I wouldn't count a successful society based on the number of wealthy people it has.I would count a successful society based on the health, happiness, and productivity of its people.
In some ways the US is great at this, in other ways we are falling behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surferfromuk
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know.... Some of them even have perfectly happy people living there....
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.
Libertarianism is Libertarianism, anarchy is anarchy. They are different things, even though there are people who lean more anarchist than others. The point is, personal responsibility and self-governance are essential to full human potential... or no potential whatsoever, for that matter. Force is not necessary to shape human action. Human action simply IS.
Having said that, why has this thread devolved into an Obama bash? I've been scolded for derailing threads with lesser political commentary.
He's right that every system redistributes wealth. The difference is in how this is accomplished.
I wouldn't count a successful society based on the number of wealthy people it has.I would count a successful society based on the health, happiness, and productivity of its people.
In some ways the US is great at this, in other ways we are falling behind.
Every system does not redistribute wealth... just the one we're used to which takes by force.
You mean like gutting regulation of financial institutions? That's certainly destroyed entire communities, and more.
Or did you mean something like repeal of those pesky civil rights laws that have so increased the white man's burden?
Race card? Really? After I specifically mentioned I like Allen West? No response needed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Reagan gutted federal social services programs just as AIDS and crack cocaine became rampant. He wanted government to get out of the way and let people take care of themselves. Crime rates soared and AIDS was free to spread without a coordinated effort to battle it.
Anything other problems from poor personal decisions you want to blame on Reagan? I'm sure we can figure out a way to blame him for poverty because of gambling addiction, or deaths from drunk driving...
Libertarianism is Libertarianism, anarchy is anarchy. They are different things, even though there are people who lean more anarchist than others. The point is, personal responsibility and self-governance are essential to full human potential... or no potential whatsoever, for that matter. Force is not necessary to shape human action. Human action simply IS. ...
I'm not sure that the above actually means anything when parsed for semantics, but, unfortunately, force is necessary to shape human action, if we wish to escape anarchy. You know, that whole, "Life without social contract is solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short," thing.
At least the anarchist libertarians are on philosophically consistent, if undesirable, ground. The rest of you need to explain why it's sound libertarian reasoning that we should be protected from foreign invaders and criminals in the streets, but not from companies who wish to harm us with unsafe products, poison our drinking water and food supplies, or maim and kill people by creating hazardous work conditions. After all, each of these things threatens my life and liberty as much as the others. And that's only the tip of the libertarian iceberg.
Race card? Really? After I specifically mentioned I like Allen West? No response needed...
Oh, I see, you played the race innoculation card, so we can't go there. Whether it's true for you or not, whether people want to admit it or not, a large measure of the anti-government, anti-Obama feeling in this country has its basis in race issues.
But, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly which are these harmful laws and policies enacted since LBJ that need to be repealed or rescinded.
Oh, I see, you played the race innoculation card, so we can't go there. Whether it's true for you or not, whether people want to admit it or not, a large measure of the anti-government, anti-Obama feeling in this country has its basis in race issues.
But, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly which are these harmful laws and policies enacted since LBJ that need to be repealed or rescinded.
After the last two years if that is what you believe I can't change your mind...
Given that I'll still toss a few softballs to you. How about the focus on how much water goes through my toilet whenever I flush it. How about the law which will soon dictate the type of lightbulbs I have in my house. How about other EPA regulations and endangered species acts which shut down an entire farming community because of a smelt.
I picked LBJ because that's about the time "the kid's" started taking over. Since you're pushing the race issue, it's also about the time that many once proud black communities self destructed with help from the federal government.
White and black people are both to blame for the problems then and now, democrats and republicans. Did your head just explode because I didn't go where you thought I was going with this?
We now have a president meeting with successful business people, for what? Photo opp, nothing more, nothing less. His stance on taxes and handouts isn't going to suddenly change. Nothing was gained from the last meeting with Steve and nothing will be gained from this meeting either.
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Quite a bit of government money went into making Silicon Valley what it is, the culture out of which the personal computer and the internet grew.
Comments
The right in this country tars Obama with the label "socialist." Their Exhibit A is the insurance reform he got passed. But it is hard for them to explain how Obama's use of the ideas of Senator Dole and Governor Romney in putting this package together is "socialist," while those two aren't. It is easy for them to make him an "other" because of his race.
I'll bite on this one, personally I like Allen West. I've heard him speak and interviewed a few times now and he is about the closest thing in Washington right now to hitting the nail on the head. I think this country would be better with a few more Allen's running around.
And, therefore, your choice would be......?
In theory all of the partisan political blather should be confined to the political forum, but in practice it frequently boils over into other discussions, and unfortunately the mods don't make much of an effort to shut it down. This is the rare time when posters who are almost never seen participating in any discussion outside of the political forum turn up to pollute other threads.
It's a story about Steve Jobs visiting President Obama. Did you expect a discussion of 10.7?
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.
That's a pretty far conclusion, and I wouldn't necessarily classify it as logical. There are many opportunities for the government to take a step back and rethink its strategies. I don't believe it's the libertarians looking for anarchy. I think the government over the years has done some good things, however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
It's a story about Steve Jobs visiting President Obama. Did you expect a discussion of 10.7?
I expected exactly what we got -- an unmoderated, bare-knuckles ideological brawl about everything in general and nothing in particular.
... I think the government over the years has done some good things, however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
You mean like gutting regulation of financial institutions? That's certainly destroyed entire communities, and more.
Or did you mean something like repeal of those pesky civil rights laws that have so increased the white man's burden?
Does that mean you are no longer provided with police and fire services?
Do you get to continue to use the state funded highway system?
Does the government stop regulating the safety of your food and water?
His statements are so broad as to be meaningless.
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
however since about the days of LBJ there have been some disastrous government programs introduced which have destroyed entire communities. I don't think there is anything wrong with people who want to go back and remove some of the stuff that's bad.
Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth. The difference is in which direction it ought to be redistributed. Republican economic policies favor redistribution from middle class and poor to the rich, and these policies have become much more actively aggressive over the past 30 years. Democratic policies tend to favor redistribution in the opposite direction.
As far as either approach supports the goal of a free, open and democratic society, it seems to me that one that tends to hinder the development of a moneyed aristocracy is the correct approach. So, while it's easy to complain about, "taking money away from those who have worked hard to make it," -- as though the poor and middle class are entirely a bunch of idlers who never put in a hard days work in their lives -- and to pretend that wealth isn't very much due to the accidents of circumstances (for every rich person who became rich because they had a "good idea" (defined in retrospect based on their success) and profited from it, there are at least a thousand people who had equally good ideas, worked hard and didn't succeed) the reality is that unless a society has a mechanism (or mechanisms) in place to hinder the development of hereditary wealth, the power that that wealth gives its possessors will ultimately undermine any democracy.
The question therefore, is not whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong -- it will happen in one direction or the other in any case -- but which direction and degree of redistribution is best for maintaining a healthy democracy.
(And, as far as tax policy goes, a flat tax is utterly regressive and favors a redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. It's hard to imagine a less "fair" tax system, nor one which threatens the foundations of a democracy more, in and of itself. That doesn't mean our current tax system is the best of all possible systems, it just means that while emotionally appealing to some, a flat tax would be ultimately destructive of our society.)
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
"Apple's Steve Jobs"... like there is more than one prominent Steve Jobs that would be mentioned in an article from AppleInsider?
What is the great Steve Jobs doing meeting with that loser for? Apple is a very successful company, one of the biggest, and Obama is anti-business. If I were Steve, I'd rather spend a few hours visiting a horrible Microsoft Store instead of meeting with Obama.
I think Steve is a Democrat, which I still find very odd. Regardless, I buy Apple products for what they do for me, not what I do for them.
I wouldn't count a successful society based on the number of wealthy people it has.I would count a successful society based on the health, happiness, and productivity of its people.
In some ways the US is great at this, in other ways we are falling behind.
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know....
Libertarianism is the most entirely self-contradictory and absurd political philosophy that has ever been developed. Taken to its logical conclusions, it bears no difference from anarchy. Yet, it never follows its premises anywhere, but simply creates arbitrary categories of instances where the government ought to act, while, just as arbitrarily excluding others.
Essentially it's nothing more than cheap window dressing on a belief that the rich ought to be able to do as they damn well please and that the resources of society ought to be directed solely at preserving their wealth. Perversely, the selfish, childish and uncritical impulses of the not rich often drive them to adopt it, in name at least, as some sort of utopian ideal where life will be wonderful because they can live without any societal responsibilities.
Libertarianism is Libertarianism, anarchy is anarchy. They are different things, even though there are people who lean more anarchist than others. The point is, personal responsibility and self-governance are essential to full human potential... or no potential whatsoever, for that matter. Force is not necessary to shape human action. Human action simply IS.
Having said that, why has this thread devolved into an Obama bash? I've been scolded for derailing threads with lesser political commentary.
Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know....
It's people like you what cause unrest.
He's right that every system redistributes wealth. The difference is in how this is accomplished.
I wouldn't count a successful society based on the number of wealthy people it has.I would count a successful society based on the health, happiness, and productivity of its people.
In some ways the US is great at this, in other ways we are falling behind.
Every system does not redistribute wealth... just the one we're used to which takes by force.
Umm... there are a lot of countries and political systems in-between, you know....
Absolutely there are, but I wanted to make myself very clear.
You mean like gutting regulation of financial institutions? That's certainly destroyed entire communities, and more.
Or did you mean something like repeal of those pesky civil rights laws that have so increased the white man's burden?
Race card? Really? After I specifically mentioned I like Allen West? No response needed...
Reagan gutted federal social services programs just as AIDS and crack cocaine became rampant. He wanted government to get out of the way and let people take care of themselves. Crime rates soared and AIDS was free to spread without a coordinated effort to battle it.
Anything other problems from poor personal decisions you want to blame on Reagan? I'm sure we can figure out a way to blame him for poverty because of gambling addiction, or deaths from drunk driving...
Libertarianism is Libertarianism, anarchy is anarchy. They are different things, even though there are people who lean more anarchist than others. The point is, personal responsibility and self-governance are essential to full human potential... or no potential whatsoever, for that matter. Force is not necessary to shape human action. Human action simply IS. ...
I'm not sure that the above actually means anything when parsed for semantics, but, unfortunately, force is necessary to shape human action, if we wish to escape anarchy. You know, that whole, "Life without social contract is solitary, poor, nasty brutish and short," thing.
At least the anarchist libertarians are on philosophically consistent, if undesirable, ground. The rest of you need to explain why it's sound libertarian reasoning that we should be protected from foreign invaders and criminals in the streets, but not from companies who wish to harm us with unsafe products, poison our drinking water and food supplies, or maim and kill people by creating hazardous work conditions. After all, each of these things threatens my life and liberty as much as the others. And that's only the tip of the libertarian iceberg.
Race card? Really? After I specifically mentioned I like Allen West? No response needed...
Oh, I see, you played the race innoculation card, so we can't go there. Whether it's true for you or not, whether people want to admit it or not, a large measure of the anti-government, anti-Obama feeling in this country has its basis in race issues.
But, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly which are these harmful laws and policies enacted since LBJ that need to be repealed or rescinded.
Oh, I see, you played the race innoculation card, so we can't go there. Whether it's true for you or not, whether people want to admit it or not, a large measure of the anti-government, anti-Obama feeling in this country has its basis in race issues.
But, perhaps you'd like to tell us exactly which are these harmful laws and policies enacted since LBJ that need to be repealed or rescinded.
After the last two years if that is what you believe I can't change your mind...
Given that I'll still toss a few softballs to you. How about the focus on how much water goes through my toilet whenever I flush it. How about the law which will soon dictate the type of lightbulbs I have in my house. How about other EPA regulations and endangered species acts which shut down an entire farming community because of a smelt.
I picked LBJ because that's about the time "the kid's" started taking over. Since you're pushing the race issue, it's also about the time that many once proud black communities self destructed with help from the federal government.
White and black people are both to blame for the problems then and now, democrats and republicans. Did your head just explode because I didn't go where you thought I was going with this?
We now have a president meeting with successful business people, for what? Photo opp, nothing more, nothing less. His stance on taxes and handouts isn't going to suddenly change. Nothing was gained from the last meeting with Steve and nothing will be gained from this meeting either.
My life is substantially better because of the free industry of Steve Jobs in the free country known as America. That is why I don't believe in the state mandated re-distribution of wealth that led to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
Quite a bit of government money went into making Silicon Valley what it is, the culture out of which the personal computer and the internet grew.