Politics

[irishog77]

I understand your point and respect your opinion, but if I'm going to hire a football coach, I'm not going to choose a guy who was successful at coaching basketball. I want a guy who has demonstrated success in the field in which he will be working.

Naturally. Virtually all liberals share your preference for "experienced" politicians and competent technocrats. Though your example above isn't very apt to the conservative rebuttal, because as profession, coaching doesn't have a proven tendency to corrupt its practitioners.

And to further Whiskey's point, a football coach is specialized and task specific. I wouldn't hire a basketball coach to be a football coach either.

I get what you're saying (and agree, to a point) though. But I look at things like health care and the economy (probably the 2 focal points of BO's time in office)-- and the president has spent zero time in his life doing anything that would make him an "expert" on either issue, rendering his opinions on them no better than yours or mine. Yet here we are.

 

[irishog77]

Not just liberals. So-called moderate (see: establishment) Republicans feel the same way, which is why we ended up with Mitt Romney in 2012. Professional politicians and the desire for a candidate who's "been there, done that" has driven us away from the concept of representation of the people by the people. We get these entrenched lifers who are the perfect representation of everything that has Cackalacky so disenchanted with the entire process.

Agreed.

 

[chicago51]

Good post though, might i recommend more milton?

So I am reading up on what Milton Friedman and his minions did in Chile.

So in 1973 General Augusto Pinochet took over as dictator of Chile he outsourced managing the economy to Milton and the "Chicago Boys". So under Milton's guidance they deregulated everything and handed the keys of the economy to the millionaires basically. They opened Chile up to free trade. What happened was an increase in unemployment from 3 percent to 10 percent. The inflation jumped 341 percent, the price of goods jumped 375 percent, and GDP decreased by 15 percent. Yet somehow we think this guy is an economic genius when all his theories did was create a wealthy elite and screw everyone else. Heck Milton and his minions are part of the reason the earthquake a few years back caused more excessive damage than predicted because they didn't really have building codes for safe buildings because of the deregulation.

 

[Cackalacky]

Naturally. Virtually all liberals share your preference for "experienced" politicians and competent technocrats. Though your example above isn't very apt to the conservative rebuttal, because as profession, coaching doesn't have a proven tendency to corrupt its practitioners.

I absolutely abhor the corporate nepotism currently extant in the federal government. I don't know how to prevent the former CEO of a cable company from being tabbed to head the FCC or the Timothy Geitner's of the world from being Treasury Secretary but its disgusting. In a better world these high-ranking officials should have technical knowledge and authority but not be so apt to handouts and sweetheart deals.

 

[connor_in]

Continuing the current topic trend...I think our next president needs to have violent hands and long arms

...and of curse being quicker than fast is a given

 

[irishog77]

Continuing the current topic trend...I think our next president needs to have violent hands and long arms

...and of curse being quicker than fast is a given

We need somebody to be able to take the top off the defense as well.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I absolutely abhor the corporate nepotism currently extant in the federal government. I don't know how to prevent the former CEO of a cable company from being tabbed to head the FCC or the Timothy Geitner's of the world from being Treasury Secretary but its disgusting. In a better world these high-ranking officials should have technical knowledge and authority but not be so apt to handouts and sweetheart deals.

I'm with you 100%. An overwhelming preference for centralization of power is, in my opinion, one of the worst aspects of liberal policy preference in this country. Increased centralization simply makes regulatory capture easier for wealthy interest groups. No amount of transparency or campaign finance reform can fix it; it's the old axiom about power and corruption.

Unfortunately, few politicians from either party are interested in reviving federalism.

 

[chicago51]

The Tea Party movement was a fake populist movement funded by billionaires to trick the people to believing they were standing up to Wall Street and the bankers.

They campaigned on being against corruption. Yet every single one the 2010 Tea Party freshman class took money from all street.

Tea Party Congressmen Accept Cash From Bailed-Out Bankers - Bloomberg

I think Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

All the Tea Party did was bring us people like Steve Fincher, who collect $3.5 million dollars directly from the federal government in farm subsidies while pushing for a farm that increase these subsidies while cutting food stamps because we can't afford them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/politics/farm-subsidy-recipient-backs-food-stamp-cuts.html?_r=0

Since we are talking about independent. I would like to say that I am an Kennedy/LBJ democrat which means I have no place in today's Democratic Party which has different to the right somewhat that they are basically Eisenhower/Nixon Republicans. So I am an independent as well.

 

[chicago51]

I'm with you 100%. An overwhelming preference for centralization of power is, in my opinion, one of the worst aspects of liberal policy preference in this country. Increased centralization simply makes regulatory capture easier for wealthy interest groups. No amount of transparency or campaign finance reform can fix it; it's the old axiom about power and corruption.

Unfortunately, few politicians from either party are interested in reviving federalism.

I agree with this. So would Thomas Jefferson.

I have some Jefferson conservatism in me. When Jefferson won in 1800 it was an election that helped save America. John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton were federalist in bed with bankers at the time were intent creating a wealthy ruling aristocracy. Jefferson victory helped save our at the time very young and very fragile democracy.

If you read any of Jefferson's letters I think it is clear he would be in line with liberals on some of the distributionalist programs we have and would be heavily in favor of progressive taxation more so for safety of democracy than for economic reasons.

That said Jefferson would say that you are 100% correct that power needs to be transferred back to the state governments.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree with this. So would Thomas Jefferson.

I have some Jefferson conservatism in me. When Jefferson won in 1800 it was an election that helped save America. John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton were federalist in bed with bankers at the time were intent creating a wealthy ruling aristocracy. Jefferson victory helped save our at the time very young and very fragile democracy.

If you read any of Jefferson's letters I think it is clear he would be in line with liberals on some of the distributionalist programs we have and would be heavily in favor of progressive taxation more so for safety of democracy than for economic reasons.

That said Jefferson would say that you are 100% correct that power needs to be transferred back to the state governments.

During my school years, I was naturally sympathetic to the Federalists, because: (1) they won the argument; and (2) 'Merica, right? I'd guess most students lean the same way. But the more I learn about American politics, the more I find myself sympathizing with the Anti-Federalists. It's hard to separate their politics from all the historical baggage, but in retrospect, it looks like they were right regarding the importance of subsidiarity, the danger of factions, etc.

 

[chicago51]

I'm reading a pretty good book right now. It is more about modern America but it revists history.

It brings up how "crony capitalism" help start the revolution. The Tea Act wasn't just an increase in the tax on tea but it gave a mega tax break on the East India Tea Company. In modern inflation adjusted money it was probably the largest tax break ever.

Also though it goes into the Revolution of 1800. John Adams despite being a man of modest means, and the Federalist wre wary of the common perosn (Adams referred to as "the rabble") and subscribe to the Calvinist notion that wealth was a sign of certification orblessing from above. As POTUS Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to lock up political dissenters (rings a bell on the NSA and Patriot Act stuff) and move the country in a more authoritarian and monarchical direction. There were genuine fears among Americans in 1800 that the early economic royalist would kill the American democracy experiment and not cede power to Jefferson and the more egalitarian Democratic Republicans in the election of 1800.

Jefferson later said "the Revolution 1800 was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in form."

Jefferson would be very leary of how the power of the federal government through special interest tax breaks and regulations is used to maintain the wealth of the status quo. I think if he was alive today he'd be very scared.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sounds like we need a separation of "economics and state". Is that even possible? I am only prtially joking.

 

[wizards8507]

Sounds like we need a separation of "economics and state". Is that even possible? I am only prtially joking.

Yes. It's called the free market.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[wizards8507]

Off topic but interesting.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/pol...ret-voting-for-his-reelection/article/2544165

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Also though it goes into the Revolution of 1800. John Adams despite being a man of modest means, and the Federalist wre wary of the common perosn (Adams referred to as "the rabble") and subscribe to the Calvinist notion that wealth was a sign of certification orblessing from above.

Sorry to sidetrack again, but this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier exchange with wizards (which was probably obscured at some point). I loathe this strand of thinking above all others on the American right (where it's still very widespread), mostly because of the way it perverts the Christian worldview.

One of Christianity's best "features" in society is that, via the doctrine of the Fall, it allows us to regard a beggar with genuine pity and a king with warranted skepticism. But this Calvinistic notion of "worldly wealth as certification of moral superiority"-- often referred to as the "Prosperity Gospel" these days-- turns that on its head. So instead of inspiring charity towards the poor and suspicion of those in power, it simply confirms people in their greed and complacency; the poor are despicable because they've probably made themselves that way, and the powerful get the benefit of the doubt simply due to their status. It's the old Pagan "might makes right" in Christian clothing.

 

[wizards8507]

Sorry to sidetrack again, but this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier exchange with wizards (which was probably obscured at some point). I loathe this strand of thinking above all others on the American right (where it's still very widespread), mostly because of the way it perverts the Christian worldview.

One of Christianity's best "features" in society is that, via the doctrine of the Fall, it allows us to regard a beggar with genuine pity and a king with warranted skepticism. But this Calvinistic notion of "worldly wealth as certification of moral superiority"-- often referred to as the "Prosperity Gospel" these days-- turns that on its head. So instead of inspiring charity towards the poor and suspicion of those in power, it simply confirms people in their greed and complacency; the poor are despicable because they've probably made themselves that way, and the powerful get the benefit of the doubt simply due to their status. It's the old Pagan "might makes right" in Christian clothing.

I understand your concern but I think the challenge comes from people going too far the opposite direction. The fact that you can't equate wealth and virtue doesn't mean you have to go the other extreme and say that wealth is evil. Wealth in and of itself is morally neutral, depending on what you do with it. There are legitimate means of prospering.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Cackalacky]

Yes. It's called the free market.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

yeah... not what i meant and a truly "free market" does not exist.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sounds like we need a separation of "economics and state". Is that even possible? I am only prtially joking.

Not possible. The "free market" as pre-political force of nature is a pernicious meme on the Right. Markets don't exist without some form of government to organize and maintain them.

In ordering a market, the government can choose to maximize efficiency, growth, or fairness. They're not all mutually exclusive, though efficiency and fairness are frequently in direct competition.

For instance, I'm in favor of replacing the current American welfare state with something similar to Friedman's negative income tax, likely implemented through an expanded EITC. If done correctly, it could improve our status quo in all three of those areas.

 

[irishog77]

Sorry to sidetrack again, but this was the point I was trying to make in my earlier exchange with wizards (which was probably obscured at some point). I loathe this strand of thinking above all others on the American right (where it's still very widespread), mostly because of the way it perverts the Christian worldview.

One of Christianity's best "features" in society is that, via the doctrine of the Fall, it allows us to regard a beggar with genuine pity and a king with warranted skepticism. But this Calvinistic notion of "worldly wealth as certification of moral superiority"-- often referred to as the "Prosperity Gospel" these days-- turns that on its head. So instead of inspiring charity towards the poor and suspicion of those in power, it simply confirms people in their greed and complacency; the poor are despicable because they've probably made themselves that way, and the powerful get the benefit of the doubt simply due to their status. It's the old Pagan "might makes right" in Christian clothing.

I understand your concern but I think the challenge comes from people going too far the opposite direction. The fact that you can't equate wealth and virtue doesn't mean you have to go the other extreme and say that wealth is evil. Wealth in and of itself is morally neutral, depending on what you do with it. There are legitimate means of prospering.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I agree with both of you.

I still believe in Plato's view of a slave-master society, and that all societies would be best served by this. As Christians we are called to be both slave and master.

We seem to live in a society that kowtows completely to the slave or completely to the master. Neither of which is good.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I agree with both of you.

I still believe in Plato's view of a slave-master society, and that all societies would be best served by this. As Christians we are called to be both slave and master.

We seem to live in a society that kowtows completely to the slave or completely to the master. Neither of which is good.

Jesus was very direct with the rich young man when he asked about getting to Heaven. Because the rich young man would not part with his wealth, he left Jesus disappointed. You see, we can not serve two masters and this rich young man chose to serve money over all. This doesn't mean Jesus doesn't want us to prosper. He surely does. But it does mean that if we do nothing to help the poor and less fortunate, we are wrong. Sadly, too many people have taken the prosperity message and used it to store up their treasures here on earth. Too whom much is given, much is required. That would serve us all well to try and live by that.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I understand your concern but I think the challenge comes from people going too far the opposite direction. The fact that you can't equate wealth and virtue doesn't mean you have to go the other extreme and say that wealth is evil. Wealth in and of itself is morally neutral, depending on what you do with it. There are legitimate means of prospering.

And I would never argue otherwise. But have you ever encountered the other extreme in this country? It probably exists somewhere, but I've never seen it. The "American Dream", regardless of how realistic it may or may not be today, has been a powerful prophylactic against outright enmity between classes because everyone wants to move up in the world.

And that's probably a good thing. Getting back to my earlier example of how much my individual efforts have contributed to my success, even if it's a relatively small percentage (20%?), it's still a precondition to improving oneself and society as a whole. There's plenty of research out there indicating that people need to believe that they are in charge of their lives; so regardless of how true that is, I think conservatives are right to harp on incentive structures.

But we need to be careful not to slip into our natural but lazy propensity to disdain the poor and defer to the powerful.

 

[Cackalacky]

I want every person to have the means and materials to make his own path as he sees fit. I am in for disappointment.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I want every person to have the means and materials to make his own path as he sees fit. I am in for disappointment.

Not necessarily. A few European countries are testing a Basic Income for every citizen. It could happen here, but there would obviously be a lot more resistance to overcome. The real issue would be balancing it in a way that it doesn't destroy the incentive to work and contribute to society.

 

[chicago51]

Sounds like we need a separation of "economics and state". Is that even possible? I am only prtially joking.

Well need the government to regulate some things. For example when a refinery dumps toxins into the local lake or river and that area has an increase in cancers then "we the people" pay the external cost of that through higher health care cost.

We also need the government to start enforcing the Sherman Anti Trust Act again. Right now if you were parachuted into the US and landed on Main Street of some time you would not be able to tell where you are. Having so few companies creates a concentration of wealth to a very few economic royalist. Having locally owned companies, with locally owned products, with money in locally owned banks who are in turn lending to the local community creates spreads wealth around.

What we don't need is government (at all levels) giving companies who already have an advantage an even greater advantage with special tax breaks that we the people are not privileged to. We don't need government creating a permanent oligarch structure in industries like Obamacare did by delivering millions of new customers to a select few insurance companies.

 

[irishog77]

Not necessarily. A few European countries are testing a Basic Income for every citizen. It could happen here, but there would obviously be a lot more resistance to overcome. The real issue would be balancing it in a way that it doesn't destroy the incentive to work and contribute to society.

Yep.

Some long term research on inflation would have to be done as well. My literal studying of economics is limited, but it would be hard for me to believe, in a free market, that putting a floor on income wouldn't drive the price of goods up, steadily. I suppose other variables would/could play a role in that as well, i.e. minimum/average wages. But my in-depth knowledge of economics is lacking.

 

[Cackalacky]

Not necessarily. A few European countries are testing a Basic Income for every citizen. It could happen here, but there would obviously be a lot more resistance to overcome. The real issue would be balancing it in a way that it doesn't destroy the incentive to work and contribute to society.

Yep I have seen what is proposed in Switzerland. I think it would not fly here in the USA. There maybe a loss of productivity for a portion of the public but I think innovation, product development etc. would be through the roof. I think it would lead to many more useful products. There really are a bunch of people who want to work and if they could do what it is they want to... its a total win-win.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yep.

Some long term research on inflation would have to be done as well. My literal studying of economics is limited, but it would be hard for me to believe, in a free market, that putting a floor on income wouldn't drive the price of goods up, steadily. I suppose other variables would/could play a role in that as well, i.e. minimum/average wages. But my in-depth knowledge of economics is lacking.

I'll be interested to see how the project turns out in other countries. Ideally, it would allow us to phase out a ton of clunky and inefficient regulations and programs-- minimum wage, the entire welfare state, etc.

Just spit-balling here, but we could make it similar to unemployment benefits, so that you must either: (1) be working; or (2) actively searching for work. If you're legitimately disabled, you'd prove that once before an Administrative Judge (just like for SSD), then you're set. That sort of thing.

 

[chicago51]

Yep.

Some long term research on inflation would have to be done as well. My literal studying of economics is limited, but it would be hard for me to believe, in a free market, that putting a floor on income wouldn't drive the price of goods up, steadily. I suppose other variables would/could play a role in that as well, i.e. minimum/average wages. But my in-depth knowledge of economics is lacking.

I'd imagine there would be some inflation though not for items with an inelastic demand. The demand for food, housing, and healthcare pretty much won't change because there is already 100% demand for those types of things. I'd imagine if demand rose for non essential items with an elastic demand like certain appliances and such I'd imagine you would see some sort of inflation from basic supply and demand laws.

I think any floor wage is a band aid for a tax structure that incentives low pay for workers. As well as the unchecked domination of the marketplace by a small few transnational elites that have created efficiency that has destroyed jobs. Locally owned small companies is way less efficient compared to the Walmart model but I think that inefficiency is a plus for society.

 

[wizards8507]

Some long term research on inflation would have to be done as well. My literal studying of economics is limited, but it would be hard for me to believe, in a free market, that putting a floor on income wouldn't drive the price of goods up, steadily. I suppose other variables would/could play a role in that as well, i.e. minimum/average wages. But my in-depth knowledge of economics is lacking.

Not steadily. A sudden, jarring shock that would send the economy crashing. Two maxims of economics that I don't have the patience to explain but have been proven trough through centuries:

1. The "basic economic problem" of scarcity. There is a finite capacity to produce goods and services in an economy at any given time. More dollars in an economy with a finite quantity of resources does nothing but increase the number of dollars per resource, i.e. prices.

2. Benjamin Franklin said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." Making poverty comfortable will do nothing but encourage people to stay there.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I'll be interested to see how the project turns out in other countries. Ideally, it would allow us to phase out a ton of clunky and inefficient regulations and programs-- minimum wage, the entire welfare state, etc.

Just spit-balling here, but we could make it similar to unemployment benefits, so that you must either: (1) be working; or (2) actively searching for work. If you're legitimately disabled, you'd prove that once before an Administrative Judge (just like for SSD), then you're set. That sort of thing.

But would that type of system make us even less competitive in the world markets? Especially considering other countries such as China already have wages so low. I just don't see how we could compete on a global level. Not against anything that may help improve the overall condition.