Kansas City Star columnist E. Thomas McClanahan thinks President Obama’s era already looks a lot like Jimmy Carter’s. He wrote: “As in the Carter years, both political branches — White House and Congress — are now dominated by Democrats from the left wing of the party. As Michael Barone wrote in ‘Our Country,’ liberals from this tradition are inclined to seek ‘economic redistribution by always asking more’ — without worrying too much about whether they might be approaching the point at which ‘the public sector would start to squeeze the life out of the private sector.’
“More voters are saying, in effect: That point is fast approaching. That, in a nutshell, is what the ‘national conversation’ is currently about. That’s what the tea parties are about. That’s why angry people are crowding town hall meetings, shouting ‘read the bill!’ at their elected representatives.
“Many legitimately fear that if not stopped, Obama and the Democratic Congress will take this country well beyond the point where the public sector starts to ‘squeeze the life’ out of the economy.”
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
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
181 Comments
Finally, a legitimate debate question. The problem with that is that we can see models of other nations that have a balance between the private free market sector and the public sector.
It isn’t Obama’s fault that the nation is in the mess it is. Remember, Clinton left us in good shape, BushCo ruined us to this point, and Obama has to clean up. Yes its going to take some government finance.
But remember, after the Great Depression, it was the government help that spurred the economy back to life. People DIED during the depression. A lot of people died.
Nobody with any seriousness wants to turn this into a socialist government. I do think it is funny that the republicons were willing to hand over every constitutional freedom they had during the BUsh administration, but holy hades if the Dems try to fix healthcare. A healthcare plan that doesn’t even STOP insurance companies!
The fact of the matter is that so many will realize the government plan is better and will switch, forcing either the insurance companies to change how they do business or fail.
They’re concerned that the government will be far more efficient and private enterprise won’t be able to compete.
Reading Phil Brownlee’s opening comments and PMom’s followup comment, in a nutshell, they can be summarized by saying, “Which side is winning in the U.S., the public sector or the private sector?”
The frustration vote against Bush and Republicans was misinterpreted as a major ideological shift and license to enact socialist policies. Folks are stirring up to let the government know that it isn’t necessarily so.
Clinton left us nothing, except a stained dress and downgraded view of the Presidency. It was Gingrich and the Republican majorities in Congress that held Clinton’s feet to the fire and resulted in a reduced deficit and a meager paydown of the then national debt. There was never a surplus. Thats a dem. lie. Accounting tricks using the S.S. surplus were used to make it appear that there was a slight surplus. Do you really think that Clinton with a Dem Congress in his second term would have been fiscally responsible? We would have been having the fight we are having now back then.
The lesson is simple. Less Government and more private sector is the only way to prosperity.
pmom says “They’re concerned that the government will be far more efficient and private enterprise won’t be able to compete.”
Lets see. A private sector business has to make a profit. If they don’t they go T.U.
If a government “business”(program) runs out of money they don’t go T.U. the .gov just prints more money.
Kind of hard to compete against the guys with the printing press.
You fail.
Barone is a coalition conservative hack (as someone who says the reason why “liberals hate” Sarah Palin is that she didn’t abort her Down Syndrome baby inevitably is). And he is one of the commentators who writes faux fiscal conservative boiler plate.
The problem with faux fiscal conservatives is that they oversimplify the public versus private debate. A post-industrial nation of 300 million plus people by necessity will have public (government) involvement in the economy. Doesn’t mean that private employers will not still drive much of the economy, but the private employers are still supported by the infrastructure and, every bit as importantly, activity of the public sector.
The reality is, you can expect increases in government spending during an economic downturn. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, the evidence is that government spending works, especially if it is targeted. Also despite claims to the contrary, the cash for clunkers program was a model of something that did stimulate a portion of the economy (and also drove forward a public policy objective). And part of the success of that program will be felt in the states for several years in the property taxes paid on the new vehicles. Federal stimulus programs generally are of limited duration and also should consist of targeted spending that is likely to have high return. High return means that the public spending not only results in economic activity, but also generates other economic activity from economic activity that private enterprise follows. This return is the thing that faux fiscal conservatives miss and even some other conservatives fail to account for. Public spending can and often does drive and even undergird the rest of the economy, especially private enterprise. This means that spending can actually result in economic activity, and resulting tax revenue, that is beneficial to dealing with deficits and debt even after the spending has ended.
As for the symbiotic relationship between public and private, there are many communities in the country, including some of the suburbs here, where the primary employer, by far, is the local school district. Andover’s expansion and growth, for example, as well as the expansion and growth of several Johnson County communities, is driven by growth in the schools, and economic development follows. Of course, it is a cyclical relationship. People with money move to suburbs and are willing to support their local schools through bond issues, which in turn expands the schools, and also expands the number of businesses that move into the area. No business owner asks whether a customer made their money through the private or public sector.
Increases in public spending, permanent or temporary, are not even close to a valid measurement of the relative strengths of the private and public sectors. Contrary to faux fiscal conservative opinion, increases in public spending does not mean relative decreases in the strength of the private marketplace.
The assumption that it does is perhaps the single most dangerous myth in American politics. There ARE legitmate concerns about public spending and debt, but the idea that public spending inevitably weakens the private sector is not one of them. Symbiosis is not only possible, it is far more the rule than most people ever want to believe.
Something to think about:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/1021/2009-deficit-would-have-been-same-under-bush
More things to think about:
http://economistmom.com/2009/03/why-does-obamas-fiscal-vision-look-so-much-like-bushs-fiscal-legacy/
Doing the right thing, budgetarily, is something that neither “liberal” Democrats or “conservative” Republicans want to do. And so called “moderates” all too often, instead of combining the best of the thinking of the two poles, combine the worst of the thinking.
That’s why the “three” moderate Republicans, who I typically respect, tended to object to the best parts of the Stimulus to protect and expand the worst aspects of the Stimulus.
pmom
Take The Social Security Administration as an example. If a private business ran a retirement plan in the same manner the administrator would go to prison for fraud.
This deserves repeating, especially for J. Wink, who I find that I like in spite of the fact that I often don’t agree with him on government spending issues.
“This means that spending can actually result in economic activity, and resulting tax revenue, that is beneficial to dealing with deficits and debt even after the spending has ended.”
All expansions of spending are not equal, and not all of them simply contribute to a fiscal black hole.
“As for the symbiotic relationship between public and private, there are many communities in the country, including some of the suburbs here, where the primary employer, by far, is the local school district.”
And out here in the desert west, the ONLY employers creating jobs are in the public sector. The wingnut west manages to maintain or grow government jobs in hospitals, counties, cities, schools, irrigation districts, etc.
And yet, the wingnut west in this state whines about smaller government, self reliance, and how the private sector is the answer to all problems.
No matter how much money they hand out to businesses or waste on their version of economic development, the only things that grow out here are marijuana and government jobs.
WTF? Then they turn around and vote for knotkneads like huelskamp and his ilk. And whine about government while fighting like hell for those government dollars and jobs. Hypocrisy?
Uh huh. Kinda like how many out here receive government checks for subsides, social security and get their healthcare from medicare. But government is bad? Heheh. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
I guess it’s true. You really cant fix stupid.
ksfarmgrrl
I was hoping you would comment in this thread.
I hardly ever read here anymore. I can get my quota of stupid comments elsewhere without all the bother of wading through 300 posts of “F you, no F YOU”. I just stopped in for a minute.
But it’s nice to see you Agnatha :)
Congressman Mike Rogers’ opening statement on Health Care reform in Washington D.C.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded
This man really gets it, why don’t we have more people like him in D.C.
And why do we have so many DimLibs that just don’t and seem totall unable and so incompetent anymore.
Apparently the private sector is big and successful enough to pay all those ‘public’ government jobs “out here in the desert west”.
“Many legitimately fear that if not stopped, Obama and the Democratic Congress will take this country well beyond the point where the public sector starts to ‘squeeze the life’ out of the economy.”
I don’t think so. I don’t think the fear they feel is so specific. It’s more a low-grade fever nurtured by the pace. And the pace is being set by Wall Street, and matched by President Obama in DC.
Congress is trying to keep up, but among Congress, Wall Street, and the Oval Office they’re outmatched.
When it comes to brain power that actually HAS power, only the Oval Office can match Wall Street right now.
Opponents of the president — very likely financed by Wall Street — are doing a fantastic job of sowing seeds of fear everywhere, and following up with plenty of fertilizer.
The result is a helluva lot of fear felt by a growing number of Americans. It is not specific, however (although those who fear the most are able to point to specific acts which angered them).
There’s actually nothing wrong with the Democratic Congress in D.C. The problem is the Democratic leadership and their ability to lead their fellow party members by their back room wheeling and dealing to get legislation passed.
O’BAMA’s biggest mistake is that he keeps using the same leftist think tanks and organizations to do the hard thinking for him. Also, he has put those with these partisan hat tricks as Czars and key advisers. The problem with that is that their ideas and theories sound good on paper, but don’t work in the real world.
O’BAMA ends up looking foolish and incompetent because he follows shallow, untested advise of these partisan hacks.
This is what inexperience does for you. That is, if your model for success is controversial and you haven’t really tested your theories, then you end up with division and looking unwise, if not foolish.
O’BAMA is definitely looking unwise and foolish these days.
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 8:39 am | Permalink
The problem with that is that their ideas and theories sound good on paper, but don’t work in the real world.
—
Are you able to cite specific examples of theories held by President Obama, subsequently enacted into law, and that “don’t work in the real world?”
Please be specific.
At its root the Repub party and corporations have been very adept over the years by governing from emotions, and those emotions are fear, anger, desperation, and hate.
The Dem party comes from a logical and intellectual position.
Unfortunately, in America the gut has prevailed over the head for too long.
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 8:39 am | Permalink
The problem with that is that their ideas and theories sound good on paper, but don’t work in the real world.
—
Pedant
Posted August 14, 2009 at 8:42 am | Permalink
Are you able to cite specific examples of theories held by President Obama, subsequently enacted into law, and that “don’t work in the real world?”
Please be specific.
—
It’s been an hour, and still nothing to back up Regular’s wild accusation.
Again, the fear that people feel now is nebulous. They’re just frightened. I think they’re frightened because things are moving so quickly, and they feel their fear subsiding if things would just slow down. I would argue that the pace is set less by DC than by Wall Street.
They can point to specific acts that have angered them, but they are unable to provide evidence supporting the likelihood of the outcomes they fear most.
Why try and blame this on just Obama and the Democrats? This is a federal government problem. Trying to blame one party for this is getting old. Americans are not stupid and see what has been going on to this country over the last 60 years. No need to politicize it anymore.
I am encouraged by the many protests and rallys all over the country being held by people who prefer liberty over tyranny. No need to politicize that either. I’ve seen all types of people at these gatherings. Not just one group of people.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted August 14, 2009 at 8:04 am | Permalink
I hardly ever read here anymore. I can get my quota of stupid comments elsewhere without all the bother of wading through 300 posts of “F you, no F YOU”. I just stopped in for a minute.
______________________________
KFG just swooped in for a minute to pass judgment on us all.
Doesn’t the air get a little thin up there on your lofty perch?
Rage,
One doesn’t need something that is A priori.
Tis merely a demonstratable fact and the proof lays before you. Try to open your eyes.
Austrian_Economist
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:49 am | Permalink
I am encouraged by the many protests and rallys all over the country being held by people who prefer liberty over tyranny. No need to politicize that either. I’ve seen all types of people at these gatherings. Not just one group of people.
—
Based on what I’ve read in the past 36 hours or so, I’d say there are three distinct groups of people who attend tea bag and town hall meetings.
1. Ross Perot’s old constituency,
2. Lyndon LaRouche supporters (often the shouters, according to Dianne Rehm’s radio program), and
3. Those who are paid a salary in return for their political activism.
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink
One doesn’t need something that is A priori.
Tis merely a demonstratable fact and the proof lays before you. Try to open your eyes.
—
No link, got it.
Pedant
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink
One doesn’t need something that is A priori.
Tis merely a demonstratable fact and the proof lays before you. Try to open your eyes.
—
No link, got it.
—————-
Yes, here it is.
igotmyeducationandknowhowtouseitproperly.com
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:56 am | Permalink
Pedant
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:55 am | Permalink
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 9:50 am | Permalink
One doesn’t need something that is A priori.
Tis merely a demonstratable fact and the proof lays before you. Try to open your eyes.
—
No link, got it.
—————-
Yes, here it is.
igotmyeducationandknowhowtouseitproperly.com
—
By the way, I spent most of yesterday reading about health insurance reform, the stimulus bill, the US deficit, and looked into just about every charge made by those who oppose President Obama.
In every case, there was no basis to the charge I studied. There was no THERE there.
Instead there appears to be a TON of fear: that’s what’s really in the heart of those who oppose health insurance reform.
I’d encourage every supporter of the president to make his opponents provide links to original statements, and then check them out. Double check their facts, they were never correct once yesterday.
Regular continues the trend.
I’d stop trying to lump people together in groups and recognize them as people who love liberty and freedom. Healthcare or cash for clunkers are not the issue. The underlying issue is freedom and liberty being taken away from free individuals. Strike at the root of the issues and quit being distracted by the branches of secondary issues.
I think it’s pretty clear that, even when put on the spot, most if not all of these folks are simply unable to provide evidence supporting the likelihood of the outcomes they fear most.
In every case, there was no basis to the charge I studied.
———————-
Pedant has proven to have poor study skills nor insight into the impacts of ObamaCare.
Austrian_Economist
Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:01 am | Permalink
The underlying issue is freedom and liberty being taken away from free individuals.
—
I disagree. The underlying issue is fear.
By the way, which of these groups did you fall under?
The underlying issue is freedom and liberty being taken away from free individuals.
===========================================
BINGO.
ANTI
Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:04 am | Permalink
In every case, there was no basis to the charge I studied.
———————-
Pedant has proven to have poor study skills nor insight into the impacts of ObamaCare.
—
Please, show me where I made a mistake.
??
Actually Pedant,
You kept repeating where’s the link – where’s the link!
Sometimes being intellectual results in concluding one’s own analysis on a matter instead of being one of the sheep following the Judas goat to unenlightened slaughter.
As I said before, the Health Care industry is one sixth of the U.S. economy.
Not to do it carefully and with great examination is reckless behavior that will result in disaster.
There is no need to rush headlong into something that will affect U.S. citizens for the next one hundred years or longer.
Finally, a legitimate debate question. The problem with that is that we can see models of other nations that have a balance between the private free market sector and the public sector.
It isn’t Obama’s fault that the nation is in the mess it is. Remember, Clinton left us in good shape, BushCo ruined us to this point, and Obama has to clean up. Yes its going to take some government finance
——————————————–
Agreed. But, the first thing we as a country need to do is quit pointing the finger of blame. We as a country got ourselves into this mess and it is going to take we as a country to get out of it. If we can all stop playing the blame game maybe we can actually find that balance.
Regular
Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink
As I said before, the Health Care industry is one sixth of the U.S. economy.
Not to do it carefully and with great examination is reckless behavior that will result in disaster.
There is no need to rush headlong into something that will affect U.S. citizens for the next one hundred years or longer.
—
I don’t disagree, I merely asked you for evidence that this is taking place.
As examples, you gave me two statements by John McCain’s former economic advisor, but without any corroborating evidence. Just two statements you found frightening. You stated that blue dog Democrats ability to slow the process long enough to bring these two statements into the public discussion was evidence that the Democrats were behaving recklessly, but you were never able to support these two sentences. You appear to take them at face value. I think you do that because you are frightened.
I ask you again. Do you have any evidence that the great examination is not taking place? After all, it took me only 70 minutes to read a CBO report you cited.
Anything?
“The underlying issue is freedom and liberty being taken away from free individuals.”
Spin us a happy tale of the freedom and liberty of some poor slob working at Walmart.
““More voters are saying,”
Huh?
“That’s what the tea parties are about. ”
Yeah, that’s why they are SO well attended huh?
“That’s why angry people are crowding town hall meetings”
Cranks, kooks, and the woefully misinformed and irrationally afraid.
Try exercising your right to vote in the “free” market. Government at least we get a vote on.
Try exercising your right to vote in the “free” market.
==================
Do you spend money, BlueJay?
That is your vote.
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 10:48 am | Permalink
““More voters are saying,”
Huh?
“That’s what the tea parties are about. ”
Yeah, that’s why they are SO well attended huh?
“That’s why angry people are crowding town hall meetings”
Cranks, kooks, and the woefully misinformed and irrationally afraid.
Try exercising your right to vote in the “free” market. Government at least we get a vote on.
—————————————-
Why do you hate dissent?
Like a blind pig finds an acorn, “Regular” posts –
“As I said before, the Health Care industry is one sixth of the U.S. economy.”
Yup.
And that’s the problem.
No other 1st World nation spends so much of its GDP on health care.
Even though Americans smoke, drink, are fatter and lazier than most of the world, the so-called “Greatest Health Care System in the World” ranks 38th among other nations.
Even though American ingenuity attracts a smattering of foreign patients for what’s perceived as superior care, that superior care is not funded by for-profit insurance companies who reject coverage for being “experimental.”
With health coverage reform we’re not gonna spend any more money on health care than we already do.
Unless you want to make the case that people will rush out to get surgeries and radiation and chemotherapy just because it’s paid for in a different manner that might bypass the profit incentive of commercial insurers.
Care to make that case, “Regular?”
“Why do you hate dissent?”
I don’t. Dissent is to be commended when it is informed and honest.
I see neither in the town halls or tea parties.
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:02 am | Permalink
“Why do you hate dissent?”
I don’t. Dissent is to be commended when it is informed and honest.
I see neither in the town halls or tea parties
————————————————-
Just because their opinions don’t agree with yours is no reason they should be silenced,which sounds like what you would like to do. Your opinion is no more right or wrong than theirs are
“Just because their opinions don’t agree with yours is no reason they should be silenced,”
I have called for no such silence. But I will not sit quietly myself while half truths, biases, and outright lies are shouted.
“Take The Social Security Administration as an example. If a private business ran a retirement plan in the same manner the administrator would go to prison for fraud.”
Heckler – not just the SS Admin…it’s also criminal for a private company, under fiduciary liability laws, to leave their defined benefit pensions unfunded..fed govt employee/military pensions are unfunded to the tune of $5.3T (USA Today) and counting…or maybe how private citizens go to jail for writing hot checks, congresspersons who do the same at the congress’s own personal bank just get told “darnit, just don’t do that anymore, ok?”, to which the following month they wrote like 1,000 more hot checks…
But hey…it’s all just fear mongering with stupid people worrying about govt’s track record in fiscal responsibility, I mean come on…Medicare’s only $30-$39T in the hole…from a credit worthiness perspective, who wouldn’t do more business with a private business like that? Hopefully the govt just bought a bunch of Credit Default Swaps from AIG betting against the fed govt’s solvency…sarcasm/off
Sure
MonkeyHockMonkeyhawk, I’ll make the case.The United States is the 800 pound gorilla on the World Stage.
We are not like any other country in the world in that we as a nation, have figured out that being blindy led into situations without first thoughtfully reflecting on them is a dangerous adventure in which there is no return.
I have visited the sheep-pen governments of Europe and their socialistic system – I was not impressed with the lock step approach to governing.
What’s that word that the Libs always keep pushing? Oh yeah – choice, as in freedom to choose.
Lock yourself into government health care and the choice is gone, permanently.
No thanks…
What is good for business is seldom good for the employees OF that business. I’ll cast my lot with Government that keeps the strong just, the weak secure and the peace preserved. I want my “of by and for” for the people, not the bottom line.
Blue jjay,
You have posted earlier that you want everyone marching in lockstep wit you leftist/socialist ideaology. True or false?
Well here’s a newsflash, DFB. The fed govt is not a private business. Nor should it be. Right?
I thought yall were dead set against it becoming one, but of course yall compare it to a privately run business whenever it suits your purpose.
In the long run, my opinion is that the GOP is going to pay a steep price for its continuing efforts to destroy, rather than fix, government.
I guess we’ll see about that.
“Cranks, kooks, and the woefully misinformed and irrationally afraid.”
I just hope Dems keep up this strategy of telling people how stupid they are..it’s working so well for them.
I choose Liberty.
Administration after administration has been chipping away at the liberty of the American people. The people are sick of this.
Obama has came along during this heightened state and instead of listening to the people, has decided to get a bigger stick to poke at the sleeping bear.
An unwise decision.
Finally, a legitimate debate question. The problem with that is that we can see models of other nations that have a balance between the private free market sector and the public sector.
It isn’t Obama’s fault that the nation is in the mess it is. Remember, Clinton left us in good shape, BushCo ruined us to this point, and Obama has to clean up. Yes its going to take some government finance
——————————————–
Agreed. But, the first thing we as a country need to do is quit pointing the finger of blame. We as a country got ourselves into this mess and it is going to take we as a country to get out of it. If we can all stop playing the blame game maybe we can actually find that balance.
———————————————-
Seems like the majority here love playing the finger pointing game
“Well here’s a newsflash, DFB. The fed govt is not a private business. Nor should it be. Right?”
Ped – Where exactly did I suggest it was a private business? Simply pointing out the fact that it IS bankrupt already, but unlike a private business, it’s allowed to keep the ponzi schemes rolling longer via fiat not available to private industry that people like you claim is so dangerous. It’s also allowed to act outside oversight that private business is under, as there’s nobody to oversee govt, so it breaks the rules designed to protect from unscrupulous business practices and employs them liberally itself.
A private company goes under, some are hurt, fed govt goes down, we’re ALL hurt. Which one provides more “systematic risk”? You guys loved to talk about Bush’s lack of an exit strategy in Iraq, so what’s the exit strategy for govt programs that bankrupt the entire nation?
ANTI
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:22 am | Permalink
I choose Liberty.
————————————-
Agreed. But with liberty comes responsibilty and consequenses. Some want the first but not the other 2
But with liberty comes responsibilty and consequenses. Some want the first but not the other 2
=====================
Agreed.
I’ll take all 3.
ANTI
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink
But with liberty comes responsibilty and consequenses. Some want the first but not the other 2
=====================
Agreed.
I’ll take all 3
——————————————–
Well that makes 2 bet there are plenty more who think the same way
Anti/Free – come on, everyone knows it’s a “right” to not have any consequences, just like a job, house, healthcare, equal share of pay, etc, etc. You just have to brush off the 2nd Bill of Rights and get on board! :)
Make me 3.
“With liberty and justice…”
For those who can afford it?
What does someone working at Wal-Mart have to do with Freedom and Liberty? Of all the choices that “poor slob” could have made, he chose to work at Wal-Mart. To each his own. I would have started a business if I were him. Maybe he could get specialized training in a particular field and start his own business fixing cars or something.
“Regular” asserts –
“Lock yourself into government health care and the choice is gone….”
What part of the word “option” do you not understand?
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:43 am | Permalink
“With liberty and justice…”
For those who can afford it
———————————————
You ever get tired of being a victim?
The government is already involved in healthcare. What are some of you people arguing about? You all know that the government subsidizes the medical insurance industry, right? Either way, you still lose.
The market would correct the problems if given the option.
You know what is great about the market? It is perfect. It will never make a mistake. If you mess with it, it can become distorted, but it will always override any type of intervention in the long-run.
Quite a beautiful thing to behold actually.
“You ever get tired of being a victim?”
Do you ever weary of being a tool?
Not a tool just speaking my mind,something wrong with that?
Austrian_Economist
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:51 am | Permalink
You know what is great about the market? It is perfect. It will never make a mistake. If you mess with it, it can become distorted, but it will always override any type of intervention in the long-run.
Quite a beautiful thing to behold actually.
—
That is nutty. Where did you get your economics degree, Wal Mart?
Yes well,
don’t give me too big a piece. I must honestly tell you, I don’t think you can spare it.
If the market is perfect, then you should support the repeal of insider trading laws.
Do you?
“What part of the word “option” do you not understand?”
Ok, Obama’s stated that private health ins is too expensive, fair? Then announces his “plan” eliminates annual/lifetime maximums, deductibles on preventative care, pre-existing conditions, cancelling policies & limiting out of pocket expense via mandate to private carriers. On top, Congress mandated mental health coverage, beg in ‘10, for private carriers to cover mental health services, specifically including drug/alcohol rehab. Name a single one of those mandates that makes private insurance cheaper?
Now, add to that the fact that govt TELLS docs/hospitals what they are going to pay them, vs private carriers that have to negotiate with docs/hospitals, which translated, means private carriers pay more to subsidize govt fees. Govt also protected themselves, but not docs/insurance from malpractice claims due to denied care, in other words, govt can deny care with no consequences..docs/insurance don’t have that luxury either.
The talking pt about govt “competing” is silly. If they want to compete, fine, cool, do it. How about they level the playing field, like Dems love to talk about and rarely practice. You can’t handcuff & blindfold the opponent and then act like you’re an efficient fighter because you kick their ash.
That is nutty. Where did you get your economics degree, Wal Mart?
____________________________________________
If you care to debate my points, please do so in a manner that allows for a response on my part. Please to provide a point by point breakdown of my argument so that I may properly defend my statements. Maybe we can get to a point where we both learn from eachother and walk away a little smarter for it.
Austrian_Economist
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:59 am | Permalink
That is nutty. Where did you get your economics degree, Wal Mart?
____________________________________________
If you care to debate my points, please do so in a manner that allows for a response on my part. Please to provide a point by point breakdown of my argument so that I may properly defend my statements. Maybe we can get to a point where we both learn from eachother and walk away a little smarter for it.
—
If the market is perfect, then you should support the repeal of insider trading laws.
Do you?
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink
Yes well,
don’t give me too big a piece. I must honestly tell you, I don’t think you can spare it
————————————————
I try really try hard not to take your inventory bj but sometimes it is damn hard because you make it so easy.
I’m glad the “Serenity Prayer” gets ya through “Freebird”.
The real world requires more realistic solutions.
“Austrian_Economist” waxes –
“You know what is great about the market? It is perfect.”
When you go into an economic argument convinced of the outcome — i.e, “the market… is perfect” — it’s not likely you’ll be receptive to any evidence to the contrary.
Why bother with such as you?
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 14, 2009 at 11:47 am | Permalink
“Regular” asserts –
“Lock yourself into government health care and the choice is gone….”
What part of the word “option” do you not understand?
————————-
I don’t buy into politically correct weasel words like public option health care plan that try to disguise itself with semantics.
Oh, and how could I forget..some of my other favorite brilliant economic healthcare strategy from Obama & Pelosi’s mouths:
“We’re going to cap the costs, but none of the benefits!”
Yeah..that strategy works well in real life, oh wait, that’s caused silly things like financial meltdowns, rollng blackouts when CA tried to force fixed electricity pricing but left cost open ended, etc. Yeah, these guys are economic genius’ and the people who cheer at comments like that are all rocket surgeons. But those darn stupid stooges who challenge that insanity need to just sit down and shut up.
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
I’m glad the “Serenity Prayer” gets ya through “Freebird”.
The real world requires more realistic solutions
——————————————-
TY, I do live in the real world and face real world situations but scoff if you want but that prayer helps me make realistic decisions which are a lot better than the ones I have made in the past
“We’re going to cap the costs, but none of the benefits!”
That, too, is nutty.
Did somebody seriously say that?! Do you have a link?
And I’ll continue working THIS side of the rainbow thanks, “Freebird”.
BlueJay
Posted August 14, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
And I’ll continue working THIS side of the rainbow thanks, “Freebird”.
————————————————–
Maybe one day we can quit being adversaries and become allies,For the record I do not dislike you personally we just have vastly different opinions on what we think is right.
Ped – could probably find it, Pelosi was saying it loud & proud either just before the break or right after it began. Obama or Gibbs mentioned it in one of their pressers..can’t remember which for sure…but reporters nodded along as my head was about to explode.
If you’ll remember in Obama’s ABC infomercial, he also said part of his plan was to duplicate the Mayo Clinic model across the nation, because it was 30% cheaper there…wait for it..because a group of specialists met with the patient at the same time vs as they do elsewhere independently. Seriously??? Does ANYONE honestly buy that crap??? In what universe can a patient gather all appropriate specialists/primary/surgeons/etc together for one meeting?? Again more nodding in unison from that crowd, with no follow-up.
What I see, is the same as in Obama’s campaign. He can sell vague generalities better than a used car salesman…but sucks swampwater when he’s forced into explaining those generalities in detail.
Ped – I didn’t look very hard, this is just the first one I found with my google search.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2298337/posts
And no, I didn’t read this anywhere, I saw the press conference and freaked out that she wasn’t intellectually disemboweled for the idiocy of the statement. In her usual fashion, she gave the “let me repeat” to add emphasis to the lunacy.
“Regular” comes up with –
“I don’t buy into politically correct weasel words like public option health care plan that try to disguise itself with semantics.”
Okay.
I get it.
You’re just “playing” on WE Blog again, right?
Have fun.
Pendant,
Insider trading in the stock market is fine by me. We are all told by the SEC if someone buys or sells stock as a company insider anyway. I’d take advantage of that information if I were you.
When you go into an economic argument convinced of the outcome — i.e, “the market… is perfect” — it’s not likely you’ll be receptive to any evidence to the contrary.
Why bother with such as you?
______________________________________________
Try me Monkey? Here is a hint. You are the market. Any decision you make is yours and yours alone. It is perfect for you as an individual. That is why it is perfect. If you infringe upon someone elses rights, you are violating anothers right to freedom. In todays world, the people who violate are seldom punished. It is a moral hazard.
“You are the market. Any decision you make is yours and yours alone. It is perfect for you as an individual. That is why it is perfect.”
Sigh. What is it about subscribers to the Austrian Economic school, particularly those with libertarian tendancies, who on one hand emphasize the individual nature of economic decisions (different for different individuals) and yet on the other hand assume (with no justification) that such decisions on an individual basis are rational.
The evidence is coming in that such decisions are NOT universally rational. Behavioral psychology and neuro-psychology have known about irrational decision making for years, and there is no reason, none whatsoever, to assume that economic decisions (which, honestly, are mostly what behavioral psychologists have been looking at whether they acknowledge it or not) are any more rational than any other, or are somehow not influenced by subjective and flawed biases.
Irrational and wrong decisions are made all the time, and far, FAR more often than someone like AE would like to admit, the consequences of irrational decisions extend far beyond the party making the decision.
Once again, Austrian Economist, you assume a premise that is not the given you seem to think it is.
Oh, forgot this link. It is from wikipedia, but it is still a good introduction to Behavioral Economics. And the field has a good deal of empirical support.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
Should have added: “Behavioral psychology and neuro-psychology have known about irrational decision making for years, and there is no reason, none whatsoever, to assume that economic decisions (which, honestly, are mostly what behavioral psychologists have been looking at whether they acknowledge it or not) are any more rational than any other, or are somehow not influenced by subjective and flawed biases, or biological/neurological tendencies.”
There are three types of ‘jawless fish’ personnas:
1. Is capable of thinking for itself.
2. Is able to understand the thinking of others
3. A third can neither think for itself nor understand the thinking of others.
The first is the highest.
The second is excellent.
The third is worthless.
Unfortunately, the ‘jawless fish’ exhibits all three of these types in a single writing.
It can be confusing!
Care to explain rational to me? What is rational? I assume that your taste are different from my own. Does that make the decisions you make more rational than my own? The only rational decision is one that does not infringe upon the liberties of others. We have laws for that though, so no need to worry any further about it.
Hayek once said, “Choice and risk either reside with the individual or he/she will be relieved of both.”
You seem to lean towards relieving individuals of choice and risk. I seem to lean on the other side of the fence. These types of differences are not easily resolved and most times never are. WE Blog is certainly not the place to have this debate.
If you do lean towards relieving individuals of choice and risk, who do you propose take on that responsibility? Who is rational in your eyes? Seems counter-intuitive my friend. You want to make rational decisions, but want to take away someones liberties. How rational is that?
““Many legitimately fear that if not stopped, Obama and the Democratic Congress will take this country well beyond the point where the public sector starts to ‘squeeze the life’ out of the economy.”
I don’t fear it – I know it.
Liberals are motivated for immediate gratification. They don’t care about tomorrow. All they care about is getting off in the present.
ksfarmgirl, “I guess it’s true. You really cant fix stupid.”
If I had a nickel for everytime your main point was the above – I’d be rich.
You really need to up your vocabulary and avoid using one of the most overused phrases in the English language. Very passé.
The first thing even a uneducated freshman should learn in Economics 101 is that there are, and always will be, unlimited wants and needs but limited resources to allocate among them. The wants and needs will never ever be fully satisfied.
But the DimLibs haven’t learned even that. They think they are in the best position to decide those allocation questions for others, more so than the individual himself who earns his living.
Their arrogance is amazing.
“Boxlock20″ pontificates about –
“…limited resources to allocate….”
Careful, there. You’ve tripped over the truth. It’s basically unknown territory for you.
Be very afraid.
30% of every health care dollar (a resource) spent ends up in the golden parachutes of insurance corporations CEOs.
Let’s talk about that, huh?
Taking over healthcare by the government will not lower the overall costs of healthcare.
It is a shell game, which more than likely will cost most of us more (exception being those completely without insurance).
Don’t try to play the game comparing the libs plan with the completely socialized systems in other countries where they own the hospitals, equipment, and pay the doctors and nurses.
That’s apples to oranges.
This is going to cost the nation bunches we don’t have.
Freebird, I’d love to come together as left and right and meet in the middle somewhere, but look, we libs and dems are TIRED of being rolled over like a freight train when it comes to the cons and their all or nothing ideology. Its a throwdown now. After all of their Clinton hate, they RUINED the man. After all their support of the failed election of Bush and his failed policies with NO accountability whatsoever, I’m done. I will not let these cons ruin my nation. McVeigh, Roeder, these people are dangerous, and they’re not reasonable.
And why is it that you’ll chastise me for my leftist comments, but you give the cons a pass? Did you totally miss what Austrian said? Basically accusing democrats of taking away freedoms. Preposterous.
amway, it isn’t instant gratification, its life or death need TODAY. Your side enjoyed a lot of time to fix this mess, but you supported the status quo and it only got worse. YOU are part of the problem. Get out of the way so we can be the solution.
I’ll play MonkeyHawk,
Does it upset you that your government gives Insurance companies subsidies? Does it sting even more to know that the CEO pay would go down if it weren’t subsidized with your tax dollars.
Let it sink in. Your tax dollars are used to enrich the insurance companies. That’s called fascism. No party to blame there. Just government in general.
“Irrational and wrong decisions are made all the time, and far, FAR more often than someone like AE would like to admit, the consequences of irrational decisions extend far beyond the party making the decision.”
Agnatha – simple question, with your comment in mind, why would you feel better about handing more and more decisions over to a centralized govt whose proven their capable of consistent irrational decisions/behavior? Simply put, irrational decisions at an individual level should affect the individual punitively. Irrational decisions at a national level affect everyone punitively.
Keep in mind as well, if the centralized system is set up with more power, how would you feel when the captain changes hands/parties? Personally, I don’t want either party to have more power..ever.
GOOD POINT ‘DFB”!
You’ll not get a logical answer out of the jawless fish though, or the Chimp for that matter.
If you weren’t paying attention the life of the private sector was thoroughly desiccated by the previous administration. The life source, money and credit had hemmoraged.
Phantom – as usual, partisan tripe ,zero content. The fed govt is stone cold bankrupt, it just gets to carry out its ponzi schemes as long as there’s ink for the printer or Chinese willing to continue to loan to a deadbeat, so what’s your point?
My point is ‘Reagan proved Deficits don’t matter!’
Only sore point is whose got the credit card.
“Only sore point is whose got the credit card”
Personally, I don’t care who has the credit card. Just don’t come knocking on my door with the bill free-spending Barack is racking up.
Phantom – right…Reagan’s the source of all US debt, oh wait..Reagan didn’t pass Medicare that’s $39T in debt…Reagan didn’t pass SS that’s $10T in debt…Reagan didn’t take us off the gold standard so the govt can print to its heart’s content..Reagan didn’t devise the plan to stop funding fed employee/military pensions so that it’s now $5.3T in debt…Reagan didn’t set up Fannie/Freddie to make/buy stupid loans because of mandates to loan to low income folks (weird how quiet they’ve kept the fact that the Fed Res is buying $1.25T in securities from F/F THIS YEAR, was in Eagle yesterday on pg 2, on top of $200B in TARP funds & Fannie asking for more…)…you play the weak and tired line about Reagan & deficits, but his Presidency didn’t set the entire nation up for bankruptcy like a lot of Prog one’s did.
Seriously, for once, rather than just spewing what your heroes tell you too think, it would be nice if occasionally folks like yourself actually posted ideas. I’ve done it several times. I’ve gotten thoughtful commentary back on those ideas from Agnatha. Cosmos, as one monomaniacal as he/she is, at least has a never ending bank of links to give the appearance of independent thought. Pedant at least had the intellectual honesty to admit Pelosi would be nutty for saying “we’ll cap the costs, but not the benefits” in healthcare…of course didn’t respond once I gave he/she links to prove she’d said something that idiotic. Honestly, off the top of my head, can’t think of another Progressive poster that’s actually posted ideas. Tons of snark at other ideas, but their ideas amount to whatever Obama’s selling that day/week. Not a single original idea.
I’d settle for just showing the ability from more Dems that post here, that they can actually look at more than 1 variable in an issue and claim it’s a fleshed out thought. Even that a range of outcomes should be considered, rather than just the sunshine & lollipops versions the Dems are selling, with no safety net should their best case scenarios not pan out…because best case scenarios never do. You know..the infamous exit strategy club Obama used to trash Bush throughout the campaign…well…what’s his exit strategy on healthcare, TARP, GM, Stimulus, Citi, AIG, cap & tax, amnesty, card check, etc? Because I sure as H haven’t heard the man mention an exit strategy for any of it. Nor one from any of his faithful supporters on this blog.
“Personally, I don’t care who has the credit card. Just don’t come knocking on my door with the bill free-spending Barack is racking up.”–Am_Way
But you know there will be a painful debt to pay one of these days….or maybe a war and default.
Ooooh Phantom, DFB has ya looking pretty small, so small I can’t hear or see ya.
Box – the lame snarks, full of sound & fury, signifying nothing is so 2008…don’t ya think?? :) I do see why so many people like Twitter now…doesn’t require much thought to use a maximum 150 characters…and I’ll bet they’ve got characters to spare with their in depth communication….
But you hit it on the head. With the debt we’re racking up, and who we owe it to, we’ve got a bad, bad thing coming whenever they decide to cut us off and call their notes vs roll them. Crushing the US dollar may be good for the govt…but those that we owe aren’t impressed with getting worthless dollars…so to your point, at what point does all this turn into a war?
“DFB” –
If you buy into libertarianism there hasn’t been anything like “real” money since Nixon took us off the Gold Standard.
So it’s all fake money.
So Dick Cheney can advise George WMD Bush, “Deficits don’t matter. Reagan taught us that.”
You can go all Weimar Republic on my ass; even post picture of Germans pushing wheelbarrows of currency to buy a loaf of bread. But back then it was “real” money, not fiat money.
Not anymore.
None of you deficit Chicken-Littles were all that upset when George WMD Bush invaded Iraq on the taxpayers’ Discover Card. And what did we discover? That you can kill hundreds of thousands of far-away brown people and some of ‘em still might be diffident about selling you their oil under market price.
Shrub could have written individual million-dollar checks to each and every Iraq who’s been killed since March, 2003 and we would have spent less money (and forty-five hundred fewer American bodies) than that little molding leftover Shrub/Cheney left in the Oval Office fridge on January 20, 2009.
“If you buy into libertarianism there hasn’t been anything like “real” money since Nixon took us off the Gold Standard.
So it’s all fake money.”–Monkey
I think if you check FDR (a Democrat) took the U.S. off the ‘Gold Standard’ in 1933, NOT Nixon, and tried to recall all gold held in private possession, except for numismatic coins. Only the dummies complied fortunately.
Silver was removed from our coinage in 1965 which has nothing to do with the Gold Standard, and now our paper money is backed by nothing, (supposedly the full faith and credit of the government….but like I said, NOTHING), and our coins are made of what amounts to pot metal.
Sad!
By the way Monkey, seems you are now trying to say that Nixon’s term was in 1933, ha ha ha.
Seems you have a problem with history, as you accuse me of. I copied and pasted an article that was incorrect on a date, and didn’t correct someone else’s mistake on that date mistake because it had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
You just got it wrong all on your own.
What to fess up?
MH – your boy FDR pulled the same trick with the gold standard (forcing citizens to exchange gold certificates for paper)..didn’t work out well then either. Nixon did it, when foreign countries started calling in their debt with us. Neither time did it fix anything, just allowed the govt ponzi scheme to keep up appearances. Do I think Keynes was a potsy for what govt wanted to hear..of course. Am I more of a Hayek fan, you bet. Friedmans’ monetary policy push is just as silly to me as Keynes’ theory that govt just needs to spend rampantly..don’t forget he’s the FIRST one to say deficits don’t matter…
I’m not suggesting Weimar inflation..but it’s obvious govt prefers inflation over deflation, because deflation exposes their entire debt load far more than papering over it with the printing press. Deflation is good for people on fixed incomes/low income, bad for govt because it makes tax revenues go down. Govt doing their damnedest to make sure fixed income/low income folks feel the pain of inflation vs govt being forced to wean its spending. BOTH parties. Yet you cheer them on. Not a libertarian thing…its silly math with rules that don’t change, no matter how hard a politician tries to convince you they’ve figured out a new way to do addition/subtraction.
So based on your support of Dick Cheney’s comment, and consistent invoking of it…I can only assume you agree that using the nation’s credit line is all good. As I said, talking pts are lame and tired. Claiming it’s all good, because “BUSH DID IT!” is intellectually weak. Obama railed consistently on the campaign trail how horrible a $500B deficit was…now it’s chump change when he’s got the credit card. Intellectually weak at best, purely dishonest as worst. Claiming he’ll try to get them back to that level ($500B)in 10 yrs…and that equates to “cutting the deficit” now…
Maybe you can provide proof of where I’ve been a massive supporter of Bush’s war policy in Iraq?
But thanks again, for proving my point. Not a single idea presented in your post..just more talking pts & snark. Funny, I’ve never been able to pay bills with those, which is why I try to present ideas that might actually pay some bills vs continuing the silly “my Dad can beat up your Dad” level of discourse.
“Nixon did it, when foreign countries started calling in their debt with us.—DFB
The value of the raw silver was greater than the value of what the coins represented in our monetary system. A paper dollar exchanged for silver was a very profitable exchange for the one gaining the silver, not so for the government.
This country used to have an enormous stock pile of silver, now it’s all gone. The U.S. mint has to buy silver on the market to coin American Silver Eagles and commemorative coins.
Box – FYI – Nixon did take us off Gold standard in ‘73 if I remember right. Foreign creditors were about to suck all the gold out of Fort Knox, so he took us off then too, along with the agreement that we’d never just print money & monetize debt (going from memory), …like we’ve been doing ever since, but especially over the last year.
FDR’s currency gig was the Bretton Woods agreement as well, as it relates to currency manipulation post WWII…of course it was flawed as well, but that’s how we got back on the Gold standard after he forced the citizens off it to help finance the war/Depression spending.
Here’s some interesting commentary on it…especially considering how things are today:
“The British economist John Maynard Keynes represented Great Britain at Bretton Woods. Keynes preferred establishing a system that would have encouraged economic growth rather than a gold-pegged system. He favored creation of an international central bank and possibly even a world currency. He proposed that the goal of the conference was “to find a common measure, a common standard, a common rule acceptable to each and not irksome to any.”
“Keynes’ ideas were not accepted. The United States, in its leading economic position, preferred the plan offered by its representative, Harry Dexter White. The U.S. position was intended to create and maintain price stability rather than outright economic growth. As a consequence, Third World progress would be achieved through lending and infrastructure investment through the IMF, which was charged with managing trade deficits to avoid currency devaluation.”
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/bretton-woods-agreement/2006/11/29/
DFB,
I believe FDR took us off in 1933, we as U.S. citizens could not own gold after that until 1971 again.
Nixon stopped allowing foreign countries to exchange paper dollars for gold though.
But our currency went off of a gold backing, the Gold Standard in 1933.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks,
“Roosevelt secured authority from Congress to take the United States off the gold standard and to devalue the dollar. However, once he discovered that devaluing the dollar did not in itself help to bring about economic recovery, he was unenthusiastic about tinkering with the currency.”
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562953_5/franklin_d_roosevelt.html
“On June 5, 1933, the United States went off the gold standard, a monetary system in which currency is backed by gold, when Congress enacted a joint resolution nullifying the right of creditors to demand payment in gold….
The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value…
In 1974, President Gerald Ford signed legislation that permitted Americans again to own gold bullion.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=VideoArticle&id=59256&print=true
Our money was taken off the gold standard, actually backed by gold, in 1933. That’s when it was no longer backed by gold and they could print whatever they wanted.
Nixon simply let the price of gold float with the market and would no longer exchange dollars for gold with foreign countries. We couldn’t do that, or even own it, from 1933 until Ford’s administration, but our currency (money) was not actually backed with gold after 1933 and the government could print what it wanted.
Box – I agree with you on what he did in ‘33..what he did to ‘gold certificate’ holders reminded me a lot of what Obama admin did to GM/Chrysler bond holders, in terms of breaking contractual/legal standings and implementing their own preferences. But I believe one of the purposes of the Bretton Woods conference in ‘44, was to establish a global gold standard (along with global central banks/funds, like the IMF). Since US was hands down the largest gold holder at the time, it effectively created the environment where US dollar became a quasi gold standard and therefore global currency. Problem with it was, that they fixed the gold price and therefore exchange rates under that agreement…which as all govt programs do…never took into account any ripple effects. Maybe I’ve read that wrong, but it’s my understanding that established the gold standard again at that time, until it was repealed by Nixon.
Part of FDR’s actions in ‘33, had to do with a bailout of UK’s Bank of England, who had inflated their currency beyond the established $4.86 gold value at the time and wanted the US to help save them by recognizing the longstanding $20.67/oz gold pricing (their currency wasn’t worth that and it was draining all their physical gold to the US). We did..and it helped contribute to the crash in ‘29. Part of that story..as politicians always do..got twisted into blaming the gold standard for the Depression, giving FDR the political cover to “save us” by taking us off it in ‘33.
The Fed Reserve’s poor monetary policies have lead to every boom/bust cycle since its inception. But fiat currency unleashed the beast of the Fed Res.
If you’re interested & like to read, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal” by Robert Murphy dedicates an entire chapter to the currency games between Hoover & FDR…eery similarities to Bush handoff to Obama.
“The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971..”
Box – this exchange rate was part of the Bretton Woods agreement I referred to in ‘44, essentially creating the new global “gold standard”, even though it was different than the traditional gold standard used prior to that.
I know it’s kinda splitting hairs, but even that was better than no standard at all…and just a promise from govt that we won’t inflate our currency outrageously. Even Jimmy Carter inflation of 10%+ would be a death knell to our economy for a long time…which is what scares me the most. The US govt is the largest debtor on the planet & high inflation is good for them as it devalues debt, so their incentive structure is to have/create inflation vs the flush w/cash nations like China/India who would prefer deflation due to their balance sheet. FDR was able to influence the global rules because we were a creditor nation at the expense of debtor nations..now we’re the debtor nation…
DFB,
I agree it is splitting hairs to a large extent.
It is somewhat confusing in that we went off the gold standard in 1933, as a basis for creating dollars, and really never went back, but Nixon abolished the fixed value of gold at $35/oz. and would no longer exchange dollars for gold with foreign countries. The printing of more and more dollars was not tied to our reserves of gold after 1933 though.
Gold at $35/oz. and now at approx. $950, look what has happened to our dollars as a result.
That is the greatest threat to our savings there is.
Gold and silver has remained fairly constant in what it can purchase per unit of weight.
The dollar……well just look, it’s ugly and will get worse with Obama spending money as if it wasn’t his. Which it isn’t.
Box – exactly! All of that inflation made savings worth less over that time as well. Inflation is the silent tax that hurts seniors/low income folks horribly..but politicians will just pull up the list of boogie men to deflect the blame to…big oil, evil corporations, or whoever is making money at the time and isn’t a big donor to their party/campaign.
I’ll say it again..I don’t want EITHER party to have more centralized power..ever.
DFB,
This has been an interesting exchange because it has promoted me to investigate a little more a subject I find interesting.
I would like to summarize my thought on ‘who and when’.
Going off the gold standard (FDR), and giving up fixed exchange rates and the exchange of dollars for gold with other countries, (Nixon) constituted a momentous step in the history of international economics. And we’ve been on a downhill slid with respect to the value of the dollar ever since.
“.I don’t want EITHER party to have more centralized power..ever.”
AMEN!
“And we’ve been on a downhill slide with respect to the value of the dollar ever since”
Amen!!!
Just click on the “AMB” graph on the attached Fed Res link (if you click on the graph itself, it’ll give you more history)…this doesn’t end well…
http://www.stlouisfed.org/
DFB says: “Agnatha – simple question, with your comment in mind, why would you feel better about handing more and more decisions over to a centralized govt whose proven their capable of consistent irrational decisions/behavior? Simply put, irrational decisions at an individual level should affect the individual punitively. Irrational decisions at a national level affect everyone punitively.”
And Austrian Economist said in one of his responses to my earlier post: “You seem to lean towards relieving individuals of choice and risk. I seem to lean on the other side of the fence. These types of differences are not easily resolved and most times never are. WE Blog is certainly not the place to have this debate.”
Actually, AE, I don’t see why AE isn’t the place to have the debate.
I congratulate you both on your thoughtful replies and, in DFB’s case, question. I doubt you will be satisfied with my answer, but here goes.
First, I want to start with a reference to an earlier post of mine on this thread, where I said:
“Contrary to faux fiscal conservative opinion, increases in public spending does not mean relative decreases in the strength of the private marketplace.”
In this case, for the sake of discussion let’[s replace “faux fiscal conservative” (a term I use to describe those conservatives who claim to be fiscal conservatives but whose first and foremost priority seems to be cutting taxes) with “libertarian”.
A corrolary to my statement is that just as increases in government spending do not necessarily result in matching decreases in the strength of the public sector (in fact, it usually does not), neither does increases in public spending result in decreases in individual choice.
The equation in libertarians who also embrace Austrian Economics is pretty simple: The less government presence there is, the more choice there is.
I think that equation is wrong. I reject the premise at the outset, just as I reject the premise that seems to underly Austrian Economics that economic decisions are on an individual basis the best for that individual. It is quite natural that both Austrian Economist and DFB would jump on my comments invoking behavioral economics as suggesting that choices should be taken away from the individual. However, that assumption is based on my rejections of the equations I suspect both take pretty much for granted:
1) Government presence in the marketplace automatically means less private choice.
2) Individuals make choices that are the best for them. The macroeconomic implication Austrian Economists and libertarians tend to take from that is that the marketplace becomes an aggregate of rational decision making, which makes the market “self correcting”. I don’t think it is, certainly in the way that Austrian Economist and probably DFB think it is, or would be if it were “freeer”.
I talked about the symbiotic relationship between public spending and private spending. Some government spending actually facilitates increases in private spending and opportunity. There are more private enterprise opportunities in Andover now that 5 years ago, much less 10 years ago, because of the growth of the school district. The greatest period of economic growth in this country in the last century took place because of increased government spending right before, during, and especially after World War II (the single instance of public spending that probably resulted in the greatest value? The GI Bill-we went from a country consisting largely of people with 8th Grade, much less High School, diplomas to having an unprecedented number of college graduates-the economic growth that resulted from that post war period can not be understated).
As for AE’s question: “Care to explain rational to me?”
The rationality of the individual with regards to his/her economic circumstances lies at the core of your argument.
Your comments: “You know what is great about the market? It is perfect. It will never make a mistake. If you mess with it, it can become distorted, but it will always override any type of intervention in the long-run.
“Quite a beautiful thing to behold actually.”
That’s a statement of faith, not of reality. What’s more, the “evidence” typically given for it is basically retro-fitting. Whatever happens is part of the greater whole. Thus, the stock market crash of 1929, or even of 2008-2009, becomes either a “self correction” (never mind the horrible economic disaster that resulted) or it becomes the fault of the market not being free enough. Never mind the fact that regulatory protections enacted after 1929, which reduced freedom in the market by prohibiting the kind of margin buying that predominated in 1929, ensured that there never was a crash that had the disasterous results of the 1929 crash. Never mind the evidence that the latest crash was due at least in large part to bundled high risk mortgages. Like Monkeyhawk said upthread, it is probably ultimately impossible to argue with someone who takes the position “the market is perfect” as an article of faith, because whatever happens is evidence of the market’s perfection, or the consequences of government interference in the market.
But where does this faith come from? I think it comes from this assumption:
The market is “perfect” because its components work in individual “prefect” rationality. What may seem rational to one person may not be to another, but generally, people who are given the maximum “freedom” of choice make decisions in their own best interests. I personally think that the stock market crashes provide evidence of something else. People making economic decisions are doing the same thing that they do when making other decisions. They are making decisions that resulted in reinforcement, and their perceptions of the relationship between action and reinforcer comes from innate biological predispositions and cognitive and historical biases that may distort their perception of reality (see behavioral economics and neuroeconomics). And since individual micro-economic decisions end up creating the macro-economic climate, decisions made irrationally will make the market “irrational” and far, far from perfect.
And indeed, I think the existence of a perfectly “free” market is an abstract idea that can not exist within reality.
DFB,
Ya know a lot of people laugh at gold, or any of the ‘precious metals’, as money, yet look at the countries that maintain a large reserve of it. And that’s not for industrial use either with respect to gold.
They all still consider it ‘money’, much more stable than fiat paper.
Ag – appreciate your thoughts. Just to clarify some of my thoughts/philosophy, I’m not a proponent of a 100% free market. I understand the value in logical regulations to set the rules for a free market to avoid the wild swings that can occur under a pure Adam Smith type approach. I, like I’m assuming AE does, though do see negative impacts on free markets of ever more & ever changing regulations from a centralized command & control scenario. In short, suffice to say, that if the free market can do something the govt decides to compete in…the govt does impact the market negatively, because it will always twist those regs in its favor, regardless of whether it is more efficient, higher quality, more flexible, etc. The other missing component in that argument is that the govt regulates markets, but the govt has no regulator. This is just as dangerous as free market without regulation of any kind, and impacts us all vs just specific market participants.
I also understand your behavioral economics slant and have done a little reading on it as well. I can understand why Kant’s attack on Rational Expectations theory is appealing to you, as it was developed by mostly psychologists/philosophers who see themselves as the ones most qualified to counsel people on rational thought. For full disclosure, I admit a cynical bias, in that it was born out of very liberal precincts, but I recognize that bias.
It uses arguments such as, people will drive 5 miles to save a penny/gal on gas, which is not rational, therefore markets cannot be perfectly rational (I’m distilling the argument obviously). If I remember right, you’ve mentioned that you work in HR or social service, so I can see why it’s appealing. In comparison, I’ve worked in business my entire career. I struggle with behavioral theory for the simple fact it’s not sustainable. Irrational acts are easily possible in the short term, but over the long term have punitive consequences. If the fundamentals of a market (ie, cost, quality, logistics, inventory, etc) are flawed, it might fool the market for a while, but eventually the market catches up with it. Having traded commodities I saw it all the time. Irrational arbs were squashed over the long term, usually swinging to the negative due to irrational exuberance, before settling out to reasonable fundamentals. Even innate biological cognitive predispositions can’t beat simple math over the long term.
Anyway, gotta run for a while, just wanted to offer some quick thoughts to your thoughtful response.
Box – yeah, it’s becoming part of culture. To laugh at anything “old” as stupid. Same practice used to discredit anything “conservative”. The fact it ignores is that sometimes, change ain’t good. Sometimes, the old way works..because it’s fundamentally sound. Guess it’s part of our cultural make-up to challenge boundaries. When we’re kids, we think our parents are stupid…then if you’re like me, you wake up one day and realize they were right and you were an idiot..but not after making the mistakes yourself. Would be nice if we actually learned from history instead of just trying to twist it, create a new name for it and call it “new” so it’s sexy.
DFB, thanks for the response. I really don’t have time to respond in depth at this time, but a couple of quick comments.
I am certain that you are correct about our differing perspectives. I try to remain somewhat anonymous on this blog, but for the record, I do work in a field that is an applied human behavioral science in a human services context. I have also worked in human services administration, but I come from a human behavioral science background. And yes, like everyone else, my background influences my perceptions of an issue, and therefore is a source of bias. I think your identification of your own background, and your (by and large correct) assumptions about mine do have an effect on how we see the issues.
I will let Austrian Economist speak for himself, but even though you have also referenced Hayek, I suspect that AE is somewhat more of a fundamentalist libertarian than you are, based on what he has posted. I think he is a thoughtful and earnest poster, but I pretty much am certain that we are quite far apart on fiscal issues. I suspect we are somewhat closer together.
As for myself, I am not even certain how to characterize myself. I used to call myself a social liberal but a fiscal conservative, but it is probably misleading to continue to label myself thus. My background in human services and education and in the economics of those areas as well as my perceptual biases arising from the practice of human behavioral science, has demonstrated to me that substantial government funding is necessary to the functioning of our society. Thus, perhaps the best label I could assume for myself would be a fiscally cautious (or even pessimistic) liberal (or a Concord Coalition liberal-there are also Concord Coalition conservatives-therefore, it may not surprise you to know that my favorite conservative is probably Warren Rudman-and yes, he is a conservative). I have very strong concerns about our ongoing debt and increasing deficits, but I think the solution does not just involve “starving” government. It does involve making hard spending choices, cuts, and prioritization (including entitlement reform) while also raising revenues.
TTFN
Should be:
“I think he (Austrian Economist) is a thoughtful and earnest poster, but I pretty much am certain that he and I are quite far apart on fiscal issues. I suspect we (DFB and I) are somewhat closer together.”
“Sometimes, the old way works..because it’s fundamentally sound.”
Exactly! Because it has been tried, repeatedly, and compared with other ways, and found to work best. Funny how every generation thinks they have all the answers, and rarely do they coincide with what is conservative.
I laugh at some of the posters who say the world is changing and ‘old thought’ is dying off and ‘new thought’ replacing it, never realizing that it changes and evolves. The new will become old, or it will be discarded.
I am troubled by what I see as a government that increasingly intervenes in our lives to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their own decisions, and also the rewards of same. That is a great learning tool for all going forward. Also in how many look at government as some all knowing benevolent parent that they expect to care for them as opposed to doing so out of their own initiative. It can rob them of that self-initiative and effort and then their self-respect. I and my wife have given up a lot of toys and play to work and save to enable myself and my family to be self-sufficient financially, and I see the government as taking far more than is just, and two, inflating the economy and the cause of the devaluation of my savings so as to render it insufficient.
When one considers that the combined tax from all the taxing authorities combined, fed., state, local, sales, etc. etc., is probably in excess of 50%, I don’t see how we can call ourselves free, but instead subjects of the government.
And what’s even worse…..is the number of people content to be subjects of the government.
Box – I agree, self reliance is one of those “old” ideas. The precedents we’re setting over the last couple years, of rewarding/bailing out piZZ poor behavior at the cost of those that played their cards right…is scary going forward. Incentives work. Good incentives work well…bad incentives work too, but work poorly. Consequences are just another incentive..and taking those away from a generation and teaching them they can kick it down to the next generation…scares the crap out of me! I’m in my 40’s now. When I was 15, I thought I was 10′ tall & bulletproof & my parents were stupid. By the time I was 20, realized how stupid I was, even at 15 (or even 18)…but THEN, then I knew it all. By age 25, realized how stupid I was at 20. That pattern’s been very consistent for me throughout life. At 50, I’ll look back at me now, and realize I’m an idiot. But with each new generation, we think we know better and our “elders” are stupid, till we learn through consequences that they were right. Not sure how that story ends when the consequences are eliminated/softened….
Ecclisastes – “there’s nothing new under the sun”
There are some things that old ideals are better, but some, and these are those, are not. You remember when it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate and even kill people based on color, on religion. That’s not ok. Or to beat your wife for refusing anything you asked…yeah those ideals I”m glad are gone.
Thing is, eventually liberalism wins, because moving forward is better.
Sorry but I can’t get this vision of DFB holding a picket sign saying “slavery worked”, or “women shouldn’t vote”.
“Bring back the Crusades”….
Ag – not sure completely what I’d call myself either..some sort of Conservative/Libertarian hybrid I guess.
Just to further my “philosophy”, I see the relationship between govt & free markets as similar to the concept between the 3 fed govt branches. The idea being a healthy tension that can form checks & balances, each to the other. But, with that being said, since govt gets to wear the referee stripes and make the rules…for that tension to be in balance in my opinion, it requires a weaker fed govt. I could give you as many examples of govt policies creating horribly negative outcomes in the markets, as I could of poor business decisions leading to poor outcomes. But I trust the greed & self preservation tensions of competing free market entities (most often long term in nature) more than I do the greed & get me re-elected incentives of govt (get me back in office every 2/4/6 yrs)…who gets to spend everyone else’s money, not their own.
I don’t know exactly what it is you do for a living, but having a mentally handicapped sister, I understand there’s areas that make a lot of sense in terms of public funding, as there’s no real free market/economic incentive out there to make it better. I feel that obligation towards children (incl babies), the elderly, the handicapped & injured vets. I’m not as compassionate about able bodied adults who prove the one thing they’re really good at..is making poor decisions. I don’t feel a societal obligation to pay for their home, food, transportation, job training, welfare, insurance, etc. As I was stating to Box above, that’s the kind of public arena spending I struggle with, as it breeds those dependent on govt. Would be curious if you’ve read, or are aware of any behavioral studies in that arena (ie, how incentives/consequences effect behavior) based on your background. In my experience, poor incentive structure (positive and/or negative incentives) are virtually always a formula for disaster. Political incentives, in contrast, are just as rarely pure, in my opinion.
Greenspan was one of the strongest advocates that ”
business will act rationally in their own best interest”. The collapse of the economy last year convinced even Greenspan that he was wrong.
There are social medical programs in other countries and it has not at all stifled private enterprise.
Regulation is necessary and even desirable, for the fortunes of the top individuals is not necessarilly compatible with the fortunes of the system or country as a whole.
We’ve tried the supply side economics, and it has failed miserably.
We will not try the competing demand side economic theory. Actually govt. spending does not take away from the private sector, but actually supports and boost it. Only difference between Repub/Dem philosophy is who will be the immediate beneficiary of said spending.
We’ll need more, not less medical people. Insurance people may have to move into govt., or retrain. Happens everyday in the workplace.
Hey, glad to see P-ma show up with the usual idiotic tripe. But nice attempt at adding anything of use or value. Do you seriously ever provide anything but knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses to anything?
He said old..ok, according to my rolodex, I should shout back “He wants to bring back SLAVERY & end womens suffrage & wants a State Church again!!! The racist/misogynist/fundie PIG!!!!”
Let me go ahead and finish the rest of your “thoughts” for you:
The Const is a living document
Founders are just old dead white guys
All Prog ideas are “new”…yeah, that’s it, none of them from previous centuries..because that would make them old idea…and we’re all about the new….
The Democratic Party is more democratic..for the “little people”..even though we are the one’s with Super Delegates cuz it’s Progressive…and we’ve got Liberals too..even though classic Liberals from Europe were actually Conservative/Libertarians…we can’t admit that, because Hiter hated them and it screws up our story that Hitler was a righty…
Even though Progressives owned the eugenics movement and all kinds of fun facts like that..we’ll just ignore that and call ourselves Liberal until we taint that name, then switch back to Progressive..because then it’ll be “new ” again…yeah…that’s it…then we’re moving forward….
You’re an idiot.
“The collapse of the economy last year convinced even Greenspan that he was wrong.”—Phantom
Come on Phantom, you know better than that. Much, MOST, of the cause of the economic collapse was due to the unnatural forces exerted on the market by the government. Encouraging giving money to folks that had no reasonable way of paying it back, and the government’s resistance to the warnings that were being given, yes….by the those in the Bush administration, that it was all going to come down. The government negatively influenced the risk/reward ratio and people started taking excessive risk knowing the government was going to back those loans.
Those toxic debts were packaged and sold to investment firms and the toxicity spread throughout the investment markets.
It started with a liberal feel good idea that everyone can have it all if they just put us in power.
It didn’t work! Just as concrete as the laws of physics are the laws of economics and that you can’t get something for nothing….no matter what the dimlibs think.
Box – the only part I’d add, in my opinion, is that Greenspan’s cheap credit monetary strategy was a factor too. I’m not discounting the CRA, founding of Fan/Fred with their mandates of 45-55% of loans going to low income borrowers, the Clinton regulators development of stats to beat banks up that weren’t loaning enough to low income, ACORN’s lobbying/threats under the laws Clinton passed that allowed them to hold bank mergers/branches hostage, Fan/Fred (don’t forget Rahm was on Fred Board when it was busted for cooking the books too) jumping in on the CDS/CDO parade with the full faith & credit of US govt behind it, etc.
But Greenspan sure didn’t help. He actually took real interest rates negative for a period like ‘03-’05 if I remember right. It’s why the Friedman followers who believe monetary policy is the answer to everything bother me. They’ve lead an awful lot of boom/bust cycles with cheap credit, then being forced to raise interest rates which busts the bubbles.
Just throwing my 2 cents in on Greenspan…I’m not a fan… :)
“Just throwing my 2 cents in on Greenspan…I’m not a fan… :)
We all were Greenspan ‘worshipers’ to some extent, well…let me speak only for myself and several untold numbers more, when those ridiculously low interest rates were feeding the bubble and stocks were riding high. As the stock indexes and real estate continued to climb seemingly endlessly we were happy as pigs in a wallow.
BUT….and that’s the rest of the story.
I had the nervousness to suggest to my broker handling a good portion of my investments we should take a more defensive position and did, but to an insignificant extent. I did shift some ongoing investment over to precious metals and they have done fabulously….so far, but I hung in stocks and took a beating. Like many.
You and me both…
Just met with my broker last week for lunch, he brought along an analyst that was in town from NY. My sole question was whether or not this latest run was real or not…and if so, sell me on it. I told him I could give him 100 reason why it would go down and couldn’t come up with a single factor I could hang my hat on as to why it did run, and should keep running. Best I could come up with was, Dow at 6,700 was an overcorrection…but I don’t believe that either.
The analyst’s response was basically….I dunno, nobody knows, all the traders on Wall St have analysis paralysis, because nothing really makes sense, and they don’t know what the admin will do next….so they’re staying blue chip/thoroughly vetted muni bonds (credit concerns there too)/prec metals/etc…as safe & liquid, but not cash, as possible. He said they were somewhat bearish Asian mkts, believing there’s a correction coming there.
I’m in a couple funds that are heavy in prec metals/commodities as well and they’re up over 45% this year….but jobs aren’t there, taxes are being proposed to go nowhere but up (state & fed), credit mkts still suck, no global demand for exports, next wave of mortg/credit card/school loan/commercial loan defaults is set as interest rates will necessarily rise…I literally can’t point to a single positive signal for the market to be above 9,200 right now.
But yeah..I was a Greenspan fan 5 yrs ago too…part of that “I was an idiot 5 yrs ago” example I’ve experienced through my entire life. Didn’t know enough about monetary policy until it was too late and learned like everybody else what its dangers were…
The sad thing is DFB, is when it’s all coming down there are precious few places to hide and protect yourself financially.
I am still taking the conventional wisdom advice, stick it out, but investing ongoing slightly more conservatively.
We shall see.
Maybe there is a message here, like in don’t put all your faith in the material.
Box – I think it’s just another example of some of that “old” stuff that works. Like being debt free is better than leveraged to the hilt. Cash flow trumps “net income”. Investing in a new car that depreciates in value faster than toilet paper is still a bad investment (had this debate with a college prof who drove a beat up old Toyota..I was arguing the logic of a new car…as I said..then you look back and realize how stupid you were at that age….). Hard assets trump equity on paper every time over the long haul. Diversify, diversify, diversify. Get out of equities the closer you get to retirement. A bird in hand, teach a man to fish, etc, etc, etc.
They keep selling new schemes to disprove those “old” ideas…and they/we keep losing.
Yes yes I do believe that the Constitution is a living document, if it weren’t the founding fathers themselves wouldn’t have revised it by adding the Bill of Rights.
I would never call the Founding Fathers ‘old dead white guys’, they were brilliant beyond their years. There were a lot of brilliant free thinkers, when they were allowed to think without being stifled by old propaganda. The founding fathers were progressives by their own standards.
I’m glad to be on their side.
Progressives will always try to move the country forward. Conservatives will always try to maintain the status quo. I never knew a bunch of people who were so afraid of ‘change’ or ‘different’ in all of my life. I think you could probably be lumped into some sort of DSMIV disorder.
Hitler was anything but progressive. He sounded just like…oh who could it be…CONS!
Or are you suddenly going to claim to love people of other nations and religions, and the gays? Ha.
If conservatives had their way, the McCarthyism would be alive and well today, as well as eugenics, it was cons who used to do experiments on Blacks and Mentally Insane right here at home or so you forget.
We would be living just like they do in Mexico, where the rich dictate, corruption is rampant, and the poor die on the streets or in their hut if they’re lucky. The people are slave to whatever petty job they can get. No protections whatsoever for the workers, no Medicare for when you are too old to work.
Well, P-Ma, you’re consistent..not much in history that you’re not willing to transmogrify to fit your ideology. You might try reading a book every now and then.
Let’s see..where to even start…
Eugenics..huh, weird, Margaret Sanger, one of your heroes was a big leader in it. Progs still promote it today, never stopped in between..but yeah, that makes it a “con” issue. Make up your mind..if “cons” are against abortion & euthanasia…how again does that fit your rant again?
Hitler was a con too..yeah, that’s it. That whole “National Socialist Party” thing, or the fact that fascism’s right beside socialism on the ideological spectrum…just slightly to its right…so yeah, keep trumpeting that idiocy. But wait, thought it was stupid cons who were evil for associating Obama with fascism…all good when you do it…huh, weird, hypocrisy, whoda thunk it…
I know, I know, Jackson’s treatment of Native Americans was a con issue, unless the “Trail of Tears” were tears of joy..then I’m sure you’d take credit for it. Wilson resegregating the military was a con issue. FDR being BFF’s with Mussolini/Stalin (or Uncle Joe as he called him)..same with Prog rags like NYT, The Nation, Time, etc where they made Mussolini “Man of the Year” and went on & on about how jealous they were of how awesome it was, “utopia” even in Russia..until they fell off the cool kid bus…which of course made them cons. Cons started the KKK, they just called themselves Dems until they could run away from the party. Cons fought for slavery, they just called themselves Dems to throw off the history writer…those silly conspiracy nuts back then did it on a dare…even went so far as to get African Americans to give speeches about it to add more cover for Dems..
“Reading The American Past, Selected Historical Documents, Volume II: From 1865″.
In the address of the “Colored Convention of the People of Alabama”, 1867, having just come through the Civil War and most lacking any significant education, the speaker was still wise enough to present the argument that they should support the Republicans because they’d proven through action their commitment to black rights with the following:
1. Opposed an prohibited extension of slavery
2. Repealed the fugitive slave law
3. Abolished slavery in D.C.
4. Abolished slavery in rebellious states
5. Abolished slavery throughout the rest of the Union
6. Put down rebellion against the Union
7. Passed the “Freedman’s Bureau Bill” and the “Civil Rights Bill”
8. Enfranchised the colored people of D.C., 9 Territories & 10 rebel states
9. Provided for the formation of new constitutions and state govts in those 10 states
10. Passed new homestead laws, enabling the poor to obtain land.
But keep up the talking pts. Say’em enough and people will believe ya.
Oh my god, see this is where you pretend as if the Dixiecrats never broke away from the dems and joined the republican party. Dude, you’re so far gone you have no idea what even happened. Republicans back then are NOT the republicans of today. I’m talking ideals of liberal and conservative, and there is no doubt that democrats today are on the forward side of the equation, and republicans are on the reverse.
Sanger, you always bring up how she was so pro-eugenics. Fact of the matter was for a time everyone was no board including your precious Catholics who offered up their orphanages for the never-ending supply of children to do experiments on.
Right..go ahead..you can say what you’re thinking…Prog’s are just so dang intellectual, and cons are all stupid stooges. So deep, you guys should really get a new line of attack some day, so you can cling to the “we’re the party of new ideas” mantra. There isn’t a GOP Pres ever, that wasn’t “stupid”, and a Dem Pres ever that wasn’t “brilliant…so smart it’s tough for him to relate to the booboisie”.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I’m not Catholic…but one of your other heroes was..JFK, so do you paint him with the same brush, as he slow played the police pounding the black demonstrators in the south? No..I didn’t think so.
Your party relies on legerdemain to make it appear on the right side of history every time and folks like you eat it up. I’m more than willing to accept the atrocities that have occurred at the hands of cons/Christians..as long as you do the same. Otherwise, your dyseptic history is just as tainted as whatever your opinion of mine is.
Funny though, just like virtually all of your cohorts, I’ve yet to see you post a single idea on this site. Just a never ending string of partisan hatchet jobs. But keep telling yourself you’re the intellectuals with all the unctuous calumny you can muster. It really moves debates “forward” and wins hearts & minds everywhere.
The only stupid president you had was Bush the Junior. Reagan wasn’t stupid by any means. Wrong, but not stupid.
Name a few things you think liberals have done that is wrong. I can name a few. Trashing the military men in Vietnam is one. They had every right to protest the war, but the way my side treated soldiers was wrong.
That’s pretty much it.
I’ll gladly take the anti-slavery, pro-equality, pro-freedom side every day.
DFB: “In short, suffice to say, that if the free market can do something the govt decides to compete in…the govt does impact the market negatively, because it will always twist those regs in its favor, regardless of whether it is more efficient, higher quality, more flexible, etc.”
Sometimes. On the other hand, regulations can help to focus the market and even provide opportunities. For example, some focus on the idea that hypothetical government regulations on fuel economy and emissions would limit the market. However, this is not necessarily true. Regulations of this sort also create targets and opportunities within the marketplace. Sometimes, government does offer a service or meet a need that can not be done well by a private entity that needs to make a profit (and of course, you did acknoweledge that in a subsequent post). But, there are grey areas, and I think health care is most certainly one of those grey areas.
“The other missing component in that argument is that the govt regulates markets, but the govt has no regulator.”
Actually, I think that depends on the nature of the government. In a democratic republic like the United States, and the states and localities that comprise it, government is accountable to the people, at least those people who vote. It’s one of the reasons why we have such fierce discussions on blogs and discussion boards like this one. One thing that I think libertarians overlook is that in a stable democratic republic, the larger a government is, the more people it is accountable to. Thus, in some arenas, I think federal government regulation, law, and management is actually far less of a threat to individual freedom than smaller units of government, simply because it is accountable to more people, and therefore a greater diversity of people. I think the civil rights battles of the 1950’s and 1960’s provide good examples of that. The repressive governments were the state governments. I think some of the most repressive governments in the United States come from the smallest units of government, including town and city councils, and especially quasi-private but functionally governmental entities like homeowner’s associations.
“If the fundamentals of a market (ie, cost, quality, logistics, inventory, etc) are flawed, it might fool the market for a while, but eventually the market catches up with it. Having traded commodities I saw it all the time. Irrational arbs were squashed over the long term, usually swinging to the negative due to irrational exuberance, before settling out to reasonable fundamentals. Even innate biological cognitive predispositions can’t beat simple math over the long term.”
I will agree to an extent, but only to an extent. Yes, it is obvious that math catches up in the long run (if it didn’t, I wouldn’t be so worried about the consequences of not dealing with entitlements-I’m a boomer, so of course I myself am a little nervous for myself and my generation, but really worried about my kids and subsequent generations). However, the limits of mathematics occur when it is understood that money, in the end, is not a thing in and of itself but rather a symbol of value. Even gold was chosen as a symbol for value because of its incorruptability, ability to be shaped, and just overall oooooh shinyness. Sometimes, this leads to confusion of the symbol with the value itself, but the actual value comes from the goods or services that the recognized symbolic value is allowed to purchase (which, of course, is the reason why currency and even the price of gold fluctuates, sometimes considerably). The acceptance of symbolic value is what rewards behavior which may be ultimately irrational. After all, people became wealthy on things like trading bundled mortgages (which is why so many institutions became involved-incidentally, the Macs were followers not leaders in this trend) before they lost their shirts. And aggregate decisions that are irrational can make the market irrational, and what one person who believes in the ultimate rationality of the market interprets as a self correction others (like to an extent myself) interpret as an often avoidable disaster, and some of the means to avoiding repeats of the last disaster will be government regulations, like the laws and regulations that stopped the rampant margin buying that destroyed so many people in 1929.
Of course, government regulation itself has its problems, and sometimes causes more problems than they are worth. And government regulations and laws, coming from corruptable and even decent intentioned people with errors in perception and bias, can themselves be deeply flawed.
Quick comment on what you said to another poster.
“…and we’ve got Liberals too..even though classic Liberals from Europe were actually Conservative/Libertarians…we can’t admit that, because Hiter hated them and it screws up our story that Hitler was a righty…
Even though Progressives owned the eugenics movement and all kinds of fun facts like that..we’ll just ignore that and call ourselves Liberal until we taint that name, then switch back to Progressive..because then it’ll be ‘new’ again…yeah…that’s it…then we’re moving forward….”
I presume you do know that history is more complicated than that. The labels of conservative and liberal, as they are applied now, would have had people scratching their heads 50 years ago, and thinking that they had fallen down the rabbit hole 100 years ago.
Economic conservatism and social conservatism, let alone economic and social liberalism, were no where near as tightly coupled as they are in so many people today (at least here in the US). You had people who were both economic and social liberals, but a lot of social liberalism was found in hotbeds of fiscal conservatism, and a lot of fiscal and economic liberalism was found in hotbeds of social conservatism. William Jennings Bryan was as big an economic liberal in many ways as could be found during the turn of the previous century, but he is of course also associated today with very conservative Christian beliefs. Some of the leading social liberals of that day were also captains of industry. It would be misleading to assume that social liberalism was associated with fiscal conservatism and vice versa (after all, Clarence Darrow was both a social and economic liberal), but it would have been no less misleading to assume that they weren’t.
The beginnings of modern liberalism and conservatism (especially what I call coalition conservatism) began in 1920’s and 1930’s when capitalists became concerned about communists, and the economic crisis of the 1930’s challenged a lot of assumptions from both the economic left and the right. This became aggravated in the 1950’s, when communism became associated with godlessness and therefore in a sense with social liberalism.
Coalition conservatism solidified when southern social conservatives decided that their social conservatism was more important than their relative economic liberalism. It was during the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s, with the rise of Ronald Reagan and mail order conservatism,that modern coalition conservatism emerged. I am still not certain how great a force “liberalism” really is, because the unified liberals are largely an exaggerated creation of the coalition conservative alternative media and politicians (although there is such a thing as consistent liberals, and they are growing in numbers largely in response to irritation with the right-they can especially be found in places like Unitarian-Universalist churches). I think it is unfortunate that we are seeing the creation of rigid, ideologically based partisanship, and I have to admit, I blame the modern conservative/Republican party far more for this mess than I blame the Democrats. The self described “right” has been defining the political landscape in this country for the last 30 years, and it has resulted in people responding automatically based on what they think their ideology requires rather than taking each issue as it comes. I used to remember when some of the mainline environmental organizations were made up primarily of Republicans. No more. The thing that breaks my heart is that I remember a time when state legislators, whether they had an R or D after their name, actually were willing to listen to both, or more, sides of an issue even though they had a tendancy to sympathize in a single direction, they would still stop to consider the consequences of their actions. No more. All too many times now, I see legislators and people say, “I am a Republican therefore I oppose any tax increase, or I support this action or oppose this regulation-end of story.” I see it with some Democrats as well, although not quite to the same extent (although I remember one particularly odious Democratic senator who opposed any iniative from a moderate Republican governor because, well, he was a Republican-his strategy was successful in a way, we got the biggest dingbat ever to be a Kansas governor, a Democrat by the way).
The thing is, arguing that “cons” and “libs” have always been the same is wrong.
Well well well!
We have us a verbose con in DFB.
He must be a REALLY high end model.
Or, more likely, a lib who sold out.
You are the best to come along since GMC and that aint saying much.
You and I, we are enemies. We have nothing to discuss or agree on.
I will be most pleased to send you packing.
Oh, I’d just add to that,
If I didn’t already.
“Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
And it knows no party loyalty.
It’s neither liberal nor conservative.
It’s psychological heroin and just about everyone in politics is a junkie.
Newtie Gingrich is just as pathetic a junkie as Big Dog Clinton. David Vitter gets away with soiling his diapers with a hooker and Eliot Spitzer’s career is ruined for pretty routine boink-for-hire (albeit expensive).
Go figure.
I’m not sure how you get your ego so full of power you think you can get away with “Hiking the Appalachian Trail,” but stuff like that happens. And not just on C Street.
Most politicians get into the business with a sincere desire to do something. The worst of ‘em get into the business only to be something.
Shrub was one of those. Bill Clinton turned into one of those. Newtie Gingrich never was anything else and would do anything to be something.
MH – don’t disagree with much of anything you said. polticians on both sides suck, always have, always will, it’s in the DNA. Obama’s no different.
_____________
Thought there was a comment from another poster, but it’s barely even worth ignoring
___________
“Name a few things you think liberals have done that is wrong”
P-ma – uh..thought I mentioned quite a few already, but I can go through a few for you again:
Jackson’s treatment of Native Americans.
Wilson’s resegregation of the military.
FDR’s list is long, but how about just the concentration camps for Japanese Americans.
LBJ got us in Viet Nam.
For that matter, since the history spin is that the GOP are all war mongers..Wilson WWI, FDR WWII, Truman Korea, LBJ/JFK Viet Nam, Clinton Kosovo/Sudan…
But lastly, FDR’s SS & LBJ’s Medicare, based on how they were set up and have been abused by both sides since their inception, are the biggest threats to the entire nation’s solvency. Not saying SS/Medicare themselves are wrong, but the associated game of “free loans – whoo-hoo!” are/were too tempting for an entire class of narcissistic politicians on both sides.
Have they been at the lead of some great things, sure. Have Conservatives been on the wrong end, sure. Both sides have freakshows on their fringes and it would be nice if the freakshows didn’t get center stage more often than not, because we as a society like to watch the car crashes. Doesn’t make either side right or wrong all the time.
Don’t disagree with you at all that the Founder’s were probably our most brilliant leaders ever. In fact, they’re the only ones that have offered new govt ideas in the last few centuries. The ideas of more and more centralized govt are much older than the framework the Founder’s provided..and Prog’s have been chipping away at it to reverse it since the Washington loaded up the fed judges with all Federalists, Hamilton got his central bank and FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS so the “welfare clause”, “elastic clause” & “commerce clause” could be abused ever since. So, yeah, I find it a little ironic, when tired old ideas are renamed and called “forward thinking”, while ignoring the obvious things that work and labeling them as “old”.
P-ma – funny how you consistenly invoke the “anti-slavery” thing as a purely Dem thing. Can you provide some proof where the “pro-slavery” plank fits in the GOP platform…it’s a lame strawman played often.
On the pro-equality thing..I don’t know any Conservatives who aren’t pro-equal opportunity, we just don’t expect equal results. It’s as simple as the incentives discussion I had a few posts above…bad incentives (ie, no consequences for failure) breed bad results. It’s the reason the best QB plays QB in football…just pick your sports analogy, and it fits. Sports wouldn’t be the massive business it is right now, if we gave every wannabe pro equality in playing time. The quality of the competition would suck, nobody would watch it. Life, business, education, etc is no different. Comparative advantage, creative destruction, tragedy of the commons, incentives, etc are all functions of an improving society, because it rewards greatness. We need more of that, because the only snowball’s chance we’ve got of not going belly up as a country is some kind of greatness pulling us through, not building a system designed to reward sloth/mediocrity at the expense of the workhorses.
Ag – good thoughts, thanks. I’ve gotta mow before it rains anymore today, but I’ll be back later to give you my 2 cents on your comments.
sloth…now there’s a good bible term. GOP have consistently sided with the ‘white is good’ side for years now. Discrimination isn’t dead, just check the South. It never ceases to amaze me that how when your team stands on the necks of minorities- as they have done since the inception of time, you somehow expect them to be able to compete with whites. This is leveling out but it is still quite prominent today. In my job, I have to play nice while people who come to me for employees request ‘white only’. Now surely you don’t think these employers are simply discriminating while they’re only talking to me? This is how bad the problem is- once I hit FOUR requests in one week!
Your side wishes to pretend like they can compete with this, and that there is no problem at all.
I knew people in the election who were so angry that a black man was elected that they believed the blacks would take over. I think that’s what the real problem is, old white men who think that their superior status is in jeopardy- how dare those blacks be equal to us.
“You and I, we are enemies. We have nothing to discuss or agree on.
“I will be most pleased to send you packing.”
Do you enjoy being the poster child for negative conservative stereotypes of liberals, or are you just trolling?
Ag – trust me, it ain’t worth it.
But to your thoughts, above, let me take a stab at my philosophy on some of your points.
Shades of gray -
Couldn’t agree more. Virtually everything is shades of gray, with far less black & white issues. Far too few people understand that, as perfectly displayed, right on cue from P-ma above with her comments about how white GOP folk/southerners especially are all racists. Everyone’s perspectives/experiences are different and I can respect that. But silliness like that just adds to the one of the most divisive inventions ever, identity politics. But to further the point, I can take a perfectly secular song and make an argument that it’s a gospel tune based solely on the lyrics (Soul Man, Dust in the Wind, Boom Shake the Room..). I can take the Bible and argue that it supports everything from Socialism to Free Markets, rugged self reliance to a welfare state, even that snark was common then. Or that even religious figures acted much as we do today in early modern history:
From the debate between Luther/Zwingili at Marburg in Hesse in 1529 regarding basis of grace being through “acts” or purely “faith”:
Zwingli – We urge you too to give up your preconceived opinion and glorify God. I do not give up my text either, and you will have to sing another song.
Luther – You are speaking in hatred.
Zwingli – The let John 6 cure your ignorance.
Luther – You are trying to overwork it.
Zwingli – No! No! This text will break your neck.
Luther – Don’t brag. Our necks don’t break so fast. You are in Hesse now, not in Switzerland.
Later in Reformation polemic, Thomas More described Luther as someone who talked as if he were “safe in Christ’s bosom, when in reality, he lies shut up in the devil’s anus.”
Doesn’t mean my argument’s right, but it’s what’s wrong with all of us today..slap a D or R in front of that argument and allegiance to that preceding theory/comments are blind. I’m not always successful, but I try to add context to debates, as soundbytes as solutions drive me insane, and we’ve been conditioned to rely on them vs critical thinking. I blame the most recent explosion of it on Reagan. He was the master of the one-liner…except he generally wasn’t trying to pass the largest spending bill (budget & stimulus), or entitlement in history based on them. Was more just to score political points in speeches. But I digress.
Suffice to say, I agree 100% that issues are much more gray than we attempt to think about today. Same goes for your history comments. I agree there as well, in terms of your ideological shifts, switching roles, switching labels etc throughout history. You said what I was trying to portray with my “classic liberal” vs “modern liberal” comments, only more eloquently. But again, it’s nothing new. The “victor” gets to write history, which is why comments like “History is but a trick by the living upon the dead” – Voltaire, or “History is a distillation of rumor” – Thomas Carlyle, or “History is more or less bunk.” – Henry Ford, still ring true. We select the parts we like, ignore the parts we don’t and paint the picture how our side’s awesome and your side is always wrong…again more shades of gray would be appropriate.
Regulation –
Here’s an example of regulation gone wild…could give you more, but this is just one for context sake. The Fed govt mandated that MTBE be added as an oxygenate into unleaded. So refineries went about spending money to build the plants/pipelines/storage/etc for MTBE to meet this mandate. Then along in the late 90’s, they figured out MTBE was polluting the air/water…so did they help those they’d pressed the mandate on to fix the problem they created? No, of course not, the only bone they threw them was to indemnify them from the enviros lining up to sue them for complying with govt regulation. Then, the govt decides to mandate ethanol as its replacement. Did you ever hear once that ethanol was to fix a govt boo-boo…or was it sold as the next great “green energy”, making us energy independent, allows us to grow energy, blah, blah, blah. It was a stupid move economically, as ethanol is not an efficient form of energy, whether you just look at the energy spent to grow corn, ferment it & process (net loss of btu energy), or you look at the logistics, as you can’t ship it on a pipeline as MTBE was, it’s all delivered via truck/rail/barge, which is far more costly & energy/labor/risk intensive than pipe. Nor can you store it blended with unleaded as MTBE was..you must store it separately at loading racks. But just to polish off the insanity of this cover-up, they waived excise taxes on ethanol, gave them loan guarantees (that we’re eating now as plants fail) and even straight taxpayer investment…remind me again what happens to tax revenues when you incent the form of energy we PAY to make it, vs the one that we COLLECT taxes from? No sillier than paying for SCHIP with cigarette taxes, while trying to incent people to stop smoking. You mentioned bundled mortgages..don’t forget, the Macs were created with mandates of 45% of loans going to low income folks, then was raised to 50% (Cuomo) and 55% (Bush). They were/still are neck deep in sub-primes, and lead the need (incentive) to bundle/shed risk. A good example of a bad mix of govt/greed.
I understand the difference between where math isn’t the only consideration, but govt has proven that their strategy of ignoring it is just as dangerous, if not more. In other words, if they bankrupt us, is this nation/the world a better place?
I can see from your comments, that we’re on opposite sides of the fence on the dangers/advantages of local vs fed regs/oversight. As I’ve droned on long enough, my view is simple. If I know my city council/state legislator/homeowner’s assoc I have a chance of influencing them, or I can move to where it fits my preferences. Federal regs remove both options. That’s a loss of freedom.
Libertarian DFB- I thought you were the one just spouting about the Constitution- if the Constitution was put in place to defend every person in the Nation from the tyranny of others, why do you think that we couldn’t trust local government to ensure that everyone had inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Is it because a true democracy will always favor the rights of the masses against the rights of the minorities.
If you love the founding fathers as you say, why do you neglect this very important aspect of their rationale?
We are Americans, and some things should not be left up to mass rule of the region. If the founding fathers believed so much in the state rights, why even have a nation comprised of the UNITED States?
Under your beliefs, the south would still have slavery today. Many of the people who continue to spout about state’s rights are racists, and this is their wedge.
Now make no mistake, there are PLENTY of things that should be determined at the local level. Your types like to laugh when I compare your ideal type of government to Mexico, but it is dead on. The rich rule the economy, and they can pay you 20 cents an hour if they so want. Their free market isn’t working. People work for 20 cents an hour because at least it is better than no cents per hour.
Their local tribes or drug lords run areas. They buy out their local government officials, or often MAKE UP their local government officials. The central government really has no power to come in and change things.
“If you love the founding fathers as you say, why do you neglect this very important aspect of their rationale?”
You mean like the 10th Amend, that “your types” like to ignore? Remind me again why they put that in the Bill of Rights again, if it was meant to be ignored in lieu of Fed regs?
Kind of like the dicotomy of your argument that you’re “pro-freedom”, but then yearn for more fed govt, the antithesis of “freedom”…same reason the Federalists lost the debate at the first Const Convention, because that bipolar argument made no sense then either.
As I’ve proposed before, I’m all for a state petitioned Constitutional Convention via Art V..another little thing the Founders left us, that “your types” like to ignore. It would be the only opportunity for “the people” to actually influence federal govt again. I wouldn’t even care if it actually happened, just for congress/Pres to know that it could. And this will stump you…but it would be the only perfectly bi-partisan thing we could do. As I’ve said, I don’t want either party to create more fed power. Historically..that story always sounds good in the beginning with the benevolent dictator, loved by all…then ends bad, every time. I’d prefer to hold onto the only revolutionary form of govt devised in centuries.
Still waiting for any actual ideas/solutions vs partisan rants from “your types”.
Excellent posts today DFB – Res Ipsa Loquitur
Reg – appreciate it. Tends to be easier to have decent exchanges off the trodden path. You get slightly less “ipse dixit”…. :)
The premise for what the federal government should do is protection of American freedoms for her citizens. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It does not negate this clause:
Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“ The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I know, very simplistic. But you are represented.
DFB, I will try to veer from talking specifics. I accept you MTBE and ethanol examples. Indeed, I would add the No Child Left Behind act as another example of broad federal law and regulation that has resulted in ridiculous unintented consequences, especially in the special education arena. And I still remember dealing with one size fits all federal regulations (that often had effects contrary to the stated purpose) for ICFMR’s when they were the primary means to providing residential services for people with 24 hour support needs. Nevertheless, I can also think of examples when federal regulations provided relative clarity and the shunting of responsibility to the state and local governments created needless duplication, confusion, and sometimes lack of enforcement, or conversely, enforcement of silly predilictions from one local enforcement agent to another. I still remember the heads of some industries reacting with horror when the Contract with America freshmen acted with intent to repeal a number of evironmental regulations that actually provided protection for the industries in question (if the regulations were repealed, then there were no standards to reference in case of lawsuits). The world is grey, and large and small governments have their hazards as well as their relative safeguards.
I wanted to reply to this comment, however.
“I can see from your comments, that we’re on opposite sides of the fence on the dangers/advantages of local vs fed regs/oversight. As I’ve droned on long enough, my view is simple. If I know my city council/state legislator/homeowner’s assoc I have a chance of influencing them, or I can move to where it fits my preferences. Federal regs remove both options. That’s a loss of freedom.”
My response is that it’s not so much that we are opposite sides of the fence, I see advantages to local government as well. It is harder to escape from the consequences of bad federal law and policy. However, there are examples from history where people have suffered from local tyrannies, and relief came from appealing to the next level up or higher of government, either through the courts or through legislative protections. I think the Bill of Rights provides a most basic example:
The Bill of Rights is pretty much meaningless if it only applies to the federal government, and state or lower governments feel free to ignore the protections. The Fourteenth Amendment did correct this oversight to an extent, but I think the truth of this statement is still supported by examination of history. Yes, it was the efforts of individual civil rights advocates and the shame of media coverage that helped the civil rights crusade of the 1950’s and 1960’s prevail. However, the enforcement of federal authority over the states was still absolutely vital to the success of the civil rights movement. The biggest threats to individual religious freedom generally reside in municipalities and county governments. Second Amendment advocates have argued that the right to bear arms, as a federally guaranteed freedom, is unlawfully impinged by local governments (see the recent SCOTUS ruling on DC’s gun ban).
One of the problems with hard core libertarian thought (probably more represented by someone like Austrian Economist than yourself) is that history demontrates that freedom is best protected in a stable and lawful society. Government, BIG government, by necessity provides that infrastructure, particularly in a country of more than 300 million people. Yes, big government comes with its own problems, but a patchwork of local governments functioning with a weak federal government in the background I think manifests with greater potential problems, as the failure of the Articles of Confederation demonstrated, and the history of the civil rights movements reinforces.
Ag – I don’t disagree on your points relative to the Bill of Rights being a definite upgrade relative to 50 different versions via states & more adding various city/county interpretations. One size fits all does well in these macro senses.
Where I think we might both agree as well, is that it’s the micro sense (MTBE, NCLB, etc) that one size fits all solutions fails miserably. Not trying to reiterate, but even in your “local tyrannies” example…you can move away to a different locality if you feel oppressed in a micro sense, but you can’t when it’s a bad reg/law/policy applied federally. I think that was the intention of the COTUS, as well as it’s various amendments since the Bill of Rights.
I go back to some of my earlier comments to Box as well. Bad federal decisions, by their very nature have systemic implications, whether good or bad. Smaller decisions, ie state/local, effect much smaller groupings, therefore aren’t systemic. They’re also much more easily fixed (by the electorate if necessary at the ballot box) locally, than nationally. If the masses are being oppressed locally, they’re motivated to vote and make a difference. Nationally, they feel small, and aren’t as passionate or haven’t internalized many of the issues at that level. Taxes going up or down is about the only issue many folks get passionate about (until the latest healthcare debate). Plus, they don’t have the time/patience to really dig in and follow things like primaries plus generals. We as a people tend to be busy and easily distracted. The junkies like us follow every pitch…we’re lucky if most of the electorate checks the box score once a month, or worse yet, just tunes in for the World Series. That being said..voter turnout for things like school board members is atrocious..don’t understand why they schedule those separate from the generals..and yeah, I understand it doesn’t help my theory about people being passionate about local issues… :)
Just one other example, is the Super Delegate. If I were a Dem, I’d be furious that my party handed out special voting priveleges like that to the “elite”..capable of changing at will and counting for so much more than my measly vote that makes up a tiny fraction of my state’s delegate count. I’m rambling again..but it’s just easier to get people involved/in tune with issues closer to home. But we’ve set up thousands of ways to communicate/follow national issues and do a poor job of publishing local/state issues. The cynic in me has always thought that was no more an accident, than the daily anti Tiahrt/Brownback op/eds in the WE.
P-Ma – SCOTUS/Congress/Presidents have used the “elastic clause”, ie the one you posted, along with the “general welfare clause” (at the start of Art 1, Sec 8) and the “commerce clause” to wrest as much federal power for Congress as possible.
Hamilton used the “necessary & proper” argument for a national bank, claiming “necessary” really meant “convenient” or “useful”. General welfare’s been used for too many things to list..most recently healthcare, even though, as Madison pointed out on many occasions..if they meant that language to be a vague granting of anything they want it to be power to Congress, why then, did they follow it in Art 1, Sec 8 with a specific list of things that were granted by the people/states to Congress? FDR slaughtered the Commerce Clause with his policies, like the price fixing by plowing up cotton/killing baby pigs. The most famous case challenging this stupid interpretation, was the one where a single farmer growing food for his own family on his own land, was determined by FDR’s admin to be subject to interstate commerce, therefore to FDR’s price fixing strategies because they claimed it might indirectly effect interstate trade!
Those actions, coupled with Lincoln’s treatment of southern states post Civil War, are what Dems cling to, in terms of making the 10th Amend (which you basically referred to above) null & void. I’ve heard Mathews on Hardball more than once say “We took care of that in 1865!” when someone mentions the 10th Amend.
Those 3 simple clauses are the most abused in the entire document. The Anti-Federalists (Madison/Jefferson/Mason) saw it coming and are quoted often laying out their challenge to the Federalists (Adams/Hamilton) who tried to start bending them before the ink was dry. I can give you specific SCOTUS cases if you’d like.
Not my fault, if you abuse a right you lose a right. The states lost power because they couldn’t do right by the people. Its a very good reason why that isn’t taken as strongly as it once was.
P-ma – geez, seriously?? Is there anything you can’t turn into a race issue, or to use race as the answer for why you think you’re right always? Riddle me this, since you’re so quick to paint the entire south as a bunch of racists and everyone else all about multi-culturalism….when Jackie Robinson signed as the first African American baseball player, there wasn’t a pro team below the Mason-Dixon line. He was verbally abused by fans at every town they played in..death threats/racial slurs, the whole nine…none of them in the south. I’m not from the south either, just suggesting you open your eyes occasionally and consider more facts in your opinions.
The Founder’s didn’t put it there for racial reasons. They put it there, because they feared exactly what you crave. An all powerful, centralized govt. They saw it up close and personal and hated it…so they tried to set us up differently. They set up an expiration date (1808) on slavery. Funny to me that none of the venom is saved for the Africans who traded slaves (no, they weren’t all hunted down on horseback with nets like they portrayed in Roots), the Portugese/Spanish who traded slaves in Europe/Africa long before it came here…nope, it’s all saved for white dudes of the US. The only country that shed its own blood to end slavery. Nope, none of those facts matter, because they don’t fit well with the ideology, and after ideology trumps all.
Now, for a more productive question to anyone:
Does anyone know if insurance premiums are regulated at all by either state or fed agencies? As an example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Comm (FERC) must approve all tariffs/rates for interstate pipeline/truck/rail/barge movements. Similar to what the KCC does for utility rates. The company has to justify their rates based on operating expenses, capital, etc.
Just curious if health insurance premiums are forced to go through a similar process…because in the back of my mind, it seems like they are. If not, why not? This would be a good application of a macro solution that govt is better at, than the micro solution of running a healthcare industry (heard today, now they’re up to 45 new fed agencies in HR3200).
I told ya:
The White House for the first time Sunday somewhat acknowledged that people across the country received unsolicited e-mails last week on health care from the administration, suggesting the problem on third-party groups it claimed placed the recipients’ names on the distribution list.
In a written statement released exclusively to FOX News, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said the White House hopes those who received the e-mails without signing up for them were not “inconvenienced” by the messages.
Amway – interesting..the WH is using “3rd Party groups” to send e-mails out under official WH seals??? Wow…
Good thing Gibbs showed his arse when Garrett asked him about this. Wonder how many will ask who the 3rd parties are..because Gibbs was pretty snippy about it having nothing to do with OFA.