Monday open thread
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
What’s on your mind today?
May 28, 2012 - 8:04 AM
- Contact us |
- Customer care |
- Subscribe |
- Advertise |
- Submit news |
- Sign in
Check It Out
Did you know you can get a digital replica of the daily paper? Learn more about subscribing to the eTimes.
May 28, 2012 - 8:04 AM
Join the conversation [ADD A COMMENT]
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
65 COMMENTS
Error submitting comment
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Add a comment
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
THE ROANOKE TIMES
As Obama attacks Romney on the “evils” of capitalism and profits, typically he ignores his own record.
Obama has presided over bankruptcies, layoffs, lost pensions, and a huge increase in national debt. But unlike Romney, Obama’s failures costs billions in taxpayer dollars for subsidies, health care mandates, onerous regulations, unemployment, and union payoffs.
Take the solar panel maker Solyndra which was the poster child for the “green” energy sector. Obama’s stimulus bill (which he now blames on Bush!)dumped tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the Energy Dept. to throw at “green” companies via grants and loans. Solyndra, like many other “green” energy companies, failed costing the taxpayer over $500 million in loan guarantees and lost jobs.
Closer to home, the news is that the wind farm project on Poor Mountain is put on hold because of the uncertainty of future government subsidies.
“Green” energy can’t survive without gov. subsidies. Fossil fuel energy gets a few cents in gov. subsidies per kilowatt hour produced, while “green” energy gets hundreds of dollars in subsidies per kilowatt hour produced and still can’t compete.
Another example of Obama’s crony capitalism gave over $80 billion in taxpayer dollars for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. True, both are still open today but they would have survived in some form without gov. bailouts.
In the case of Chrysler, taxpayer money went to prop the company up enough to make it attractive to a foreign buyer, Fiat, just to save union jobs.
The GM bailout money went to make sure the unions, which drove GM into bankruptcy in the first place and whose votes Obama needs, did not have to give up any pay or pension benefits for union workers.
The unions were rewarded with a large share of the new GM. This was managed by ignoring bankruptcy laws and putting the UAW ahead of GM corporate bond holders who were wiped out. The UAW then laid off about 2500 non union workers. Hundreds of GM and Chrysler dealerships were forced out of business and thousands thrown out of work.
So who is the “evil” crony capitalist? Romney who used only private sector money or Obama who wasted billions of taxpayer money to buy votes?
Interesting read for the day: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all.
This article discusses research by former UVA professor Jonathan Haidt on how different people think about politics, and how we might learn to communicate better. Key quotes:
He highlights broad areas of culture and politics — family and assimilation, for example — on which liberals should consider compromise. He urges conservatives to entertain liberal ideas in the same way. The purpose of such compromises isn’t just to win elections. It’s to make society and government fit human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.
An article for 89Hoo about the costs of war both monetary and human.
http://anticap.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/all-warfare-is-based-on-deception/
If “all warfare is based on deception” (Sun Tzu), the biggest deception concerns the costs of warfare.
That’s why the work done by the folks at costsofwar.org is so important. They have attempted to estimate the human, economics, and sociopolitical costs of the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Here are some of their findings:….
John R….
You continue to bemoan and complain about the intervention into GM and Chrysler by the government. If those industries had been allowed to follow in the steps of normal bankruptcy, you claim that all would have been hunky dory in those industries.
In the meantime, while those companies would be making their way through the very slow and arduous process, thousands of workers that support the ancillary production of the auto industry would have either been laid off or permanently unemployed.
I hear you bitch and complain about high unemployment in on breath and then in the next breath complain about government intervention that kept thousands of workers on the job (workers who pay taxesm pay mortgages, put kids through school, buy groceries, pay their light bills and their electric bills, buy clothes and other goods and services not directly connected to the auto industry. You can’t have it both ways. Make up your mind and then stick to a single and consistent position.
Just one my opinionated and brainwashed friend, I would like for you to connect the dots of an interconnected and interdependent economy and stop listening to the partisan drivel that continues to ooze from the serpents of the Republican spin machine.
Can’t wait to read that Brian. Thanks for the link.
Jonathan Haidt is right, it is only liberals who are capable of compromise and moving the issues forward. It is hopeless to think conservatives ever will.
A week from tomorrow Wisc. holds its recall election. About 15 months ago the newly elected Gov., Scott Walker(R) had approval numbers in the crapper-
42 approved vs 55 disapproved. But slowly those numbers moved and seemed to have solidified at 51 approve- 46 disapprove. Recent polling numbers vs Barrett show Walker leading the recall race by 6 pts. Things are changing in Wisconsin, union/gov contracts are/have been reworked,finances are better
and residents seem more hopeful about the future.
How important is the Wisconsin recall race as a foreshadowing of tone in November elections? And how much coverage/analysis will the Wisc. recall election get if Walker wins by 8-10 pts?
If Walker wins in the recall, I would guess that the November elections will be just as dishonest, divisive and agenda driven as his campaign to hold power has been.
“Another example of Obama’s crony capitalism gave over $80 billion in taxpayer dollars for the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. True, both are still open today but they would have survived in some form without gov. bailouts.”
Private companies that were failing because of their own poor decisions and the poor quality of their products. They should have been allowed to fail. Another manufacturer, who chooses to make better decisions and a better quality product would eventually come along to take its place.
I feel the same way about airlines.
@Will: “…thousands of workers that support the ancillary production of the auto industry would have either been laid off or permanently unemployed.”
And now there are hundreds of thousands of people out of work. How do you feel that it is fair that the tax money that those people paid went *DIRECTLY* toward saving someone else’s job? That doesn’t seem right to me.
I don’t know who you work for, Will, but I’d be willing to bet that if your company made some pretty crappy decisions and you were laid off that Obama wouldn’t earmark some money to save your job.
Given the decimation of US manufacturing and middle class jobs, there is no way to calculate what losing GM or Chrysler would have done to this nation and Ford alone could not have saved all the other businesses and suppliers they all use either. This tax payer is grateful for the courage of that decision.
#8 Right. 3 out’a 5?
Brian, very good book review. Thanks for the link.
Others, why do you all bitch about Obama and the auto bailouts, etc., yet I’m not hearing anything about our very own governor?
I will grant right up front, some of the things done for capitalism by our governor do not compare economically to the federal programs but they are the same in principle.
So is it about the amount of money or is it about the principle?
Jack….
Who I work for isn’t germain to my point. John R and apparently now you seem to feel that it would be ok to let the auto industry fail and at the same time let the support industries as well as the small businesses that operate in the various cities that support the auto industry fail as well. Exactly what influence does the dry cleaner in Detroit have to do with the decision makers on the board of directors?
Not a damn thing….but you would be willing to see those small businesses fail through no fault of their own.
Something smells mighty foul to me with that flawed logic. By keeping those industries going, thousands of jobs that are not directly related to the auto industry were saved as well. Jobs that pay mortgages, school tuition, grocery bills, electric bills, gas bills, taxes to support the wealthy who get ridiculous tax breaks in the first place as well as other day to day living expenses that keep people employed.
Make up your mind… Do you want people working or not?
So if GM/ Chrysler did fail..what calamity would ensue?
Americans…would they stop buying cars or would they buy more hondas and toyotas?
Would a “GE” an “Exxon” not step in to buyout the failing auto companies?
Or maybe a “BAIN” would buyout, cut the fat, renegotiate contracts and bring these smaller auto companies where they might be able to stand on their own 2 (smaller)feet.
But no… what had to be done is bailout a specific , primarily dem voter block retirement and medical benefit package. A GM exec said before congress… we’re not in the car business, we’re a benefit payout business that makes cars..or something to that effect.
What happened here was not rocket science or some stroke of genius.Check that maybe it was..political money laundering. Printing new money and giving it to an entity that will largely and blindly support you in the next election cycle- BRILLIANT!
You mean like the bankers on Wall Street BUD? I see your point. Doubtless the lines are uglier when you draw them, but feeding the faithful is a very old tradition. Dems just choose workers over the fattest of the cats.
Maybe Will or Sandi can explain to me why it was necessary to make the UAW an owner of the new GM. Was this good business or just political payoff?
How does the UAW as an owner negociate with the UAW for an employment contract? Sort of conflict of interest if you ask me.
So why was it necessary to dump the GM corporate bond holders who by law should have been first in line to recover some of their investment following re-organization of GM and then make the UAW an owner? Just political payoff.
So why was it necessary to throw all those dealerships under the bus but the UAW suffered no losses? Political payoff.
GM and Chrysler would have survived without gov. bailout. They would have become leaner and more efficient companies. Ford survived by getting rid of its losing divisions, GM and Chrysler could have done the same. But Obama was beholding to the unions.
Crony capitalism!
Ever heard of a “stakeholder” John R? Many corps do that with labor to some extent. It is smart business to make it us and us not us and them.
And your cries of “crony capitalism” are truly laughable all things considered. Wanna talk Haliburton and KBR government contracts? What about Boeing and their defense contracts? And do you REALLY wanna talk more about BAIN CAPITAL?
“…Some industry experts predict that the union, far more than before, will help management increase profitability — with the goal of pushing up the automakers’ stock prices.
…the Obama administration structured the G.M. and Chrysler plans to lessen the union’s voice in management”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/business/02uaw.html
“John R and apparently now you seem to feel that it would be ok to let the auto industry fail and at the same time let the support industries as well as the small businesses that operate in the various cities that support the auto industry fail as well.”
Yes, then you understand correctly. That is how a free market works.
“Do you want people working or not?”
Of course I do. But my tax money shouldn’t be used to support a privately owned company succeed when it has made so many poor decisions and creates such poor product.
I’m also sure that many people who are currently out of work now are thankful that their hard earned money (when they were making it) went to save someone else’s job. They are probably wondering now where their piece of that taxpayer pie is.
Someone else should have bought GM… maybe another company, but not the taxpayers. Or, maybe it should have died. GM is not a necessity. There are other car manufacturers out there.
“But my tax money shouldn’t be used to support a privately owned company succeed when it has made so many poor decisions and creates such poor product.” I am going to suppose you just want to argue because that has been the precise game in this nation for a very, very long time. Our tax dollars have picked winners and losers since we started “incenting” and “subsidizing”.
I would hope that people still out of work would be glad when any job is saved, especially manufacturing jobs. We can put everyone to work tomorrow, but you will be among the first to call it socialism. Is your position really that if we cannot save them all, we save none of them?
@Sandi: “Is your position really that if we cannot save them all, we save none of them?”
So you are suggesting that even if we can’t solve the bigger problem right now, we should do what we can to help some?
Sandi,, good to know B B B Barry and the dems haven’t taken any fatcat money. Take a look at Prezbo’s cabinet and czars. Yeah they’re for the working man. I guess working men and women don’t buy oil or oil products, or work the rigs. Keep telling yourself the dems are for the working class.
Sleep well.
Of the two choices, yes they are BUD, by a mile.
Jack, I am not suggesting, I am telling you, we have ALWAYS picked winners and losers. This is not a new phenomenon.
Well, hell… since we’ve always done it I guess it must be the right thing to do. Nevermind, then.
I cannot say if it is the right thing to do or not. Certainly there are cases where it was, there are also cases where it was not. Either way, it is the way it has always been done. Willard Romney will certainly not change the doing, only for whom it is done. That is really the only difference I have ever seen.
@Sandi: “Willard Romney will certainly not change the doing, only for whom it is done.”
If he proposed a bailout of a private company I would be just as against it. The only exception I can really think of is when the private company is a monopoly on a necessity… a good example, I reckon, would be AEP.
If AEP made some poor decisions and it was going to leave everyone in the area without electricity, then I think the government should step in and provide the funds necessary to provide power.
Those funds should not be unlimited and some guarantees would have to be made that the right path would be found in a certain time frame.
That, to me, is a completely different scenario, though, since the electricity is a necessity and there is no other provider. Definitely shouldn’t be a blank check, though… and I’m not saying GM was a blank check or that GM didn’t come up with a good plan afterward.
Check out a book called Bailout Nation.
http://www.amazon.com/Bailout-Nation-Corrupted-Street-Economy/dp/0470520388
It is simply not as new and fangled as you want it to be.
Jack…
I suspect then you are much like John R…
You’ll complain about the government intervention that kept people working and drawing paychecks yet at the same time if these people are out of work…you’d be complaining about high unemployment and what the government ought to do to get people back to work.
Talk about communicating out of both sides of your mouth….go figure.
Not true. I don’t think the government is directly responsible for getting people back to work, but they make policies that make that more or less difficult.
Take oil prices, for example. Most people believe that Obama has nothing to do with the price of gas. Directly, that is true. However, his decision against the Keystone pipeline indirectly affects prices at the pump.
“John R and apparently now you seem to feel that it would be ok to let the auto industry fail…”
The Obama admin. bailout of GM and Chrysler had nothing to do with saving the auto industry and everything to do with saving the UAW.
The auto industry was surviving just fine in South Carolina and other southern right to work states.
Only a very small portion of the private sector work force is unionized and it is decreasing yearly. Obama just wanted that union money and their get out the vote effort. He doesn’t care about the worker, you can see that with his blocking the Canadian pipeline and blocking Boeing in SC. It’s all about his re-election, not the workers.
Jack, please explain how on earth “his decision against the Keystone pipeline indirectly affects prices at the pump“? That simply is not reality from all I have seen. I bet you think Willard will “approve it” on “day one” too don’t you?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/will-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-lower-gasoline-prices/2012/03/01/gIQAtWkXlR_blog.html
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204230001
John R, if Obama walked on water, you would insist it was only because he cannot swim. Many Americans believe the auto bailout was the right thing to do. ESPECIALLY in light of the Wall Street bailouts. What if and speculations is just spilled milk whining IMO. The unions did not get one thing more than Wall Street got, if it was good enough for the perps, it was good enough for the workers.
#32 “…please explain how on earth “his decision against the Keystone pipeline indirectly affects prices at the pump“? That simply is not reality from all I have seen.
It not only affects prices indirectly, but directly. Supply & demand, including the supply & demand of futures contracts (by the way, where is the “manipulation” now when prices are falling?). It also results in loss of jobs and as in Obama’s general policies weakens the dollar. Not only does a weaker dollar buy less gas, but oil is priced in dollars, thus further weakening our buying power. It’s all cumulative (macro 401), but our president either has no understanding of basic economic principles, our flaunts them for social-political purposes.
@Jim Lucas: “…but oil is priced in dollars,…”
This is because the world’s business is done in US dollars. That puts the United States in the unique position of being the only debtor in the entire world that has the ability to print additional money to pay its debts.
If the path we are on continues, no doubt some other countries will get together and collectively decide to do business in a currency other than US dollars. When that happens, we will no longer be able to print money to pay our debts, and we will immediately be ruined.
The pipeline, if approved today, will not be producing crude until 2014. There is no impact on price before then, even if you grant there can be an impact. And Romney, even if he wins, will not be able to approve it on “day one”.
Getting the crude from Canada to the refineries will not lower any price because it is ALL sold on the world market as a commodity, supply is tightly controlled and not by the US. There is no impact on the price, availability or amount of crude from the pipeline project as far as the US market is concerned.
At best you are talking an impact of pennies on a gallon. Hardly a blip and nothing to brag over.
It is not the President who does not understand and it is not the President who offers misleading “facts” on the pipeline and “flaunts them for social-political purposes”.
#33 “John R, if Obama walked on water, you would insist it was only because he cannot swim.”
Pretty much sums up the content of the vast majority of John R’s posts.
#36 So as I read your point, supply has no affect on price & projects that take time to build should be rejected. Now I understand.
reviewing so many of the posts on these stories, it seems indicative of the state of our nation: polarized and bickering. (I freely admit I get pulled in too!) We attack each other’s viewpoints, ideas, and characters. Some attack Obama for everything, others attack Romney for everything.
How do we get past this? How can we focus on advancing America (economically, socially, politically)? Is there anything we can agree on?
#32 Sandi
“…please explain how on earth “his decision against the Keystone pipeline indirectly affects prices at the pump“?”
Sandi doesn’t understand the oil futures market. The speculators are betting on the future supply of oil. If they think the future supply will decrease, they bet the price of oil will go up. If it looks like the future supply will increase, they bet the price will go down.
The futures market is very sensitive and it doesn’t take much to make prices move. Some industries like the airlines buy oil/fuel futures years in advance.
If Obama had the good sense to approve the pipeline tomorow, the futures market would immediately react with a decrease in the price of oil futures.
Remember when Iran was sabre rattling about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. The price of oil went up even though there was no real threat that Iran would actually do it.
P.S. #33 and #37, gdad and Sandi, two kneejerk Obama aplogists critcizing me for constant attacks on Obama! How amusing!
No Jim Lucas, you deliberately don’t understand, but I expected no less. Supply in 2014 might affect prices on the world market but the pipeline does not do so now, nor will it until it is completed. You cannot count the benefits (even if valid) of a project not yet built. Demand is met today and it will be met every day until the pipeline is built or even if it is never built. The world market decides the price today and it will decide the price until the pipeline is built or even it it is never built.
I don’t believe I am the one who does not understand how OPEC and the oil markets work.
Dear E William:
The way we can advance is for ideas to be aired in the market place of empirical thought. There has always been & I suppose will always be strong partisan opinion.
It is my opinion that this exchange has dramatically changed with the emergence of the “progressive” left. It is my observation that they have decided that they have some ad hoc “divine” right to tell others what to do. They revel in the growth of government & the reduction of individual liberty.
The sad irony, IMHO, is that the true leaders of this bunch are power grabbing ego-maniacs who have conned their followers. Thus creating the knee-jerk reactions to all topics & issues.
I consider myself a liberal. But not as defined & practiced today.
#41 “The world market decides the price today and it will decide the price until the pipeline is built or even it it is never built.”
This is completely vacuous. What do you think “the world market” consists of?!
“The world market decides the price[of oil]…” Yes and that market is driven by oil futures speculation.
And that speculation is influenced by total world production and the value of the US dollar as well as weather and geopolitics.
More Canadian production of oil as well as more US production of natural gas would drive the price of oil down. Fall of the euro and rise in the dollar will drive the price of oil up.
Speculation is the process of trying to read those tea leaves!
Romney’s election will drive the price of oil down!
It is only “vacuous” if there was no thought or intellect behind it and I believe you know better than that no matter how much you want it to be so. But since you brought it up, demand is constant, supply is manipulated by OPEC and all of it is sold on the world market to whomever will pay the price set in the commodities market place. That world market consists of all developed and developing countries with money to spend. Do you understand now?
#46 Wrong again, but why stop now. Demand is not constant, this is rediculous on the surface. OPEC does manipulate supply, the supply they have such power over. Which is why we need to develop other sources, including oil from Canada via the pipline. Are you really asserting that the only factors in your “world market” are a “constant” demand & OPEC?
We do agree on one thing, your assertion is vacuous because there is no thought or intellect behind it.
Jim Lucas, do tell us, when was the last time there was no demand for oil? Demand has been constant and growing ever since the rise of China and India. Are you even being serious with anything other than your insults?
I did not say they were the “only factors” in anything. But I know oil, wherever it is produced, goes on the open commodity market and sells for the market price. We cannot develop other sources with the Keystone Oil that is going to refineries and headed for that same world market. Unless you are talking about nationalizing the oil or the pipeline you are not talking substantial jobs, lower prices or even a guaranteed to the US market with the Keystone pipeline.
We agree on nothing, thankfully.
And do not try to play word games and say that demand fluctuations are the same as inconstant demand. That is a favorite tactic of yours and it diminishes your argument IMO.
To #48 (Sandi): If demand is “constant”, it is unchanging. Neither growing nor shrinking. When you state that “demand has been constant and growing ever since the rise of China and India” in #48, you’re claiming two mutually exclusive things simultaneously. Perhaps it’s time for a math class.
For the record, demand moves up and down (i.e., non-constant behavior) in response to a number of different factors, the price of oil and the overall health of the economy being among them. In recent years, demand in the US has actually dropped in recent years, compliments of high gas prices and a struggling economy:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTUPUS2&f=A
Yes….Ms Saunders, when you said; “But since you brought it up, demand is constant,…” I thought you meant demand is constant, silly me. Once again your words not mine.
There are many, many factors that determine oil prices, supply is very much one of them, it is not nor has ever been “contant”. Your suggestion that “the market” is some nebulous entity we have no control over is/was vacuous, and backtracking semantics will not change that.
I suppose I should fall back on “I will admit to not defining my terms accurately“, but that is not the case. Of course, nit picking is de rigueur for my posts, I am well aware.
One definition of constant is “continually occurring or recurring” and that is what I meant. Of course there are fluctuations and variables that affect the demand, but there has been no time in modern history when there was no demand. It is not a real consideration, much less a danger.
Despite your need to insult, we do not “control” the oil market and we never will. If we became independent of any foreign oil tomorrow, the world market would move right along.
And do you REALLY want to talk about “backtracking semantics”?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constant
#52 Like clockwork. Wrong. Wrong again. Called. Called by own words. Indignation routine.
I meant NICS, which the NRA did help institute & has helped to improve since. I never said Brady Bill in my original post. I know the difference between the two & the relationship between them. I admitted my lack of clarity.
I’m not the only one pointing out your “constant” misconception (pun intended). I am critical of your posts because I find them inept & dogmatic. If you can’t stand the heat….etc.
Yes, I am withering under your “heat”. It is not my problem if you or anyone else disputes the meaning of a word I use.
Demand that has never stopped could easily be called “constant”. Just look at Brian’s line on the chart offered. It fluctuates, but it never stops, it is always moving and in most cases grows back whatever it loses. There is no reason to believe it will not do so for the foreseeable future.
And as for “clockwork” that would be the predictability that instead of any argument on issues we have to always turn it into a game of semantics and “gotcha” because you appear to have nothing else. Again, not my fault.
Your disdain is duly noted and feel free to sue me, but you started the semantics game as I predicted you might.
As as outsider looking in, this is what I see.
When talking demand, as in supply and demand, the terms supply and demand have to be treated as analog terms, and not digital, meaning that they are not simply on and off. Knowing that, the phrase “demand is constant” can ONLY mean one thing. In this discussion, saying “demand is constant” would mean that demand is an unchanging value, such as this example, “demand is always 700 barrels a day.” A constantly fluctuating demand, whether it ever goes to zero demand or not, is in no shape or form the same as saying “demand is constant.” I understand the confusion, and I understand why this difference of opinion on what a phrase should mean would lead to the type of discussion that’s happening. When talking business math, the terms supply and demand become analog values, and have to be referred to as such to have a meaningful discussion. You can’t confuse “constant” with “constantly changing” and expect your opinion to make sense.
Semantics have to be important on a message board, and it’s not a bad thing to focus on them. We don’t have facial expressions or other emotions and physical cues to read like we do when talking in person. The semantics have to be precise for each persons’ points to be properly understood, especially when discussing something mathematical in nature such as supply and demand. This is why semantics get nitpicked on message boards, in my little opinion.
As far as this blog’s subject matter re: oil… I’m not getting into who’s right or wrong because I don’t have a clue. I’m not gonna pretend that I have even a sliver of the info required to determine an exact method to lower gas prices.
#55 Thank you sir.
That was enlightening hokie24 and obviously I could have used “analog” demand as easily as “constant”. It is similar to meaning “continually occurring or recurring” apparently.
“analog or analogue (n-lôg) Adjective
Measuring or representing data by means of one or more physical properties that can express any value along a continuous scale. For example, the position of the hands of a clock is an analog representation of time.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analog
Luckily, my pulse is constant too, but it is not an “unchanging value”.
And I am really sorry but this has to end. I am done playing with it.
LOL, don’t you just love team sports?
#58 Your reference to “team sports” is as mis-placed as your posts that precipitated it.
I can assure you of no collaboration. Perhaps something to do with what I spoke to with E Williams, a market of empiricle thought & ideas?
You’ll need to find another rationalization. Could it be you’re just wrong?
Now why would I think there is any “collaboration”? I believe I complimented him on the “empiricle thought & ideas” he brought to the “market”. Sure, it could be I am wrong. Words only mean what you fellas believe they mean.
#43, while I appreciate your response, I respectfully disagree with what you believe has been the cause of the change. In my study of history over the last 30 years, I have found that under the New Right (beginning with Reagan, the Republican party has come to believe they have some ad hoc “divine” right to tell others what to do. They revel in the stratification of wealth & the reduction of individual liberty in favor of corporate power and deregulation of industry.
The sad irony, IMHO, is that the true leaders of this bunch are power grabbing ego-maniacs (Rove, Koch Bros, Cheney, et al.) who have conned their followers, somehow getting blue-collar workers and women to believe they serve their interests.
I am a Liberal, as were most of our Founding Fathers and many of the Enlightenment thinkers from whom The Fathers gathered their ideas and for whom I have much respect. The current Democratic Party is by no means a pure reflection of those ideals, as many of those leaders are also only interested in perpetuating their own positions of power and serving the interests of those who helped them gain power. However, I am still firmly convinced that party serves the core values I hold dear far better than the Republican party. Liberalism built this great country, and will continue to do so.
And so we arrive at an impasse. I am truly dedicated to advancing our country, but I do not believe that we can do that by focusing on vitriolic rhetoric (consider the Obama bashing that goes on here); to criticize his policies is one thing, but to attack his character on baseless claims just seems pointless. I will continue to work to make our country better, and work very hard to stay above the fray, although my human frailties will occasionally pull me into responding to some of the uglier posts with my own sarcasm…sigh. Good Day Sir, may it treat you well.
Well said E William! I agree completely. Thanks!
At the risk of further shattering this new paradigm where you decide what the words I choose mean, I have to ask what on earth you mean when you call yourself a “liberal” Jim Lucas?
The way you respond to ideas “aired in the market place of empirical thought” does not strike me as advancing anything except “strong partisan opinion”.
When is it you believe this “emergence of the “progressive” left” happened? What is it about the progressive message that is more strident than the so called [right wing] or [TEA Party]? Odd that the people who literally invoke God are not those you decry as having “decided that they have some ad hoc “divine” right to tell others what to do”…
Can you explain how wanting a fair tax structure, safety nets and health care is less “divine” than wanting an unfair tax structure and poor houses? Why is “telling” me I have to jump through your hoops to have an abortion, sit through your public prayer, or walk by your religious displays in government schools better than “telling” you that you have to pay your fair share of taxes and that we should all pay for the care of others in society?
When has the government not grown as the nation has? Under what administration has that ever been a reality? I know it is the “ideal” but why is it ONLY an ideal?
What precise “individual liberty” have you lost or had “reduced” because of progressives?
What leader on [the left] has “conned their followers” more than those on [the right]?
In the spirit of comity, I will ignore the oh so obvious fun I could have with
“knee-jerk reactions to all topics & issues”.
What, pray tell, is “liberal” about you?
#61 – 63 I have tried several times to type a somewhat comprehensive reponse to your inquisition (how elequently liberal).
I “hunt & peck” and from several very frustrating experiences have finaly learned to use my word processor then copy/paste, for longer missives. My word processor doesn’t want to acknowledge my right hand margain & takes my text out to cyberspace, losing text on the left. (No pun intended) Does anyone know how to fix?
In short…for now. Liberal comes from the Latin liber for free. Classical liberalism, accelerated by Locke et al, espoused free markets & civil (read, insividual) liberties and “the rule of law” as opposed to tyranical government.
Neo-liberalism or social liberalism has emerged to espouse the state as the solution to all of society’s woes. Free enterprise and individual liberties are considered secondary if not obstacles.
From education & healthcare, to seat belts, helmets, sugar, salt and any ideas that don’t suit their philosphy of telling others what they must say, do & think.
Anyone who disagrees is intolerant, racist or a bigot. Very liberal.
Your queries are quite telling. Sorry I don’t pass the litmus test for your club.
My computer is screwing up here, too. Help!
I’ll be back.
Interesting Jim Lucas. Oddly enough, I consider my own beliefs to be literally “the definition” of liberalism: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
I also more than embrace this: “John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.”
I am always taken aback when anyone accuses me of being a Socialist, Marxist or Communist. I no more want the government to be my ruler than I want the Plutocrats to be. I love the Constitution and our “nation of laws”. I use that phrase like some use “God Bless America”…often.
Why you think that only liberals and progressives are responsible for the myriad laws and regulations on behavior stymies my brain. It is simply not true. Often business and specifically the desire to stifle competition drives regulations. We have long known that lobbyists write laws for instance.
Conservatives (as I pointed out) have the same proclivity for controlling behavior and insisting on indoctrination so why single out progressive for your scorn if that control is the issue?
Sure liberals can be heavy handed too but again tit for tat we can go “one up” on example after example of judicial overreach, government influence, malfeasance, sex scandals, lies, tax fraud, wealth accumulation and any other issue with you having an example of a “bad liberal” and me having one of a “bad conservative”. To what end?
I do support safety net programs for the elderly, orphaned, disabled and unemployed. I DO NOT support handing a check to someone to sorry to work and support themselves.
I do support fairness and equality in the judicial system but I DO NOT support some people getting away with crimes or some receiving harsher punishment.
I do support fair tax laws and everyone paying their part but I DO NOT support rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy or punishing the poor for being poor. I do not believe labor income should be taxed more than investment income, but I do not want either to be taxed so heavily no one wants to do it.
I do support fair and reasonable regulations but I DO NOT support unfair, arbitrary or overly burdensome regulations.
You balk when anyone throws a blanket over you and so do I. Maybe, even though at opposite ends, we have more in common than either of us wants to admit.