Why does the media always insist on pretending that modern conservatism has any serious policy designs? The last eight years and John McCain and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh tell us all we need to know about the right’s intellect. They are for war for no good reason, covering up said war when it goes bad, torture, tax cuts for the wealthy, economic and educational disparity between the rich and poor, racial and sexual discrimination, immoral smearing of political opponents, speaking in the language of moral superiority while engaging in immoral personal behavior, neglect of government’s role as a watchdog and instead use it to enable corporate crime and the resulting economic malaise, and above all else the elevation of the intellectually uncurious over science and the advancement of knowledge.
Calling conservativism anything else is playing pretend.
And playing pretend is what conservatism is all about. It’s about ignoring anything that contradicts one’s fantasy of The Way Things Ought To Be. It’s about the kind of steadfast certainty that works wonders in fairy tales, but leads to disaster in the real world. It’s about a glorious End that makes whatever tawdry Means one employs to get there instantly forgettable.
Conservatism is the province of those who are no longer children, yet refuse to grow up.
Your point? Now watch this drive.
Conservatism as a political philosophy seems fine to me — smaller government, people relying on themselves, small-L libertarianism.
Thing is, the modern GOP doesn’t believe in these things. It wants tax cuts for George Soros, it wants to make the Fed as big as possible, it wants to start wars it can’t win, and it wants to tell you how to conduct your personal life.
Conservatism as an ideal is still there, but Republicans certainly don’t practice it.
Jaim – well put. Maybe if Sarah Palin takes the crazies with her, the Republican party can return to those (relatively mainstream) values.
What can one say after such a reasoned, well thought out portrayal of conservative political thought? One wonders why conservatives even get out of bed in the morning…
Could someone at least take a stab at what conservatives think they think? None of you are even close.
Could someone at least take a stab at what conservatives think they think?
I have been waiting for that since the Reagan administration. You would think a conservative would have stepped up to the plate by now.
Well what’s left of the republican party think that Horatio Alger, Atlas Shrugged, Dirty Harry, Rambo and 24 are not fiction but documentaries that describe the way the world really works.
But I wouldn’t make the mistake of confusing those people with conservatives. Most of the people Yglesias mentions would be more at home in an Obama administration than a Palin administration.
Frank DiSalle: “What can one say after such a reasoned, well thought out portrayal of conservative political thought? One wonders why conservatives even get out of bed in the morning…”
One does wonder.
“Could someone at least take a stab at what conservatives think they think? None of you are even close.”
Why don’t you tell us. Why don’t you tell us what conservatives think, and how they put that into practice over the past eight years.
Cons heart economic central planning of the military where GIs eat rations. They want big government to outlaw abortions that the free market is willing to provide. They want the federal government to stop states like Massachusetts from allowing gays to get married
I’m sure there are some Conservatives out there who still adhere to the original design, sadly they have been gagged and thrown into the closet and are held for ransom by the current crop of scandal ridden hypocrites.
Conservatives have rendered themselves incapable of thinking. Thinking is the original sin and therefore against their religion.
What — you mean the several GOP convention harangues by Mitt Romney against Eastern establishment elites (funny that) and by Mike Huckabee against ‘European ideas’ and the entire Palin sneer brigade against un-real Americans didn’t build on the fine tradition of 2004’s purple bandaids to form a coherent policy prescription guide for 21st century America?
Funny proposition that: That what transpired during the Bush administration wasn’t conservatism. That would mean it was liberalism. Which would make what has transpired so far under the Obama administration — what, exactly?
As for my describing conservatism for you, Oliver started the thread, you all have chimed in with your agreement. Why should I guide you out of the forest, when you have your eyes on the trees?
It’s weird how for people wishing to view themselves as conservatives there are only those 2 choices — i.e., if Bush Jr. wasn’t my fantasy definition of “conservative” then the only other option is that of “liberal”.
There used to be all sorts of different approaches and ideologies in the world, but for the TruConservativs it’s now simple, because anything they like is by definition “conservative” and anything they don’t like is “liberal”.
I should start doing that too. If it’s a law abiding business, it’s a “liberal”, and if it’s a drug dealing mafia, it’s “conservative”. If the cake turns out right its “liberal”, but if it doesn’t bake properly it’s “conservative”.
As for my describing conservatism for you, Oliver started the thread, you all have chimed in with your agreement. Why should I guide you out of the forest, when you have your eyes on the trees?
I thought so. You don’t have any idea what you believe, so you hope we won’t call you on it. I say that you believe in nothing but war, murder, theft, and the destruction of the Constitution. The Bush administration IS modern conservatism, because cowards and traitors like you refused to do anything about it. Congratulations: you have created your own hell.
El Cid,
George Will tells the story of the Roman emperor who appeared before the Senate and said, ‘Gentlemen, I’m for that which is good and against that which is bad.’
Wow, and I thought “circle jerks” were just an urban legend. But the mutual stroking of the regulars here, all lauding each other on how clever each of you are and how conservatives are all a big ol’ bunch of doodyheads.
Here’s a thought: sometimes, “nothing” is better than something. Most of Obama’s plans fall under the category of “worse than nothing,” so simply saying “no” to them is a valid — even preferred — alternative.
J.
Aren’t the people in the media who cosign for and promote these assessments of conservatives and their alleged movement in general agreement with conservatives?
Jay, were the Bush economic policies that produced our current recession “worse than nothing”? Or were they, in fact, nothing – that is to say, a lack of regulation and oversight?
If they were “worse than nothing” why is it so terribly hard to find a conservative voice who spoke out against them with anything resembling the volume reserved for Obama’s policies now?
And that make two refusing to answer the question.
‘Here’s a thought: sometimes, “nothing” is better than something. Most of Obama’s plans fall under the category of “worse than nothing,” so simply saying “no” to them is a valid — even preferred — alternative.’
Well let’s see; O’s not for invading a country that never attacked the US, thus bloating your governments’ already sizeable deficit left by Bush, he’s not interested in further tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, which didn’t hamper the deficit much either, he’s not in favor of torture, rendition or keeping people locked up without trial, without access to ‘evidence’ against them or the ‘privilege’ of legal counsel, nor does he support illegal wiretapping of US citizens.
Gosh, you’re right; doing nothing against these popular and effective policies is the Right way to go.
“…and how conservatives are all a big ol’ bunch of doodyheads.”
You say this as if there’s not a mountain of concrete evidence in support of the proposition.
Conservatism is just a shiny box of crap. Never have they been fiscally responsible. Even Reagan increased the size of government hugely. They’re a bunch of paranoid sissies, and always put too much money into the military. They hate freedom, but want anarchy for themselves. Free-market fundamentalism was their undoing recently as they let the fat cats run rampant in the promise of getting something for nothing.
It’s a problem of altruism — they really can’t see themselves in somebody else’s shoes. They’re selfish to the core and that’s why they fail at governance.
Doing nothing isn’t really a viable long term plan, though. Kinda like, sooner or later, in a theoretical long-running conservative model of governance, there would be no taxes left to cut, no social welfare programs left to reform out of existence, and no oppressive regulations left to limit gun owners or corporations—yay! But unfortunately, there would still be social problems, for which a persistent prescription of self-help (to those who might be incapable of doing so) would result in a sound electoral thrashing. Sooner or later, however conservative one might be, you actually have to try to solve problems that the government didn’t create. And if the government did create them, the private sector might not be capable of fixing them on their own.
Let’s see those policy proposals.
That what transpired during the Bush administration wasn’t conservatism.
Except it was. Attacking the government’s functions, ceasing oversight, useless wars. It was perfect conservatism, which is why it was such a massive failure. But for the right, conservatism can never fail, just the practicioners, so they will once again see no need to adjust their ideology, just the idols.
Well, yeah, have heard that before: Conservatism can never fail; it can only be failed.
Occasionally every ideology can cough up a bad idea or three, and it’s important for ideologues to recognize and not run away from that.
Conservatives are against whatever non-Conservatives are for? No matter what (e.g., global warming, evolution, proper tire inflation, not outing active CIA agents, and what have you).
Thinking = educated = elitist = anti-American/terroristic
GOP can’t have that
“he’s not in favor of torture, rendition or keeping people locked up without trial”
are you sure about that?
There’s a false choice here. Obama pushes his ideas, which all boil down to “these are things that the government should be doing.” When challenged, the response is “well, what are your ideas about what the government should be doing?”
The proper response is “what should the government NOT be doing?” Why doesn’t the government just get the hell out of the way and let the people do things?
Here’s an example: the space program. The most excitement and the greatest progress in the manned exploration of space in the past few years has been in the private sector — motivated by the federal government and the X-Prize competition. The government didn’t run a space program; they said “here’s the goal, here’s some money for the first to reach it, here are some basic rules, have at it.”
On the specific issue of health care: why the fuck are we letting Ted Kennedy anywhere near it? He was one of the geniuses who helped craft the HMOs and promised us they’d be the solution. He’s the same guy who co-sponsored the Immigration Reform Act of 1964 or so — go back and read his promises about what the bill would entail, and compare ‘em to what actually happened. It seems to me that the smartest thing to do on any major issue would be to find out where Ted Kennedy stands, and vote opposite.
J.
<i“he’s not in favor of torture, rendition or keeping people locked up without trial.
are you sure about that?
Well, that’s not really fair, Farris. CANDIDATE Obama was not in favor of those things. You can’t hold PRESIDENT Obama to the positions of CANDIDATE Obama. “Hope and Change,” don’t you know.
J.
“It seems to me that the smartest thing to do on any major issue would be to find out where Ted Kennedy stands, and vote opposite.”
To be fair, Tea, you picked out two policy positions over the course of a 40-year career and made quite a leap to “do the opposite of anything that Ted Kennedy supports.”
Also, I would just like to say that the conservative mindset that “government = bad” is overly simplistic and is just patently false Government doesn’t have to be universally terrible at getting things done. I get tired of hearing this kind of tripe.
Glad somebody finally said it, Oliver.
True enough, Mambo. There are plenty of other areas where one could cite Ted Kennedy as a bad example to follow. The treatment of Supreme Court nominees, taxes, welfare reform, defense policy… I could go on and on and on.
In fact, I often have.
And yeah, “government=bad” is overly simplistic. “Grossly inefficient” would be better. “Infamously and consistently wrong” would be another. “Renowned for making problems worse” would also apply.
What’s so damned radical about looking at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and demanding that the government NOT go beyond those limits without a fight?
J.
“That what transpired during the Bush administration wasn’t conservatism.That would mean it was liberalism”
Actually that is Neoconservativism. Like all “Neo” political philosphies, it take the very worst parts of liberal and conservative thought and jams it full of steroids. Just look at Latin American countries that either embraced at one point or flirted with “Neo” political philosphies. The real problem conservatives have is they never truly espouse conservatism. For more than 60 years, Republicans redefined conservatism. For every conservative tenent, there is an equally laughable contradiction in thier practice.
Frank DiSalle: That what transpired during the Bush administration wasn’t conservatism. That would mean it was liberalism.
Yes, because there are only two possiblities. (As is always the case in the black/white world of the right.)
As for my describing conservatism for you, Oliver started the thread, you all have chimed in with your agreement. Why should I guide you out of the forest,
Translation: Why should I actually try to explain anything when it’s so much easier to criticize others for failing to understand what I won’t explain?
Jay Tea: Here’s a thought: sometimes, “nothing” is better than something. Most of Obama’s plans fall under the category of “worse than nothing,” so simply saying “no” to them is a valid — even preferred — alternative.
When given only two alternatives (again the right’s inability to see anything more than two opposing sides to anything rears it’s empty head), perhaps doing nothing is better than a particular something. But when there is something wrong that should be fixed, are “do nothing” and” make it worse” the only possibilities?
A leader, if there were any on the right, wouldn’t just say “Your plan is worse than nothing. So let’s do nothing.” They would say “Your plan is worth than nothing. Here’s a better plan. Here’s my plan to improve things.”
But why do that when it’s so much easier to just point fingers and yell “No. Wrong!” at everything?
Jay Tea: It seems to me that the smartest thing to do on any major issue would be to find out where Ted Kennedy stands, and vote opposite.
Yes, the approach all to often taken by the right. “Let’s find out what the other side is doing and then just do the opposite of that”.
Demonstrating, again, their complete lack of ideas.
Here’s a way around this dodge:
In the absence of a Democratic/liberal/progressive policy proposal to address a particular social, economic or other problem, what would the conservative policy proposal be?
mike in dc: In the absence of a Democratic/liberal/progressive policy proposal to address a particular social, economic or other problem, what would the conservative policy proposal be?
Hmmm. Tough one. If Frank D and Jay T are anything to go by, the conservatives would be absolutely stuck if they didn’t have someone else’s proposal to object to.
the conservatives would be absolutely stuck if they didn’t have someone else’s proposal to object to.
Oh no, they would get all mavericky in there and ask themselves what a maverick would do in that situation and then, you know, do that.
You want some ideas to revive the economy?
Here are just a few:
1: Make Interest on savings accounts, tax free
2: Make Interest and Dividends on Pension Plans, tax free
3: Make mortgage payments (not interest, the entire payment) tax free
4: Make all income, from whatever source derived, if it is below the poverty level, regionally adjusted, tax free. Freeze bank reserves at 2009 levels, so the windfalls from increased savings get lent out and invested.
5. Make the first $150,000 in start up funds for all new businesses deductible from Gross Income in the first year.
6. Repeal for one year, all the taxes on oil products, and gauge the effects.
7. START INVESTING IN AFRICA: Encourage Micro-financing; encourage tourism; donate computers; donate FIOS cable; offer to train troops of friendly nations, so the locals meet Americans; broadcast world events from there, like the Miss World, Miss Universe, the Olympics, the Grammys, the Oscars, etc.
8. Take our Professional Teams “on the road” – around the world.
9. Put the U.S. Government on its own Peer Network – give it a human face: From the mail carrier to the Postmaster General
10. Last, but not least: Make every government agency hire a human being to answer the goddam phone, and THEN turn you over to the appropriate phone tree!!!!!!!!!!
That ought to keep you for a few hours …
You want some ideas to revive the economy?
As others pointed out, these are mostly gripes and lunacy. in other words, standard conservative boilerplate.
10. Last, but not least: Make every government agency hire a human being to answer the goddam phone, and THEN turn you over to the appropriate phone tree!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah. I totally agree with this one. The crap I put up with to just make payments on student loans is insanity. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who likes talking to a robot:)
The modern conservative movement is akin to a cult, not a political party. They do not have the ability for self reflection when things go horribly wrong, rather they just pass the blame to someone else. This is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility?
You’d think after the 2008 elections, when they got fucking slaughtered, it might cause some to step back and examine what went wrong. But how soon I forget, wingnuts don’t do introspection. That’s for pussies.
Instead, wingers like what Frank answered here above in the thread, they just give blanket statements like ‘Bush was a liberal’ ‘he wasn’t a real conservative’
That’s just priceless. That says it all. It says, we are completely incapable of actually understanding why our party failed so badly so we’ll just look for a shiny object of distraction and point the finger.
No wonder they are a ship adrift, without a mission, without a captain, and without any real principles. And it’s no wonder that they will be in the minority for a decade if not more.
20 minutes after my post, Burn says : “they are a ship adrift, without a mission, without a captain, and without any real principles.” Why does he say that? Because he read it somewhere. He is repeating what he was told; he is thinking what he was told to think. And yet, he must still hedge his bet, and they say “they will be in the minority for a decade if not more”, even though they were purportedly “fucking slaughtered” in 2008.
I am betting that the Senate will be in Republican hands in 2010; the house will be more like %55 – %45 Democrat in 2010; and there will be at least three serious contenders to take the W H from the Obamassiah by January 2011. Why? Because we will be embroiled in some cosmic shoot – out in a country no one ever even heard of, by then; the “stimulus package” will be a complete and utter failure.
All the people “between the mountains” (the Appalachians and the Rockies) will say, “I voted for him last time; no one can call me a racist now”, and it’s the end of Carter the II.
By then, a small time mayor from Alaska will be able to whip his as… Oops! Looks like somebody just levelled the playing field ! !
Frank, with your prediction of Dems being crushed in ‘06 and ‘08 I wouldn’t run around making those kinds of predictions.
Burn, you describe all politicians there. Regarding the original post, most of those observations are of the Republican party in practice, which is not at all the same as the philosophy of conservatism. That philosophy is what got Republicans elected in 1994, and failure to adhere to their principles once they were in office is what got them voted out.
With the exception of News Reference, you all don’t really think of Democrats as anything more than least bad, do you?
At every level, pragmatism always wins over ideology, simply because it has more options. But conservatism started losing its pragmatism when it pandered to various ideologies in order to bring in the votes.
As a result, most of today’s ‘conservatives’ would rather have a gun-slinging god-singing oil-sucking anti-abortion country and western rock star in positions of fixing major problems, than some “loony liberal”-minded pragmatic who’s open to any and all options.
“Frank DiSalle” isn’t actually a nom de blog for Bill Kristol, is it?
Frank DiSalle: <i.You want some ideas to revive the economy? Here are just a few:
General question, having eliminated all these taxes, which expenses would you reduce?
6. Repeal for one year, all the taxes on oil products, and gauge the effects.
Trusting the oil companies to pass the entire savings along? Presumably part of the thought behind this is to reduce the cost of gasoline, home heating oil, etc. Which in turn will increase demand, limiting the motivation to get off foreign sources of oil while also increasing the calls for domestic exploration (to meet demand).
So we have more windfall profits for the already very profitable oil companies, weakened national security and further degradation of natural resources and spaces.
Sounds like a plan.
9. Put the U.S. Government on its own Peer Network – give it a human face: From the mail carrier to the Postmaster General.
10. Last, but not least: Make every government agency hire a human being to answer the goddam phone, and THEN turn you over to the appropriate phone tree!!!!!!!!!!
10 exclamation points! But what would either of those do for that economy? They aren’t stimulus, they’re gripes.
Hmmm… Burn has absolutely nothing to say, apart from saying that “there are no conservative ideas” 20 minutes (as Frank noted) after Frank spells out some very, very good ideas for helping the economy — ideas that don’t translate into “take more money from the producing segment and give it to the federal government.”
I don’t agree with all of Frank’s ideas, and don’t quite grasp one or two of them, but it seems a hell of a lot more likely to help more people in general, and the economy in sparticular, than most of the crap being pushed through Congress lately.
J.
I don’t see why not, Oliver. I haven’t been wrong as many times as you have yet, and history is on my side. Obama can’t get any more black votes, unless he brings them in from another galaxy.
And guilty whites, having been shamed once, won’t be fooled again (Why do you suppose Kennedy was in Texas in Nov ‘63?)
Check out the voting pattern on that strip of states on the east and west banks of the Mississippi from 1976 to 2004, and how they voted in the Presidential Elections.
BTW, every group you all claim the Republicans “pandered to” is a group the Democrats alienated by moving further to the left.
I haven’t been wrong as many times as you have yet
Really? I didn’t predict any elections beyond the last one, and I was pretty close. In fact, I underestimated how resounding the win would be.
every group you all claim the Republicans “pandered to” is a group the Democrats alienated by moving further to the left
I’m well aware the Democratic move towards civil rights alienated racist white men. The GOP can have them.
Oh no, they would get all mavericky in there and ask themselves what a maverick would do in that situation and then, you know, do that.
No fair quoting verbatim, Wilbur. =)
Hmmm… Burn has absolutely nothing to say, apart from saying that “there are no conservative ideas” 20 minutes (as Frank noted) after Frank spells out some very, very good ideas for helping the economy
Perhaps Frank should pass them up to the nearest Republican in a position of leadership. Right now all they have is a Staples report cover with a bunch of empty pages inside.
I don’t see why not, Oliver. I haven’t been wrong as many times as you have yet, and history is on my side.
Yes you have, Frank.
Frank I really like some of your ideas, in a sort of pie-in-the-sky way, but how are you going to pay for them? Either you’re suggesting even greater deficit spending (which I find hard to believe) or you’re going to cut spending elsewhere. Not on the military, surely, so which necessary and popular social or infrastructural programs are you going to cut and how are you going to make that work politically?
When people say that republicans don’t have ideas, the mean that they don’t have ideas that could actually work in a reality-based reality.
This whole post is pretty rich coming from the same party that, for the last 8 years, spentthe entire time yelling “ANYTHING BUT BUSH!”
as we’ve seen in the past 6 months, there are a whole host of issues (Gitmo, domestic surveillance, deficits, signing statements, vacation time, gay rights, lobbyist influence, …) where Democrats made A TON of hay only to reverse course.
Simply put, the modern conservative movement is about personal greed. The Republican party is the party of “Gimme! It’s mine!” They try to convince people that the rich got that way because they worked the hardest and the poor are poor because they’re lazy and shiftless, while continually pushing for policies that ensure wealth will remain concentrated among those who already have it and out of the hands of those who don’t.
SaveFarris: This whole post is pretty rich coming from the same party that, for the last 8 years, spentthe entire time yelling “ANYTHING BUT BUSH!”
Well, as Frank has told us, nothing is better that something.
SaveFarris: as we’ve seen in the past 6 months, there are a whole host of issues (Gitmo, domestic surveillance, deficits, signing statements, vacation time, gay rights, lobbyist influence, …) where Democrats made A TON of hay only to reverse course.
And where folks on the left have criticized them for doing so. Yes, the left has criticized the leaders of the left. I realize not blindly agreeing with everything your side does is (yet another) concept that you just can’t grasp, Farris.
Let’s turn this around, shall we?
The modern progressive movement is about collective greed. The Democratic party is the party of “Gimme! It’s ours!” They try to convince people that the only way someone can get rich is if at someone else’s expense, because they greedily exploited the less fortunate, and that the poor are somehow ennobled by their poverty and are helpless victims of the rich. Meanwhile, the Democrats continually push for policies that seek to punish those who succeed while trying to ensure an equal distribution of poverty and misery.
Hey, that was kinda fun — taking standard bullshit rhetoric and talking points, and flipping it around.
J.
First of all, like any other bloated bureaucracy, an executive with guts could save billions in no time. Start by telling every single Agency to reduce Infrastructure and support Costs by %2 a year – no ifs, ands or benefit cuts. And don’t fire the unwed Moms, or cut the Disabilities Program, or I’ll take you out in the Rose Garden, and beat you like you owe me money!
(The “appendix” of the Federal Civil Service is called a “Branch Chief” – he literally serves no function but to put his signature above or below that of a “Group Manager”. It is a way to promote a Group Manager whose performance doesn’t warrant it. I don’t know the exact numbers, but eliminating 90% of them – and they would not be missed – would save billions. Eliminate the Office of Personnel Management, and let each Agency recruit, hire and fire their own people. Sell NASA to a Consortium of American owned Aviation companies [ Airlines and avionics companies ]).
Secondly, with people saving money, starting businesses, and buying homes; banks lending money and retirement plans buying public offerings; and markets opening in Africa (ever hear of “Second-hand tees for Third World Countries”? I read about it years ago); the amount of revenue returning to the Fed Gov’t will be enormous — more than is generated by tax rate reduction.`
But these are simple things — too simple for people who think that “thinking outside the box” means having tacos for dinner.
Frank, don’t bother trying to bring common sense to the discussion. We already know the answer — “we won, and you lost!”
J.
“Yes, the left has criticized the leaders of the left. I realize not blindly agreeing with everything your side does is (yet another) concept that you just can’t grasp, Farris.”
Conservatives didn’t Voice their opinion during the Bush admin on deficits?
Harriet Myers?
Dubai ports?
McCain Feingold?
NCLB?
Immigration?
Medicare D?
The surge (in 2004)?
If you didn’t hear conservatives complaining about Bush, it’s only because you weren’t listening.
OT, are there any privately owned blogs on the right that consistently has this level of free debate volume?
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”: “I haven’t been wrong as many times as you have yet, “
Says the guy who thinks the sun turns off every 12 hours, doesn’t believe in global climate change (he thinks it’s a liberal plot), and thinks the Shia Iranians are actually Sunni.
The Republican Party both relies on ignorance like this the Republican Party actually encourages ignorance like this.
Without fools like “Frank” the Republican Party wouldn’t exist.
OT, are there any privately owned blogs on the right that consistently has this level of free debate volume?
Wizbang – they’ll get into it with you. Yankee Jay’s blog, when it’s working.
[...] Oliver Willis No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Quote of the [...]
I will cheerfully attest to Parthenon’s declaration about Wizbang. And up to last November, would have personally guaranteed it.
I will still lay claim to “setting the tone” over there, and establishing a very, very free and loose level of moderation. One of my prouder accomplishments.
J.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle”, in his bootlicking of the rich and powerful, regurgitates Frank Luntz and Grover Norquist “ideas” by making his first six “ideas” a list of regressive policies that vastly helps the rich while giving pennies to the poor.
It should be noted that “Frank DiSalle” is a welfare recipient who relies on the government and yet the right wing have filled his small, callous mind with talking points that help the rich and powerful even while hurting the government’s ability to provide “Frank” the welfare services he relies on.
And right winger “Frank DiSalle” is a classic right winger in that even while he is trying to “starve the beast” of government he’s demanding more services be provided by the government.
That’s the right wing debtor mindset in a nutshell: Right wingers don’t want to pay for the government that they are demanding services for.
Republican Debt is a directly result of this ignorant right wing innumeracy.
The bad news: “Newsy” is a cheerful practitioner of the “shoot the messenger” school of debate.
The good news: “Newsy” is limited to a Nerf gun.
Congrats, Frank! You got the frothing ankle-biter’s attention!
J.
“his first six “ideas” [are] a list of regressive policies that vastly helps the rich while giving pennies to the poor.”
your claim presupposes that people exist to serve government, not that government exists go serve the people. The “vast help” that the “rich” would get back was their money to begin with.
That what transpired during the Bush administration wasn’t conservatism.
Here’s the crux of the issue. Conservatism can’t fail, it can only be failed, right Frank?
That would mean it was liberalism.
A perfect example of the false dilemma.
I thought so. You don’t have any idea what you believe, so you hope we won’t call you on it.
Considering how he reacted when I asked him to elaborate on his stance on abortion law, I think this is pretty accurate.
Conservatives are against whatever non-Conservatives are for? No matter what (e.g., global warming, evolution, proper tire inflation, not outing active CIA agents, and what have you).
Oh, it goes far beyond that.
The proper response is “what should the government NOT be doing?” Why doesn’t the government just get the hell out of the way and let the people do things?
Because it’s the fucking government. It governs over people. That’s the point.
START INVESTING IN AFRICA
You mean in companies like Petrochina and diamond mines? If people do that, I’m going to invest in Vicks, because alot of people will have trouble sleeping at night.
By then, a small time mayor from Alaska will be able to whip his as… Oops! Looks like somebody just levelled the playing field ! !
Because it worked SO well in 2008? Optimism and insanity look so similar, it’s frightening. Hey, why doesn’t Condi run? She’s be a great contender, right Frank?
BTW, every group you all claim the Republicans “pandered to” is a group the Democrats alienated by moving further to the left.
How will we be able to survive without the support of gay bashers and Bible thumpers? Oh heaven forbid!
Farris: It also presupposes that a “poor person” would never have a bank account, buy into a dividend paying insurance policy, start a business, or want a home. But not paying taxes when you’re beneath the the poverty level hurts the poor?
And News Rewind : I am not a welfare recipient, which makes you a despicable, hypocritical scumbag – and a liar. And if you think I am regurgitating anyone ( same goes for you, OW and Parthenon ), try finding those ideas written by someone else, or reviewed and found wanting by anyone else.
And News Wacko, why do you have to be so fucking nasty? Didn’t you get enough attention growing up? I knew that if I guessed Sunnis in Iran , it would be Shi’ites, but I didn’t feel like looking it up. I comfort myself with two thoughts: I did it from memory; you looked it up; second, I know why the split occurred, and who it concerns, and you don’t – go look that up.
I lick no one’s boots; I just don’t the smallness of perception that liberals have, which leads them to believe that the rich make money because of the beneficence of the government, and at the expense of the poor. I, on the other hand, have read Bastiat and Gilder on how wealth is created, and I know better. I know the Fallacy of the Glazier, and that wealth begins not in the hands of an assembly line worker, but in the imagination of an entrepreneur.
Having eliminated all these taxes, which expenses would you reduce?
I believe I have sufficiently explained how the ideas generate revenue, and also, some ideas for cutting expenses.
Trusting the oil companies to pass the entire savings along?
No, telling the people what sort of a price reduction to expect, as in “You can expect a 15 to 18 cent per gallon decrease in the price of gasoline after “such-and-such” a date.
I said “gauge the effects”… Does it turn out well? Good – then leave it. Personally, I find taxing activities to discourage people from doing them is abhorrent. But, at least, there might be some justification. I just can’t think of what it is.
“Presumably part of the thought behind this is … ”
The thought behind this is to return the buyer – seller transaction to producer – consumer , not producer and government – consumer. Kinda like leaving the Mafia out of the pizza business.
Put the U.S. Government on its own Peer Network …
People who deal with the public will now have a face and a phone number:
How many times have you heard a phone tree say, “If you know your party’s extension, please dial it now.”
and
“When you called last time, who did you speak to?” Of course, you don’t remember, because you spoke to 6 people. You can hear the “Aha!” tone in their voice, as they prepare to pass you along to someone else.
Giving you the service you deserve isn’t always a case of boosting your personal morale. It takes time and energy to mail your deceased mother a social security check for six months while you, unassisted, try to fix it. Even when you finally mail or hand deliver the checks back to the right person, that time and manpower will never be replaced.
Make every government agency hire a human being to answer the goddam phone … but what good would that do for the economy?
As mentioned above, efficiency reduces waste.
There’s more: Have you heard of Web 2.0?
Some of the more relevant features:
Communication between citizens on blogs like this lead to insane levels of brainstorming;
“Squawk boxes” lead to interactive government
As each citizen discovers who is in his “Network” (who deals with the last 4 of my Social at the VA; who has my “letter” at Social Security; who handles my ZIP Code at USPS; if my son goes in the Army, where will he go to Basic Training); my ability to problem solve increases exponentially. Think of the time and money saved, when I call up my FEMA guy after a disaster, and say, “Hey, Phil! I didn’t get my check!” Phil looks at my Profile, gets the info he needs, and says, “I’ll get on it after lunch, Frank.”
I turn on “Speed Dial” every morning, where 9 government channels await me with News, Weather, Traffic, and whatever interests me from the Smithsonian, the CIA, the Library of Congress, the National Gallery of Art, NIMH, NIH, CDC, DoJ or whatever I am in the mood for.
This is what we COULD be doing…
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” claims that he is “not a welfare recipient” and yet previously has claimed to receive Federal money and assistance.
Are you now saying that you don’t receive Federal money or assistance? If so I will amend my comment to saying ‘former welfare recipient “Frank DiSalle”‘
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” explains the right wing Orwellian military strategy of ‘ignorance is strength’:
“I knew that if I guessed Sunnis in Iran , it would be Shi’ites, but I didn’t feel like looking it up.”
Both Republcian President Bush AND Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain also got this wrong.
The fact is that the Shia are a majority in Iran AND Iraq.
But a minority of Sunni controlled Iraq.
The Sunni and Shia have been hostile to each other for hundreds of years (it’s grossly equivalent to the early, violent Protestant/Catholic split).
When Republican Bush blew the lid off of Iraq it empowered the Shia majority in Iraq which in turn gave Iran a natural ideological ally in Iraq.
Also, by removing Iran’s enemy, Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, Republican President Bush further empowered (Shia) Iran regionally.
Neither Republican Bush or Republican McCain had the curiosity or patience to ‘look up the facts’ and instead took the Orwellian position that ‘ignorance is strength’.
The result has been an empowered Iran, thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, and 2/3rds of a Trillion dollars misspent on an unnecessary war.
Frank DiSalle: Personally, I find taxing activities to discourage people from doing them is abhorrent.
A tax is a penalty (if you insist on viewing it only as a bad thing and not as a pooling of resources for the common good). We assign penalties to activities to discourage people from doing them all the time.
People who deal with the public will now have a face and a phone number:
So when 2 million people call the IRS in early April they’ll all get some actual person to talk to? And they’ll get that individual’s phone number so they can call them again whenever they have a question, not to mention all their friends and relatives who they’ve passed the number on to?
Make every government agency hire a human being to answer the goddam phone, and THEN turn you over to the appropriate phone tree!!!!!!!!!!
…
Of course, you don’t remember, because you spoke to 6 people.
…
As mentioned above, efficiency reduces waste.
And working thru 6 people is going to be efficient?
Have a person answer the phone just so they can then connect you to one of several phone trees and this is more efficient than just having you select which phone tree you want yourself is more efficient?
You don’t like phone trees. Who does? But that isn’t going to do squat for the economy. I wouldn’t be suprised to find you scoffed at Obama’s suggestion that people check their tire pressure as a way to save money at the pump, and here you are saying inserting a phone-answerer in front of phone trees is going to stimulate the economy.
Think of the time and money saved, when I call up my FEMA guy after a disaster, and say, “Hey, Phil! I didn’t get my check!” Phil looks at my Profile, gets the info he needs, and says, “I’ll get on it after lunch, Frank.”
Yeah, cause you’ve always argued that government is so good at doing those kind of things.
I turn on “Speed Dial” every morning, where 9 government channels await me with News, Weather, Traffic, and whatever interests me from the Smithsonian, the CIA, the Library of Congress, the National Gallery of Art, NIMH, NIH, CDC, DoJ or whatever I am in the mood for.
Selecting what information to want from a canned, prepared source is VASTLY different from calling up your 9 separate contacts and asking them to provide you with your particular information. While everyone else is also calling them for the same thing.
We assign penalties to activities to discourage people from doing them all the time.
I am aware of the rationale, and I find it abhorrent. I was aware of the rationale, and I found it abhorrent.
People who deal with the public will now have a face and a phone number:
So when 2 million people call the IRS in early April they’ll all get some actual person to talk to?
Incidentally, that system (in part) exists already.
The number will only be useful to a person who lives in, say, District 13 (Manhattan) with a Soc Sec number ending in, say, 8XXX, (not mine) and the first four of my last name (DISA). You will have to learn who “your guy” is on your own.
And working thru 6 people is going to be efficient?
You have confused things…
Let’s say you live in the Whispering Pines area of Mount Airy.
Your ZIP Code is 54321. Your last name begins with REIL.
Your contact guy is Thomas Edison. You have waited two extra weeks for your copy of of Nation. You check “GOVBook” and find Thomas Edison’s page. You send him a message : Tom , where’s my “Nation”? He answers you, “I’ll try to track it”.
Two days later, he sends you a message: “I checked with a carrier – he is familiar with the fact that you receive that left wing rag (just joking) but he hasn’t seen it.”
You contact the “Nation” and find out your subscription expired, and you never saw the notice.
Have a person answer the phone just so they can then connect you to one of several phone trees … ?
WAY more efficient… Ever call a phone tree? Ever notice that all the choices that involve paying THEM are clear and concise?
But reporting problems is nebulous and undecipherable?
Ever wonder why there isn’t a number for “my cable is busted” or “my electric is turned off”?
You think that’s an accident?
If you call a person, and that person knows who you should talk to, then you get either the proper automated function or the proper person much quicker.
We are back to efficiency saves money, and Customer Service Representatives should be solving real problems, not just getting things done because phone trees are innefectual.
I didn’t scoff at Pres Obama’s suggestion that I lower the air pressure in my tires, because I don’t have a car.
Yeah, cause you’ve always argued that government is so good at doing those kind of things.
I never argued that government workers were dim witted, or that they were not conscientious, but as the saying we had on our (government office) cubicles used to say: “It’s hard to imagine draining the swamp, when you’re up to your ass in alligators.”
I turn on “Speed Dial” every morning …
You don’t know what “Speed Dial” is :
Welcome to the 21st Century:
http://speeddial.uworks.net/
AND
http://www.opera.com/browser/
Unlike people like News Wanker, I spend some time every day just thinking of things that are important. I don’t just go to my box of index cards labeled Insulting Lies about “Frank DiSalle”, and pretend I am clever…
Considering how he reacted when I asked him to elaborate on his stance on abortion law, I think this is pretty accurate.
For the last time, Zython, I gave you an answer. If it doesn’t satisfy you, that’s too damn bad.
Let me give you an example: A get gets drunk and while he’s driving impaired, he hits a woman pushing a stroller. The woman is seriously injured; the baby dies. What should happen to the driver of the car?
What penalty should he receive?
You need more information, right?
Now you know why you got the answer you got. Your question was a girl gets an abortion. What should happen to the girl? To the doctor?
And that was it.
What did you expect for an answer?
Now stop bugging me about it. You are starting to sound like that lying pest “News” “Reference”.
For the last time, Zython, I gave you an answer. If it doesn’t satisfy you, that’s too damn bad.
You know what? That’s perfectly fair. I see now that the answer you gave me tells me far more about your stance on the issue than faking one ever could.
It tells me that this isn’t something you like to think about very much. That’s really all I need to know.
What penalty should he receive?
Well, he should receive the standard DUI penalty on top of whatever other punishments he receives, including vehicular manslaughter. The specific punish will vary state-by-state, of course, but the specific crimes he committed and to what degree is pretty cut and dry in this case. That was pretty easy.
What did you expect for an answer?
Nothing specific, to be honest, just a simple one. Either a fine, jail time, community service, death penalty, or whatever, the numbers aren’t that important for a basic question like this.
Shorter Frank: There was the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. “Give me five bees for a quarter,” you’d say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones …
the media pretends the Republicans have ideas because it’s pathologically committed to a zerosum-gaming model of politics and it’s not a game if only one side is playing by the rules (or knows what rules ARE).
Obama’s election was not a triumph for the Democrats so much as it was a triumph for reason.
m.
Fafaroo: That was the closest to an intelligent comment you’ve ever come, and it may be the closest you’ll ever come.
Zython, you are living proof that the man who defends himself in court has an ass for a lawyer, and a fool for a client. { Hint : There is no “standard DUI penalty” }
Shorter Frank: Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a crackpot.
If he eliminated the extra seven that he tacked on even before he became President and got us back to 50, I think we’d be fine with that, fafaroo.
Shorter Dennis: My cat’s name is Mittens.
or I’ll take you out in the Rose Garden, and beat you like you owe me money!
That’s funny.
There is no “standard DUI penalty”
Here’s a list of such penalties in the state of Texas.
From Zython’s link:
This is the guy you think would make a great President, AO? Frank?
Advocating summary executions for traffic violations seems a little, I dunno, what’s the word? Bat shit fucking insane?
Zython: “a ‘list of such penalties’” implies that there is more than one, hence, there is no standard penalty. Oh, well.
Fafaroo, as someone who spent nearly 10 years working with the mentally ill, let me share this with you: when interacting with the mentally ill, it is not helpful to act crazier than they seem to be.
SDM: We assign penalties to activities to discourage people from doing them all the time.
Frank D.: I am aware of the rationale, and I find it abhorrent. I was aware of the rationale, and I found it abhorrent.
Where penalties are used to affect behavior generally, or only where the penalty is in the form of taxes?
If the former, it suggests you’d find much of the Criminal Code abhorrent which seems foolish on it’s face. I find it difficult to believe you wouldn’t want to have penalties to discourage criminal behavior.
But why single out taxes as deterrent as a bad thing? Is it because money is involved? Many criminal penalties involve jail time and/or fines. Should those fines be eliminated?
Thee tax code is also used to encourage what is seen as favorable actions. In the US the deductions for charitable giving, mortgage interest, etc promote giving and home ownership. If taxes shouldn’t be used to discourage unwanted actions, to influence behavior, then it follows they shouldn’t be used to encourage wanted actions. Should it just be one bland, flat tax then?
I just don’t see why using taxes to discourage what is viewed as unwanted actions is “abhorrent”.
Shorter Frank: A little from column A, a little from column B.
Frank DiSalle: The number will only be useful to a person who lives in, say, District 13 (Manhattan) with a Soc Sec number ending in, say, 8XXX, (not mine) and the first four of my last name (DISA). You will have to learn who “your guy” is on your own.
Still don’t see the viability of this, or that it really improves anything. How many people would be needed given one person handles only a specific set of the population? The US Federal tax code doesn’t vary by citizen’s Soc Sec # or name. Why not just have a pool of fokls available. Once you contact a particular one (the next available operator) then they are your guy. No need to wait longer on hold because the person for the 13-8xxx-DISA crowd is busy while the person next to them is available.
You’re building a bureaucracy where one isn’t needed to solve a problem that you haven’t really identified.
Your contact guy is Thomas Edison. You have waited two extra weeks for your copy of of Nation. You check “GOVBook” and find Thomas Edison’s page. You send him a message : Tom , where’s my “Nation”? He answers you, “I’ll try to track it”.
Two days later, he sends you a message: “I checked with a carrier – he is familiar with the fact that you receive that left wing rag (just joking) but he hasn’t seen it.”
You contact the “Nation” and find out your subscription expired, and you never saw the notice.
So I have to find out Edison is my contact guy, and then contact him, and then wait for him to look into things (by contacting the postman who Edison has likely never met but I could see every day (a postman who apparently can be called on to remember whether he’s seen every particular subscription on his entire route despite not being reliable enough to deliver the expiration notices)) before I just contact the ‘Nation’ myself directly to find out what happened.
So what did Edison actually add to this process? What happened to self-reliance? Do I really NEED to call someone in a nanny state to check on the status of my magazine subscriptions? It’s really starting to look like you want to create a make-work bureaucracy.
WAY more efficient… Ever call a phone tree? Ever notice that all the choices that involve paying THEM are clear and concise?
But reporting problems is nebulous and undecipherable?
And that’s going to change when, instead of a phone tree provided by the company I get a person who works for the company?
You don’t know what “Speed Dial” is :
Actually I do and, while not Speed Dial itself, do use something similar. But my point still stands. My drawing information from a bunch of non-individualized sources (it’s the collection of sites that is individualized, not the content in any particular site) is not at all the same thing as having to contact “personal contacts” to get individualized info.
Fafaroo: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C. Clarke, “Profiles of The Future”, 1961 (Clarke’s third law)
But why single out taxes as deterrent as a bad thing?
Because if the behavior is undesirable, why should the government benefit from until it is (ideally) extinguished? And when the behavior is extinguished, what will replace the lost revenue ? Taxing yet another obnoxious behavior?
I don’t believe taxes should be used to encourage “desirable” behavior, either. Taxes should be aimed at sources of income, not behavior.
Frank, you have no idea what’s going on do you.
Frank DiSalle: <i.Because if the behavior is undesirable, why should the government benefit
Remember that gov’t = us. So, without making behavior illegal, without gov’t taking its heavy hand and removing a freedom by saying “thou cannot”, we say instead that this behavior is not in the public interest (is against those “community standards” you’re so fond of having control our behavior) and so we’re attaching a cost to it. We’re offsetting the cost to all of us by taxing you.
And we’re making this clearly known to everyone so that they can make informed choices as to whether they want to do something or not.
Enforcing community standards. Making those creating a cost share some of the cost. Trusting people to make their own informed decisions.
Yeah, That’s all bad things.
Cigarettes are an addictive drug that kills people and was marketed to children for years.
Cigarettes were killing as many as 400,000 Americans A YEAR.
Health care costs for everyone went up because the demand of health care services by cigarette smokers was HUGE.
Other people smoking cigarettes raised my health care costs both indirectly and directly.
Second hand smoke kills nonsmokers.
The cartoons that were used to advertise the addictive, deadly drug to children was (if I remember correctly) outlawed.
But instead of making it illegal for adults to buy the addictive, deadly drug, it was simply taxed.
That “sin” tax was part of the “community standard” to discourage children and adults from smoking by making it more (too) expensive.
You can smoke a deadly addictive drug that kills you in America, but it will cost you.
Zython: “a ‘list of such penalties’” implies that there is more than one, hence, there is no standard penalty. Oh, well.
It’s a list because the penalties ramp up in severity after prior convictions. It’s still pretty formulaic. Look, the fact remains that you really don’t like thinking about this, and will you use any excuse to avoid talking about it. A mentally well person would see this as a sign to reevaluate his or her position on the issue.
Still don’t see the viability of this, or that it really improves anything.
For the most part, it exists already, The new wrinkle would be that you would know hot it works.
It’s really starting to look like you want to create a make-work bureaucracy.
No, this system already exists. You would be let in on it. My mail man knows I get NetFlix, Social Security and Popular Mechanix … Why not the Nation? But should I spend all morning in in the lobby of my building?
A historical footnote regarding punishment deterring bad behavior: The British believed that, until they discovered that pickpockets were working the crowds at public executions.
A mentally well person would see this as a sign to reevaluate his or her position on the issue.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The whole case of abortion involves marital / spousal rights vs responsibilities; issues of majority and minority, competence; misfeasance and malfeasance; willfulness; accountability vs responsibility, and parenting.
And probably more .
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” is a perfect example of right wing illogical thinking.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” demands more government services while simultaneously demanding a long list of tax cuts.
Republican Debtors have been a burden on US for decades.
Who is going to pay for all of right winger “Frank DiSalle’s” list of services? “Frank” doesn’t care, he has spent much of his life receiving government checks and government services and has never paid enough in taxes to make up for what he’s taken in government money and services.
“The whole case of abortion involves” a woman freely making a choice about her reproductive timing without interference by an intrusive government.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” demands to be able to force his will on women and even young girls.
But ask right winger “Frank DiSalle” to pay for a breathing infants health care and he throws a childish tantrum.
For a fun little exercise, take “Newsy’s” little rant about tobacco, adapt it for AIDS, and see if he/she/it will still stand by it.
And “Newsy,” ready access to contraception and information thereof allows a woman to freely make a choice about her “reproductive timing.” Abortion allows the woman to correct an error she and her partner made at some point — at the cost of destroying a living, growing fetus that, unlike the two partners — had absolutely no say in the present circumstances.
Oh, yeah, I forgot — the status of a fetus as either “future human being” or “malignant tumor” is entirely dependent on the mood of the woman bearing/infected with it — and subject to change at any moment.
Sorry about that…
J.
So now right winger “Jay Tea” decides that women shouldn’t be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions?
Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing infants healthcare?
Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing child’s education?
Would you support raising the minimum wage so that that child’s parents can afford feeding their child adequate nutrition?
Liberals support all of those things because liberals believe in doing what’s right.
Liberals also believe that women should have the freedom to choose, without government interference, their own reproductive timing.
What right wingers want is the right to use government to interfere with women’s freedom to choose their own reproductive timing even while right wingers would abandon that breathing child.
Right wingers are deadbeat parents.
But should I spend all morning in in the lobby of my building … especially since I keep forgetting to put my pants on when I leave my apartment?
Fixed.
What an absurd post. It’s okay to disagree with conservatives, but this takes things to a ridiculously exaggerated level….At least try to be rational.
Obviously, fafaroo, you are completely unable to grasp what I am driving at. In the 17th Century, you would have burned witches.
“News” “Reference” who dribbles but doesn’t shoot:
Says that I have “never paid enough in taxes to make up for what I have taken in government money and services,” even though he has no idea what I have paid or received.
That’s because he is a liar.
He also says that if I am asked to pay for a breathing infants health care I will throw a childish tantrum, even though he has never asked, and neither has anyone else.
That’s because he is a liar.
He is a despicable, hypocritical scumbag – and a liar.
Didn’t you mention you’ve been on government assistance since 1970 Frank? Or something like that?
Because that’s a Jay Tea level of hypocrisy if it’s so.
Frank DiSalle: My mail man knows I get NetFlix, Social Security and Popular Mechanix … Why not the Nation? But should I spend all morning in in the lobby of my building?
So YOUR mailman has a good memory. Most mail carriers I’ve met are mostly interested in just getting the mail delivered (as efficiently as possible) and look only at the delivery address, not the return address. They don’t care who it’s from, just that they’re getting it to the right box with a minimum of fuss and effort.
And I thought you’d be clever enough to just leave a note for your mailman.
Frank DiSalle: A historical footnote regarding punishment deterring bad behavior: The British believed that, until they discovered that pickpockets were working the crowds at public executions.
Is that really being offered as any justification for NOT punishing bad behavior? A variation of the we-can’t-completely-solve-the-entire-problem-so-why-bother-solving-even-part-of-it excuse too often used by the lazy? Frank, you’ve got better reasoning capabilities than that. Don’t you?
Frank DiSalle: The whole case of abortion involves marital / spousal rights vs responsibilities; issues of majority and minority, competence; misfeasance and malfeasance; willfulness; accountability vs responsibility, and parenting.
And probably more .
Probably more? I would have thought the “when life begins” debate would be central to it.
That said, I don’t get Zython’s hard on for getting you to re-state (or state at all) your position.
“Frank DiSalle”: “In the 17th Century, you would have burned witches.”
Republican Sarah Palin’s preacher only drives “witches” out of town in the 21st century.
Is that a sign of Republicans “moderating” their extremism?
And for the record, “Frank”, would you be willing to support raising taxes to pay for breathing infants’ health care and children’s education?
Would you support raising the minimum wage so that poor parents can provide basic necessities like nutritious food and roof over their head?
Or are you a typical right wing deadbeat?
And, again, for the record, “Frank”, liberals don’t care if you receive government welfare as long as you genuinely merit government welfare.
But liberals also understand two things:
1) If you are capable of spending the day typing you are capable of getting off your lazy ass and spending that time trying to get a job
2) If you genuinely require government welfare to get by, that welfare requires associated taxes to support your welfare.
You’ve demanded more government services and simultaneously demanded tax cuts. That creates government debt.
Republican Debt the last 30 years has been a huge burden on America.
It’s a huge part of Republican’s nonsense parade.
Liberals own fiscal conservatism.
The only way to provide (”liberal”) government services is through taxes (you know, “liberal” taxes).
Republicans ran this country into debt.
Aw, “Newsy.” How special. You demonstrate your dishonesty all over again.
So now right winger “Jay Tea” decides that women shouldn’t be allowed to make their own reproductive decisions?
I didn’t say that. I questioned abortion only. You’re the one who seems to be arguing that 1) abortion is birth control (well, technically true), and 2) the ONLY form of birth control.
<iWould you support your taxes be raised to support breathing infants healthcare?
Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing child’s education?
Would you support raising the minimum wage so that that child’s parents can afford feeding their child adequate nutrition?
Tell you what, “Newsy.” Prove a few things first:
1) That the tax increases and minimum wages would be used for those purposes exclusively, guaranteed.
2) That the money would actually increase funding in those areas, and not just free up funds to be spent in other areas.
Pull that off, and maybe — we’ll talk.
Liberals support all of those things because liberals believe in doing what’s right.
Liberals believe in doing what they think will make things all better, regardless of whether or not it’ll actually work. As long as it makes them feel good, then it’s gotta be good — even if it causes far more harm than good.
Case in point.
J.
“Jay Tea”, taxes are often levied to pay for specific outlays (spending on specific things).
But I understand your concern.
Republican President Reagan raised taxes on working people that were supposed to be for specific things and then Republican Reagan gave the ultra-wealthy massive tax cuts with those working-people’s taxes.
Republican Reagan went even farther by massively indebting America so to further provide the ultra-wealthy massive tax cuts.
It was classic right wing duplicity.
But that’s Republican Sleight of Hand 101.
Abortion allows the woman to correct an error she and her partner made at some point — at the cost of destroying a living, growing fetus that, unlike the two partners — had absolutely no say in the present circumstances.
Again, my entire point is that the unwillingness of the anti-choice movement to take this reasoning to its logical conclusion shows that they don’t really believe this.
Refreshing admission, “Newsy.”
First, you said:
Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing infants healthcare?
Would you support your taxes be raised to support breathing child’s education?
Would you support raising the minimum wage so that that child’s parents can afford feeding their child adequate nutrition?
Then you admitted that “targeted tax hikes” almost NEVER end up actually doing what they promised. You cited a Reagan example, but there are countless others.
Your questions ought to be “would you support your taxes be raised if politicians promise that it will go for a specific purpose, even though they never keep such promises?”
Your answer is “yes!”
Mine is, “show me you might actually keep that promise, and we’ll talk about it.”
Very enlightening.
J.
…and that “logical conclusion” (which, I suspect, is a “reductio ad absurdum”) would that be, fafaroo?
J.
Jay Tea: Liberals believe in doing what they think will make things all better, regardless of whether or not it’ll actually work.
Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better? There may be disagreement on what will actually work to make things better, and for whom. But to complain that “liberals” want to do what they think will improve things is
a) a statement that could be applied to anyone and
2) not even an insult.
Zython: my entire point is that the unwillingness of the anti-choice movement to take this reasoning to its logical conclusion shows that they don’t really believe this.
On the contrary, people firmly DO believe things that they haven’t thought all the way through to ultimate consequences. To say someone doesn’t really believe something just because they haven’t thought it all the way through doesn’t stand up to basic human experience.
My apologies, Sean. It should have been “do things that they thing OUGHT to work, whether or not they do.” As long as they can persuade themselves that it will work, little things like reality simply don’t apply.
Recall, for example, the “luxury tax” on yachts put forth during the Clinton administration. How’d that work out?
The wealthy just started buying and registering their yachts overseas, and the biggest effect was to devastate the American boat-building industry — putting a bunch of highly skilled, well-paid workers out of their jobs.
J.
Jay Tea: It should have been “do things that they thing OUGHT to work, whether or not they do.” As long as they can persuade themselves that it will work, little things like reality simply don’t apply.
Still not seeing this as a solely liberal trait. People across the political spectrum do the things they thing OUGHT to work. And even after they are done debates can rage over whether or not they did.
You cite Clinton’s luxury tax. I could cite Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Currently folks point to the stimulus package. All examples of people (left and right) doing what they thought ought to work and all highly discussed as to whether they actually did/will.
As long as they can persuade themselves that it will work, little things like reality simply don’t apply.
Remind me, was it a liberal or a conservative who said “when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality–judiciously, as you will–we’ll act again, creating other new realities”?
“Jay Tea”: “Then you admitted that “targeted tax hikes” almost NEVER end up actually doing what they promised. You cited a [Republican President] Reagan example, but there are countless others.”
A common falsehood pushed by right wingers is that because you can’t trust Republicans therefore you can’t trust politicians.
No.
You can’t trust Republicans.
And Republican Hollywood entertainer Reagan was especially untrustworthy. Republican President Reagan was a con-artist, it’s why right wingers love Reagan so much: Reagan told the big lie and conned a lot of people.
Right wingers worship good con-artists.
“Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better?”
No, “everyone” doesn’t.
Have you listened to Naomi Klein discuss her book Shock Doctrine? As I understand the premise: Vultures profit when bad things happen. Vultures profit so much when bad things happen that sometimes the engineer bad things into happening so that they can profit from those bad things happening.
You might be able to stretch your idea to “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better” for themselves.
But that’s not necessarily “better” by anyone else’s measure.
http://google.com/search?q=Naomi+Klein+Shock+Doctrine
News Reference, tell me why Naomi Klein was so quiet when the biggest Shock Doctrine of all time went through last February? When Rahm Emanuel said prior to that “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.
I kept looking for Ms. Klein to make a profound statement since she had written her book on this very phenomenon, and here it was playing out before our very eyes.
Then crickets.
What happened? Cat must’ve gotten her tongue, huh?
Naomi Klein is a fraud, that’s why. You hero worship for the most dubious of characters has become a running theme here.
SDM: “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better?”
“News Refererence”: No, “everyone” doesn’t.
…
You might be able to stretch your idea to “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better” for themselves.
I believe I already did. The full quote is: “Doesn’t everyone believe in doing what they think will make things better? There may be disagreement on what will actually work to make things better, and for whom.”
I never suggested the “better” was an altruistic thing.
Dennis: I kept looking for Ms. Klein to make a profound statement since she had written her book on this very phenomenon, and here it was playing out before our very eyes.
Then crickets.
What happened? Cat must’ve gotten her tongue, huh?
Naomi Klein is a fraud, that’s why.
Or… she saw it as being advantageous to her not to speak out. In other words, an example of what she’s written about.
Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine” has revealed a great deal of how “Disaster Capitalism” works: Create or take advantage of a disaster to profit from it.
It’s classic right wing Milton Friedman economics.
["S.D.M.", thanks for the clarification]
She spoke out when the crisis first hit and said it confirmed what Bush and Wall Street were trying to do. Now, when Obama is using it to his advantage to scare people into doing more than he normally would be able to get away with, she cheers him on.
She’s a fraud, Sean. It’s why you don’t hear much about her any more, when it’s precisely the time you’d think she’d be in demand for guest appearances. You only hear about her when nutcases like News Reference needs a reference to make his idiotic arguments. Last night it was Seymour Hersh, tonight it’s Ms. Klein. I’m guessing tomorrow night it will be Dan Rather.
…and that “logical conclusion” (which, I suspect, is a “reductio ad absurdum”) would that be, fafaroo?
I didn’t know fafaroo even posted on the topic. The logical conclusion would be the death penalty. However, this could fairly be judged as “reductio ad absurdum” (even though there are people who sincerely believe this), so let’s look at the other options. Imprisonment would be a better, but not by alot. Having no punishment makes the whole debate pointless. The only punishment that even approaches the realm of reason is a fine, and that would make the classism of the anti-choice movement apparent to the public.
Naomi Klein’s insights were incredibly useful, even right winger “Dennis” has a dim understanding of the premise of Naomi Klein’s book: The use of a crisis to achieve a goal.
But her premise was quite specific in how the right wing have used crises and even created crises for their economic gains.
You can watch video of Naomi Klein here
Read more about her book “Shock Doctrine” here:
http://NaomiKlein.org/shock-doctrine
And more about her at her website:
http://NaomiKlein.org