|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 06/10/2003 : 19:03:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Government smaller? Department of Homeland Security which had to add an entire level of beauracracy is shrinking government?
Yes, I agree, that was a dumb ass thing to create.
quote:
Instead of spouting the basic Republican = good Democrat = bad partisan crap, why not take a look at the historical track record for the policies being re-tried. They didn't work in the 80's without collapse. It is unlikely that they will work now. $8 trillion USD ($1 e 12 USD) is one heck of a hole to be in.
1st of all I don't understand your phrase about good Democrat = bad partisan crap. So I don't know what to say.
But all I know is that I personaly did much better with my finances when Regan was pres. 16% interest rates, I was raking in the money on my bank account. It was great.
I didn't vote for him and strongly opposed his running but looking back, I think things were better then. |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/11/2003 : 06:48:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Government smaller? Department of Homeland Security which had to add an entire level of beauracracy is shrinking government?
Yes, I agree, that was a dumb ass thing to create.
quote:
Instead of spouting the basic Republican = good Democrat = bad partisan crap, why not take a look at the historical track record for the policies being re-tried. They didn't work in the 80's without collapse. It is unlikely that they will work now. $8 trillion USD ($1 e 12 USD) is one heck of a hole to be in.
1st of all I don't understand your phrase about good Democrat = bad partisan crap. So I don't know what to say.
But all I know is that I personaly did much better with my finances when Regan was pres. 16% interest rates, I was raking in the money on my bank account. It was great.
I didn't vote for him and strongly opposed his running but looking back, I think things were better then.
You seem to be saying that Republicans are good for the country and Democrats are bad. That is the kind of partisan bullshit that I am really tired of. It's the basic party line that gets trotted out instead of discussing the issues.
Reagan set out on an economic plan that was unsustainable. He had an idea of supply side economics which started being dragged down in the late 80's. By 1990, it had completely collapsed beneath it's own weight. The only reason it worked for Reagan only to collapse under Bush 41 is that The amount of indebtedness was not close to the amount by which it would dampen the economy. Under Reagan, the national debt soared. It finally reached the point of collapse under Bush 41's watch.
I entered the workforce under the Reagan administration. Jobs were plentiful due to the short term increase that supply side economics sparked. By 1989, companies were laying off scads of people. And a recession which started around 1987 started severely affecting the job market. The Savings and Loan scandal had fueled the unprecidented interest rates on bank accounts. When they started failing, the government bailed out the investors to the tune of $175 billion USD. (175 thousand million to our European freinds) Also, the interest rates you earned on your bank accounts were the ones people were paying on home loans further slowing the economy.
Unlike Reagan, Bush 43 doesn't have the water under the keel that Reagan enjoyed.
Looking at the entire run of the policy, why would we want to repeat it? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2003 : 23:38:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
You seem to be saying that Republicans are good for the country and Democrats are bad. That is the kind of partisan bullshit that I am really tired of. It's the basic party line that gets trotted out instead of discussing the issues.
If I ever read what the Democrat ideas are I've forgotten. The only thing I know about Republicans are the way they were in Lincolns' time. I only know about my party. Seems to me from that, the Libertarians are closer to what the Republicans once were. Other than that all I hear is this Dem. wants to pass that bill and that Rep. wants to make this law, and it all stinks.
quote:
Reagan set out on an economic plan that was unsustainable. He had an idea of supply side economics
Sorry, again. I don't know what the term supply side economics means.
quote:
By 1989, companies were laying off scads of people.
You might be right but I and my partner never had any worries about job loss or finical problems so I never noticed. I think people should be responsible with their budgets and plan for the future and rough times. The government can do what it wants.
quote:
Also, the interest rates you earned on your bank accounts were the ones people were paying on home loans further slowing the economy.
Don't know about the rest of the country but here in California there was a frenzy with the real estate market. Mass hysteria or people wanting to get rich quick, IMO it's not the fault of the government if people get into trouble buying a house when they can't afford it. My mortgage at that time was, as I recall 5 or 6%.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2003 : 06:55:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
You seem to be saying that Republicans are good for the country and Democrats are bad. That is the kind of partisan bullshit that I am really tired of. It's the basic party line that gets trotted out instead of discussing the issues.
If I ever read what the Democrat ideas are I've forgotten. The only thing I know about Republicans are the way they were in Lincolns' time. I only know about my party. Seems to me from that, the Libertarians are closer to what the Republicans once were. Other than that all I hear is this Dem. wants to pass that bill and that Rep. wants to make this law, and it all stinks.
quote:
Reagan set out on an economic plan that was unsustainable. He had an idea of supply side economics
Sorry, again. I don't know what the term supply side economics means.
quote:
By 1989, companies were laying off scads of people.
You might be right but I and my partner never had any worries about job loss or finical problems so I never noticed. I think people should be responsible with their budgets and plan for the future and rough times. The government can do what it wants.
quote:
Also, the interest rates you earned on your bank accounts were the ones people were paying on home loans further slowing the economy.
Don't know about the rest of the country but here in California there was a frenzy with the real estate market. Mass hysteria or people wanting to get rich quick, IMO it's not the fault of the government if people get into trouble buying a house when they can't afford it. My mortgage at that time was, as I recall 5 or 6%.
Supply side economics is where the government cuts tax rates to a level far below that which will pay for programs in place plus new programs and require the treasury to borrow the shortfall each year in the hopes that more money in the pockets of consumers will fuel a flurry of spending adequate to increase the number of transactions eligible for federal taxation enough to make up the shortfall.
After people updated what they wanted to, the booming businesses went bust. Unprecidented national debt further dragged down the economy and the country slipped into a recession. It is the fault of the government when they embark on destructive economic policies which provide clear disincentives for people to purchase big ticket items such as housing. It has nothing to do with people getting in over their heads.
I'm an independant with Libertarian leanings. I think that they have some good ideas in the civil rights areas, but go too far in others. The government has the task of promoting the general welfare. Destructive economic policy goes counter to this task. Right now, I see good things coming out of both parties, not just one. I also see a lot of bad coming from both parties. The Libertarians have some interesting ideas but have some ideas that aren't so hot. I don't judge political speech by the hype I see coming from a competing party. I judge the individual policy on its own merits. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2003 : 05:44:01 [Permalink]
|
Okay, perhaps I was a bit harsh on the Repubs initially, but upon further review I still find this bill to be rather repressive. How did the House vote turn out?
Also, I think that Val did an excellent job descibing Supply Side Economics. Right now, I'm trying to remember if there was ever a large tax cut since Kennedy's that wasn't followed within less than ten years with the beginning of even more massive tax increases.
Snake, I agree with you that if we don't stand on principle and support third parties they will not be able to challenge, but like someone else mentioned, (I forgot who), sometimes we've got to give in to the choice of the better of two evils.
Plus, I no longer support any party. I was a Dem at 18 and voted for Carter. Inflation chased me over to the new ideas, (for me at least), of Reagan and the Supply Siders. I became the new young Republican. I never really held much stock with the Goldwater conservatives, but the compromise of Reagan was a good balance to the Old Conservative pressure of my father.
Anyhow, under the spell of Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" I watched my pay disappear by a full half, the National Debt get out of hand, and large corporations pull in record profits. I became disenchanted with the whole system. Actually, I chose to get very drunk and toast whichever bastard won the '88 and '92 elections.
Then, a miraculous thing happened--I found the Libertarian Party. These folks exactly mirrored my opinions on many social issues, with the exception of abortion, but that's a different story. I was a bit leary of the extreme liberal edge of their economic policy, but I thought, "What the hell! They got the rest right, maybe I'm the problem here?" Harry Browne was the man!
Menacingly, I watched the evolution of Clinton into a fiscal Republican. Business, with the aid of Congress and the Executive was amassing even more power in the halls of gov't. I discovered that though we still had the vote politicians followed the money. What was worse was that we still followed the politicians with the money. Today, the difference between the haves and the rest of us keeps getting bigger. The middle class remains stagnant in regards to income while the economy grows. I gues we don't have to look real hard to find where that growth continues to go.
So, I turned to the Libertarians. Could they get us out of this pickle? I studied really hard and discovered the harsh answer--Not likely.
The Libertarians, (not all), subscribe to an ideal that the 'free market' will cure any ill. The 'invisible hand' will out of neccessity make all things equal. The market needs no other control.
I can't buy it. There will always be those that will seek to control the market for any number of reasons, and in a completely deregulated market there will always be control by the force that has the most wealth and power. This buys the best private security forces--Robocop on a manageable level for the biggest corporations.
As someone struggling to base all of my decisions on reason, I find it hard to buy into the Right Libertarian ideology. I ask only one question, "Where's the evidence that a free market economy is just and self-correcting?" I cannot find it. Besides, the "invisible hand" sure sounds alot like hoodoo to me.
I, also, now have a few issues with the tactics of Harry Browne. However, that's yet another story.
Today, the only party that I can support is the Greens, but only because of Nader and his position on curtailing corporate power. Otherwise, there's just too many kooks in that party.
You see, for me the biggest threat to our society is this unholy alliance between the Religous Right and Corporate America. One has an almost unlimited bank account, the other has an extremely high percentage of voters that actually vote and are easily led by their leaders. They both have their man in the White House...in the congress...and in the Courts!
I feel that we are now witnessing a great change of direction for Christianity and big business. These two are going to make our lives pretty uncomfortable for awhile, but Christians need to realize that they will lose, and Corporate America will still be there with another whore to stroke it's greed.
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2003 : 21:04:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Also, I think that Val did an excellent job descibing Supply Side Economics.
Yes, it was easy to understand.
I don't find much of a problem with it either. Some things need changing around but for the most part it's a good idea.
quote:
Snake, I agree with you that if we don't stand on principle and support third parties they will not be able to challenge, but like someone else mentioned, (I forgot who), sometimes we've got to give in to the choice of the better of two evils.
And as I've been trying to say, that's the attitude of so many but if they really would vote for whom they really want perhaps we wouldn't have so much to complain about (on either side). Geesss! The whole point is, there IS no difference between the two partys....maybe some issues but not enough to pick the 'better of two evils'.
quote:
I watched my pay disappear by a full half
You shouldn't have taken overtime.
I never did because I knew it wasn't worth it and I didn't want my money going to the government.
quote:
and large corporations pull in record profits.
Nothing wrong with profits. Or haven't your heard about capitalism?
quote:
Then, a miraculous thing happened--I found the Libertarian Party. These folks exactly mirrored my opinions on many social issues, with the exception of abortion, but that's a different story. I was a bit leary of the extreme liberal edge of their economic policy, but I thought, "What the hell! They got the rest right, maybe I'm the problem here?" Harry Browne was the man!
We have much in common, I felt the same way, only their views on the enviornment is my problem with the party.
Not sure what you think about their stance on abortion? They, from what I know believe in states rights and that would be a states issue. BTW, Harry Browne is from the south and religious, that concerned me with the abortion issue as I am very much for abortions. But when I heard him speak in person a few years ago I felt he was an honorable man and would not let his personal opinions interfere with the party.
quote:
So, I turned to the Libertarians. Could they get us out of this pickle? I studied really hard and discovered the harsh answer--Not likely.
The Libertarians, (not all), subscribe to an ideal that the 'free market' will cure any ill. The 'invisible hand' will out of neccessity make all things equal. The market needs no other control.
I can't buy it. There will always be those that will seek to control the market for any number of reasons, and in a completely deregulated market there will always be control by the force that has the most wealth and power. This buys the best private security forces--Robocop on a manageable level for the biggest corporations.
Sorry but you are talking to one of those who think that way, naively you'd probably say.
quote:
I, also, now have a few issues with the tactics of Harry Browne. However, that's yet another story.
It might not be him, but his advisors. A mans got to do what he has to do to get elected.
quote:
Today, the only party that I can support is the Greens, but only because of Nader and his position on curtailing corporate power. Otherwise, there's just too many kooks in that party.
LOL, that's quite a leap to socialism. You may as well vote for Hillary, haha.
quote:
You see, for me the biggest threat to our society is this unholy alliance between the Religous Right and Corporate America. One has an almost unlimited bank account, the other has an extremely high percentage of voters that actually vote and are easily led by their leaders. They both have their man in the White House...in the congress...and in the Courts!
I feel that we are now witnessing a great change of direction for Christianity and big business. These two are going to make our lives pretty uncomfortable for awhile, but Christians need to realize that they will lose, and Corporate America will still be there with another whore to stroke it's greed.
I knew it. Hillary is your 'man', haha. A vast right wing conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2003 : 04:26:13 [Permalink]
|
Snake, je te donne ma parole, I am not a Socialist. I don't believe that gov't should own enterprise. However, neither do I believe that corporations should have the power to dictate to gov't, nor be protected by the Bill of Rights. I am a Capitalist, but not a Corporatist. I see a very clear distinction here...
 Hillary who? Do you refer to that woman that's all over the news right now trying to hawk a book that may not sell a million, but will far out sell G.W.'s book?  Another Louisiana resident, (James Carville), may be her biggest advocate, but I don't spend much time following the careers of ex-First Ladies or Senators from states that get cold in the winter time.
Would I vote for her---Well.....That depends on who else is running. I might vote for Clinton before I vote for G.W., but then again, I may vote for Nader or Browne before I vote for either one of the other two. 
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2003 : 21:03:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Snake, je te donne ma parole, I am not a Socialist. I don't believe that gov't should own enterprise. However, neither do I believe that corporations should have the power to dictate to gov't, nor be protected by the Bill of Rights. I am a Capitalist, but not a Corporatist. I see a very clear distinction here...
After I thought about it, I think I should have used the word Communist instead of Socialist but I didn't want to confuse things and I figured it was better understood as stated, as I think you also didn't mean to say you aren't a Socialist. We'll leave it at that. I was being funny When I said you did a 180 with some truth though, as most people think a Libertarian is conservitive/capitalist and Nader is for the a greater power than the individual controling everything.
I have 'faith' that the market place, the consumer, has the power, not corporations.
quote:
Hillary who? Do you refer to that woman that's all over the news right now trying to hawk a book that may not sell a million, but will far out sell G.W.'s book?
Yeah, that's the bitch. How Bill could stay with her is beyond me!
quote:
Would I vote for her---Well.....That depends on who else is running. I might vote for Clinton before I vote for G.W., but then again, I may vote for Nader or Browne before I vote for either one of the other two.
I would never vote for a woman. Certainly not anyone like her, she's the exact essence of what I think of as a woman. YUCK! |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2003 : 06:18:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am not a Socialist. I don't believe that gov't should own enterprise
Not all socialists advocate state control of industry, many, like myself would like to see some form of worker's control outside of state influence. |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2003 : 06:38:47 [Permalink]
|
| The people ought to be running the state. Socialists think that workers should control and own the means of production. Without the state, presently, corporations do not exist. The concept of corporation was created to serve the people. People would get together to build a bridge, form a corporation to build a bridge, and then once the bridge is built, the corporation was dissolved. This idea was lost somewhere. Neither corporations or states are run by or for the benefit of the people. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2003 : 13:30:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The people ought to be running the state. Socialists think that workers should control and own the means of production. Without the state, presently, corporations do not exist. The concept of corporation was created to serve the people. People would get together to build a bridge, form a corporation to build a bridge, and then once the bridge is built, the corporation was dissolved. This idea was lost somewhere. Neither corporations or states are run by or for the benefit of the people.
That somewhat clears it up, Gorgo. Thanks.
My understanding is that in Communism there is a state, in Socialism the people work together. The idea is, what you put in, you get out. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/20/2003 : 22:58:27 [Permalink]
|
My 12th-grade government teacher put it this way:
In a capitalist state, if a guy has two cows, he can sell one of the cows to buy a bull, and have them make more cows (and/or bulls) to sell.
In a socialist state, if a guy has two cows, the state will give one of his cows to his neighbor who has none.
In a communist state, if a guy has two cows, the state will take both cows and hand him two bottles of milk.
And in a fascist state, if a guy has two cows, the state will take both cows and shoot the guy for not donating the cows to the state voluntarily.
Dunno how accurate the middle two are, but the above has always amused me and has been handy when people start talking about socialism and communism.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2003 : 00:45:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
In a socialist state, if a guy has two cows, the state will give one of his cows to his neighbor who has none.
Dunno how accurate the middle two are, but the above has always amused me and has been handy when people start talking about socialism and communism.
Don't want to disagree with you but I think true socialism is, that the neighbor who gets the other cow would have had to work for it. Not just be standing around and get it because someone else had two.
It is amusing though, I've heard it before and probably an easy way to try to explain it.
As an after thought, I think that's what Hillary would LIKE to do, give the other cow to anyone who wants it, no matter how hard the owner worked for it and no matter how lazy the 2nd guy is. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2003 : 01:38:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not all socialists advocate state control of industry, many, like myself would like to see some form of worker's control outside of state influence.
Yes, I am familiar with this argument, and have no problems with this point of view. Mostly, I use the state controled argument simply because this is what most people think, and old habits can be hard to break.
I am a Capitalist in the sense that all people have the right to their own enterprise. I do not forget that capital is the product of labor. It makes little difference to me if an industry has one participating owner that operates the enterprise, or a collective of the labor.
My problems begin with large corporations that essentially produce capital for shareholders with the labor of others. This allows too much power to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Eventually, the corporation will begin to operate the very institution that issues the charters. There's not much here for those of us that believe in checks and balances in gov't. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 06/21/2003 : 03:14:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"My problems begin with large corporations that essentially produce capital for shareholders with the labor of others."
To me this is the very hall-mark of what capitalism is about. I know of no mechanisms in a "free market economy" that can be set up to prevent the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few non-producers. It has happened ever since early agriculture allowed grain surpluses to be monopolised by a few powerful individuals in pre-industrial societies. That's why I'm not a capitalist. |
"My body is a temple - I desecrate it daily." |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
