I Have Decided...

[The Reverend Floater]

...that I'm a Libertarian. From what I've read, it is the closest alignment to my political, economic and social belief structure. Does this make me some sort of whackjob/moran/dumbdick?

Part of me thinks is only attractive because I loathe the politicians on both sides of the isle, because while I agree with Obama on most social issues, he's done a horrendous job executing and an even worse job with the issue of immigration...the one social issue I couldn't disagree with him more. His spending is ludicrous and he really hasn't been much of an improvement over the all time crook, Shrubya.

There's no fucking way I could ever, ever, ever vote for a party that supported Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney. I don't care what excuses you have--you're a fucking idiot if you supported that stupid hooker or that fucking crooked criminal.

So maybe Libertarianism is the last bastion of hope because they haven't been given a chance to fuck it up? Don't know. I just know I like my guns, I don't like paying for the people down the street's Escalade while they use food stamps and don't pay health bills, don't like you telling me what I can and can't do with drugs, stem cells, uteri, who I can or can't marry, etc. or telling me that the "terror babies" are going to get me and I don't want to pay for Mexico to move to America.

/Rant

School me on Libertarianism.

[Downbound Train]

Libertarianism expects personal responsibility. It's about maximum freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. Too many American's no longer have the sack for Personal responsibility. Their own OR requireing it of others.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Libertarianism is generally, but not always, supported by those who don't like paying taxes (but if there are social services that benefit such people they have no problem making use of them). The fiscal philosophy doesn't make much sense and pretty much ignores the social contract--try getting them to tell you about how police and fire departments should be paid for, or how highways would be built with a Libertarian government (I'll give you a hint--if you don't live in a wealthy place get ready to go without). OTOH, they're consistent (from what I've read) on social issues, and they seem to make sense.

Obama hasn't really done anything on immigration (I guess when you're dealing with what we've had recently something gets pushed down the list), and for better or worse he's not going to take anyone's guns away (unless maybe you want to buy assault weapons and/or walk around urban areas brandishing weapons). I get the impression that most Libertarians these days would vote Republican if they were forced to vote for one of the two major parties--but look at their leadership and the type of people they tend to run. Not attractive.

I don't think contemplating Libertarianism makes you a whackjob or maroon, but every hard core Lib I've come across definitely is. The last one I spoke to actually moved to NH (with a bunch of others) to try to start some autonomous colony within the state that would operate as a Libertarian entity (I'm not making this up).

Oh yeah, I bet people like DBT, Rubicon, and maybe Jer are into Libertarianism. I think that tells you something...

[doughboyshredder]

I don't think contemplating Libertarianism makes you a whackjob or maroon, but every hard core Lib I've come across definitely is.

So glad, I clicked view post.

Ever look in the mirror?

You do realize, I have you on ignore, because you are the liberal version of dbt, don't you?

[doughboyshredder]

This message is hidden because Dexter Rutecki is on your ignore list.

now back to regular programming

[Dexter Rutecki]

So glad, I clicked view post.

Ever look in the mirror?

You do realize, I have you on ignore, because you are the liberal version of dbt, don't you?

Yeah, it's killing me that you pretend not to read what I post. I care so much what you 'think.' The day I regress to DBT's level, conservative or liberal, is the day I join you in your fucked up stoner/road rage/herpes related PTSD lifestyle.

Now hurry up and keep pretending to ignore me (it's incredible that you can't even do that right).

[nutcase]

Libertarians seem to have a hard time figuring out anything.

[Arty50]

I refer to myself as a rational libertarian. I definitely don't align myself with the Libertarian Party for some of the reasons Dexter lists above. My basic political beliefs rely on two principles: 1) the personal liberties outlined in the Constitution should not be fucked with and 2) there is a cost to everything and we should always look at both sides.

One is relatively clear for the most part. No spying on Americans without warrants (fuck you Barry for supporting FISA II). My Constitutional rights should NEVER be infringed upon because you feel fucking scared about some person who you don't even know half way around the world because Glenn Beck told you so.

Two gets tricky, but it's what drives me nuts about current Republicans and the hard core Libertarians. There's a cost to everything. The classic example I like to use is when Reagan closed all of the CA state mental hospitals and kicked everyone out on the streets. It was all done in the name of saving money. And while it did accomplish this at the state level, it merely shifted most of the burden to the local level. Many of these people were quite unable to participate normally in society and almost instantly became vagrants. So now local police had to respond to calls to kick crazy bums off of park benches, out of local businesses, etc. Which also means they have less time to patrol neighborhoods for more nefarious crimes. Which then means you have to hire more police if you want to prevent those from happening also. So in reality you're probably spending more. And from a social angle, everyone is worse off. Both the mentally ill who are no longer receiving help, and the "normal" population who now are screaming to have these people taken off the streets. What we should of done was tell all of the former patients that the Reagans had a nice big ranch with lots of open space that they could live on.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Hmmm, rational libertarian--Arty might be in a political party consisting of exactly one person...winky.

But seriously, I think the CA mental hospital thing he outlined (which I had heard about but never thought of as an issue you could use to illustrate the problems with Libertarianism) is just one example of many that throw a wrench into Libertarian philosophy.

[Hugh Conway]

Libertarianism is, and always will be, the bastion of no hope.

It's the most co-optable party ever because devolving government services always, always, always is a gold rush. It's the party of teenagers or effective teenagers.

[Arty50]

Here's another one for you...

I actually think we should have gone full tilt (aka. single payer) for universal health care and my rationale has little to nothing to do with social justice. That's merely a side benefit.

Currently, health care costs are destroying American competitiveness around the world. We not only spend more on health care than any other nation on the planet, but we also spend more than anyone else as a % of GDP. Health care is becoming unaffordable for both individuals and companies alike, and the latter is making it unattractive to do business here.

So as more and more people can't afford normal care, more and more people start utilizing the expensive ER system. And there's the catch. So then what do you do, start turning people away from the ER if they don't have insurance. Well, let's say you have awesome health insurance, and one day you're driving down the freeway when some pauper driving a jalope with bald tires has a blowout and sideswipes you. Your car hits the center divider hard, and the fire department has to use the jaws of life to pull your fat ass out of the car. Stupidly, you put your wallet in the center console instead of keeping it in your pocket. But hey, the paramedics don't notice that because they're too busy trying to resuscitate you. Meanwhile they're driving like mad to get to the hospital and you get rushed in the door. Do you want them to take precious seconds away from you to check for your insurance card. And then what happens if they don't find it. Oooops, sorry just leave him on the curb. We can't see people without insurance.

That's why ERs have to take all comers by law. And guess who pays for all of those "freeloaders?" Yup, you and me. Because when we go to the hospital, we have to cover the overhead costs of all the free work the ERs perform. So as more and more people use ERs, our bills get higher and higher. This is exactly what's happening now, and the only way to stop it is to provide insurance for all so that ERs are treating only those who need true emergency care. The rest of us should be seeing general practitioners and other specialists who can take care of all the other stuff.

So you've got to pick your poison. Either we all get in the game and reduce our bills, or we keep heading down the road we're on where healthcare will be essentially unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans. And then we'll really be fucked because who wants to sell shit to people who can't pay. And why would I want to continue working and living in this country when I can move to another nation where I can get a high paying job that also provides me with good health care benefits which will help insure that if I'm involved in an accident I won't go bankrupt and lose everything I own.

Edit: schpelling

[iscariot]

Here's another one for you...

I actually think we should have gone full tilt (aka. single payer) for universal health care and my rational has little to nothing to do with social justice. That's merely a side benefit.

Currently, health care costs are destroying American competitiveness around the world. We not only spend more on health care than any other nation on the planet, but we also spend more than anyone else as a % of GDP. Health care is becoming unaffordable for both individuals and companies alike, and the latter is making it unattractive to do business here.

So as more and more people can't afford normal care, more and more people start utilizing the expensive ER system. And there's the catch. So then what do you do, start turning people away from the ER if they don't have insurance. Well, let's say you have awesome health insurance, and one day you're driving down the freeway when some pauper driving a jalope with bald tires has a blowout and sideswipes you. Your car hits the center divider hard, and the fire department has to use the jaws of life to pull your fat ass out of the car. Stupidly, you put your wallet in the center console instead of keeping it in your pocket. But hey, the paramedics don't notice that because they're too busy trying to resuscitate you. Meanwhile they're driving like mad to get to the hospital and you get rushed in the door. Do you want them to take precious seconds away from you to check for your insurance card. And then what happens if they don't find it. Oooops, sorry just leave him on the curb. We can't see people without insurance.

That's why ERs have to take all comers by law. And guess who pays for all of those "freeloaders?" Yup, you and me. Because when we go to the hospital, we have to cover the overhead costs of all the free work the ERs perform. So as more and more people use ERs, our bills get higher and higher. This is exactly what's happening now, and the only way to stop it is to provide insurance for all so that ERs are treating only those who need true emergency care. The rest of us should be seeing general practitioners and other specialists who can take care of all the other stuff.

So you've got to pick your poison. Either we all get in the game and reduce our bills, or we keep heading down the road we're on where healthcare will be essentially unaffordable for the vast majority of Americans. And then we'll really be fucked because who wants to sell shit to people who can't pay. And why would I want to continue working and living in this country when I can move to another nation where I can get a high paying job that also provides me with good health care benefits which will help insure that if I'm involved in an accident I won't go bankrupt and lose everything I own.

Wow. I think you're right,...You do seem to be a rational libertarian. Maybe the only one...


Now do the environment.

[ilikecandy]

Two things:

a)there's a lot more choices out there for nuanced ideologies. are you sure youre not a classical liberal, for example?

this is still an oversimplification and not totally accurate, but you get the idea:
http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

b)kinda silly to identify with an ideology. truth is, even the best matched is only going to align with you maybe 50% of the time, strictly speaking. you acknowledge that a bit, but its important.

dont feel the need to classify yourself, especially if you limit yourself to conservative, republican or libertarian. and whatever you do, dont conflate an ideology with a fucking political party

[ilikecandy]

I refer to myself as a rational libertarian. I definitely don't align myself with the Libertarian Party for some of the reasons Dexter lists above. My basic political beliefs rely on two principles: 1) the personal liberties outlined in the Constitution should not be fucked with and 2) there is a cost to everything and we should always look at both sides.

One is relatively clear for the most part. No spying on Americans without warrants (fuck you Barry for supporting FISA II). My Constitutional rights should NEVER be infringed upon because you feel fucking scared about some person who you don't even know half way around the world because Glenn Beck told you so.

Two gets tricky, but it's what drives me nuts about current Republicans and the hard core Libertarians. There's a cost to everything. The classic example I like to use is when Reagan closed all of the CA state mental hospitals and kicked everyone out on the streets. It was all done in the name of saving money. And while it did accomplish this at the state level, it merely shifted most of the burden to the local level. Many of these people were quite unable to participate normally in society and almost instantly became vagrants. So now local police had to respond to calls to kick crazy bums off of park benches, out of local businesses, etc. Which also means they have less time to patrol neighborhoods for more nefarious crimes. Which then means you have to hire more police if you want to prevent those from happening also. So in reality you're probably spending more. And from a social angle, everyone is worse off. Both the mentally ill who are no longer receiving help, and the "normal" population who now are screaming to have these people taken off the streets. What we should of done was tell all of the former patients that the Reagans had a nice big ranch with lots of open space that they could live on.
if youre going to use that as an example, you should know what youre talking about. yes, reagan was involved. but the reason people ended up on the street, and hospitals were closed, was because of pressure from the aclu and other groups to protect the civil rights of the mentally ill

http://law.jrank.org/pages/24781/O-Connor-v-Donaldson-Significance.html

"Although many of the rights of mental patients were challenged in the 1980s and 1990s, Donaldson's case helped pave the way for the deinistutionalization of thousands of patients in the 1960s and 1970s."

[CookieMonster]

Rather than schooling you on any particular political philosophy, you might consider thinking about various scales and consider that a variety of political philosophies may be valid / applicable / useful.

Consider also, that specialisation has removed from many people in our society the skills required to grow our own food, develop our own medicine, etc.

Finally, consider efficiency vs. redundancy. To this point, one reason that liberal elements work well is because it's often a necessity to share the cost of developing infrastructure such as roads and water purification. On the other hand, conservative elements also have a place because resources aren't unlimited, population isn't fixed, and the future is unsure.

So ... for a thought exercise ... take four major socio-political philosophies ( liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian ) and consider the benefits, drawbacks, and effects of applying each philosophy at the following scales:

1. The individual.
2. The family.
3. The family friend group.
4. The neighbourhood.
5. The town.
6. The state.
7. The country.

Also, this is just a thought exercise. I'm not making any political points here, nor advocating any particular political philosophy.

The point is that good government probably requires some of each of the major socio-political philosophies, and this is certainly true as the scale of the population increases. What works for government at the level of the individual will not likely work when applied to a family. What works for a family might not work for a large group, and what works for a large group, might not work for an entire country.

[OSECS]

It basically ensures you'll always be pissed at the party in power, and guarrantees you'll never have any elected representation with any political clout.

[ilikecandy]

It basically ensures you'll always be pissed at the party in power, and guarrantees you'll never have any elected representation with any political clout.

and calling yourself something else changes that how?

once again, you need to separate ideology from party. then take party and throw it in the trash. then open your mind on ideology

[OSECS]

and calling yourself something else changes that how?

once again, you need to separate ideology from party. then take party and throw it in the trash. then open your mind on ideology

I didn't say it did.

I was pointing out that being a libertarian makes it difficult to get an elected voting block that represents your ideology.

Ideology gets thrown out often. Parties are more intersted in "party" than ideology, I think many times.

[Downbound Train]

Hey Cookie, Libertarians are for Gay marriage. Individual liberty.

They are also for free market healthcare. Individual responsibility.

I'm all in for libertarianism if we take the whole package and don't just cherry pick the liberty parts.

[hutash]

Like most things in politics, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle, hence why I tend to identify myself as a moderate, and not with a particular party. Of late, dems are much more moderate then repubes. The further right they go the less likely I am to support republican ideology, which makes me look more and more like a libro douche dem, which I actually am not. We need big government, we are a big nation with lost of big problems and challenges. We would not have an interstate highways system with out it. Health care is too big am issue to leave to states IMO, but breaking parts of it down for states to deal with is a viable solution (not a great example but somewhat like welfare, a national program states administer.)

Libertarianism relies to much on the individual to do what's right, and my opinion of the average American is pretty low. They will do what is right for themselves, and fuck everybody else. DBT is the perfect example of I, Me, Mine.

edit to add: I am not, nor ever have been a member on any Korean political party, and to state iPhones suck.

[ilikecandy]

Like most things in politics, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle, hence why I tend to identify myself as a moderate, and not with a particular party. Of late deme aremuch more moderate then repubes. The further right they go the less likely I am to support republican ideology, which makes me look Koreans more like a libro douche dem, which I actually am not. We need big government, we are a big natin with lost of big problems and challenges. We would not have an interstate highways system with out it. Health care is too big am issue to leave to states IMO, but breakingparts of it down for states to deal with is a viable solution (not agreat example but somewhat like welfare, a natinal program state administers.)

Libertarianism relies to much on the individual to do what's right, and my opinion of he average American ispretty low. They will do what is right for themselves, and fuck everybody else. DBT is the perfect example of I, Me, Mine.

but youll trust a politician? by nature you should know they are MORE self centered than the average person. Thats why they are in politics! but your wrong. having freedom doesnt rely on people to do whats right. it legislates it. just not in the way youre used to

the double standard amazes me. if he guy who sold you your car, house, groceries, etc told you lies like "read my lips, uniter not divider, out of iraq in 16 months, close guantanamo, most transparent administration" youd have him tarred and feathered

[ilikecandy]

Hey Cookie, Libertarians are for Gay marriage. Individual liberty.

They are also for free market healthcare. Individual responsibility.

I'm all in for libertarianism if we take the whole package and don't just cherry pick the liberty parts.

of course you are. because you arent smart enough to evaluate issues on an individual basis. so you NEED to subscribe to an ideology wholeheartedly, or even worse, a party

[Dexter Rutecki]

which makes me look Koreans more like a libro douche dem, which I actually am not.

Christ, between this sentence and the way ilike is writing I can't even read this thread anymore. English, motherfucker![/Pulp Fiction]

I'm not much of a grammar Nazi, but the syntax and mechanics are starting to obscure meaning.

I think I'd support any political party that could get people to include punctuation, capitalization, and (is it possible?) proper use of contractions in their online communication.

[ilikecandy]

koreans = more and

duh

as for me, im pretty consistent. no caps, no period at the end of a paragraph, and no apostrophe unless its absolutely fucking necessary. 2010 online style. but i think im pretty easy to read. i dont type ur or b4 or any crap like that

[Dexter Rutecki]

OK, I still have no clue how the word Koreans means 'more and.' Duh?

When did paragraphs stop needing periods? WTF? Apostrophes are absolutely fucking necessary, particularly when your (not the same as you're, if you're wondering) use of possessives is confused.

A little courtesy for the reader, please.

[ilikecandy]

OK, I still have no clue how the word Koreans means 'more and.' Duh?

When did paragraphs stop needing periods? WTF? Apostrophes are absolutely fucking necessary, particularly when your (not the same as you're, if you're wondering) use of possessives is confused.

A little courtesy for the reader, please.

if you dont know how "koreans" means "more and" i cant help you. seems pretty obvious to me

where is my use of possessives confused? generally apostrophes are only necessary for words like i'll, we'll, and a few more. if you cant figure out what word youre or cant or wont(maybe a little argument on that one) are, id be happy to send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer because you are a retard. that other stuff is all superfluous

[hutash]

iPhone strikes again. I have no idea how it got Korean out of that. Just on of the mysteries of Steve Jobs we will never understand.

[Arty50]

if youre going to use that as an example, you should know what youre talking about. yes, reagan was involved. but the reason people ended up on the street, and hospitals were closed, was because of pressure from the aclu and other groups to protect the civil rights of the mentally ill

http://law.jrank.org/pages/24781/O-Connor-v-Donaldson-Significance.html

"Although many of the rights of mental patients were challenged in the 1980s and 1990s, Donaldson's case helped pave the way for the deinistutionalization of thousands of patients in the 1960s and 1970s."

I stand partially corrected on this issue. After some further reading, the State Legislature voted 77-1 on the bill and Reagan signed it into law. Supposedly he also gave quite a few speeches on the subject.

http://ernielb.blogspot.com/2009/04/california-mental-hospitals.html

Anyway, my point stands. It doesn't matter if Reagan closed them or others did. The result is the same. Btw, please don't mistake my now admittedly incorrect vilification of him on this one issue as a vilification of him in general. I see Reagan as neither a savior nor a villain. Kinda similar to how I see Obama.

[Dexter Rutecki]

if you dont know how "koreans" means "more and" i cant help you. seems pretty obvious to me

where is my use of possessives confused? generally apostrophes are only necessary for words like i'll, we'll, and a few more. if you cant figure out what word youre or cant or wont(maybe a little argument on that one) are, id be happy to send tommy back there to hit you on the head with a tack hammer because you are a retard. that other stuff is all superfluous

Your use of possessives is confused every single time you type its.

Reading what you just wrote was itself more difficult than necessary because you've decided (oops, I mean youve decided) that apostrophes aren't (arent, for you) necessary.
Their very necessary its tough to read thing's when guy's dont bother to punctuate sentence's correctly$

Ifidecidethatspacesarentnecessaryhowdoesthatstrike you

Come on--I know half of you guys were born after 1990 and schools don't teach writing anymore, but this shit actually helps people understand what you write.


iPhone strikes again. I have no idea how it got Korean out of that. Just on of the mysteries of Steve Jobs we will never understand.

So ilike's (I mean ilikes) version of what Korean means isn't right? That's a relief. For a minute I thought I might be the idiot.

[danimal's dead]

First, great to see you in here Rev, we need more sane people in this forum.

Second, you don't need to be schooled you need to be elected.

We need good people like you to run for political office in this country instead of all the slimey creeps we have now.

[Downbound Train]

Libertarianism relies to much on the individual to do what's right, and my opinion of the average American is pretty low. They will do what is right for themselves, and fuck everybody else. DBT is the perfect example of I, Me, Mine.
.

Expecting each citizen to function as an individual and not be a burden on the others is not a selfish I,Me,Mine attitude.

Your low opinion of the average American is the typical condisending liberal attitude. You all think you are better and know better than the "average" person.

All the dummies need you or the evil conservative will fuck them and kick them to the curb.

The poor common man has been made poor by the likes of you. The character and self respect has been sucked out of the "Average American" by a society that tells them they can't make it on their own.

Almost everyone can make it on their own if they are taught to achieve then are expected to achieve by society.

You only look at the downside of freedom and not the awesome potential of expecting the best of each human individual.

For people *deserving* of a safety net, there will always be a safety net.

[hutash]

Expecting each citizen to function as an individual and not be a burden on the others is not a selfish I,Me,Mine attitude.

I never said it was, but if you rely on pure capitalism you are functioning in a system of nearly pure greed. I am all for capitalism, but it needs checks and balances, otherwise the greedy bankers at the top will rip people off, and the greedy people in the middle will live well beyond their means, and the greedy people at the bottom will expect everyone to carry them.


Your low opinion of the average American is the typical condisending liberal attitude. You all think you are better and know better than the "average" person.

I need said I was better, but I am vastly better educated, am better read and informed then the "average" person. Most of the "liberal" types I know are as well, and having traveled across a lot of this country I speak from a reasonable amount of experience. If you consider that a condescending attitude fine, I call it being better informed and using life experiences.


All the dummies need you or the evil conservative will fuck them and kick them to the curb.

The poor common man has been made poor by the likes of you. The character and self respect has been sucked out of the "Average American" by a society that tells them they can't make it on their own.

Again, I have to disagree with you here. It has been social legislation that has give the common man the middle class that allows them to live they way they do. "Big Business" has always been the biggest obstacle to the middle class. Look at any country without a middle classes. it is run by the extremely wealthy, who keep the poor poor.


Almost everyone can make it on their own if they are taught to achieve then are expected to achieve by society.

No argument from me, but that requires and educated work force, and one of the best things this country has done was to provide free public education. Sure improves can be made, but providing the opportunity for all American is a major goal of most social legislation, unfortunately we are far from achieving this.


You only look at the downside of freedom and not the awesome potential of expecting the best of each human individual.

For people *deserving* of a safety net, there will always be a safety net.

I have a very good idea of the potential of Americans, but they are only going to achieve that potential working together for a common good, not just their individual selves. That is where I see the biggest difference between Republicans and democrats. The repubs think in terms of themselves... I want lower taxes, I want my social morals, where dems tend to think more of the common good...let's have a safe retirement system for all, let's have health care for all, let's allow people to live their lives just like everybody else is allowed to live their lives.

[ilikecandy]

of course

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3

democrats want to help others, as long as its with someone elses money

moreover, they dont really want to help others. they just want it to look that way. theyre not stupid, they just know where their bread's buttered. they know for example that raising the minimum wage just takes away jobs and doesnt do anything to provide a "living wage". hurting the people you are pretending to help

im with you when you bash republicans. but you REALLY idealize democrats

here's the guy who said its patriotic to pay taxes:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-biden-financial_N.htm

[Dexter Rutecki]

democrats want to help others, as long as its with someone elses money

moreover, they dont really want to help others. they just want it to look that way.

What else are they thinking? Can you read other people's minds? Lottery numbers?

[ilikecandy]

What else are they thinking? Can you read other people's minds? Lottery numbers?

no, but i can see actions

welfare, unemployment, etc. again, these people are not stupid. they understand the negative reinforcement from these things. thats whats so insidious. they know that perpetuating an underclass helps them. even better that it looks like they are trying to help

(im painting with a pretty broad brush. no one is for getting rid of welfare completely)

[Dexter Rutecki]

So by your logic the Democrats should have been against Head Start, or funding for schools? They probably secretly want to lift the bans on having lead in paint, right? You know, good for perpetuating the underclass they're trying to maintain.

Your certitude about what Democrats want and why (and things like the effect of minimum wage laws) is astonishing.

[ilikecandy]

So by your logic the Democrats should have been against Head Start, or funding for schools? They probably secretly want to lift the bans on having lead in paint, right? You know, good for perpetuating the underclass they're trying to maintain.

Your certitude about what Democrats want and why (and things like the effect of minimum wage laws) is astonishing.

right, because the best funded schools perform the best, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Funding

again, actions. if joe biden really wants to help people out, why does he only give .02% of his income to charity?

if ted kennedy really wants rich people to pay more taxes, why did he do everything in his power to avoid paying any?

go talk to anyone who understands anything about economics about the minimum wage. it really is the best example of what im talking about

as for what democrats want, they make it clear. they want the same thing as republicans want - more power. if you cant see that, i cant help you

[Dexter Rutecki]

right, because the best funded schools perform the best, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States#Funding


No, those with no textbooks, decrepit buildings, and 40 kids/class are best.

All the best schools in the country are very well funded--check out the HYP index for HS admissions and see what each school (public or private) spends per pupil.
I think every school in the top ten spends over 20k. edit: at least one doesn't, Millburn, NJ, but still pushing 15k.



again, actions. if joe biden really wants to help people out, why does he only give .02% of his income to charity?

You're the one who knows what they're thinking--but this example proves...uhhh, what?



if ted kennedy really wants rich people to pay more taxes, why did he do everything in his power to avoid paying any?


This reminds me of the argument made by Republicans that the Clintons should've sent Chelsea to public school, and that by not doing so they were being hypocritical about their commitment to public schools. Everyone can do what is in their own best interests--Kennedy never said the rich should pay more taxes than they have to.



go talk to anyone who understands anything about economics about the minimum wage. it really is the best example of what im talking about

I'll direct you to do the same, since it seems you have yet to do so.

In particular, you should read the work of David Card and Alan Krueger, who conducted the most recent, solid meta-analysis of minimum wage studies (and did their own back in the 90's when NJ raised its minimum wage--and found higher employment rates for minimum wage workers resulted).

No evidence that minimum wage reduces employment. Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winning economist, who does understand something about economics) has written about this as well, and reached similar conclusions. So have many other top economists.

Where are you getting your information from? National Review? WSJ editorials??

[Downbound Train]

I have a very good idea of the potential of Americans, but they are only going to achieve that potential working together for a common good, not just their individual selves. That is where I see the biggest difference between Republicans and democrats. The repubs think in terms of themselves....

There's a lot of stuff there but this ^^^ is the meat of it. You are right but you are mischaracterising individualism. The founders set up a system of individual freedom. They weren't thinking of themselves.
They just understood the greater good is best served by giving each man the most possible individual freedom.

They truly believed that it was immoral for the government to take from one to give to another. It still is.

Our society needs to retool itself toward one that values individual responsibility. Including the responsibility to take care of ones own and ones own neighbor. (Kinda like Christianity teaches)

There is no way in hell the entire "safety net" will ever be dismantled so relax. We just need to rely on ourselves more. We'll have a stronger society overall if we do.

[hutash]

Where are you getting your information from? National Review? WSJ editorials??

I listen to Rush, is there a problem with that?:rolleyes:

[ilikecandy]

No, those with no textbooks, decrepit buildings, and 40 kids/class are best.

All the best schools in the country are very well funded--check out the HYP index for HS admissions and see what each school (public or private) spends per pupil.
I think every school in the top ten spends over 20k.



You're the one who knows what they're thinking--but this example proves...uhhh, what?



This reminds me of the argument made by Republicans that the Clintons should've sent Chelsea to public school, and that by not doing so they were being hypocritical about their commitment to public schools. Everyone can do what is in their own best interests--Kennedy never said the rich should pay more taxes than they have to.



I'll direct you to do the same, since it seems you have yet to do so.

In particular, you should read the work of David Card and Alan Krueger, who conducted the most recent, solid meta-analysis of minimum wage studies (and did their own back in the 90's when NJ raised its minimum wage--and found higher employment rates for minimum wage workers resulted).

No evidence that minimum wage reduces employment. Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winning economist, who does understand something about economics) has written about this as well, and reached similar conclusions. So have many other top economists.

Where are you getting your information from? National Review? WSJ editorials??
the fact remains, throwing money at schools does nothing to improve them

kennedy was for the rich paying their "fair share" - do you think he paid his "fair share"? next time you complain about how much oil execs, bankers, etc pay, i hope its a lower percentage than your boy. but shit, do you really need to be convinced that he was a hypocrite?

great, you can read wikipedia. now try what i said, and speak to anyone who understands economics(well that and isnt an ideologue). THATS where i get my information

[ilikecandy]

There's a lot of stuff there but this ^^^ is the meat of it. You are right but you are mischaracterising individualism. The founders set up a system of individual freedom. They weren't thinking of themselves.
They just understood the greater good is best served by giving each man the most possible individual freedom.

They truly believed that it was immoral for the government to take from one to give to another. It still is.

Our society needs to retool itself toward one that values individual responsibility. Including the responsibility to take care of ones own and ones own neighbor. (Kinda like Christianity teaches)

There is no way in hell the entire "safety net" will ever be dismantled so relax. We just need to rely on ourselves more. We'll have a stronger society overall if we do.

they also believed it was immoral for the government to abridge the freedom of religion. so why are you referencing them?

[hutash]

There's a lot of stuff there but this ^^^ is the meat of it. You are right but you are mischaracterising individualism. The founders set up a system of individual freedom. They weren't thinking of themselves.
They just understood the greater good is best served by giving each man the most possible individual freedom.

They truly believed that it was immoral for the government to take from one to give to another. It still is.

Our society needs to retool itself toward one that values individual responsibility. Including the responsibility to take care of ones own and ones own neighbor. (Kinda like Christianity teaches)

There is no way in hell the entire "safety net" will ever be dismantled so relax. We just need to rely on ourselves more. We'll have a stronger society overall if we do.

I am not really arguing with any of that, but you do realize that that is what taxes are, taking from some, and giving to others in services and structure? I don't think the framers were against taxes. They may not have envisioned the tax system we currently have (which I do not totally agree with), but we need government, we need taxes, we need social legislation. Maybe not as much as we have in certain cases, but taking care of ones neighbors means more then just next door.

[Dexter Rutecki]

the fact remains, throwing money at schools does nothing to improve them

Never said it did. But the fact remains that schools with inadequate funding usually don't work.



kennedy was for the rich paying their "fair share" do you think he paid his "fair share"? next time you complain about how much oil execs, bankers, etc pay, i hope its a lower percentage than your boy

Next time? When was the last time? And when did you decide he was my boy?? I'll bet those guys do at least as well (with much higher incomes) as he does.



great, you can read wikipedia. now try what i said, and speak to anyone who understands economics. THATS where i get my information

I wish you could read something aside from wikipedia, as the school stats you cited from wiki prove nothing, except the unsurprising fact that in a miserable school district it's tough to improve scores.

So who are these 'anyone who understands economics' people? Would conversations and interactions with actual economists meet your mysterious criteria?

Seems you'd do better to go with actual economists (read some of them), as opposed to random people you've spoken with who, in your judgment, understand economics. Whoever they are.

[OSECS]

Matters not how much you spend on schools/systems. If the parents aren't intimately involved they will fail to teach.

I believe America spends just about the most per student of developed nations yet still lags behind in educational standards.

[Downbound Train]

I am not really arguing with any of that, but you do realize that that is what taxes are, taking from some, and giving to others in services and structure? I don't think the framers were against taxes. They may not have envisioned the tax system we currently have (which I do not totally agree with), but we need government, we need taxes, we need social legislation. Maybe not as much as we have in certain cases, but taking care of ones neighbors means more then just next door.

Not all taxes are created equal. The founders saw a need for government to do projects in the public good and to provide security and judicial systems and so on. They did not forsee transfer payments and wealth redistribution.

Jefferson 1779

...…All able bodied persons not having wherewithal to maintain themselves, who shall waste their time in idle and dissolute courses, or shall loiter or wander abroad, refusing to work for reasonable wages, or to betake themselves to some honest and lawful calling, or who shall desert wives or children, without so providing for them as that they shall not become chargeable to a county, shall be deemed vagabonds, and shall be sent, by order of an Alderman, to the poor house, there to be kept to labor during such time as shall be limited by the order, not exceeding thirty days; …unless, …the vagabond shall give surety for his good behavior, and that he shall betake himself to some honest and lawful calling for twelve months; from which order the party thereby condemned may appeal to the county court, who, if the order be affirmed, shall award him to pay the costs.

[ilikecandy]

Not all taxes are created equal. The founders saw a need for government to do projects in the public good and to provide security and judicial systems and so on. They did not forsee transfer payments and wealth redistribution.

Jefferson 1779

...…All able bodied persons not having wherewithal to maintain themselves, who shall waste their time in idle and dissolute courses, or shall loiter or wander abroad, refusing to work for reasonable wages, or to betake themselves to some honest and lawful calling, or who shall desert wives or children, without so providing for them as that they shall not become chargeable to a county, shall be deemed vagabonds, and shall be sent, by order of an Alderman, to the poor house, there to be kept to labor during such time as shall be limited by the order, not exceeding thirty days; …unless, …the vagabond shall give surety for his good behavior, and that he shall betake himself to some honest and lawful calling for twelve months; from which order the party thereby condemned may appeal to the county court, who, if the order be affirmed, shall award him to pay the costs.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by
the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues
liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see
his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich
alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

want me to find you a few where he disagrees with you on mosques too?

[Downbound Train]

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by
the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues
liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see
his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich
alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

want me to find you a few where he disagrees with you on mosques too?

Progressive tax was to go to pay for legit functions of government. Not transfer payments.

[The Reverend Floater]

Thank you for reminding me why I haven't clicked on Political Asshatery in a few years. To those of you who actually offered intelligent diatribe, thanks.

And remember, kids, there is no stronger lever in the sociopolitical sphere than self interest.

[Downbound Train]

To those of you who actually offered intelligent diatribe....


Who did that????

[Jer]

You do realize, I have you on ignore..

You can't beat Dex at his own game. Next thing I know you'll be posting rad grass skiing TRs.



...and Hut - I listen to Rush too. Ever since A Farewell To Kings.

[hutash]

Not all taxes are created equal. The founders saw a need for government to do projects in the public good and to provide security and judicial systems and so on. They did not forsee transfer payments and wealth redistribution.

Jefferson 1779

...…All able bodied persons not having wherewithal to maintain themselves, who shall waste their time in idle and dissolute courses, or shall loiter or wander abroad, refusing to work for reasonable wages, or to betake themselves to some honest and lawful calling, or who shall desert wives or children, without so providing for them as that they shall not become chargeable to a county, shall be deemed vagabonds, and shall be sent, by order of an Alderman, to the poor house, there to be kept to labor during such time as shall be limited by the order, not exceeding thirty days; …unless, …the vagabond shall give surety for his good behavior, and that he shall betake himself to some honest and lawful calling for twelve months; from which order the party thereby condemned may appeal to the county court, who, if the order be affirmed, shall award him to pay the costs.

England tried that...worked out real well, didn't it?

[skiballs]

Next thing I know you'll be posting rad grass skiing TRs.


I remember grass skiing, what ever happened with that.

[hutash]

You can't beat Dex at his own game. Next thing I know you'll be posting rad grass skiing TRs.



...and Hut - I listen to Rush too. Ever since A Farewell To Kings.

I never realize it was the same "Rush". I guess I am going to have to listen closer to the lyrics for hidden right wing, blowhard messages.

[Jer]

I never realize it was the same "Rush". I guess I am going to have to listen closer to the lyrics for hidden right wing, blowhard messages.

The entire song 2112 was pretty much just a re-write of Ayn Rand's short novel Anthem.

Then there was the actual song titled Anthem off of Fly By Night.

The Trees is commonly interpreted as a slam on Socialism. Actually, I don't see how anyone could interpret that differently unless they think it's actually about maple trees being pissed off at oaks.

Not really right-wing or even blow-hard, but if you're librodouchy enough pretty much anything outside your sphere (or even Hemisphere) is right-wing.

[hutash]

The entire song 2112 was pretty much just a re-write of Ayn Rand's short novel Anthem.

Then there was the actual song titled Anthem off of Fly By Night.

The Trees is commonly interpreted as a slam on Socialism. Actually, I don't see how anyone could interpret that differently unless they think it's actually about maple trees being pissed off at oaks.

Not really right-wing or even blow-hard, but if you're librodouchy enough pretty much anything outside your sphere (or even Hemisphere) is right-wing.

I have never been a Rush fan, blowhard or musically, so I could not even begin to say anything about their music. Hell, I can't even name a song let alone say anything about oak trees pissed off or not.

[Jer]

I think the real lesson learned here is that 70's Canadian prog-rock is far more interesting than douchebag American politrix.

..and Hut - you've never heard Tom Sawer??

I find that very hard to believe.

[doughboyshredder]

Opening night of the Beastie Boys tour many many years ago, Mix Master Mike did amazing things with two records of Tom Sawyer to open the show. Still to this day one of the most amazing mixes I have heard live.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Matters not how much you spend on schools/systems. If the parents aren't intimately involved they will fail to teach.


Mark it down on your calendar--I'm with OSECS on this one. I might state it as 'the students will fail to learn' or 'they will be unable to teach,' but I think the sentiment is the same.

Honestly, you could have a pretty crummy school and still get good results if the kids come from homes in which education is valued (but in that environment they usually don't accept bad schools). Parents probably have more to do with kids' success in school than teachers do.



I believe America spends just about the most per student of developed nations yet still lags behind in educational standards.

Yes we do, and we waste a lot of that money on things that don't even address the real deficiencies. Too many communities place little value on education and don't have a culture that emphasizes it. It just isn't acceptable in some countries to not try in school the way it is here.

[Downbound Train]

Another Rush thread hijack by Jer. How many is that now?

[skiballs]

Being that, RUSH pretty much hijacked most of it's song themes from a host of writers.
Thread hijacking seems appropriate.
Not sure who siad it; good artists create, great artists steal.

[hutash]

Oh I've heard, I just choose not to listen to it.

[Obama Nate]

. . . .
I'll direct you to do the same, since it seems you have yet to do so.

Not to speak for Candy, but try http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11659 for a starter.


In particular, you should read the work of David Card and Alan Krueger, who conducted the most recent, solid meta-analysis of minimum wage studies (and did their own back in the 90's when NJ raised its minimum wage--and found higher employment rates for minimum wage workers resulted).

Right.


No evidence that minimum wage reduces employment.

This is pure bullshit, and you know it. See the 2008 book in the link above (one example of many scholarly works).


Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize winning economist, who does understand something about economics) has written about this as well, and reached similar conclusions. So have many other top economists.

And no other Nobel laureate disagrees with Krugman. :rolleyes2


Where are you getting your information from? National Review? WSJ editorials??

Well, that would be almost as good as wikipedia.