Wow, I only scored a 33. I though I was just to the right of Jessee Helms!
A discussion on politics, refined - Gretsch style.
« » Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-
- Rated: 21 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 3:24 p.m. GentlBen:
-
- Rated: 7 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 4:21 p.m. SaturdaySnax:
Bigalthethird, that's why I said I have a place in my heart for true conservatives even though I don't identify myself as one. Even on issues where I disagree, at least I can respect a good argument. But if those are just the crazies then they're all over the place. And these people would swear up and down that their position is a "conservative" one. When the whole Terry Shiavo mess was going on, it was the conservatives that were trying to pass a law to intervene in what most Americans felt was a strictly family matter. It's this sort of thing I'm talking about. I really think modern conservatism is undergoing an evolution that just may include the welcoming of government into the private business of the American people and it gives me the willies.
-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 4:40 p.m. TwangOmatic:
bigalthethird said: It should be legal unless it harms or can harm someone else
Wow big al i can't believe you said that ive been preaching that for years and most people think im crazy. Whats even more strange is i was discussing the matter with my brother earlier today. i don't agree with the abortion end of what your saying but that's a complicated matter. The other thing thats interesting is the fact that when it comes to politics and religion we have pretty different beliefs i think i am maybe a little more left than you though being called left or right both make me equally sick and im not in the middle either i have some extreme right thoughts and some extreme left thoughts i also don't like extremes lol im a man of moderation. My beliefs are as random and widespread as a cylinder bore shotgun pattern at 25 yards. I am also a devout atheist yet we share this common and very significant belief.
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 4:55 p.m. seadevil:
True conservatives may be kind of square, even a little heartless sometimes, but they aren't the ones running the Republican party now. True conservatives favor responsible limits on government spending, minimal taxation, a wary and prepared military stance in international policy, and a balanced budget. True liberals value civil liberties and civil rights, and believe that there are substantial long-term benefits to the elimination or amelioration of bigotry and poverty.
I agree with both on those issues. I'm not savvy enough to have a fully-informed opinion about labor and trade matters, whether domestic or international, but I think I favor the liberals by a wide margin there. I'd like to see the government doing more to help the "little guy", although the rich will raise hell for the entire economy if the government goes too far. As far as environmental issues go, real conservatives seem to have changed course and recognized that preserving our resources is just good business, and I'm pleased to see that. Telling me that I can have a little more money if I agree to having my body filled with a few more toxins is not a very convincing argument.
I think we need a way of classifying things that allows for a little more complexity than just left and right. A lot of the voices here don't fit neatly in either category, and a lot of others beyond these pages don't either.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 4:57 p.m. bigalthethird:
Well if that's not worth a vote Twang, then I don't know what is!
You made me smile here at work (although today's been a pretty good day in general).
Saturday, I actually do think the Schaivo case was a particularly sad one, and I think she should have been kept alive. She was showing signs of improvement, and most of her family wanted her kept alive. I think it's startlingly sad that her husband was able to pull the tube. Imagine what her parents must have been going through.
That said, you wouldn't have seen me on the streets with a sign, because I'm not that type of person. I don't really think that does too much.
But if the Government tries to step into my business more than it already is, well that'll be bad.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:08 p.m. bigalthethird:
seadevil said: I'd like to see the government doing more to help the "little guy", although the rich will raise hell for the entire economy if the government goes too far. As far as environmental issues go, real conservatives seem to have changed course and recognized that preserving our resources is just good business, and I'm pleased to see that. Telling me that I can have a little more money if I agree to having my body filled with a few more toxins is not a very convincing argument.
This is where I fundamentally disagree with the liberal stance, and where many call me 'heartless.' I firmly don't believe it's the Government's role to help the little guy.
Let me explain:
I think it is the Government's obligation to provide a fair and balanced platform for EVERYONE to succeed (men/women/people of all races/religions), free from prejudice. Every single person should be granted the same rights, without wavering.
Helping the 'little guy' isn't free. That money comes from somewhere. That somewhere is from the rich. Now, those rich succeeded for whatever reason, and that's their right. It's also their right (in my opinion) to keep the profits for themselves! It's their money! The Government has no right to arbitrarily take more money (or anything) from one person than another, based on a statistic. That's tyranny, and it's theft.
If (and only if) the 'little guy' had every opportunity that the big guy did, but didn't succeed, that is their fault. Now in practice, we know that sometimes, people don't get all the opportunities they deserve. But in my opinion, this is continually rarer, and is in the vast majority. 50 years ago, I wouldn't have this stance. But now, it's pretty much equal across all platforms.
If companies want to get philanthropic and donate to notable causes, awesome! They get good press, the poor get a little help, and everyone wins. But taking excessive money from those who earn it, or taking a greater percentage of income as income increases only promotes companies to want to earn just that much less, to fit into the lower bracket. That doesn't help the economy, at all.
All that said, people who disrespect the Earth sicken me. People who throw trash out car windows, or do anything like that, I just want to punch them. Honestly. It's one of the basest forms of a total lack of respect, for anything. This f*ing land isn't ours.
-
- Rated: 26 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:21 p.m. marctrain57:
Let me echo Seadevil's recommendation of Nixonland as an excellent book which gives a lot of insight to that part of the recent past. I think it is for the most part fair and balanced and makes you question some of your assumptions about that era.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:31 p.m. bigalthethird:
marctrain57 said: makes you question some of your assumptions about that era
I assuming you're talking to me, what are you referencing? Like what assumptions?
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:34 p.m. seadevil:
Well, I think that these days the rich get preferential treatment to an even greater degree than they used to. I see us as well on the way to the restoration of a feudal state, thanks in large part to corporate welfare, the elimination of most estate taxes, the campaign to eliminate capital gains taxes, unfairly low tax rates for hedge funds and the like, the unregulated manipulation of the real estate market in what appears to me to be a deliberate strategy to disenfranchise the average worker, and so on.
And where do the rich get THEIR money from? Sometimes, from other rich people. But a lot of the time, it's from the poor and middle-class. That's certainly the way it's been going since supply-side economics took hold, and the irrefutable proof is in the increasing economic inequality of recent years. Are the poor and middle-class complicit in this? The ones who voted for (most) Republicans are, in my opinion. So are the ones who just don't care, borrow money they can't afford to repay, do business with companies that aid in this upward redistribution of wealth, or pay illegally low wages to illegal immigrant employees of their small businesses.
It's not so much about HELPING the "little guy". It's about balancing the massive handouts to the wealthy with some programs that benefit the other 99% of us.
Oh, and I think Marc meant "your" in the sense of "one's" when he was talking about assumptions about the Nixon era - not yours specifically, Al.
-
- Rated: 20 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:43 p.m. TwangOmatic:
I still have not read this whole thread yet but i have a few things to say 1. this seems to be going pretty good in true gdp style, i love you guys 2. Gretschiam good for you man i thought oklahoma was the most corrupt state but if ther is worse than wow. I had the the most significant and life altering experience involving unreal bad movie like corruption in salisaw oklahoma. The things that happened to me there flipped my view of the world upside down and ill never be the same again and will also most likely never return to the U.S. it would seam at least in that town the criminals are the good and the law enforcement are evil. 3. I could be wrong but as i understand it the founding fathers were dead set on separating religion and government after seeing the damage and corruption religion had caused in other parts of the world. I always thought the U.S. was the first secular country. "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature" Thomas Jefferson
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 5:46 p.m. bigalthethird:
Gotcha about Mark.
I don't agree with corporate handouts. It's a bad road. I don't agree, actually, with a few things you alluded to (in terms of preferential treatment to big business - that is to say, I agree with you about that).
That said, the rich will ALWAYS get richer and the poor will either get richer, stay the same, or in most cases get poorer. That's the way any economy works, forever. Because that's how money works. It sucks for some people, I agree, but taking money away isn't fair.
But like I said, unfairly helping companies is no good either. I really hope they don't bail those damned airlines out again, it was a mistake once and it will be again.
People who are smart with money, and have capital, will increase their wealth (with little exceptions). That's just basic economics. That said, some of the smartest businesses in the country are owned by some of the richest men, but cater to the lower and middle class. A smart businessman understands that. There is a way for both sides to win, it's just not for the Government to determine how it should be run.
Something like Wal Mart (like it or not) FLOURISHES in poorer areas, and it's consistently in the top few businesses in America (by profit margin). Who loses!? And don't argue "overseas sweatshop workers" because those workers earn a better living than almost anyone else.
-
- Rated: 212 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:10 p.m. Proteus:
Now, those rich succeeded for whatever reason, and that's their right. It's also their right (in my opinion) to keep the profits for themselves! It's their money!
Actually it's not their money – or rather, it's their money in the same way "the land" is ours. The government prints the money, conventionally backed by reserves of tangible wealth theoretically by the government on behalf of we the people. (Never mind that we've fought and lost the gold standard battles and long ago ceded control of our money supply to a private corporation answerable only to itself [and periodically to Senate committees]. I'm talking civics book ideals.
AND the government creates the economic climate in which business operates: money supply, laws of incorporation, interstate commerce, incentives, the tax code, rebates, government contracts, employment laws, regulation, etc.
The playing field is hardly tabula rasa created from whole cloth by brilliant entrepreneurs. It is more like a game board, with complex artificial rules. It is the right and responsibility of government to try to optimize, on our behalf and to the best of its ability, the opportunity of all to succeed.
But a balance between wide open opportunity (as first properly exploited and then progressively abused by an endless series of Very Big Businesses) and civic responsibility has never really been struck. Historically, we oscillate between periods of either too little regulation/protection and/or rapid development of new industries and business models on one hand, and too much regulation and paternalistic protectionism on the other.
Trusts, trustbustin'. Packing house and Triangle Shirtwaist factory horrors, followed by muckraking and legislation. Industrial growth, unionism. Savings and loan deregulation and collapse, government bailout and re-regulation. Enron, new laws.
I don't think it's POSSible to reach a perfect balance, as part of any corporation's instinct is to figure out how to game the system, work between the lines, whatever it takes just to MAKE MONEY at anyone's expense. Create new regulations to address abuses, and in short order, the new rules will be gamed as well.
Leaving business wholly ungoverned won't work either, as untrammeled capitalism with no restraint will lead to monstrous abuses.
NOTHER words – in our particular modern society, where every aspect of life is conditioned and mediated by complex and necessarily organized industries and technologies, government literally cannot survive without the businesses which provide the services. And the businesses cannot operate without the sanction and economic framework government provides.
We're all in it together. The rich got their money from everyone else – by providing some good or service people either wanted or HAD to have – and the government has every right to intervene in that flow.
The notion that a blissful and harmoniously fair society might result from the unregulated enlightened self-interest of everyone involved is just a fantasy. More fundamentally than that, it can't even be tried.
Opportunities are NOT equal, and certain inequalities are systemic and self-perpetuating. While many in the rich and privileged classes spin out, most live secure, prosperous lives. On the other hand, while some of the permanent underclass grasp opportunity and make more of it than ought to be expected, most do not.
It's hardly even fair to talk about the native abilities of people in the two social strata, because everything in their lives from conception to the age of reason conspires to keep them in their respective places.
Tell me that George Bush would ever have become president had he not been born with a particular silver spoon in his mouth, if he had not had opportunities, resources, special privileges, and second and third chances most of us can't even dream of.
While our mix of capitalism, "free" markets (free within constrains, of course), and "representative democracy" have had a remarkable record for increasing the wellbeing and prosperity of more people, here and abroad, than any other social system I'm aware of, some people are just going to fall between the cracks. There will always be unintended consequences, there will always be abuses.
It's our responsibility, then, through government, to try to redress those problems. If our systems to do so are imperfect, wobbly and dynamic, I can accept that. I expect them to be inefficient and at least marginally corrupt.
But Caesar's picture is on the money, none of us would have the money if we didn't live within the domain of Caesar's pax Romana, and we have the responsibility as a society – especially those who have most benefited – to take care of each other. Government is the mechanism through which we do that.
At this point in time, as seadevil says, we need to review how the richest GOT there, and figure out how to spread that around a little.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:20 p.m. bigalthethird:
"But Caesar's picture is on the money, none of us would have the money if we didn't live within the domain of Caesar's pax Romana, and we have the responsibility as a society – especially those who have most benefited – to take care of each other. Government is the mechanism through which we do that. "
I will never agree with this. The kindness of people is how we do that. Government fundamentally f*s everything up.
I actually agreed with almost all of your post, including the part about Bush not being president were it not for his father. But I don't agree that it's Government's role to artificial change the rules, nor do I feel it's their role to force charity.
People are (at their core) good people. If you foster an environment of kindness and respect, then charity follows. Everything flourishes. If you have what we have now, which is just a hair from anarchy, then you'll get a massive split in social classes, which is what we have now. It's what exists in almost all of the world in fact.
Add the Government in to 'mediate' and it's a civil war waiting to happen - and one I'll gladly fight in (although I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime).
-
- Rated: 83 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:23 p.m. Deed Eddy:
-
- Rated: 7 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:27 p.m. SaturdaySnax:
I'm voting for Proteus for president!
Bigalthethird, I don't want to spend too much time rehashing the Scheivo case, but the problem is we'll never know what SHE wanted. My point was that it wasn't the government's place to step in. It wasn't a conservative thing to do, yet it was conservatives wanting to poke their noses into a family matter. That's all I was saying.
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:30 p.m. bigalthethird:
Saturday, I agree with you on that. It was definitely sad, I just felt bad for her parents, and her husband seemed kinda jerky. But I don't know the truth, and I don't really know what's right with that.
Deed, that's just sad.
-
- Rated: 7 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:56 p.m. SaturdaySnax:
Bigalthethird, I meant to tell you that I appreciate this thread. Lots of good points made by people whose views can't really be stuffed in a box and stamped with a label. Makes for so much better conversation. The kind you get hooked on when you're supposed to be working. :)
I love this forum. One minute I'm reading about flatwound strings and the next I'm getting schooled on economics!
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 6:59 p.m. bigalthethird:
Thank you!
My day started out with Puppies jumping on me and ends with a nice comment like that, not too bad. Have a good one fellas, I'm going home. See y'all tomorrow,
Andrew
-
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 7:39 p.m. seadevil:
Hey BA3,
If your name's Andrew, why call yourself "bigalthethird"?
Sincerely,
Andrew
P.S.: Proteus, you said exactly what I almost had the patience and discipline to say. Thank you!
-
- Rated: 52 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 7:56 p.m. bigalthethird:
My full name is Andrew Lundeen, hence the "al."
I'm not a small dude, hence the big (50" chest, 5'11", 215 lbs).
"the third" comes from the original "bigal" username being banned on the first forum I was ever on, and then "bigalthesecond" being banned as well. Incidentally, I'm up to "bigalthesixth" at the moment.
-
- Rated: 26 ↑
Aug 20, 2008 9:04 p.m. marctrain57:
I think you should stay at Bigalthethird otherwise you start sounding like British royality.
Actually back to my Nixonland comment I was referring to my assumptions not yours. In the early 70's there was an assumption held by most people entering their teens that everything that had happened, protesting the war, smoking pot etc. was good and that everything that the older generation stood for was bad.
As I got older and became a semi responsible adult I began to realize that whatever our parents conservative views that they were a generation that had lived through the depression, fought WWII and built the post war prosperity. I also realized that I had lived a most comfortable childhood as a result of that effort. That concept became popular in the 90's as we began to celebrate the "greatest generation."
But the Nixonland book not only made that point but that for whatever excesses Nixon and his cronies engaged in, and I am not excusing them, THEY firmly believed that what they were doing was necessary to preserve the hard fought gains of my parent's generation.
In otherwords they thought that the barbarians were at the gate and they stood between chaos and order.
Again that doesn't excuse breakins and wiretapping, but I understand their thought processes better. Few people in politics engage in illegal acts without a heavy dose of rationalization.
And again I have to wonder if in the 70's was I really a radical or was I just using the trappings of radicalism to get stoned and laid. As I said, always good to examine your own assumptions.
-
- Rated: 22 ↑
Aug 21, 2008 12:56 a.m. gretschiam:
Since joining this site I’ve cut, pasted and saved a lot of discussions. This is one of the longest and it's the America I want to be part of. GDP has the enlightened populace the Founding Fathers were looking for.
Many great, thoughtful comments. Many things I agree with and a few I disagree with, but of course there is room for all of them. That’s why I still have hope this mess will turn around and my daughter will have an opportunity to live in the land of the free. She graduated from college three years ago, worked and a week ago started law school in Orlando. She’s wanted to be a lawyer for a long time, and I’m happy to say she’s going to certainly be a poor one. My wife and I said from the beginning that she’d graduate and ask us to buy her a car because she won’t make enough working for the Southern Poverty Law Institute. It’s people like her and your children who might be able to fix the mess we’re in.
Anyway, I also wanted to add to the pleasantly skewed comments about the 50s. I WAS a better time, it WAS a highpoint in American society, we DID recite the Pledge of Allegiance enthusiastically and one of my greatest memories (I was very young, so I don’t remember much) aside from my coonskin hat was the traditional ice cream social.
And now I’ve lived long enough to realize my daughter will say the same thing about the 80s and 90s – despite rap music, despite hip hop, despite MTV, despite rude kids, despite all the other things that make me shudder once in awhile. It’s all perspective. Didn’t our parents think Elvis was the end of society? My grandfather told me, “That’s it, the Beatles are done now” after John Lennon’s comment about Jesus Christ. And anyone who reads knows that the same things were said about the flappers and the Lindyhop in the 20s. Teddy Roosevelt initiated Civil Service in New York to stop the same corruption I hate so much today. And on and on. The Association had a great song of comparisons called “Wasn’t It A Bit Like Now,” and the comparisons play on forever.
The only real political observation I’d want to make, and regardless of the many feelings I have in different directions, if we elect Barak O’Bama – a black man – President of the United States, I will be proud of my country. Doesn’t matter whether I vote for him or what happens after that – just the fact that that could happen during my lifetime means that there has been progress. It could NEVER have happened when I was growing up.
-
- Rated: 21 ↑
Aug 21, 2008 7:34 a.m. GentlBen:
"The rich got their money from everyone else – by providing some good or service people either wanted or HAD to have – and the government has every right to intervene in that flow." Proteus, You are perhaps the most intellectual and articulate voice on these pages and yet, this is the silliest thing I have read so far. The government should level the playing field by getting the heck out! -
- Rated: 42 ↑
Aug 21, 2008 8:49 a.m. seadevil:
What would we use for money?
And would piracy and murder be acceptable business practices? How about making nine-year-olds work twelve-hour days in coal mines? Selling children into prostitution to repay debts? Indentured servitude for the same reason? Elimination of all workplace safety regulations? Strip mining, releasing PCBs into our rivers, dioxin into our soil, and cyanide into our air?
These are things that people certainly did do in this country, continue to do elsewhere, and would do again, anywhere, at any opportunity, without government involvement in business practices. I don't know whether your naivete is evidence of a fundamentally good nature or a lack of historical perspective. It's a principle which I believe in, too - but only in principle.
-
- Rated: 7 ↑
Aug 21, 2008 8:49 a.m. SaturdaySnax:
The thing is, we really are supposed to be the government. Lincoln's famous phrase, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" really means something to me. Wouldn't that suggest that the governemnt is an instrument of the people and thus a tool for doing the people's work?
I had written earlier about how I am sympathetic to the conservative viewpoint that the government should keep thier nose out of our personal business. I grew up in a conservative home hearing this all the time. I read 1984 and it freaked me out. This viewpoint sees the governemnt as an external force; a governemnt at odds with it's citizens. And it makes sense in that context. This is not surprising in light of the totalitarian regimes that have oppressed people throughout history and the potential for power to corrupt. But what makes America unique is that we are not supposed to be seperate from our governemnt. We all have stock in this government. We all have a voice. And if things get out of hand, then it is "we the people" that is responsible for holding our leaders accountable. We are a part of the checks and balances worked into the constitution and we are responsible for making sure that we maintain that role.
So I must admit that I have a conflicting perspective. It all depends on how you see governemnt. And really it all depends on how much power the governemnt has in relation to how much power "we the people" have over our governemnt. And I guess that would fluctuate over time.
