World Politics

[rhubroma]

I think you put it better than I could Rhubroma. It would seem to me the system certainly makes it much easier for some to pursue liberty than others from the day they are born.

And that's the key issue here! As you and I well know. Cheers.

 

[rhubroma]

This often-quoted line may hold the answer:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We conservatives believe in the right to life, and the right to only PURSUE happiness. Progressives seem to believe the opposite - a right to a HAPPY life or NONE at all. I find that truly astounding in the light that over 200 years ago this was considered to be self-evident as in needing no explanation. Progress? Hardly.

How about in a modern democracy there being an expectation to live a dignified life over a miserable one? What else was the cause of revolutionary democracy supposed to provide the masses if not this? If that gets translated into having the right to a good public education, socialized medical care and pensions and a job that offers workers a salary that at least meets the minimum requirements for living such an existence (as opposed to vapid exploitation just to satisfy the logic and needs of the market), then I'm all for it. No system, of course, has guaranteed all of these things, however, they seem to me to be those which have been democracy's historic calling and upon which it will ultimately be judged (not simply to make the market grow). Whereas a system that flatly promotes avidity, hedonism and vainglory over any form of social consciousness and, therefore, at the expense of encouraging some damn humanity among its citizenry is a decidedly regressive, not progressive, one in my book. What type of a democracy is that?

Let's be honest now, shall we, you conservatives believe that the right to PURSUE "happiness" is uniquely connected to one's economic standard and thus fiscally quantifiable in the profit sense. To me this seems to truly be the maximum liberty among conservatives. Hence individual liberty means that the state and society should place no restrictions or limits upon my pursuit of this aim, otherwise socialist repression, no matter what dreadful consequences this may have (and has resulted of late at Wall Street and the market) when the individual's right to accumulate wealth takes precedent over every form of collective wellbeing: which basically has created a constant struggle between accumulating "happiness" over accumulating misery. The interests and rights of the collective as a whole have no place among the conservative ethos it would seem. Or if they do, they are invisible to me.

This is why I find such an ethos essentially lacking in the type of humanity, which had previously been represented by the repression and tyranny of monarchs, princes and the aristocracy in general, before we embarked upon this apparently fragile experiment in the modern democratic state. In other words, the same prepotency, exploitation and arrogance that were the very targets of revolutionary democracy, have, in our current system, merely been disguised by being given a veil and consequently legitimized by this conservative “right to PURSUE happiness”. The insidiousness of our system, and our democracy, is to be found exactly here.

 

[Anonymous]

How about in a modern democracy there being an expectation to live a dignified life over a miserable one.

And there it is.

Any individual wishing (or in your case, expecting) to live a dignified life (however you define it) can have a reasonable opportunity to do so in a system that guarantees our unalienable rights

"I expect".... No wonder you are in such a bad mood most of the time.

 

[blutto]

It's not "for free", any more than health care in Canada or Europe is "free".

...absolutely correct....but they are vastly more cost effective systems than the one presently being sold in the USA....

...though personally I like the USA system a whole lot...as much as anything it stand as the perfect example of how not to run a health care...the unmigitigated disater that it is scares even die-hard Canadian consevatives from not straying too far from our present system...and as a extra added bonus it also stands as a wonderful example that the blind faith some folks have in market forces is just a bunch of hooey...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

...absolutely correct....but they are vastly more cost effective systems than the one presently being sold in the USA....

...though personally I like the USA system a whole lot...as much as anything it stand as the perfect example of how not to run a health care...the unmigitigated disater that it is scares even die-hard Canadian consevatives from not straying too far from our present system...and as a extra added bonus it also stands as a wonderful example that the blind faith some folks have in market forces is just a bunch of hooey...

Cheers

blutto

You do realize healtcare is about as far from a free market as it gets, right?

Nevermind.

 

[Amsterhammer]

You do realize healtcare is about as far from a free market as it gets, right?

Nevermind.

Oh, so the free market has nothing to do with the fact that you can't watch tv for 10 minutes without having to endure several drug commercials ("ask your doctor")?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that "asking your doctor" costs money?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that drug companies are allowed, and even encouraged, to make obscene profits?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that US doctors have been socialized into believing that the practice of medicine affords them a God-given right to become millionaires?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that many (or even most) ordinary working people cannot afford health insurance because premiums are so obscenely high?

Yeah, never mind, because you're alright, aren't you? Giving a **** about those less fortunate is un-American, huh Scott?

I wonder if we could get your input censored if I complain that your distortion of reality is offensive to me?












(only kidding with that last line)

 

[rhubroma]

And there it is.

Any individual wishing (or in your case, expecting) to live a dignified life (however you define it) can have a reasonable opportunity to do so in a system that guarantees our unalienable rights

"I expect".... No wonder you are in such a bad mood most of the time.

No, once again, you fail to see clearly, or rather choose not to see what's so apparent to most everyone else. Which is why you are so oblivious to your surroundings.

And I think after 250 years or so of democracy, what I proposed above as every citizen's right and reasonable expectation is well within a notion of decency. You seem to mistake this for everyone having the "right" to expect to become the next Howard Hughes or something. From the most common perception that's called dream and has nothing to do with reasonable expectation in the sense of society's democratic and historical conquest over the forces of repression.

In any case, if you believe there is reasonable opportunity, even against that which existed 30-40 years ago, you clearly are in need of a reality check. And here the very market which you so fanatically revere is very much culpable.

Though I think yours is mainly a derisive and distraction technique, to not address the real issues, that's privy of any form of logic or reason.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Very funny, and so full of truth!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/scorn-in-the-u-s-a-?xrs=synd_facebook

 

[Anonymous]

No, once again, you fail to see clearly, or rather choose not to see what's so apparent to most everyone else. Which is why you are so oblivious to your surroundings.

And I think after 250 years or so of democracy, what I proposed above as every citizen's right and reasonable expectation is well within a notion of decency. You seem to mistake this for everyone having the "right" to expect to become the next Howard Hughes or something. From the most comon perception that's called dream and has nothing to do with reasonable expectation.

In any case, if you believe there is reasonable opportunity, even against that which existed 30-40 years ago, you clearly are in need of a reality check. And here the very market which you so fanatically revere is very much culpable.

Though I think yours is mainly a derisive and distraction technique, to not address the real issues, that's privy of any form of logic or reason.

Really?? You mean the technique or quoting your own words?

On second thought, that is distracting. Sorry. Won't happen again.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, so the free market has nothing to do with the fact that you can't watch tv for 10 minutes without having to endure several drug commercials ("ask your doctor")?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that "asking your doctor" costs money?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that drug companies are allowed, and even encouraged, to make obscene profits?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that US doctors have been socialized into believing that the practice of medicine affords them a God-given right to become millionaires?

The free market has nothing to do with the fact that many (or even most) ordinary working people cannot afford health insurance because premiums are so obscenely high?

Yeah, never mind, because you're alright, aren't you? Giving a **** about those less fortunate is un-American, huh Scott?

I wonder if we could get your input censored if I complain that your distortion of reality is offensive to me?












(only kidding with that last line)

Ok, well either you are not aware of how healthcare in the USA works or you don't know what a free market is.

BTW, describe an "obscene" profit for me.

Yeah, never mind, because you're alright, aren't you? Giving a **** about those less fortunate is un-American, huh Scott?

Look, I realize this is the de facto fall back position but... you don't know me, you don't know what I do for a living, you don't know how I fit in my community, you don't know how much of my time and resources I give back... you only assume all of this.

Feel free to criticize all you like, but I actually find this offensive (not kidding) and it really does not further any aspect of the conversation except possibly to make you feel better by denigrating me. Now, I realize this is how you think of those who you disagree with politically, but just because you think it does not make it so.

 

[rhubroma]

Really?? You mean the technique or quoting your own words?

On second thought, that is distracting. Sorry. Won't happen again.

It's all just Greek to me.

 

[rhubroma]

I must admit that I'm also curious about the the psychological aspects of Scott's thinking.

For example when he asks: "describe an "obscene" profit for me." (My God!)

The question is: does he really believe what he says or asks, or would it simply be a clumsy defense given that deep down he's actually aware of reality?

I tend to think the former hypothesis is true.

Oppressed as he is by personal worries and those for his business, the man is quasi obliged to construct an alternative Truth and to believe it. This of course makes his positions only somewhat less offensive in the face of the hardship.

The flip side of his trying personal conviction, however, are the opinions of those who needed this social drama to become aware of the actual public dimensions of the economic crisis and its causes.

 

[blutto]

Ok, well either you are not aware of how healthcare in the USA works or you don't know what a free market is.

BTW, describe an "obscene" profit for me.



Look, I realize this is the de facto fall back position but... you don't know me, you don't know what I do for a living, you don't know how I fit in my community, you don't know how much of my time and resources I give back... you only assume all of this.

Feel free to criticize all you like, but I actually find this offensive (not kidding) and it really does not further any aspect of the conversation except possibly to make you feel better by denigrating me. Now, I realize this is how you think of those who you disagree with politically, but just because you think it does not make it so.

...you know, I can feel your pain...I mean, here you are fighting the good fight, ( and given the circumstances you are on first blush not doing a bad job at the debating end of things...though in the more important discussion part of things not so much...but then hubris will do that... ) but the system you are so valiantly trying to protect is falling down around your ears and no amount of argument will save it....

...but truth be known my evil twin doesn't feel your pain( and he is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist/socialist ar$ehole with a wicked nasty streak ) and is in fact off in the corner drinking Screech and laughing his a$$ off and singing The Internationale and waiting for the revolution...what can I say its a funny household...

...speaking of...where are those meds...gotta run...keep up the good fight ( its quite inspiring...albeit, at a safe distance)

Cheers

blutto

 

[Anonymous]

I must admit that I'm also curious about the the psychological aspects of Scott's thinking.

For example when he asks: "describe an "obscene" profit for me." (My God!)

The question is: does he really believe what he says or asks, or would it simply be a clumsy defense given that deep down he's actually aware of reality?

I tend to think the former hypothesis is true.

Oppressed as he is by personal worries and those for his business, the man is quasi obliged to construct an alternative Truth and to believe it. This of course makes his positions only somewhat less offensive in the face of the hardship.

The flip side of his trying personal conviction, however, are the opinions of those who needed this social drama to become aware of the actual public dimensions of the economic crisis and its causes.

That's great. Thanks for the psychobabble. I have emailed your post to my shrink. I'll let you know what she thinks.

When you have a minute go ahead and define an obscene profit for me.

I realize the terms are redundant in your world and this poses quite a challenge for you... an almost impossibility actually.

 

[blutto]

I must admit that I'm also curious about the the psychological aspects of Scott's thinking.

For example when he asks: "describe an "obscene" profit for me." (My God!)

The question is: does he really believe what he says or asks, or would it simply be a clumsy defense given that deep down he's actually aware of reality?

I tend to think the former hypothesis is true.

Oppressed as he is by personal worries and those for his business, the man is quasi obliged to construct an alternative Truth and to believe it. This of course makes his positions only somewhat less offensive in the face of the hardship.

The flip side of his trying personal conviction, however, are the opinions of those who needed this social drama to become aware of the actual public dimensions of the economic crisis and its causes.

...gotta say that is a pretty nice guess as to the motivations of our resident defender of all things right...though I will have to admit that I'm not a psychologist, I only play one on the internets...or is that a psychiatrist?...or is that a psychotic?...

...bottom line...you are bang on...and I'm hopelessly confused..as per usual...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

How about in a modern democracy there being an expectation to live a dignified life over a miserable one? What else was the cause of revolutionary democracy supposed to provide the masses if not this?

Uh, I don't think that was the cause of the revolution in this country. A hopeful effect, yes, but cause, no.

Having said that, I find the Christian conservative concept of zero public support, zero government support, to be surprisingly Darwinist. In effect creating a society firmly rooted in survival of the fittest (or most ruthless, or connected). Actually, that sounds like much of the US today. Where if you're connected through money to the politicians you're in much better shape than the rest of us. Interesting that these same people on the so-called right supported the push for Citizens United, and turn a blind eye to campaign finance issues under this same guise.

 

[redtreviso]

Isn't it funny how conservatives claim to be all about "family values" and "personal responsibility"? Values and Responsibility are just other words for RULES.. Values could mean anything to anyone, but there is some vague randomly adjustable meaning for conservatives to cling to when it is convenient.
And then there is responsibility,, also adjustable by convenience..Rules are a thou shall not.

BUT

Then there is business..Conservatives are pro-business they say..What they really mean is "ANYTHING GOES" no rules. no values, no responsibility...Not even hinted ones.. They are what they describe as Liberal..They are worse than the worst description of LIBERAL...Whatever floats your boat where business is concerned. Want to have a business making explosives in your suburban garage?.. GO FOR IT..but that bad old government will stop you with a RULE(OF NOT) oh no.....Pro Business conservatism is all about enabling criminal behavior in business. Here's all the things you CAN DO and not be responsible or held in legal jeopardy. See it is right there in Gramm Leach Bliley or the Commodities Modernization Act etc..

 

[VeloCity]

Didn't pick up on this at the time, but Romney from the debate last night:

“Americans are hurting across this country, and the president’s out there campaigning. Why isn’t he governing? He doesn’t — he doesn’t have a jobs plan even now.”

http://politicalcorrection.org/video/201110180021

Say what? Obama doesn't have a jobs plan? His "campaigning" is all about...pushing the jobs plan he introduced 7 weeks ago. You can argue whether or not it's a good plan, but to say that he doesn't have one? I don't think Romney's that misinformed, so I gather it was just a flat-out lie.

 

[usedtobefast]

Didn't pick up on this at the time, but Romney from the debate last night:

“Americans are hurting across this country, and the president’s out there campaigning. Why isn’t he governing? He doesn’t — he doesn’t have a jobs plan even now.”

http://politicalcorrection.org/video/201110180021

Say what? Obama doesn't have a jobs plan? His "campaigning" is all about...pushing the jobs plan he introduced 7 weeks ago. You can argue whether or not it's a good plan, but to say that he doesn't have one? I don't think Romney's that misinformed, so I gather it was just a flat-out lie.

very little truth seems to come from the Republican party with regards to economics. flat out lies and misinformation are the M.O.

 

[Anonymous]

Here is the principle difference between someone like me and someone like Harry Reid;

Reid signals government jobs must take priority over private-sector jobs

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about," Reid said on the Senate floor.

Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to "put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that's our priority."

Maybe he does not understand that wealth created and taxed in the private sector is what funds the public sector (except now, I guess as we are just floating bonds to pay for all of this crap). But ultimately, it's private taxation that will pay for all of this, right?

But, to be fair;

Despite these comments, a spokesman for Reid pointed out that Senate Democrats have tried to pass several bills aimed at spurring private sector job growth, but have been blocked by Republicans. Among other things, Democrats have proposed tax cuts to help companies hire workers and write off expenses, as well as infrastructure jobs that would add to private construction payrolls.

"Senator Reid believes that Congress must work to spur job-creation in the private sector, which is why he's working to pass tax cuts for small businesses to hire new workers, tax cuts for small businesses to write off business expenses, and investments to create private-sector construction jobs," Spokesman Adam Jentleson said. "Republicans are blocking all of these proposals to create jobs in the private sector because they care more about defeating President Obama than putting Americans back to work."

You just gotta love this. Tax cuts for business to write off business expenses... aren't those called loop-holes?

I am now confused If I use a tax loop-hole to reduce my business taxes then will I not be demonized by the same group blowing smoke up my ass saying they are working to increase tax cuts for write offs?

Can somebody who excels in double-speak explain this to me?

And besides, I thought tax cuts didn't create jobs...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/188443-reid-says-public-sector-jobs-must-take-priority-over-private-sector-jobs

 

[Amsterhammer]

Ok, well either you are not aware of how healthcare in the USA works or you don't know what a free market is.

BTW, describe an "obscene" profit for me.

Seriously, please enlighten me in my ignorance. Explain to me how the inequities of the US 'health system' (and the current state of society in general) have nothing to do with the largely unregulated working of free market forces (as per the widely accepted definition of what 'free market' means).

I'm sure that even you can imagine the distinction that any reasonable man would make between 'acceptable' and 'obscene' profit.

Look, I realize this is the de facto fall back position but... you don't know me, you don't know what I do for a living, you don't know how I fit in my community, you don't know how much of my time and resources I give back... you only assume all of this.

Feel free to criticize all you like, but I actually find this offensive (not kidding) and it really does not further any aspect of the conversation except possibly to make you feel better by denigrating me. Now, I realize this is how you think of those who you disagree with politically, but just because you think it does not make it so.

Of course, I don't know any details of your daily life, and I don't much care to. I deduce what kind of political animal you are from the way you profile yourself in your own words. Everything I have seen from you leads me to believe that despite clearly being a whole lot smarter than the average Fox News watching conservative, you are nevertheless unable to concede facts even when repeatedly hit over the head with them, and continue to argue that the world is flat, that black is white, and that right wingers like yourself are just misunderstood good guys.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I believe the general conservative thought regarding health care (extrapolated to anything social related) is three-fold.

• First, what's yours is yours, and you shouldn't have to share one sliver of it if you don't want to.

• Second, it's reportedly about "accountability". That is, if you can't afford health care, for whatever the reason, it's your own fault. You should have studied more, worked harder, saved more.

• Finally, by cutting people off from health care who aren't working, it will somehow motivate them to work harder, be more intelligent, competitive, etc. in order to get health care.

Coupled together, this will make the world a better place, and worked fine for many years in this country until the social programs in place changed things, and gave people a reason to be lazy, stupid. The bribery and collusion taking place, and warping of the laws and tax code preventing you from achieving any of this is a very minor point compared to what you could do on your own if you just put more effort into it.

Not that I agree with this, but it's the general conservative thinking across the board as I see it.

 

[Anonymous]

Seriously, please enlighten me in my ignorance. Explain to me how the inequities of the US 'health system' (and the current state of society in general) have nothing to do with the largely unregulated working of free market forces (as per the widely accepted definition of what 'free market' means).

I'm sure that even you can imagine the distiction that any reasonable man would make between 'acceptable' and 'obscene' profit.



Of course, I don't know any details of your daily life, and I don't much care to. I deduce what kind of political animal you are from the way you profile yourself in your own words. Everything I have seen from you leads me to believe that despite clearly being a whole lot smarter than the average Fox News watching conservative, you are nevertheless unable to concede facts even when repeatedly hit over the head with them, and continue to argue that the world is flat, that black is white, and that right wingers like yourself are just misunderstood good guys.

Seriously, please enlighten me in my ignorance. Explain to me how the inequities of the US 'health system' (and the current state of society in general) have nothing to do with the largely unregulated working of free market forces (as per the widely accepted definition of what 'free market' means).

Okay. A Free Market defined (wiki is as good as any I suppose);

A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand. However, the term is also commonly used for markets in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts. Free markets differs from situations encountered in controlled markets or a monopoly, which can introduce price deviations without any changes to supply and demand. Advocates of a free market traditionally consider the term to imply that the means of production is under private, and not state control or co-operative ownership. This is the contemporary use of the term "free market" by economists and in popular culture; the term has had other uses historically.

A free-market economy is one within which all markets are unregulated by any parties other than market participants. In its purest form, the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).

and

Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments more actively regulate prices and/or supplies, directly or indirectly, which according to free-market theory causes markets to be less efficient.[2] Where substantial state intervention exists, the market is a mixed economy. Where the state or co-operative association of producers directly manages the economy to achieve stated goals, economic planning is said to be in effect; when economic planning entirely substitutes market activity, the economy is a Command economy.

Here is a Forbes article that is a pretty good place to start;

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/28/health-care-reform-obama-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

Remember, the comment was the US heathcare system was far from a free market.

I'm sure that even you can imagine the distiction that any reasonable man would make between 'acceptable' and 'obscene' profit.

I'm not going to beat you over the head with this. If you don't want to define what constitutes an obscene profit then that's ok by me. I see the term used by the left frequently and have never seen a definition... so I tend to think it's just rhetoric more than anything else.

I deduce what kind of political animal you are from the way you profile yourself in your own words.

And that's fair.

I'm conservative to very conservative on fiscal issues and much more moderate on a host of social issues.

you are nevertheless unable to concede facts even when repeatedly hit over the head with them, and continue to argue that the world is flat, that black is white, and that right wingers like yourself are just misunderstood good guys.

This may be your perception.

I started on this forum (the only one I've ever participated on) back in 2009. I joined because of what I was reading in the clinic disgusted me as I had bought the Lance Armstrong myth (this is just one example).

So I'm capable of being persuaded.

My question is, are you?

Take the issue of top marginal tax rates in the USA. Bush years compared to Clinton's. The top marginal rate during the Clinton years was higher and yeilded a lower average top marginal income and a lower percentage (in tax dollars) when compared to Bush. It is a fact and I linked and posted the IRS data to this very thread. And yet, most if not all on the left want to raise taxes on the rich to "pay for" program X,Y and Z when raising taxes will very likely lower revenue to the treasury.

And BTW, those tax receipts are public information for all to see.

So, does it still make sense to raise top marginal tax rates in the USA?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

So how far should we cut taxes for the wealthy? Down to Cain's 9%? How about 1%?

 

[redtreviso]

Take the issue of top marginal tax rates in the USA. Bush years compared to Clinton's. The top marginal rate during the Clinton years was higher and yeilded a lower average top marginal income and a lower percentage (in tax dollars) when compared to Bush. It is a fact and I linked and posted the IRS data to this very thread. And yet, most if not all on the left want to raise taxes on the rich to "pay for" program X,Y and Z when raising taxes will very likely lower revenue to the treasury.

And BTW, those tax receipts are public information for all to see.

So, does it still make sense to raise top marginal tax rates in the USA?

Thank you heritage foundation or is it the cato think tank??? It is a cherry picked "fact" not reflective of reality..
During Bush there were more people making 10 million a year who managed to say they only made 1 million a year. See if your senior fellows at the drunk tank mention that with IRS data to back it up.