Government Deregulation

[bobbyjimmy]

Most D politicians are progressive, socialist, or worse.

Stop right there. You're already throwing a bunch of different terms into the same pot. You guys get very upset when people misuse the word "conservative" in ways that you don't identify; you very staunchly distinguish yourselves from the mainstream notion of what a conservative is and talk about a truly free market, libertarianism, etc. Your definition is unique and uncommon, yet I am willing to abide by your version for the sake of clarity, not to mention, I completely understand where you're coming from. I could ignore everything you're saying and just stick to the definition of conservative that most people (and the media) go by, and leave it at that- but I don't, I'm listening to what you're saying.

Conversely, I ask you to do the same about the word "progressive". Obama is not a progressive, not by a long shot. Most D politicians are not progressive, not by a long shot. The few that are, like Dennis Kucinich, are on the fringes and are ignored by most Democrats. For you to say most Democrats are progressive, socialists, "or worse" just reveals a vast ignorance of the phrase. Do me a favor and listen to what I'm saying, just as I have done you the favor of listening to you.

They believe in big government, income redistribution, and the expansion of the welfare/entitlement state. Hence they are progressives, socialists, or worse. You might research some of the policies and comments made by the Congressional Black Caucus, many of BO's appointees (particularly the many communist czars), and Bo himself.

"Big government" is a really loose term. Generally, Democrats and Republicans both believe in mostly the same thing. Where they differ are more personal-choice things like abortion, the death penalty, etc. But as to how the country should be organized and run, the only difference is that Republicans are more trigger happy in the outright cutting of social programs, and Democrats are not as much (they prefer to leave them intact and then go about finding other sneakier ways of making their corporate buddies rich.) This minor distinction leads many progressives to side with D's as "the lesser of two evils" but it is still a far cry from socialism or the welfare state you imagine America going towards. For example, a truly progressive move would be to create a national health care system that everyone has a right to, similar to what Canada has. Regardless of your opinion on that subject, the fact remains, neither Obama nor the Democratic party tried to suggest anything like that during the big health care discussions. It wasn't even on the table. You can't tell me with a straight face that we are living in a progressive / socialist's dream when our governments choose to run social programs like businesses; the privatization of health care, prisons, even basic utilities like water and electricity is a huge trend that has spread all over the globe. This is the OPPOSITE of socialism. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention to the facts. Other than a few holdouts in South America, the world has become a huge monopoly board- exactly the "free market" dream you are pushing for, except that for most people it's more like a nightmare.

Also, to your comment, I don't know any major Democratic figures who are really trying to redistribute income. I know Obama talks a lot about "Main Street" vs "Wall Street" but his actions show, quite clearly, that redistributing money is the last thing on his mind (hence the whole article that started this post.)

You like many leftists find the media treatment of W appropriate because he was a such a complete failure. However I would argue that BO is just as much a failure and yet, the media treats him with the utmost respect and even admiration.

The media treats him the same way as they treated every president I can ever remember after Nixon- they are happy to report his B.S. as fact, and pretend to offer counterpoints that contain no critical backbone. The only exception I've seen in my lifetime are the last couple of years of Bush II 's reign, and that's only because they guy went so far off the deep end with his denial of facts that every other human knew to be true that even the dumb media had to jump ship rather than risk losing all credibility. Obama has not reached that point. Regardless of what you think of him or any other ***** that's been in the white house, only Bush II went as far as he did (since Nixon) and that's why he finally got bashed around... but it took at least 6 years of insanity for it to happen. Obama's only been there for 4. Give him more time...

You say the media is about the status quo. Yes I agree. But, we may not agree on what the status quo is. I think it is the continued growth in size and power of the central state, promotion of socialism, and class warfare....all leftist positions. The old media is a cheerleader for these positions...and this is why they love BO so much.

Right, well, I think I responded to that above. This country has not moved an inch towards anything I see as a socialized state. If class warfare ever really kicks into gear, it will happen because corporate america keeps swallowing a bigger piece of the pie... hardly a "socialist" move.

And regarding the growth of income disparity, it is becoming a major problem, but I believe this is a consequence of the expansion of government, the subversion of the rule of law, and government corrupting the free market system. The banking crisis exemplifies this perfectly. The elites on Wall Street get their buddies in DC to change the rules, government regulators look away, the big banks then rip off the American people in outrageous trillion dollar frauds, then government bails out the big banks, and amazingly NO ONE GOES TO JAIL. Leading to even greater concentration of wealth in the hands of the criminal bailed out big banks...whose CEOs go to Capital Hill and lie repeatedly to Congress and nothing happens and the media ignores the over the top corruption and illegalities.

It's amazing that you can say what you just said and somehow call it socialism. "DC changes the rules... government regulators look away..." this is not socialism- this is deregulation which is the opposite of what you guys have been claiming. You can't first accuse the government of removing all the regulations that kept Wall Street in check and then say the government is OVER-regulating things- that's a contradiction. Your last paragraph is dead on, and exactly the example that shows we are going away from a socialist state. It may not be the free market state you want either, but that doesn't automatically mean it's socialist. It's more like an oligarchy that has twisted capitalist principles ("I have the right to make as much money as I want") into a bizarre mutant that's ruining everything.

 

[cashmcall]

Socialists would rather centralize power in the government meaning, in their own Using progressivism, socialists would like you to willingly hand over your power, and forego the hard won popular sovereignty provided you by the Constitution. To do that, they point out the inherent unfairness in free-market liberty, and they stoke the fires of jealousy in the form of class and race warfare. They want you to see the world as plagued by a huge gulf between "The Haves and The Have-Nots," and to see them (your elite government masters) as the essential referees needed to "restore fairness." In contrast, the Founders saw America the way Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels described in his fine response to the president's state-of-the-Union speech: as a nation of "Haves, and Soon-to-Haves," and they saw the government as the greatest potential impediment to the natural human desire to move from "Have Not" to "Have" status by their own hard work and ingenuity.

I recently read someone describe it like this: "Socialism is not about being the best you can be... it's about being the same as the next guy." That's spot-on. IMO...

If the progressives get their way, our efforts to do our best will not only be unappreciated, they'll be opposed. The mass victim mentality that will dominate the society will replace "Be all you can be" with "Who do you think you are?"... "Work hard to get ahead" with "Why do you think you can have something I don't have?"... and "It's important to make a good impression" with "Why are you trying to make the rest of us look bad?" When "fairness" reigns, personal excellence will become a bad thing.

 

[bobbyjimmy]

I recently read someone describe it like this: "Socialism is not about being the best you can be... it's about being the same as the next guy." That's spot-on. IMO...

Well, first of all, even if what you are saying is 100% true, this country is still not headed anywhere close to your description. That's just ridiculous- take a look at our economic structure, or the opinions of the majority of Americans. The socialists you are describing are such a microscopic minority, I can't believe anyone is actually afraid they're taking this country to hell in a handbasket. The entire American philosophy goes against everything you're saying- let's look at technology, for example. The rapid evolution of the computer into the personal computer into handheld devices, cell phones, tablets. All of this innovation has been driven by competition and the free market's beloved supply and demand forces. People want it, and computer companies keep finding faster and cheaper ways to provide more in smaller packages. Or walk into a supermarket and see all the "choice" you have in the countless varieties of shit between the walls. A hundred brands of spaghetti sauce, a hundred brands of cereal... I mean, take as many surveys as you want. Very few Americans will ever willingly give up their capitalist way of life. What you're describing as socialism is basically the Cold War Russian communist state, and even the most hard-core socialist I know does not want that. So you can sleep better tonight knowing your big socialist fears are imaginary.

Second, you make a ridiculously long connection between the die-hard Marxist concept of socialism and what most progressives are asking for in this country. Saying "I want people to work together for a common good" is a far cry from "I think the government should control everything and no one should be able to take risks or innovate because that would give them an unfair advantage." You create an imaginary monster called socialism and then blast it with rhetoric for no reason, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Every town has a fire department, and I doubt you'll find anyone complaining about it. Fire departments are basically "socialist" in principle because they are tax-funded institutions with no competition- a complete insult to the free-market notion. But a long time ago, private fire departments were common (just ask Ben Franklin) and it resulted in a chaotic mess of houses being left to burn because they weren't "on the list", rival firefighting companies literally fighting each other on the street for the burning homeowner's business, and larger buildings burnt to the ground because of the limited resources of any single private company. Thankfully, people were not married to ridiculous ideologies and realized that the most logical thing was to let governments handle the job. Now, not everything should be run by the state- that's obvious. It's not a moral or ideological issue, it's a pragmatic one. Things that every human being should have a right to, like proper health care and protection of their home, should not be left in the hands of people who are motivated by profit. That's just illogical and results in cutting corners and salaries to maintain a bottom line. On the other hand, things like technology innovation should not be run by governments- that does lead to stagnation and mediocrity.

This should all be obvious to any intelligent person, but we are sadly at a point where people are so blinded by their fear of the opposition and their raging emotions that it's become a black-and-white "either/or" issue for most. There is nothing un-American or immoral about working together for the common good. That's what most progressives are asking you to do. Anything else you add to the label is your doing.

 

[Gipper]

Stop right there. You're already throwing a bunch of different terms into the same pot. You guys get very upset when people misuse the word "conservative" in ways that you don't identify; you very staunchly distinguish yourselves from the mainstream notion of what a conservative is and talk about a truly free market, libertarianism, etc. Your definition is unique and uncommon, yet I am willing to abide by your version for the sake of clarity, not to mention, I completely understand where you're coming from. I could ignore everything you're saying and just stick to the definition of conservative that most people (and the media) go by, and leave it at that- but I don't, I'm listening to what you're saying.

Conversely, I ask you to do the same about the word "progressive". Obama is not a progressive, not by a long shot. Most D politicians are not progressive, not by a long shot. The few that are, like Dennis Kucinich, are on the fringes and are ignored by most Democrats. For you to say most Democrats are progressive, socialists, "or worse" just reveals a vast ignorance of the phrase. Do me a favor and listen to what I'm saying, just as I have done you the favor of listening to you.



"Big government" is a really loose term. Generally, Democrats and Republicans both believe in mostly the same thing. Where they differ are more personal-choice things like abortion, the death penalty, etc. But as to how the country should be organized and run, the only difference is that Republicans are more trigger happy in the outright cutting of social programs, and Democrats are not as much (they prefer to leave them intact and then go about finding other sneakier ways of making their corporate buddies rich.) This minor distinction leads many progressives to side with D's as "the lesser of two evils" but it is still a far cry from socialism or the welfare state you imagine America going towards. For example, a truly progressive move would be to create a national health care system that everyone has a right to, similar to what Canada has. Regardless of your opinion on that subject, the fact remains, neither Obama nor the Democratic party tried to suggest anything like that during the big health care discussions. It wasn't even on the table. You can't tell me with a straight face that we are living in a progressive / socialist's dream when our governments choose to run social programs like businesses; the privatization of health care, prisons, even basic utilities like water and electricity is a huge trend that has spread all over the globe. This is the OPPOSITE of socialism. If you don't see that, you're not paying attention to the facts. Other than a few holdouts in South America, the world has become a huge monopoly board- exactly the "free market" dream you are pushing for, except that for most people it's more like a nightmare.

Also, to your comment, I don't know any major Democratic figures who are really trying to redistribute income. I know Obama talks a lot about "Main Street" vs "Wall Street" but his actions show, quite clearly, that redistributing money is the last thing on his mind (hence the whole article that started this post.)



The media treats him the same way as they treated every president I can ever remember after Nixon- they are happy to report his B.S. as fact, and pretend to offer counterpoints that contain no critical backbone. The only exception I've seen in my lifetime are the last couple of years of Bush II 's reign, and that's only because they guy went so far off the deep end with his denial of facts that every other human knew to be true that even the dumb media had to jump ship rather than risk losing all credibility. Obama has not reached that point. Regardless of what you think of him or any other ***** that's been in the white house, only Bush II went as far as he did (since Nixon) and that's why he finally got bashed around... but it took at least 6 years of insanity for it to happen. Obama's only been there for 4. Give him more time...



Right, well, I think I responded to that above. This country has not moved an inch towards anything I see as a socialized state. If class warfare ever really kicks into gear, it will happen because corporate america keeps swallowing a bigger piece of the pie... hardly a "socialist" move.



It's amazing that you can say what you just said and somehow call it socialism. "DC changes the rules... government regulators look away..." this is not socialism- this is deregulation which is the opposite of what you guys have been claiming. You can't first accuse the government of removing all the regulations that kept Wall Street in check and then say the government is OVER-regulating things- that's a contradiction. Your last paragraph is dead on, and exactly the example that shows we are going away from a socialist state. It may not be the free market state you want either, but that doesn't automatically mean it's socialist. It's more like an oligarchy that has twisted capitalist principles ("I have the right to make as much money as I want") into a bizarre mutant that's ruining everything.

You misunderstand. I am not throwing all Ds in the same pot. I recognize that some are commies, some are progressives, some are socialists, and some are merely opportunists. BUT NONE OF THEM ARE CONSERVATIVE.

You fall for the "mainstream notion of a conservative." Who do you think makes up that notion? It is leftists who control our media, academia, and the culture. Of course, they will misrepresent what conservatism is. No...my definition IS the definition of conservatism for lo some many decades. You have bought into this NEW definition established by leftists. And the number of conservatives in our government, you could count on two hands and this have been the case for a long time. So, common sense tells you our current disastrous state of the nation is NOT caused by conservatism, but something else.

Since America does not have socialized medicine we are not socialist. I am not buying that. BO wanted single payer, but realized it was an overreach and had to back off. The left will try again, while they kill the current system of HC from within and use the media to brainwash the populace into the need to letting the fools in government run our healthcare because they run everything so well.

You fail to recognize how big and powerful the central government is and has become in just the last few years. And as it grows, individual liberty recedes. They use the threat of terrorism to impose all sorts of tyrannical laws....but keep the Mexican border unprotected....go figure.... The federal budget has grown exponentially. The central government's actions consistently ignore the Constitution. We have millions of Americans dependent on a government check. Is this not socialism? It certainly is nothing resembling conservatism.

Obama is not a redistributioninst.....REALLY??? I think we must be seeing the same thing, but comprehending it differently. He IS a redistributionist when he demands the wealthy pay more, when they already pay 70%. He then takes their money and gives it to his voters.

Regarding Wall Street, we must recognize they really run the country. They own BJ Bubba, Bush and Obama....but the media never points out that they own BJ and Obama...even though that is apparent to anyone paying attention. To get away with what Wall Street did, without any consequences, while getting richer and more powerful, only proves how far our nation has fallen.

Progressivism is collectivism is socialism is communism. All have much in common and nothing in common with individual liberty, the rule of law, and free market capitalism.

America is now a Kleptocracy or an Oligarchy, whichever you prefer. This occurred because the political class and the elites partnered together and the law was ignored....while the media sided the elites.

 

[cashmcall]

I fear it will take a Democrat to reform entitlements. Bill Clinton was about to do what needs to be done with Social Security and Medicare until Monica Lewinski derailed him. Then George Bush proved that Republicans are never going to be able to reform Social Security. Perhaps, Barack Obama could pick up where Bill Clinton left off. Could that really happen?

After the election, I became even more hopeful. When President Obama appointed Alan Simpson and Erskind Bowles to head a commission to tackle the problem of ever escalating federal debt, even the Republicans in Congress were opposed. But the president forged ahead, despite no congressional support. He met personally with Simpson and Bowles and promised them that he would back their recommendations — let the chips fall where they may.

Alan Simpson is a former Republican senator from Wyoming. Erskind Bowles is the former chief of staff to Bill Clinton. This bipartisan approach was exactly what Barack Obama campaigned on and it is why many people (including many Republicans) voted for him.

The Simpson/Bowles recommendations were released in December 2010. But there was no meeting at the White House. In fact, the president greeted the report with stony silence. In January, there was no mention of the report in his State of the Union speech to Congress. There was nothing in the president's budget that year either. It was as though Simpson and Bowles did not exist.

Then the president did something unforgivable. In the spring of 2011, he invited Paul Ryan to a public event with the promise that "Congressman Ryan will really like what the president has to say." Ryan was head of the House Budget Committee and the main person the president would have to deal with if there was to be any bipartisan solution to our budget crises. Then, in front of a national television audience, the president gratuitously lashed out at Ryan — even accusing him of being "un-American" for his views on how to reduce budget deficits.

Many of us were stunned. Politicians rarely attack other politicians if they don't have to. When they're running against each other, it's no holds barred. But when they have to legislate together, there is nothing gained and a lot to lose by publically humiliating a member of the opposite party.

To this day, I'll never understand why Barack Obama chose to pull off that stunt. It was a public repudiation of every principle he ran on in his quest for the presidency. But I do know this. From that day forward, there has been a different Obama in the White House.

In the latest round of negotiations, the president repeatedly mischaracterized the Republican position. Remember: last fall's election is over. The president now has to work with Republicans to solve critical budget problems. Yet in discussing those efforts publically, time and again the president has gone out of his way to insult and demean the very people he is negotiating with.

The Republicans, according to the president, care only about millionaires and billionaires. He, on the other hand, is protecting the middle class by insisting they get to keep their tax cuts. What tax cuts? The Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts that Obama and most other congressional Democrats voted against, campaigned against and attacked time and again as the cause of spiraling federal deficits!

IMO, the Republicans were foolish to let the president become the public defender of the very low tax rates for the middle class — the very tax rates the Democrats once opposed. But let me return once more to the blame game.

If the press reports can be believed, it was Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell who kept us from going over the fiscal cliff. He did it by recruiting Vice President Joe Biden to help reach a deal, while the president was vacationing in Hawaii.

I'm not sure what makes Obama tick. I have no idea what motivates him. I have no idea what he is trying to do. I am sure about one thing: in the current fiscal impasse, Barack Obama is the one who is most at fault.

To top it off, David Brooks reminds us of this bizarre fact:

"President Obama excoriated Paul Ryan for offering a budget that would cut spending on domestic programs from its historical norm of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P. all the way back to 1.8 percent. But the Obama budget is the Ryan budget. According to the Office of Management and Budget, Obama will cut domestic discretionary spending back to 1.8 percent of G.D.P. in six years."

 

[bobbyjimmy]

You misunderstand. I am not throwing all Ds in the same pot. I recognize that some are commies, some are progressives, some are socialists, and some are merely opportunists. BUT NONE OF THEM ARE CONSERVATIVE.

Since your comments are degenerating into shouting without listening, I'm going to stop here. I already told you I never said our government is becoming more conservative. I already told you I accept your definition of the word conservative. You're clearly just skimming my words in order to post more ranting about the terror of socialism. I've been trying to educate you on what progressives really are, and how they have nothing to do with the Democratic party. Feel free to keep wallowing in your ignorance- thankfully this message board is not CNN. Progressives don't control the media. I've worked in major news organizations and have seen the workings from the inside. These people are not liberals or progressive, they're just people who maintain a fairy tale version of reality for the sake of advertising dollars. Anything to not offend the advertisers is the golden rule. Unless you think socialists also happen to own GE, Kraft, Walmart, Ford and every other major advertiser, the idea of socialism ruling the American day is beyond stupid.

Since America does not have socialized medicine we are not socialist. I am not buying that. BO wanted single payer, but realized it was an overreach and had to back off. The left will try again, while they kill the current system of HC from within and use the media to brainwash the populace into the need to letting the fools in government run our healthcare because they run everything so well.

Health Care was just one example; regardless, there are plenty of European countries that do have a socialist system (not to mention Canada) and it works leagues better than ours. But to know this, you'd have to leave the U.S. and travel a little, which is probably not something you want to do.

You fail to recognize how big and powerful the central government is and has become in just the last few years. And as it grows, individual liberty recedes. They use the threat of terrorism to impose all sorts of tyrannical laws....but keep the Mexican border unprotected....go figure.... The federal budget has grown exponentially. The central government's actions consistently ignore the Constitution. We have millions of Americans dependent on a government check. Is this not socialism? It certainly is nothing resembling conservatism.

No, this is not socialism. It's not conservatism either, fine. But no socialists, progressives, or liberals are in favor of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or any other bullshit invention of Bush's moronic government. You seem to think progressives want Big Brother to kick in... again, further proof that you're living in an alternate reality.

Regarding Wall Street, we must recognize they really run the country. They own BJ Bubba, Bush and Obama....but the media never points out that they own BJ and Obama...even though that is apparent to anyone paying attention. To get away with what Wall Street did, without any consequences, while getting richer and more powerful, only proves how far our nation has fallen.

Yeah, I said that already- and this has nothing to do with progressives and liberals. America is a corporate country, neither conservative or liberal. It's in the hands of a small, wealthy elite who hold no progressive or liberal values- they just care about getting richer. But they've got you fooled, chasing after imaginary ghosts of Karl Marx while they bend you over and rape you from behind. But hey, keep foaming at the mouth while you chase cars you'll never catch! If you want to believe it's a big socialist conspiracy, Wall Street is happy to play along. Anything to keep you distracted is a-ok with them. Good luck!

 

[Cruella]

I'm not sure what makes Obama tick. I have no idea what motivates him. I have no idea what he is trying to do.

Seems obvious to me.
Who wrote this?

 

[Gipper]

Since your comments are degenerating into shouting without listening, I'm going to stop here. I already told you I never said our government is becoming more conservative. I already told you I accept your definition of the word conservative. You're clearly just skimming my words in order to post more ranting about the terror of socialism. I've been trying to educate you on what progressives really are, and how they have nothing to do with the Democratic party. Feel free to keep wallowing in your ignorance- thankfully this message board is not CNN. Progressives don't control the media. I've worked in major news organizations and have seen the workings from the inside. These people are not liberals or progressive, they're just people who maintain a fairy tale version of reality for the sake of advertising dollars. Anything to not offend the advertisers is the golden rule. Unless you think socialists also happen to own GE, Kraft, Walmart, Ford and every other major advertiser, the idea of socialism ruling the American day is beyond stupid.




Health Care was just one example; regardless, there are plenty of European countries that do have a socialist system (not to mention Canada) and it works leagues better than ours. But to know this, you'd have to leave the U.S. and travel a little, which is probably not something you want to do.



No, this is not socialism. It's not conservatism either, fine. But no socialists, progressives, or liberals are in favor of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, or any other bullshit invention of Bush's moronic government. You seem to think progressives want Big Brother to kick in... again, further proof that you're living in an alternate reality.



Yeah, I said that already- and this has nothing to do with progressives and liberals. America is a corporate country, neither conservative or liberal. It's in the hands of a small, wealthy elite who hold no progressive or liberal values- they just care about getting richer. But they've got you fooled, chasing after imaginary ghosts of Karl Marx while they bend you over and rape you from behind. But hey, keep foaming at the mouth while you chase cars you'll never catch! If you want to believe it's a big socialist conspiracy, Wall Street is happy to play along. Anything to keep you distracted is a-ok with them. Good luck!

I never said YOU said our government is becoming more conservative. Why would claim I did?

I am not shouting. I am merely stating my position. Please do not think I am attacking you or criticizing you, because I am not. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I think we agree on much, but disagree on some.

I do not believe socialism in Euroland or Canucksville works better. It does not work there and it will not work here. Are you unaware that the EU is burning down right now....because of socialism? Are you unaware that the USSR is dead because socialism failed. China has deserted socialism because they can read the tea leaves. Even Cuba is turning it's back on socialism. I know....I know...you will claim that is not socialism....but it is, because in reality socialism is really dictatorship and elitism....and most anti-individual liberty.

Like many leftists you can see that Bush was a ***** for imposing police state policies. But why are you not calling Big Ears a ***** because he has continued those policies, even expanded them, yet you fail to criticize him?

I think the consequences of a big centralized statist government is tyranny. I recognize that some on the Left condemn what BO is doing, but there are few...very few. There are many on the right who condemn him.

We need to work together, because we agree the elites have stacked the deck. But do you want this nation to abide by the Constitution? Do you want a federal government limited to performing only those functions outlined in the Constitution? Do you want a free market capitalist economy based on merit? Do you want a nation that believes first and foremost in individual liberty? If you are advocating socialism, your answer to those questions must be NO. As such, I do not see how we can come to agreement.

 

[cashmcall]

Seems obvious to me.
Who wrote this?

I'm not sure what makes Obama tick. I have no idea what motivates him. I have no idea what he is trying to do. I am sure about one thing: in the current fiscal impasse, Barack Obama is the one who is most at fault.

To top it off, David Brooks reminds us of this bizarre fact:

"President Obama excoriated Paul Ryan for offering a budget that would cut spending on domestic programs from its historical norm of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P. all the way back to 1.8 percent. But the Obama budget is the Ryan budget. According to theOffice of Management and Budget, Obama will cut domestic discretionary spending back to 1.8 percent of G.D.P. in six years."

Sorry

SOURCE

 

[dogtowner]

P

I'm not sure what makes Obama tick. I have no idea what motivates him. I have no idea what he is trying to do. I am sure about one thing: in the current fiscal impasse, Barack Obama is the one who is most at fault.

To top it off, David Brooks reminds us of this bizarre fact:

"President Obama excoriated Paul Ryan for offering a budget that would cut spending on domestic programs from its historical norm of 3 or 4 percent of G.D.P. all the way back to 1.8 percent. But the Obama budget is the Ryan budget. According to theOffice of Management and Budget, Obama will cut domestic discretionary spending back to 1.8 percent of G.D.P. in six years."

Sorry

SOURCE

What was once bad becomes magically good once someone with actual accumen tells bo it is. he is not clever enough to sort this out on his own and so never sees the endless contradictions.

 

[cashmcall]

"World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them--all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis... The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach." -- Solzhenitsyn

 

[cashmcall]

You and I must not have been on the same planet when Bush was in office.

T^hey wanted to hang junior..LOL

 

[bobbyjimmy]

Okay, I'll bite once more:

I do not believe socialism in Euroland or Canucksville works better. It does not work there and it will not work here. Are you unaware that the EU is burning down right now....because of socialism? Are you unaware that the USSR is dead because socialism failed. China has deserted socialism because they can read the tea leaves. Even Cuba is turning it's back on socialism. I know....I know...you will claim that is not socialism....but it is, because in reality socialism is really dictatorship and elitism....and most anti-individual liberty.

Your definition of socialism is like Michael Moore's definition of capitalism. It's sort of right, if one takes a narrow, extreme look at the concept and focuses on only one aspect of it. Both "isms" have been bastardized and abused, and provide plenty for the opposition to attack. But I'm not sure why we walk around acting like these are our only two choices with nothing in between. The EU is not burning down because of socialism- that's beyond ridiculous. Their economy is crippled primarily because it's tied into our economy, and when we messed up, they got hit too. But it's also weak for a slew of reasons, none of which have to do with Socialism. The fact is when you look at "socialist" programs like health care, they work much, much better than our messed up system here at home. Not to mention, on a basic moral principle, the idea that being healthy should be a privilege of those who can afford it is simply fucked up and wrong. Any decent society with a shred of compassion should work hard to make sure its citizens are taken care of on a basic level. Make it private, public, whatever you want, as long as everyone is covered. We have a private system, and it doesn't work at all. They have a public system, and it is not perfect but it is far closer to an ideal than what we have. Those are facts and they fly in the face of your ideology. I am not married to any "ism"- I'll take what works, and a free market mentality doesn't yield the best results when the goal is to help everyone.

Like many leftists you can see that Bush was a ***** for imposing police state policies. But why are you not calling Big Ears a ***** because he has continued those policies, even expanded them, yet you fail to criticize him?

Here's a good example of you not reading what I write. I started this entire post with a very critical discussion about Obama. I've put out videos that take Obama to task for the myriad things he's guilty of- public videos that many groups of people have seen. That's far beyond merely ranting on a website. I am calling Obama a leadership failure for continuing Bush's policies, make no mistake. The guy serves one master- corporate america.

But do you want this nation to abide by the Constitution? Do you want a federal government limited to performing only those functions outlined in the Constitution? Do you want a free market capitalist economy based on merit? Do you want a nation that believes first and foremost in individual liberty? If you are advocating socialism, your answer to those questions must be NO. As such, I do not see how we can come to agreement.

The constitution, as you can see by 200+ years of debate, is a very elastic document. It doesn't draw hard lines on where the power lies in a lot of areas. People have been going back and forth between State power and Federal power forever. Before our current constitution, you might recall, we had the Articles of Confederation, which was actually a lot closer to the libertarian ideal you desire. The federal government had very little power. The result was a failure and would have cut America's life short if we hadn't quickly come up with a much stronger system which gave the Federal Government much more power. How much is a matter of debate. I don't, by nature, trust anyone to have too much power. Any time one of our three branches threatens to gobble up more than their slice, I'm wary. After 9-11, Bush's administration took some disgustingly new leaps in pushing towards a police state, and Obama has preserved these leaps, much to the disappointment of the people who voted for him (I wasn't one of those people.)

None of this has to do with what true progressives and liberals want, any more than what true conservatives want. It's just a power move by a tyrannical few. Our country worked much better before Reagan et al (Bush, Clinton, etc.) began dismantling all the checks and balances that kept anyone from getting too powerful. Progressives aren't asking for Stalin and Castro to take over, they're asking for the government to go back to doing what it's supposed to be doing as per the Constitution- serve the people. When the Supreme Court announces that a corporation is, in fact, a person, we're all in big trouble- something that even Obama was wise enough to point out. You're stuck going in circles chasing the communist menace and demanding a free market system- this is so besides the point. Right now, a truly free market system would only give corporations a wider playing field, because they already control all the resources. They would just get bigger and bigger and all the honest, hard-working Americans who want to open their own business would get squashed even more than they are- I don't imagine this is what you want. You have to let go of ideologies and be practical about the issues- the Constitution won't be destroyed because we institute national health care or reinstate some of the laws that kept Wall Street in check.

A lot of what I believe has to do with individual choice. I choose to not shop at big corporate chains. I choose to buy food grown by individual farmers, not food conglomerates. I'm glad I live in a country where I have these choices, even if they happen to be in the minority of America. I'm not asking for a gigantic Federal Government to tell me what to do- I'm asking people to elect folks who are going to serve the nation's best interest, not the rich minority's best interest. Some of these things fall within what you want- but not all. A country that wants to apply a 'free market' mentality to every aspect of life is going to fail; we've introduced this "business model" way of thinking into our public education, and the result is a generation of students who don't care about learning or thinking, but only care about getting high grades on their standardized tests- because that's what our bottom-line mentality has pushed them to do. Schools compete for funding and they're rated according to stupid standardized tests- that's a capitalist approach except that test scores are the currency. It ignores the basic fact that every kid is different, that there are many forms of intelligence, and that a healthy country is one that encourages many different ways of thinking, which leads to solving many different problems in many different ways. We've reduced everything to this singular, mono-culture mentality, just like we've reduced our once-great agricultural nation to a bunch of singular-minded mega-farms that only grow corn and soybeans. You want to blame socialism for all our problems, but these are just some of the many big examples of problems that have nothing to do with socialism- they're direct results of a capitalist mentality taken to such an extreme that it's placed short-term profits over anything else. From a basic economic sense, that's a stupid move, it's what led us to 2008's financial crunch and it is what's going to lead us into future economic depressions and recessions until they whole system goes kaput.

What happens next will be anybody's guess, but regardless, none of this has anything to do with socialism. You're beating a dead horse.

 

[Hobo1]

We are still far from being a socialist nation... our problem is our Democracy is broken. We elect people to office who don't understand basic concepts - like if you are going to spend money, you gotta pay the bills.

And the underlying problem is the people who vote for these fools we send to Washington again and again, year after year. Most voters have no idea what their elected representative really thinks and does in Washington. These voters don't even follow politics and vote the way some neighbor tells them to. They vote a straight ticket. They have no idea about the influence lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations have in Washington.

Our voters are uninformed (stupid) and are happy when government gives them something. We need a simple test to see if a voter is qualified... like... "What State does George Bush come from". Something basic.

 

[Gipper]

Okay, I'll bite once more:


Your definition of socialism is like Michael Moore's definition of capitalism. It's sort of right, if one takes a narrow, extreme look at the concept and focuses on only one aspect of it. Both "isms" have been bastardized and abused, and provide plenty for the opposition to attack. But I'm not sure why we walk around acting like these are our only two choices with nothing in between. The EU is not burning down because of socialism- that's beyond ridiculous. Their economy is crippled primarily because it's tied into our economy, and when we messed up, they got hit too. But it's also weak for a slew of reasons, none of which have to do with Socialism. The fact is when you look at "socialist" programs like health care, they work much, much better than our messed up system here at home. Not to mention, on a basic moral principle, the idea that being healthy should be a privilege of those who can afford it is simply fucked up and wrong. Any decent society with a shred of compassion should work hard to make sure its citizens are taken care of on a basic level. Make it private, public, whatever you want, as long as everyone is covered. We have a private system, and it doesn't work at all. They have a public system, and it is not perfect but it is far closer to an ideal than what we have. Those are facts and they fly in the face of your ideology. I am not married to any "ism"- I'll take what works, and a free market mentality doesn't yield the best results when the goal is to help everyone.


Here's a good example of you not reading what I write. I started this entire post with a very critical discussion about Obama. I've put out videos that take Obama to task for the myriad things he's guilty of- public videos that many groups of people have seen. That's far beyond merely ranting on a website. I am calling Obama a leadership failure for continuing Bush's policies, make no mistake. The guy serves one master- corporate america.



The constitution, as you can see by 200+ years of debate, is a very elastic document. It doesn't draw hard lines on where the power lies in a lot of areas. People have been going back and forth between State power and Federal power forever. Before our current constitution, you might recall, we had the Articles of Confederation, which was actually a lot closer to the libertarian ideal you desire. The federal government had very little power. The result was a failure and would have cut America's life short if we hadn't quickly come up with a much stronger system which gave the Federal Government much more power. How much is a matter of debate. I don't, by nature, trust anyone to have too much power. Any time one of our three branches threatens to gobble up more than their slice, I'm wary. After 9-11, Bush's administration took some disgustingly new leaps in pushing towards a police state, and Obama has preserved these leaps, much to the disappointment of the people who voted for him (I wasn't one of those people.)

None of this has to do with what true progressives and liberals want, any more than what true conservatives want. It's just a power move by a tyrannical few. Our country worked much better before Reagan et al (Bush, Clinton, etc.) began dismantling all the checks and balances that kept anyone from getting too powerful. Progressives aren't asking for Stalin and Castro to take over, they're asking for the government to go back to doing what it's supposed to be doing as per the Constitution- serve the people. When the Supreme Court announces that a corporation is, in fact, a person, we're all in big trouble- something that even Obama was wise enough to point out. You're stuck going in circles chasing the communist menace and demanding a free market system- this is so besides the point. Right now, a truly free market system would only give corporations a wider playing field, because they already control all the resources. They would just get bigger and bigger and all the honest, hard-working Americans who want to open their own business would get squashed even more than they are- I don't imagine this is what you want. You have to let go of ideologies and be practical about the issues- the Constitution won't be destroyed because we institute national health care or reinstate some of the laws that kept Wall Street in check.

A lot of what I believe has to do with individual choice. I choose to not shop at big corporate chains. I choose to buy food grown by individual farmers, not food conglomerates. I'm glad I live in a country where I have these choices, even if they happen to be in the minority of America. I'm not asking for a gigantic Federal Government to tell me what to do- I'm asking people to elect folks who are going to serve the nation's best interest, not the rich minority's best interest. Some of these things fall within what you want- but not all. A country that wants to apply a 'free market' mentality to every aspect of life is going to fail; we've introduced this "business model" way of thinking into our public education, and the result is a generation of students who don't care about learning or thinking, but only care about getting high grades on their standardized tests- because that's what our bottom-line mentality has pushed them to do. Schools compete for funding and they're rated according to stupid standardized tests- that's a capitalist approach except that test scores are the currency. It ignores the basic fact that every kid is different, that there are many forms of intelligence, and that a healthy country is one that encourages many different ways of thinking, which leads to solving many different problems in many different ways. We've reduced everything to this singular, mono-culture mentality, just like we've reduced our once-great agricultural nation to a bunch of singular-minded mega-farms that only grow corn and soybeans. You want to blame socialism for all our problems, but these are just some of the many big examples of problems that have nothing to do with socialism- they're direct results of a capitalist mentality taken to such an extreme that it's placed short-term profits over anything else. From a basic economic sense, that's a stupid move, it's what led us to 2008's financial crunch and it is what's going to lead us into future economic depressions and recessions until they whole system goes kaput.

What happens next will be anybody's guess, but regardless, none of this has anything to do with socialism. You're beating a dead horse.

You keep saying my definition of socialism is wrong, but you don't explain why and what you think socialism is. Socialism is very well defined. In essence, it means taking by force from one group and giving to another group to equal things out. Is this not correct? I find this system of government abhorrent. I do not believe in force of any kind. And Socialism is all about force.

I am sorry I missed your comments on BO.

I am not chasing communism. I know that it, like socialism, is ineffective and dangerous because both use force. I hate them both.

We just disagree on Euroland. I think without a doubt it is failing because of socialism.

You do not understand capitalism and the free market system. This is apparent by your statement that I emboldened in your post above. Under a Capitalist free market system governed by the rule of law (not the rule of liberal elites), corporations could not commit the acts you fear. In this system, for example, Wall Street would NOT get bailed out and many of their executives would have been charged and if found guilty, imprisoned. Thus preventing a re-occurrence. As you can see, our current system of quasi socialism/elitism, things have been terribly bastardized.