From a Wall Street Journal column by “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” author Thomas Frank (in photo) about how it can be difficult for some conservatives to govern when they are anti-government:
“So this is how it works with conservatives at the helm: We starve government agencies of resources, we keep their employees’ pay well below their private-sector counterparts, we make sure they know what we think of them as they wait their turn at the photocopier. Then we demand they protect us when there’s a problem with extremely complex financial instruments, whose designers are defended by some of the best-paid lawyers in the world. And when the regulators inevitably fail? We declare indignantly that the problem begins and ends with them.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
133 Comments
Wrong question.
The CONs like government just fine, but only when it is protecting their interests–channelling money upward to the already rich.
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf
From The Conservative Nanny State:
What is it that allowed Michael Eisner to earn $680 million in the years from 1998 to 2000
when he was the CEO of the Disney Corporation, or Robert Grasso to pocket $140 million from running the New York Stock Exchange?
The conservative nanny state crew wants us to believe that it was their incredible skill and hard work that allowed these CEOs to earn such vast sums. The more obvious answer is that badly designed rules of corporate governance allow CEOs to pilfer large amounts of money from the corporations they manage, because there is no one with both the interest and power to challenge them.
CEO pay has exploded in the last quarter century, rising far more rapidly than either the pay of typical workers or the overall rate of productivity growth.
The average pay of a corporate CEO was less than 40 times the pay of a typical worker in the late seventies. This ratio rose to 300 to 1 at the peak of the stock bubble in the late nineties, as the value of compensation packages heavily laden
with stock options went through the roof. But even as the stock market has fallen back to more reasonable levels, CEO pay is still close to 200 times the pay of a typical worker.
This explosion in CEO pay is not tied in any obvious way to their effective management, even by the narrow measure of increasing corporate profits. A recent study that examined the pay of the top five executives in 1500 corporations found that the pay over the period 1993-2003 increased almost twice as rapidly as could be explained by profit growth or other standard
measures of corporate success (Bebchuk and Grinstein, 2005).
Furthermore, this explosion in CEO pay is almost exclusively an American phenomenon. There has been no comparable increase in CEO pay in Canadian, European, or Japanese corporations. The pay of CEOs in the United States in 2003 was 2.5 times the average pay of CEOs in Canada, more than 3 times the pay of CEOs in France, and almost five times the average pay of CEOS in
Japan.5 It would be difficult to argue that foreign corporations have been poorly managed by incompetent CEOs in an era in which they have managed to seize market share from their U.S. competitors in the auto industry, the aerospace
industry, and other large sectors of the economy.
CEO pay in the United States has exploded for the simple reason that CEOs largely get to write their own checks. CEO pay is determined by
corporate compensation boards, most of the members of which are put there with the blessing of the CEOs themselves. Usually the CEOs have a large voice in determining who sits on the corporate boards that ultimately have
responsibility for the operation of the corporation. These corporate boards then
appoint a committee that determines CEO pay.
In effect, we allow the CEO to pick a group of friends to decide how much money he should earn. When they are sitting on the boards of corporations that control tens of billions of dollars in revenue, their friends are likely to be very generous.
Conservatives are not ANTI-government. Conservatives are for limited government as the Founders intended.
Regular:
“Conservatives are for limited government as the Founders intended.”
So, does that make you a Vorta or a Jem Hadar?
Like Thomas Frank, the Capn needs a supple government teat to keep his sustained lifestyle so he doesn’t have to help out the working poor like BlueJay.
#
mrcontroversy
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
Regular:
“Conservatives are for limited government as the Founders intended.”
So, does that make you a Vorta or a Jem Hadar?
===========================================
A changling…
Jealous that they can post substantive things?
CONservatives are for big gov’t to help the rich and “limited” gov’t to help the poor.
That’s why “limited” gov’t types never saw a bloated military budget they didn’t like–because they know damn well that all the real money is going to fat cat CONtractors like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton.
100 dollar toilet seats? No-bid CONtracts to political CrONies? “Cost plus” CONtracts to add a taxpayer funded mark-up to everything the CONtractor wants to buy?
Sure.
Just don’t subsidize that union scum!
The one bright spot in this recession is knowing that gov’t parasites like Regular won’t be getting a cost-of-living increase this year.
Conservatives can govern, they just can’t govern well.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
The one bright spot in this recession is knowing that gov’t parasites like Regular won’t be getting a cost-of-living increase this year.
====================
I got one from the V.A., so you’re wrong. Besides, whenever active duty military get a pay raise COLA, I get one as well. :)
Oh, and O’BAMA sent me a $300.00 check for existing on planet earth.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Just to give one example of gov’t welfare for the rich versus the poor:
In 2005, the federal gov’t spent 18 billion dollars for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (traditional welfare). In 2005, the federal gov’t spent that same amount in about two and one-half months of war in Iraq.
Most of the money spent for occupying Iraq contiues to flow to rich corporations, just like the rest of the military budget.
Reg–
1. Military pensions are gov’t welfare.
2. Military pensions aren’t getting a COLA this year either. You can’t increase the “cost of living” if the cost of living does not increase.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Most of the money spent for occupying Iraq contiues to flow to rich corporations, just like the rest of the military budget.
================================
You mean like the contracts awarded to Senator Boxer’s husband for building those facilities in Iraq and elsewhere worth hundreds of millions of dollars? I think last take was over two billion in contracts that Boxer slid over to her husband’s company.
Yeah Boy! Democrats – looking out for number one!
CapnAmerica
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Most of the money spent for occupying Iraq contiues to flow to rich corporations, just like the rest of the military budget.
—————————————————-
Whose employees outnumber uniformed persons in Iraq.
Your tone is that there is a single fat cat raking in the cash versus the hundreds of thousands they employ benefitting.
Most of the money spent for occupying Iraq contiues to flow to rich corporations, just like the rest of the military budget.
____________________________________
Flowed to “rich” corporations who hired Union Workers. I thought you were a UnionLover.
From Military dot com
2009 Update: The 2009 military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will be 5.8%, nearly 2% higher than the 3.9% 2009 Military Pay Raise. This increase, which goes into effect on December 1, 2008, also applies to SBP annuities, Social Security checks, and VA disability and survivor benefits. Retirees will see the increase in their January, 2009 check
And military retirement is not welfare, it’s compensation for duties performed via written contract (that’s right, we signed contracts) with the United States government.
Democratic Underground, also known as DU, is an online community for US Democrats and other progressives. Its membership is restricted by policy to those who are generally supportive of progressive ideals and support Democratic candidates for political office.
________________________________________
It’s membership is RESTRICTED!!
No competing ideas allowed.
The thread starts with a false premise. Conservatives are not “anti-government.” And it’s more complex than phrasing it as “limited gov’t,” either, though that’s better.
Rather, conservatives understand that there are things gov’t does, and must do, and can do well. Likewise, there are other matters that gov’t inherently cannot do well. And there are things gov’t has no business doing, whether they can be done “well” or not.
This is far more complex than can be laid out in a few paragraphs, and court is calling. I’ll have to leave it at that. Suffice it to say that Thomas Frank has targeted, as usual, a two-dimensional strawman.
Funny you should mention Eisner as one of your examples of CEO pay gone wild. A very large contributor to all things democrat. One of his first moves at Disney was to implement health care coverage for same sex partners. Being an owner of CapCities/ABC stock I followed this all. He lost money for the company. Changed the brand so much it no longer qualified as famility fare in theaters. Left with one of the largest golden parachutes ever.
This is what I said the other day. The dems are attacking the repubs for the things the dems are doing. Research has shown there are more rich dems than repubs. You guys are fighting the wrong enemy.
“Suffice it to say that Thomas Frank has targeted, as usual, a two-dimensional strawman.”
…and knocked that sucker right between the eyes!
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently made news by saying that Americans “want more government in their life.” Americans disagree. Most — 71 percent — say they want less government in their life. A much smaller number (17 percent) fall in the category described by Powell.
Fleettwood–
What percentage of the money spent in Iraq goes to Union members?
This is how goverment “works”.
_________________________________________
This week, thousands of people are getting stimulus checks in the mail. The problem is that a lot of them are dead.
The Social Security Administration, which sent out 52 million checks, says that some of those checks mistakenly went to dead people because the agency had no record of their death. That amounts to between 8,000 and 10,000 checks for millions of dollars.
What percentage of the money spent in Iraq goes to Union members?
_________________________________________
A lot. What is for sure. Most of it went to employ people.
“GMC70″ presents –
“…conservatives understand that there are things gov’t does, and must do, and can do well. Likewise, there are other matters that gov’t inherently cannot do well.”
And one of those things — at least in Butler County — is the government cannot rely on its employees taking time off from work to post CON boilerplate to WE Blog on the taxpayers’ dime.
The Capn is using up his allotment of government issue straw this week for all those straw men he has building.
Most — 71 percent — say they want less government in their life
…been building
post CON boilerplate to WE Blog on the taxpayers’ dime.
_____________________________
LibTalk. GMC’s point not refuted. Point goes to GMC.
been building
____________________
He be building.
Hmmm . . . Regular seems to be correct on 2009 COLA for military pay because they were locked in last September (2008).
Good luck next year.
‘Course, you could always get a job . . .
Doesn’t matter.
Median wage of civilian contractors in Iraq is more than double the median wage of union employees in US.
#
fleettwood
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell recently made news by saying that Americans “want more government in their life.” Americans disagree. Most — 71 percent — say they want less government in their life. A much smaller number (17 percent) fall in the category described by Powell.
===============================================
“These are just some of the findings from a FOX News poll released Friday.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/15/fox-news-poll-americans-want-government-spending/
Ha ha ha!
You ever notice how these FOX News polls never mention how many people were polled, how they were contacted, or spell out what the actual questions were?
I wonder why that is?
Here’s another example:
18 billion for Temp Aid to Needy Families (TANF)
30 billion to Big PhARMA to develop drugs
capn seems to think 99% goes to the guy in the big office.
Fleet, when you consider that a lot of “guys in the big office” make 2-400 TIMES what the average wage earner in the same company, sometimes, that’s not so far off.
Fleet, when you consider that a lot of “guys in the big office” make 2-400 TIMES what the average wage earner in the same company, sometimes, that’s not so far off.
______________________________
Perhaps the “average wage earner” should have studied harder or looked for another job or not accepted the job in the first place. God gave us feet for a reason.
Fleet–
If Eisner had takne a “modest” salary of 90 million dollars, the Disney would have posted 6 percent more in profits.
Fleet–
Just out of curiosity.
What’s your exalted job?
“2009 Update: The 2009 military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will be 5.8%, nearly 2% higher than the 3.9% 2009 Military Pay Raise.”
Regular we just received that increase in our January. Go out to MYPAY and pull up your December RAS. Look in the MESSAGE section of your DFAS/CL 7220/148.
You will see the below statement:
YOUR NEW PAY INCLUDES A 5.8% COST OF LIVING INCREASE.
CapnAmerica I believe is partially correct – our COLA is tied to the SS COLA. That has been frozen for the first time in decades by OBAMA (another group he is loosing).
We will not be getting a military retired COLA this year.
Capn is incorrect where he states “You can’t increase the “cost of living” if the cost of living does not increase.”
That is not a true statement. It has happened many times in government and out of government. Even union contracts. I agree with CapnAmerica if he meant to say you should NOT get a COLA when the COLA doesn’t go up. In principle, I agree.
We did get a COLA for 2009. That happened in January before Obama was enthrowned.
The discussion here out is the future. Obama is not going to give those poor, poor old people a COLA this year. He wants them to starve. Tied to that is the patriotic, dedicated, and loyal Veterans. Obama is screwing us too.
However: Food Stamps, unemployment, and other social programs DID get a raise from Obama! I guess they deserve a COLA.
;-)
Fleet–
If Eisner had takne a “modest” salary of 90 million dollars, the Disney would have posted 6 percent more in profits.
__________________________________________
Who cares? It’s not my business what he or Disney makes. I’m not a stockholder. Eisner and Disney pay more taxes than Midas.
Fleet–
Just out of curiosity.
What’s your exalted job?
__________________________________
I’m homeless, posting from the libary.
Retirees will see the increase in their January, 2009 check
_____________________
Yep, got mine!
The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining each COLA. In general, a COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next.
Simply stated, COLA is based on inflation. The ‘mulatto mesiah’s’ policies will almost insure we get even a bigger raise next year!
fleetwood: Your time is up. Either put another quarter in the pickle jar, or go kiss up to that big fat ugly librarian again.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:52 pm | Permalink
Fleet–
Just out of curiosity.
What’s your exalted job?
=============================
Fleetwood is a District Judge, I saw his name plate down at the courthouse. :D
Capn who do you think pays the salary for Lindainks’ son to do research? Same for big pharma. Currently we are the only country that is doing intensive research for new drugs for old diseases. Do you want to halt this research?
What would you want to put the money toward beyond giving it to the poor?
A third example of The CONservative Nanny State:
The “Small Business” Hustle
The most obvious example of this sort of bogus deduction is a business owner who writes off a car as a business expense, even though it might have been bought primarily for personal use. This subsidy can be quite substantial. If a small business owner buys a $36,000 SUV, and is in the 33 percent tax bracket, he gets $12,000 off of his taxes under the investment tax credit for small businesses. This is more than twice as large as what a typical family would receive under TANF, the government’s core welfare program.
Oko–
The CON’s ability to not see the obvious point never cease to astonish.
We can debate whether the 30 billion in gov’t welfare to help giant multi-national corporations is of benefit or not.
However, the point is it is welfare to the rich, and you CONs have no problem with that.
Also, it’s not “free market” which you claim to espouse.
Well Capn, mileage logs are supposed to prevent abuse of business vehicles for private use. If a business owner gets audited and is abusing the deduction – well, what can I say.
Hank,
“Simply stated, COLA is based on inflation.”
To state it a bit less simply, the COLA figures exclude grocery and energy costs when they figure the cost of living, on the grounds that they’re too volatile. Unfortunately, those have both been very upwardly volatile over the last couple years, much more so than the rest of the economy. Eventually the rest of the economy will have to catch up, but for the time being, the actual cost of living is quite a bit higher than COLA figures it.
Reggie,
Fleetie is a homeless District Judge who kisses fat librarians? Now that conjures up some interesting images!
Capn I just refuse to buy into the dems opinion that all business is bad. We are starting to see the downside of this belief now. When businesses are made into the villans and are over taxed because of it. When their capital gains or owners equity is double taxed then guess what happens?
Business shut down. They invest their capital overseas. They do their banking in tax free havens. What is the downside of this. No new job creation. No more risk takers investing in the future of the nation.
We wind up with those who thinks the country owes them a living. They create no jobs. Infact contribute nothing to the national economy only living off the fruits of other workers.
This will only work as long as the worker bees of the country continue to carry their water. This won’t last forever.
What the libs refuse to see is that the very ‘welfare to the rich’ they complain about is being paid to libs as well as cons. I don’t agree it is welfare. But that would take longer than I have to explain.
Oko–
Corporations do not get “double taxed.”
Corporate tax is a voluntary tax. The owners CHOOSE to set it up as a corporation because the government confers benefits to corporations (limited liability for shareholders) to tax-free alternatives like a partnership.
All business is not bad. However, helping multinationals while letting children starve is bad.
That doesn’t represent what Americans want their gov’t to do for them. It represents what fat cats want gov’t to do for fat cats.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
Here’s another example:
18 billion for Temp Aid to Needy Families (TANF)
30 billion to Big PhARMA to develop drugs
—————————————————-
Scientific research to develop cures for you name the disease.
Why do you hate the suffering so much?
All business is not bad. However, helping multinationals while letting children starve is bad.
—————————————————-
Yes, letting children being crippled by something like polio, die of leukemia, go blind from who knows what curable disease that causes a high fever is much more humane.
There are literally 1,000’s of organizations in this country feeding the hungry.
How many are capable of developing medicine?
Kia attempts to defend “Big Pharma” with: “Yes, letting children being crippled by something like polio, die of leukemia, go blind from who knows what curable disease that causes a high fever is much more humane.”
Uhm, where did the money come from for many of those drugs? Hint, it wasn’t privately funded research. Big Pharma companies have certainly done their share, but much of that share was based on basic, publicly funded research. Furthermore, “Big Pharma” research and development is often based on where the profit is, not where the needs are, because there is often a difference between the two. And when there is profit where the need is, guess who the customer often is?
Government, publicly funded agencies, or even private agencies who are paid by public dollars.
Corporate tax is a voluntary tax. The owners CHOOSE to set it up as a corporation because the government confers benefits to corporations (limited liability for shareholders) to tax-free alternatives like a partnership.
All business is not bad. However, helping multinationals while letting children starve is bad.
That doesn’t represent what Americans want their gov’t to do for them. It represents what fat cats want gov’t to do for fat cats.
———
“Corporate tax is voluntary”. Sure it is.
“All business is not bad” Glad to hear that Ivan.
“That doesn’t represent what Americans want their gov’t to do for them.” Now Capn is speaking for “Americans”.
I’ve read this thread. I’m struck with the thought that If socialists get a hold of this nation like they are trying to do, we will soon be spiraling toward being a third world country.Maybe they want that, because then we could be like the Euros.
Business built this country. We can tighten the reins a bit without being stupid. Or can we?
Follow the ball Aggie.
That’s basically what I said.
“outlander” reports from his disassociative fugue –
“…we will soon be spiraling toward being a third world country.Maybe they want that, because then we could be like the Euros. “
So Europe is now the Third World?
“it is welfare to the rich, and you CONs have no problem with that.”
I have a problem with it. It is a waste of MY MONEY. Again, another gawd damn politician deciding how “best” to spend MY MONEY.
Republican = Democrat. You all want to play God with MY MONEY.
You are ALL the same.
Libs cried last year and the year before (even you Capn) about Bush’s deficit spending. But Obama quadruples the ANNUAL budget, 4 x more than Bush ever did, to 1.8 trillion. This debt can NEVER be repaid. Not by taking 100% of our pay for taxes it is too much. Just Obama’s contribution to the debt ratio is a whopping 12% of GDP. Capn used to decry Bush?
Now crickets chirping.
Why? Because debt ONLY matter when it is not republican debt. Or when it is not democrat debt.
As long as YOUR social agenda is getting funded –
silence.
“Follow the ball Aggie.
“That’s basically what I said.”
Oooops. Gotta say, you’re right on that one.
I heareby recant from my 3:15 post in its entirity.
Conservatives my a ss.
Social conservatives, christian conservatives, compassionate conservatives.
None of you a ssholes are truly conservatives.
You have all sold out to spending. Spending to get you re-elected, spending because it’s “politically correct”, spending because “it’s the right thing to do.”
This nation was not built on SPENDING. Our nations problem is NOT taxes.
Our gawd damn problem is spending .
Until someone, anyone grows the brass balls big enough to say STOP. To actually do something which is now IMPOSSIBLE – to “CUT” (god forgive me for daring to say that word) SPENDING,
nothing will EVER change except our standard of living.
Don’t talk to me about Republicans being conservative: That is pure crap.
Ron Paul is conservative. But not McCain, not Palin, not the governor from LIBERAL spend happy Mass….
The rest, are all history. The sooner the party RIP’s the sooner we will get some new conservative party rolling.
WTF is Thomas Frank?
I don’t know why I should give a schitt what he thinks.
Amway wrote:
“Until someone, anyone grows the brass balls big enough to say STOP. To actually do something which is now IMPOSSIBLE – to “CUT” (god forgive me for daring to say that word) SPENDING,”
_________
Hope you’re not waiting on someone in DC to say “stop”. China’s the one that’ll have to stop the spending. Even DC politicians are smart enough to figure out that they can’t keep up the madness with just the printing press & raising taxes. Well, ok, I’m making a BIG assumption about them being smart enough to understand that….
#
ANTI
Posted May 15, 2009 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
WTF is Thomas Frank?
I don’t know why I should give a schitt what he thinks.
—————————-
Ask BlueJay, he’s one of his test icle lickers.
Interesting reading the posts of some of the libertarians here. I think however that they are AGINO’s. If any of them actually found themselves in a place with no functioning government, Somalia f’rinstance, they’d be screaming for a seat on the next plane out- screw the little old lady and her granddaughter in front of them! Basically, they want government to only do what they want it to, and not what anybody else wants it to. And they want it done for free!
Silly issue. Of course they can’t. Not until they become Republicans again. That’s really sad for our country! We need (at least) two viable political philosophies.
As long those who now call themselves “conservatives” are in the mix, the Republican Party is dead in the water. They can’t win without them, and can’t win with them. When, and if, the Republican Party faces up to the fact that they wooed the ’social conservatives,’ and those same people now keep them out of political power (because legislating morals has no place in politics) they might start the path back to relevance. There was a strong and valuable Grand Old Party, problem is they sold out and now are called ‘conservatives.’ The definition of ‘conservatives’ changed and has absolutely nothing to do with what put the grand in the party!
As Thomas Frank WELL documents, conservative Government is DESIGNED to be broken Government. They showed us this in spades the last 30 years. HOPEFULLY, America has learned its lesson.
Conservatives are for a strictly adherent Constitutional government.
The founders had it right the first time. We in general, and especially the DimLibs, are prostituting that noble effort and harming our future.
“We” bawks?
“Our”?
The Constitution was written for rich white men. The Republican party is the party of the rich, white, man along with all the idiots they dupe into voting for them by quoting lines from “Atlas Shrugged”.
Well? LET Atlas “shrug”. Growing numbers of people are getting hip to the idea that your success is not necessarily theirs.
however that they are AGINO’s.
===================================
What?
The Constitution was written for rich white men.
=======================================
You must be ret@rded, you must.
Well Bj, I have a boat to clean and re-rig…I will look for you answer mon-yanna.
or your
Anti is a great fisherman….
Bluejay is great beating his meat.
Ant,
How dense can you get?
Anti-Government In Name Only! Now
Figure this one out: ANGINA.
“Conservatives my a ss.
“Social conservatives, christian conservatives, compassionate conservatives.
“None of you a ssholes are truly conservatives.
“You have all sold out to spending. Spending to get you re-elected, spending because it’s ‘politically correct’, spending because ‘it’s the right thing to do’.”
You’re wrong. Your sort of conservatism, AmWay, is an illusion. You can’t just cut off spending. The last century of the American economy came with spending, substantial spending. Fiscal free marketeer conservatives delude themselves into thinking that it’s simply a matter of money going to the “less deserving”, or that private enterprise can somehow do a better job at many tasks that government does than government does.
Many of the people who believe, or at least believed, as you do did get into power in Washington. The biggest mistake, IMVSO in Frank’s book, is his emphasis on the cynics in the conservative movement. The reality is this, conservatives thought that if they provided “block grants” to states or even private entities, if they privatized public functions, that the private companies would, being private, do things more efficiently and save the taxpayers’ money. It didn’t work out that way, it didn’t even come remotely close to working out that way. In this, Frank is one of the most important commentators we have, because he exposes the faulty central premise of free marketeer conservatism (and Ron Paul is simply more nuts than most, not less), that government and our economy can be done on the cheap. It can’t. Do we need to reign in entitlements. Yes, I agree with that (and disagree with some of the “liberal” posters on that issue). But, that alone won’t do it. Other spending has to be cut, and furthermore, other spending actually has to be increased, at least in the short term, on projects that actually generate return both in public and private economic activity, and eventually GDP.
And no tax cuts, and yes some taxes need to actually be raised.
THAT is the political courage that is lacking in this country.
“This nation was not built on SPENDING. Our nations problem is NOT taxes.”
No, it’s both, and your fanaticism and wishes to change reality won’t change this fact. Control spending, raise revenue.
Blue,
“As Thomas Frank WELL documents, conservative Government is DESIGNED to be broken Government.”
And why was it supposed to be broken? Why on earth would those guys on Wall Street not want laws enforced? It’s not like they could make a fortune screwing peop…..
I think you’ve got it Jed.
No, I know you do.
As Frank shows us, and is has been readily apparent since Reagan, Republicans when in charge of Government do their very best to make Government look incompetent.
But Government, when run by those dedicated to the interests of the nation and its people doesn’t HAVE to be incompetent. WHY would any patriotic person WANT the Government of their country to fail?
The answer of course, is to follow the money.
You don’t have to look very far to find Republicans betraying their own RELIGION, the “free market”, to see that the real agenda is always getting the rich richer and protecting the already fortified.
Consider the little beef company Creekstone farms. THEY sought to sell beef that exceeded federal Government regulations for quality and inspection. The bush administration declared their efforts illegal.
So much for free enterprise, huh?
So much for “conservative” goverment that is not government determined to fail and fall on the sword of big money.
Blue,
Unfortunately, most free-market conservatives are just folks that think the free market is where they go to get other people’s stuff for free.
The Constitution was written for rich white men.–BlowJ
The Constitution was written for all men, to protect all men…if you had the intelligence to understand it, and if you had the initiative to read it, you might know that.
But of which you have neither.
“Growing numbers of people are getting hip to the idea that your success is not necessarily theirs.”—BlowJ
And where do you get the idea you are entitled to someone else’s success?
To lazy to work for your own success you want to steal it form those that have earned it.
Like I said….that is the mentality of a loser, a slacker and a thief.
“The Constitution was written for all men, to protect all men…if you had the intelligence to understand it, and if you had the initiative to read it, you might know that.”
Well I’ll give you this, you DO get that it was written for men.
Women did not win the right to be called “We the People” for another 131 years.
I am actually very well versed in the Constitution. Are you?
Because if you were, you would know of the 3/5ths compromise which counted slaves for purposes of representation among the states while keeping them as property and entirely outside any representation save those good liberals in the northern colonies.
SOME of those founding fathers like Adams and Jefferson and Franklin, they WERE good people and they had great ideas. But they lived in a time when they had no choice but to compromise their better nature to deal with darker, greedier, people.
THAT time is long past. Progress can progress and NOT compromise with those that would reserve it to the few or well heeled.
“BlueJay” –
As a bleeding-heart “libruhl,” I can even empathize with CON angry white men.
They’re sorta like the Last of the Mahicans; a noble race that could not adapt to changing times. Yeah, white European males accomplished a lot of good stuff (I particularly like the flush toilet), but they think that earns ‘em a bye in all subsequent rounds.
In the mean time, I’ve seen in my lifetime a manic warrior in Golda Meir, a steel-spined (albeit misguided) UK Prime Minister in Maggie Thatcher, and the first President of the United States with a natural tan.
Progress is evolution, not revolution.
And progress has always won.
“The Constitution was written for all men, to protect all men…
A term used universally to include all, including women.
BlowJb….you’re a nitwit.
“Boxlock20″ declares –
“The Constitution was written for all men, to protect all men…
A term used universally to include all, including women.”
So the 19th Amendment was superfluous?
(Perhaps constitutional history isn’t your strong suit.)
ANGINA.
======================
Sorry Jed, I thought angina was a medical term.
‘Men’, as in ‘Mankind’, which includes all men and women, ya dimwit.
“Boxlock20″ gives us his full Lincoln/Douglas response –
“‘Men’, as in ‘Mankind’, which includes all men and women, ya dimwit.”
So the 13th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States were unnecessary?
Thanks for clearing that up.
Although I’ve been tempted, I can’t recall any time I’ve addressed CONs on this forum with terms such as “dimwit” or “nitwit.”
I don’t call fellow posters names.
But all too often, name-calling is all the CONs are left with. Use every arrow in the quiver, CONs. If that’s all ya got, try it.
But you really don’t understand how pathetic it makes you appear.
“I can’t recall any time I’ve addressed CONs on this forum with terms such as “dimwit” or “nitwit.”
Because it would be false, not so when talking about DimLibs.
“man is sometimes used to refer to humanity as a whole”—Wikipedia
“man·kind (mnknd)
n.
1. The human race; humankind. See Usage Note at man.”
“Noun
1. human beings collectively ”
“4. The human race; mankind: man’s quest for peace.”
I it is so easy dueling with, and the term remains appropriate, nitwits.
Oh, I’m sorry for calling you ‘bad’ names Monkey, even though it’s appropriate.
It’s obvious you are sensitive about it, maybe a little inferiority complex, so I’ll try and refrain, at least with you…for now anyway.
I’m not sorry at all for referring to you, “Boxlock20,” by your chosen nym.
I don’t need to call you names.
Even though you’re sadly confused most of the time, there’s nothing to be gained by calling you “ret@rd,” or “s#it-skull,” or “self-aggrandizing troll,” or “pablum-for-brains,” or any number of appropriate appellations. My arguments simply don’t need to go there since they’re based on fact and evidence and logic and reason.
You, on the other hand….
Well, not so much.
You CONs need to name-call when your rhetoric gets you in trouble. We see it every day on WE Blog and a few of us “libruhls” respond in kind. That is regrettable, but understandable given the vile climate created by you CONs’ utter frustration that your politics and philosophy daily becomes irrelevant.
You’ve got nothing else, I realize. So you name-call and get personal instead of addressing the issues discussed.
I understand.
Carry on.
Obviously you are an egotistical, self-thought and described, but actually pseudo, intellectual, who is in fact a dimwit.
I simply ‘calls um as I sees um’, that’s honesty.
You….a cheap facade.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 16, 2009 at 9:51 am
You CONs need to name-call when your rhetoric gets you in trouble. We see it every day on WE Blog and a few of us “libruhls” respond in kind. That is regrettable, but understandable given the vile climate created by you CONs’ utter frustration that your politics and philosophy daily becomes irrelevant.
================================
MonkeyHock’s personal pity party…
Monkeyhawk, Boxlock has become so over the top in offering nothing but insults and such poorly reasoned, easily refuted pablum that I have honestly started to wonder if it is a closet liberal. Either that, or this person is truly nothing more than a self aggrandizing troll (I have no compunctions about saying it when it is self evidently true) who thinks it is successful when it elicits responses. Surely, it is not really interested in advancing the conservative cause, because it represents it so badly.
boxlock even insisted, without any proof, that the guest of honor at an event invited or approved the performers at his own event.
I said: “Frank is one of the most important commentators we have, because he exposes the faulty central premise of free marketeer conservatism (and Ron Paul is simply more nuts than most, not less), that government and our economy can be done on the cheap. It can’t.”
This, by the way, is less Frank’s thesis than my own. Frank’s thesis is that the conservatives’ very distrust for government make them cynical about it, so that the use it to reward their supporters (both by providing jobs to friends and also by providing contracts to private supporters), and that competence was rarely a consideration in filling government posts, because in the end they see the those posts as (to put it as GMC put it upthread) “things gov’t has no business doing”. I think some of those “things” government has no business as doing actually government does have more business doing than anyone else, particularly those things that serve the public interest but only if they are done on a not for profit basis. I think Frank was very right about the self fulfilling prophecy. I think my problem is that Frank overemphasized the cynicism at the expense of the sincerity of many of those conservative operatives, particularly those Republican activists who got elected to Congress in 1994, for example. They truly believed as AmWay appears to believe, but reality does not support their beliefs. Going to block grants and private contractors, or dumping responsibility and management on the states, does not save money, it just takes away accountability while greatly reducing efficiency. And, the fact is that a lot of those programs conservatives in practice sincerely want to cut have wide support (people may want government to cut spending, but it is always to cut spending for what benefits the other guy rather than them), so in the end they fail at those attempts (and then make them more expensive by gutting the personnel and other infrastructure to run those programs) while passing those programs that make them popular, cutting taxes. Conservative governance turns out to be expensive, and because it is expensive doesn’t make them “false conservatives”. They are truly doing what they can, but they butt up against the reality that government can not be done on the cheap. But, attempts to do so can make government less efficient and certainly less competent.
And thus, the answer to the thread question above, conservatives govern obviously, but they often govern badly because of their contempt for what they actually are running. And in the end, the mess that came across after the Bush Lite years and 6 years of a Republican congress, followed by 2 more years of a closely divided one, comes in part because the principles that AmWay truly believes were lost by “false conservatives” were in fact implemented to the extent that they could be.
Why are so many duped into believing that a “bailout” is the same thing as a “loan” — when clearly they arent the same thing??
Dear Boxic,
“I simply ‘calls um as I sees um’”
I can recommend a good ophthalmologist, a couple of excellent cognitive therapists and an English teacher who together with a fair to middling psychiatrist could probably help you with those perception/cognition deficits somewhat, given a few years and some serious hard work. Give it a try; what do you have to lose?
“Chas” ponders –
“Why are so many duped into believing that a “bailout” is the same thing as a “loan” — when clearly they arent the same thing?”
Perhaps because they’re dupes?
So much of the bailout resembles co-signing for your teenager’s first car loan.
Yeah, you put yourself on the line in case the kid flakes out, but it gives the kid a line of credit and you moral authority to expect the kid to live up to the promise to pay it back.
Most of the time it works out.
From October 1929 to March 1933 Herbert Hoover treated the American economy the way today’s CONs advocate. How’d that work work out for ya last time, CONs?
The conservatives cannot govern at all. Their ideology gets in the way of their ability to govern. That is why we end up with looney judges like Bork and Clarence Thomas on our courts- judges that just ignore decades of star decise (precedent) because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. People have finally figured out what a danger conservatisim is to the future of the country. And the Republicans, with the religious nutcases running them, are even more of a danger than the old line conservatives who wanted “smaller government” but generally did not think people should be sent to jail for “sinning” as the new conservatives do.
ronals mcdona… i mean ronald reagen, big and little george bush talked and talked about keeping government small and spending tight.
LOL
HAHAHAHA
ya gotta be kiddin me.
they spent out country into massive debt while tha dim trailer park neo Con lovers talked them up and voted for them and against their own best interests.
stupid and easily led.
Conservatives are NOT anti-Government.
Conservatives are ANTI-HUGE-GOVERNMENT.
With more Government Control, comes less Freedom.
Freedom, you know, the word that hasn’t been in the Democrat Dictionary since JFK.
“JimJohnson” –
What do you think JFK would think about the freedom to purchase mail-order guns?
JFK:
“… By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important.”
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/john_f._kennedy_quote_b160
NOTE:
“..the Right of Each Citizen to KEEP and BEAR arms…”
JFK clearly supporting gun rights.
And JFK knew he was taking a risk in riding through Dallas in a convertibile with no roof.
He also knew he needed to win Texas in the 64 elections if he was going to earn a 2nd Term.
Obama on the other hand, rides around in an Armored Limo Tank.
Oh, and what has happened to the murder rate since mail-order guns were banned in 1968?
“Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt,
can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed.”
John F. Kennedy
“Obama on the other hand, rides around in an Armored Limo Tank.”
So did georgie bush.
Except HE also had people stationed on all four sides of him IN the vehicle. I know because a friend of mine saw it when she went to flip him off as he was paraded through town.
Nope,
Obama got hisself a new Cadillac Armored Limo, not the same as what GWB had.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/06/obama-gets-new-presidential-limo/
http://www.defence.pk/forums/general-images-multimedia/20044-obamas-beast-james-bond-edition-latest-car-bunker-revealed.html
These are the first pictures of the new armoured limousine which will be used to ferry Barack Obama around.
Nicknamed “The Beast”, the Cadillac will make its debut on 20 January, as part of the inaugural parade.
(Funny, it’s called “The Beast”. Plate #666?)
Jimbo,
““..the Right of Each Citizen to KEEP and BEAR arms…””
Now if we could just draft all the gun nuts into a “well ordered militia,” maybe they could keep a proper lid on you. Until then, we ought to register guns so we can at least keep an eye on you.
I’ve had meth-head neighbors at times, and I’d just as soon know what they have that’s lethal (and have some way of separating them from it), because I probably won’t know when they’re tweaking until bullets come through my living room wall.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2009/01/new_Presidential_limo.jpg
(Details of Obama’s Tank. Windows don’t even roll down.)
Jed, what makes you think the Meth-Heads next door would register their guns?
They wouldn’t.
And you would not know what they had.
You would only know what law abiding people had.
For what purpose?
Actually Jimbo, most people who get shot are shot by people who were at least technically law-abiding until they pulled that trigger. Career criminals generally know what they’re doing, and know what happens when they actually shoot someone. It’s the scared amateurs and wannabes and just plain irate you really have to watch out for; you know, the ones without criminal records that might keep them from getting a registered gun!
And of course crooks won’t register their guns, but over time those unregistered guns will be used in crimes and show up in the system and they and their owners taken out of circulation. If you have a legitimate reason for owning one, why in hell are you so afraid of registering it?
Jed,
So… how exactly does gun registration do anything again?
Nathan,
It must do something if all of you nuts are so desperately terrified of it. That’ll do for the time being.
Jed,
Figures. You are nothing more than the typical anti-gun liberal.
You don’t care about the practicality of the laws you want to pass, as long as it annoys gun owners.
And you wonder why we are opposed to such measures when you can’t even explain how they will do anything?
Nathan,
Annoys? It must be something far more than annoying that gets you nuts to hand over all that hard cash the NRA uses to lobby against even the most reasonable restrictions on firearms.
Jed,
The most reasonable restrictions? Really? Name some of these “reasonable” restrictions and why you think they should be passed. i.e. what they will do. (You know, besides annoy gun owners)
Nathan,
Gee, annoying gun nuts ought to be enough! By the way, in case you haven’t picked up on the distinction by now, I’m not particularly anti-gun; what I am is anti-gun-nuts.
Okay, let’s see. If you’re the crack shot you claim to be, why on earth do you need 16-18 round clips in your handgun? Or an assault rifle? Just because you like its looks? C’mon! You got fantasies boy, or do they have you? Guns are real world; we don’t need paranoids playing out their delusions with real bullets. Get a stick!
Jed,
I think you misunderstood my question, here it is again:
The most reasonable restrictions? Really? Name some of these “reasonable” restrictions and why you think they should be passed. i.e. what they will do. (You know, besides annoy gun owners)
Jed, you don’t need a “legitimate reason for owning one (a gun)” in America. You have the RIGHT to own one, without any reason needed. You don’t have to justify a Constitutional right! Nor should you have to explain why you want one, or offer any justification. Unless you are a felon, or otherwise are not allowed this basic RIGHT, no explanation is necessary. If you got up on a soapbox to speak, would you have to have a legitimate reason? If you chose to attend any particular church, does your action have to be “approved?”
Once we start registering, and getting approval for, and justifying gun ownership, we have jeopardized that right, subject to the “approval” of the state. That is NOT how it is supposed to be.
“Obama got hisself a new Cadillac Armored Limo, not the same as what GWB had.”
But it was approved and built under the Bush administration thinking it was for the coming Republican administration — a real stretch as usual to try to blame Obama — look at the billion dollar deal the Bushies for new helicopters for the President — I do believe he told Gates to trim that back if he cant eliminate it.
The number of threats against the president seem to have increased — hmmmm I wonder why?
Correct, by the constitution you do not need a reason to own a gun.
But you have already stated in way or another, that not everyone (felons) should not have that right (we take away their right to vote) — Don’t you think it a good idea that a gun buyer should pass a competency test of some sort? Not an IQ test, a rules test, perhaps some sort of skills test? … and what of those that are known to be mentally incompetent to understand the responsibility of gun ownership – do they get a free pass in spite of their illness? Should an 8 yr old be allowed? We dont let people vote til thier 18 and thats a right — AND you have to register to vote. Almost every gun owner knows someone who should not have a gun — scary that they rarely say anything until its too late —–
… and if you are so passionate about it and feel its your responsibility to protect your family and society, why don’t you organize the most avid amongst you, go to the gang neighborhoods and get some real practice on ahhhh self defense ? I’d rather do it from behind my moat and from the turrets on my house …
“Conservatives are NOT anti-Government.
Conservatives are ANTI-HUGE-GOVERNMENT.
With more Government Control, comes less Freedom.
Freedom, you know, the word that hasn’t been in the Democrat Dictionary since JFK.
Intersting — the current move toward BIG Republican Style Government actually began with Tom Delay and the Contract with America Folks in 92 / 94. It was one of the reasons Gingrich lost his Speakers seat in 98 I believe — the GOP blamed him for the expansion of gov’t he helped engineer.
.. and the GOP conservatives here it seems wants a small government so no one can look over their shoulder to protect the consumer – they got the financial deregulation beginning with Reagan that started the creation of the monster housing bubble that began in the 90s … and they want a government that can look over every one else, and into every corner of a persons life — if they could get away with it they would declare Jesus Dad, as the Official GOD of the country —
hmmmm
Name calling is so grammar school — but then this IS Kansas where it’s still 10 years ago ….
Indie,
As I see it, the folks who desperatly want guns (and I’m not talking about a single girl in an inner city who actually is subect to crimes) are generally the ones the society least needs to have thei own private arsenals. I believe that those who apply for a gun permit should have a spotless police record, pass an IQ test and an MMPI as well. I’m also inclined to put a tax on each round of ammunition to the tune of $25-50,and the equivalent on reloading supplies, accompanied by a signed prescription written by a practicing trauma surgeon- the guy who may have to take them out of whoever our gunsel shoots. Do that and I’ll be a bit more warm to your cause. Double the penalties for possession of machine guns and conversion kits and put a life sentence on possession of bombs or bomb-making supplies, and a mandatory lethal injection for murder with a gun or bomb or other strictly military ordnance and we’ll all rest safer.
Marty,
“Jed, you don’t need a “legitimate reason for owning one (a gun)” in America. You have the RIGHT to own one, without any reason needed.”
Okay, what the founding fathers approved, and we should respect their wishes here, was for the unregulated ownership of muzzle-loading flintlock single-shot rifles and pistols. I see nothing in the constitution giving anybody the right to automatic handguns and assault rifles, or any gun that loads from the breech or shoots multiple rounds between loadings. For those, you need registration, and with registration comes responsibilities. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, and it wasn’t reported stolen prior to the crime, you’re responsible! If your kid takes them (even if he jimmies your gun safe) and shoots the school bully and the math teacher, you’re responsible.
And since you’ll be of course in a well ordered militia, you’ll need the requisite three-cornered hats and go drill every weekend, rain or shine, and have your photos and fingerprints and DNA on file with the authorities, along with serial numbers and a representative fired bullet from each gun.Then it might be barely acceptable.