Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Matel,

“It is better to be unknown than loved when you are a ruler. I think both parties can find something of themselves in this saying and I would like to hear comments.”

If this doesn’t come off as positive, well, I’m sorry. So anyways, I believe that in the current state of human existance, such a thing would not be possible.

Think about it, what is the system of democracy/republicanism but a popularity contest? By its very nature our election system requires its candidates to seek “love” and get themselves known. You can’t turn a popularity contest this big into something that idealistic.

Jack says:

One request: let’s be positive. Instead of hearing how Democrats/Republicans don’t meet the standards, let’s only hear how they do. We can always imply by our silence and faint praise that the other side doesn’t make the grade.

My reply:

William

Do you mean that for Republicans or Democrats? If you have nothing really positive to say, you can make other comments.

Zeek

I take your point about Democracy, but there are a lot of things government does that need not be grandstanded. I think the politicalization of science (as in NIH) is a good example of a bad thing. Both sides are guilty of this, by the way. And I think the other side of that saying is that government should just stay out of many things in general.

I will volunteer and example of silent government. I live in Fairfax Co. VA and am generally happy with my local government. I know who runs the County, but I don’t think about him. The local government runs the schools well, keeps the streets clean and doesn’t bother me much. I know they are doing a lot of things to support my lifestyle, but I don’t hear about them and don’t care to find out as long as things are going okay.

Across the river is DC. Everybody knows about the local politics there. There is a lot of talk of good politicians and what they are doing for the people. Local politicians lead protests and are well known. The place doesn’t run well (although it is much better under Mayor Williams, who takes a much lower profile, than his predecessors). In fact, as life improves there, politics is becoming less interesting.

The moral, I guess, is the more politics is important in your daily life, the worse your daily life becomes.

Great topic of discussion. Not one I would have expected.

“Of the best rulers, the people only know that they exist; the next best they love and praise; the next they fear and the next they revile. When they do not command the people’s faith, some will lose faith in them, and then they resort to oaths! But of the best when their task is accomplished, their work done, the people all remark, “We have done it ourselves”.”

I believe this quote or theorom from Lao Tzu is directed a bit more towards an autocracy—in other words, one where there is one ruler—be it a king, sultan, or any other monarchy. Having said that, the theory can apply to democracy by applying some edits.

Perhaps “Of the best governments…” could be more aptly descriptive if you stretch a bit to infer that the “people” who only know they exist rule via congress or an elected body. I agree with the idea in principle in that I believe in a more directed government from the “people” rather than by edict.

Interesting topic to be pondered.

This is a great topic (positive remark)

Lets take it one step further and place the context in todays realm of reality.

Look up the word REPUBLIC in most any dictionary. Most likely, you”ll find that a “republic” is a “government of elected representatives”.

This is a deliberate deception.

I have an Enclycopedia Britinacia, 11th edition. This work provides the proper explanation. First it says that the idea that a republic is a government of elected representatives is a “notoriously modern interpretation”. The article continues, explaining that historically, a Republic referred to a government in which the sovereign held authority granted by the people and ruled according to law.

Note that this concept checks exactly with our own Declaration of Independence which states that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people, and that government derives its just powers from the consent of the people.

You now have the key ideas in hand: First, power is derived from the people, and second the government itself operates within and under the control of the law. In other words: In a REPUBLIC the People are the Masters and the government is subordinate.

When the Founding Fathers set our Constitution for us they based their work on this concept. The Constitution is a grant of authority from We the People to form a government. The government thus authorized is a LIMITED government, operating on authority granted from We the People. In every sense it meets the earlier, historical definition of a Republic.

The Constitution is the grant of authority for the government. The Constitution, then, is the Law of the People for the control of the Government.

You will hear many people say that we are a “democracy”. Such was NOT the original intention. In a democracy, the will of the majority is law. Anything is allowed, provided that the majority approves. There are no checks and balances, and the rights of the individual are not protected.

any thoughts?

reed,

I think an important point to note about, “In a REPUBLIC the People are the Masters and the government is subordinate,” is that if you invent the government for the expressed purpose of being weak, it creates problems. Much like our first Constitution (better known as the Articles of Confederation). We were so concerned about making sure the government didn’t have tyrannical powers that we didn’t make it efficient and functional. To completely hamstring a government is just a pitfall you have to look out for in republics (or any other form of government I guess).

You talk as if there are similarities between one form of government and another. The United States Democracy today is nothing more than a giant Spin Machine. Why? Because nobody bothers to care. How many Americans can point Iraq on the Map? How many know which Oceans border the US? How many know the name of their Congressmen? How many believe Iraq did 9/11?

When you are this ignorant, you fall victim to the best con artist selling the “Magic Medicine”. This is what we have now.

The best American president’s never lose sight of the fact that they are actually supposed to be working for We the People — ALL of US! Not just on behalf of their own rich, elite social class. (Now who does that sound like? I’m sure we all know.)
If they’re not willing to work for the good of all, and are unable to add polish to our reputation around the world, then they usually go down in US history as terrible presidents.

“Not just on behalf of their own rich, elite social class.”

I am disappointed in you, Adrienne. You forgot to add the Religious Right!!!

Where to begin? Positive? That’s kind of like running a positive campaign….it’s not very much heard of these days; at least on the federal level.

Positive…Okay, I’ll try my best.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the ruin of our country as their goal. They only have different ideas of how much government should be involved (and that depends on what issue is addressed; some issues the Dems want more government other issues the Repubs want more).

SOME of our elected representative can agree to disagree….I think that’s positive.

Both sides agree that excessively large federal deficits are not a “good” thing.

Both sides want our children to inherit a better place than we have grown up in and both sides want our children to be better educated.

Being left leaning myself I suppose I should talk about some the “quiet” good that the democratic party is doing. At present this party is very unorganized, but they do have some big ideas…I’m just not sure they have a plan to implement them. Preserving social security is both sides aim…their most recent idea of increasing the $90K cap on taxing social security isn’t so bad as it seems. The idea of national health care is great….if someone could come up with an idea of how to pay for it (if it could be tied with something that’s earned that might help…it wouldn’t be a give-away). The democrats have become the fiscally conservative party in congress…”pay-as-you-go”…imagine that. This is the party of war as a last resort….exhuast all diplomatic options first.

Sure, both parties have problems…mainly career polititians….but, they aren’t out to ruin the country.

All that being said….I would like to state that I don’t belong to any “organized” political party………no siree…..I’m a democrat!

“Should the President have his own parking place?”

A long time ago, my roommate & I argued this topic. What makes a good ruler? In my opinion, a good president is not a ruler in the first place. We Americans do not have a ruler. The president serves ‘we the people,’ at the pleasure of the people. He should not even have his own parking place, but drive his own (armored) car and park it, just like most people do. In the spirit of egalitarianism, he (or someday, she) might take turns with the Secret Service agents, but the point remains the same.

His time is no more valuable than your time or mine. Being president is a job, & it should be a humble one, with no overtones of royalty or imperial bearing.

Managerial problems involving time management would be worked out, I’m sure.

But if the president didn’t have his own parking place, the richest people might not be willing to run for the office! They’re not used to parking their own cars! People accustomed to power, and to having others do their bidding, why, those people might not run for office!

Very true.

I reject the idea of an imperial presidency, regardless of political affiliation. I reject the idea that I have a ‘ruler.’

A president should not even have his or her own parking place!

phx8,

I couldn’t agree more!!!

Heh. Nice Fantasy.

Unfortunately not only does the President get his parking space, he also must have inherited his wealth. He must belong to a select few Families who have been “Upper Crust” for generations. He must have graduated from the same schools. Most importantly, he must never have lived independent of his family!!!

Ironically enough, Bill Clinton was the first President in decades who did not fit the above criteria.

…When they do not command the people’s faith, some will lose faith in them, and then they resort to oaths!

Let’s see. What does that remind me of…

Interesting Lao Tzu passage, but I’m not sure how relevent it is. As someone pointed out, we’re not a monarchy. Since our leader is (almost) directly elected by the people, the “We have done it ourselves” feeling should be omnipresent - or rather the “We have done it to ourselves” feeling, anyhow. :)

Using “Of the best rulers, the people only know that they exist” as a criterea for the President of the United States seems to make Benjamin Harrison the best POTUS ever.

Ooops! That was me, AP. ;)

Jack,

If we had a silent rulers, what would we talk about?

Adrienne at April 25, 2005 10:05 PM
“Not just on behalf of their own rich, elite social class.”

Thanks, that describes the DNC to a perfect “T”. Only they have the wisdom to know which class should be represented. And only there class should count. I wonder how the really rich, elite social class of the DNC feels about who they are to represent. Surely not old Mr. Byrd from W.Va. Or how about old Kennedy, wonder if they every did anything they should have went to jail for like manslaughter or cross burning. Let’s see why is old Byrd in W.Va. Because he could not get elected anywhere else but in a place where racism is rampart and a place where people like this type of leader. You can take a bed sheet off your head, but it still remains in the soul. Some things are not forgotten or given up; they are only buried deeper and hidden better. They are “still there”.

If you want to make a difference in the DNC then stop and talk to the people and hear what they say, and not what you want to hear. The DNC has lied to the masses for so long that the masses have found the truth out. It’s not equality the DNC desires or what is even best, what the DNC desires is to dictate to the masses what is good for them while at the same time having a completely different set of values and standards for the DNC leadership. And if you do not belong to the DNC then you are just a bunch of Dumb A—, Red Neck, Church Going, Ultra Right jerks with no rights to anything when it comes to the government.

And yet the DNC wonders why they Lost the Last Elections, it’s not that hard to understand. It’s as simple as “the people do not want you”. Now all you have to do is figure out whom those people are and get them to vote for you. This is a lot harder than you think when all you hear is your own words and not what the masses say.

Remember Thoreau “The government is best which governs least.”

I was curious if this attribution was right, so I looked it up. Looks it was Thomas Jefferson and/or Thomas Paine. Probably just a common sentiment of the day.

But more to the point, if you really believe that I am sure you oppose the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Iraq War (or is remodeling other countries part of governing “least”)?

Aldous:
“I am disappointed in you, Adrienne. You forgot to add the Religious Right!!!”

In my opinion they’re just using that segment for their votes. I don’t really think they give a rats ass about them when it comes making policy.
Getting a judiciary that will strike down Roe vs Wade is just throwing the Religious Right a bone. After all, in their rich elite world, a woman will always be able to get a safe, doctor-assisted abortion whether it’s “legal” or not .

Paw Paw,

Now your calling democrats racist. Thats odd. Which party is more diverse? Lets take a look at a little history. Before 1964 the south were made up of southern democrats commonly called dixiecrats - Strom Thurmon actually ran for president on this ticket in 1948. Lyndon Johnson was a democratic president back then. 1964 is a special date because it did more for african americans in this country than any other bill since the emancipation proclamation in 1865. Why is this special, it the date of the civil rights act which Johnson signed into law. The dixiecrats were pretty racists back then and were so offended by this act that they switched parties to the republicans and now we have a strong southern republican demographic. They are the same people.

If Byrd were running in my state, I would surely vote against him since he is/was a racist.

I’m not sure why the race card was even brought up under this topic. That sounds like another thread topic.

The smaller the government the better it governs.
Or another way of saying it “The government that has the lest power over its citizens governs best.”

Some of you make the good point that this saying is best applied to a monarchy, especially since it uses the term ruler. But there is a little more context. It quotation comes from the Book of the Tao. It is all about finding the way of nature. If you find the proper way to do things, doing things is almost effortless. I have thought of this saying in personal matters. If you appoint the right person to the job, you don’t have to give him/her detailed instructions, since they will act according to their natures.

There is such a thing as human nature. It is complicated and nuanced, and the manifestations vary over places, cultures and times, but if you figure out what works with this nature, your work will be effortless. Going against it can be done, but it is costly and difficult. The old saying that “you can train a dog to walk on his hind legs, but why should you?” applies here.

Some people see this as an excuse to do nothing. Let it be. I apply it (probably incorrectly to purists) in the opposite way. You can affect great changes IF you figure out and work with the way of nature (lay of the land, whatever term you want) AND if you don’t care who gets the credit. Because it really is true that if you manage to make a really profound change in this way, the people do say that they did it all themselves (or the change was inevitable.)

Woody

Thoreau did make the quote in the form I used, but you are right that it was a common sentiment. I agree that government should get involved only where it is needed and not everywhere it can. I have some concerns about both the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, but in both cases most people agree that there is a problem and only the Feds can solve it. Extending the government’s power into GOOD causes is how people lose their liberty, as the government grabs more than we intended. Other good examples of overreaching laws are the Endangered Species Act, the ADA, and the prescription drug benefit. In all three cases they were enacted with broad support to solve problems that were serious, but they went too far when their powers were extended.

Adrienne

I disagree that the politicians don’t give a rats ass about the causes they are advocating. I have always been surprised how idealistic politicians can be. This is not a good thing, necessarily. Those that are not true believers can make compromises. That is precisely the problem with the abortion debate. We have nut case extremists on both sides and they run the show.

Remember this: Hitler was not a practical man. He was an idealist. A practical man never would have done the things he did. Most of his close followers were also true believers. Goebbels’ wife killed her own children to spare them the fate worse than death – i.e. living in a world without National Socialism. This is the act of an idealist. We are all better off with people who are a little less idealistic and can compromise.

If you folks think that our “elected” representatives aren’t elite let’s see how things work once one gets elected. Pension for life, healthcare for life, special treatment while if office, gifts showered from PAC groups, favors given and favors taken (power trip). I think most of us realize our “elected” representatives are elite. The thing is, we pay for their lifestyle. Benjamin Franklin was opposed to our elected representatives receiving any form of payment. I’m not sure I’ll go that far but its beginning to look better each year.

As far as the DNC goes….do you honestly think the RNC is any better? ALL of these folks are elite and on a power trip. It boils down to “how do we remain in power?”.

As you may have noticed I put the word elected in quotaions. Why? Redistricting. Each time a party obtains power, and following a census, a redistricting occurs. It doesn’t matter which party is in power…it occurs. The party in power tends to benefit the most, making sure to draw district lines with a voting population that aligns itself with one party or other. AGAIN, it’s a power trip.

You don’t think we have rulers? You are wrong. You don’t think our rulers are an elite class? You are wrong.

How can we change? Stop voting party lines. People will vote party before they vote for an individual. That goes for the dems and repubs. George Washington was strongly opposed to politidcal parties. He thought it would be the ruin of the nation. It obviously hasn’t…at least not yet. But the gulf widens and the country divide grows wider as well. I have voted for Reagan, Bush Sr, Perot, Clinton, Gore, and then Kerry. Why? I had reasons for each vote (some more wise than others, but hind-sight is 20-20). My point is that everyone fears if they vote for a person then a party will take control that they don’t agree with. I have seen the Republican party become even more intoxicated with power than the democrats were at one time. They wish to strong arm their agenda with an in-your-face attitude….all the way to the courts. Please! We have checks and balances for a reason. 200 judges appointed, 20 unconfirmed….yet, they “want it all”. This is what is driving me from the republican party…compounded by the fact that they have no sense of a balanced budget or the effects of budget deficits.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame everything on one party or the other. I don’t see eye-to-eye on every issue with either party. I do tire of watching a majority party get “power intoxication” so quickly. It turned me off from the democratic party at one time as they strong-armed the minority. Payback time? Get real! Be the bigger man (or party).

Okay, we didn’t stay positive very long….sorry

Remember this: Hitler was not a practical man. He was an idealist. A practical man never would have done the things he did. Most of his close followers were also true believers. Goebbels’ wife killed her own children to spare them the fate worse than death – i.e. living in a world without National Socialism. This is the act of an idealist. We are all better off with people who are a little less idealistic and can compromise.

I couldn’t agree with you more on this point, Jack. The older I get, the less I trust ideology and idealism (which are basically the same thing). When I was in college I learned about Plato’s belief that no one knowingly does evil. A rather simplistic idea, to be sure, but the older I get the more wisdom I see in it. The most harm is done by people with the best intentions. A lone sadist may kill a few people, but it is the idealists who harm people by the millions. I’m sure a lot of conservatives agree with me, but that side of the political spectrum is hardly immune. Neoconservatism is very idealistic.

One issue I have consciously tried to avoid ideology on is Social Security privatization. I’m still not sure that it is a good idea, but I’m not going to conclude that it is a bad idea until someone gives me a good, non-hysterical reason.
(On the flip side, I do firmly support a universal, single-payer healthcare system, both for humanitarian and practical reasons.)

Reed-

Your history lesson on the Dixiecrats is a little off, although I do see that you put their third party attempt correctly in 1948. Certainly Truman’s reelection was divisive, as the progressives also left the party that year and ran Henry Wallace against him. But that was the only time the Dixiecrat Party ever existed, and most returned to the Democratic Party (save Thurmond and a few others who had burned their bridges).

The defection of the South actually occurred much later than the ’60s and long after the Dixiecrats. Remember, in 1972 George Wallace ran as a Democrat. In 1978, the Democratic Party held the Whitehouse and both houses, plus most of the governorships and State houses. Look at a map of 1978 and you will see nothing but blue down in Dixie.

While Nixon coined the phrase “Southern Strategy” it was Ronald Reagan who carried out with perfection. Reagan changed the party of Lincoln by highlighting ideological differences (conservative verses liberal) instead of the Democrat favoring socio-economic differences (labor and workers verses Wall Street and Corporate America). By doing so he completely changed the demographics of both parties, and changed the balance of power nationwide from the Democratic Party to the Republican.

And both parties are still struggling with the consequences. The progressives feel that they are now the real face of the Democratic Party, while the social conservatives assume that their reward for bringing the GOP to power is control. The moderate to socially conservative former Democrats like me are somewhat stuck in the middle. I completely reject the progressive agenda and will not go back to a progressive dominated Democratic Party, and yet the GOP is abandoned most of my championed causes like limited government, more state and local governance, and fiscal responsibility.

Clinton’s “New Democrat†worked at some level, and many in the South voted for him during his first election. I didn’t because I didn’t think he was sincere, but had he kept his zipper closed I would consider him one of the better Presidents.

Which leads me to ask you, could Clinton win the Democratic nomination again given his voting record? NAFTA, Defense of Marriage, and pro Iraq war?

In a democracy the people decide directly all things. For instance, the people would vote directly on a proposal designed to be law. The majority would carry the day. In a republic there are representatives voting to carry out the desires of the people. That is what the design is for a democracy and a republic. It quite often doesn’t work that way.
Religious Right. What is that? It simply is a cliche for somebody to use as they please. If there is religious right then there is a religious left. Religion has nothing to do with God, church, heaven or hell. Religion is how one treats the values in their life. It is an attitude. A football fan can be religious about his/her favorite team. An astronomer can be religious in pursuit of star study. A drug addict can be religious about his/her bag of grass. One can be elitist and would be religiious.
Republicans today are where the Democrats were 30 years ago. The Democrats were liberal then and still are. The Republicans were less liberal but have now become liberal. Norman Thomas the perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate said it best when in the 60’s he said the Democrats have out socialized the socialists. No political party today is living up the the constitution and its provisions.

Yes Woody

I always figure there is an excellent chance I am wrong in the details of what I believe and a fair chance that I am wrong in the overall direction. But I always remember the fact that an airplane crossing the Atlantic is “off course” most of the time. Course corrections and applications of intelligent get it to the right place most of the time.

On the other hand, in order to accomplish anything important a leader has to be enthusiastic and certain of his goal. Otherwise people won’t follow. It is a contradiction. Maybe that is why actors like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger make such attractive politicians. I just remember the practical man’s wisdom:

Either be sincere or fake sincerity, and although you may often be wrong never be in doubt. But remember not to take yourself too seriously. Since I did Thoreau, I will also do Emerson, “Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”

George,

I guess I misspoke and made it sound like the dixiecrats jumped ship in one fell swoop but I believe that was a turning point in the south. Jimmy Carter did well in the south in 1976 because he was FROM the south and connected with southern religious voters and also was running against Gerald Ford. I will guarantee that if a northerner would have run on the democratic ticket in 1976, he would have lost the south badly. Thats all speculation on my part of course.

Although, I do appreciate being corrected when my facts are wrong. Thanks

Reed

Correlation is not causality. You have a lot of other things going on at the same time.

There is a lot of talk of the South defecting BECAUSE of civil rights. Some Democrats did become Republicans, but most did not. The South gradually changed in its voting patterns over the next twenty years. During that same time, you saw Republican states such as Wisconsin and Vermont become mostly Democrat.

It is true that for almost 100 years after the Civil War, many Southerner stuck to the Democratic Party because of their traditions (some racist traditions) and in the 1960s the Democrats stopped being the party of their traditions. That clearly began to shake them lose from the Democrats, but it doesn’t follow that the Republicans just took up the same formerly Democratic traditions. Those Jim Crow traditions are gone. Nobody of any consequence believes in them anymore. Depending on how you figure it, two generations have passed since that time.

It is true that most of the racist policies we read about in the history books were created and perpetuated by Democrats, but that tells you little or nothing about the Democrats of today. It is also true that when these traditions were broken, many former Democrats moved to the Republican Party, but that tells you little or nothing about the Republican Party today. We should study history, but nobody should be bound by it.

We like to look back at culture as an unbroken thread, but it is not. Not only do people change their opinions and habits, but they also die and are replaced by others. Culture and tradition are in that way just copied onto new people. Differences creep in until they are no longer the same things, despite the same names. It is even more the case when there are radical changes. The past is a different country. It resembles ours and there are continuities, but never are they as direct as they seem.

No problem Reed. I guess my longwinded response was just to say that the South turning red was not just about race.

And it might surprise you, but I knew Strom personally (like many around here) and don’t believe he was particularly racist. Most of the African Americans in SC would probably tell you the same.

The problem is that it takes so much money to run an effective campaign that you have to be rich to pull it off. I doubt any President in the last 100 years ran for president for the paycheck, or would have refused to run if there were no paycheck.

The true rewards for being President far outweigh the salary. Power is more valuable than money.

George,

I totally agree with your sentiments. I know that the south is more than just race. I just don’t like the race card in politics any more than the GOD card and was trying to point out some observations of mine. I would say your opinion of Strom is more valid than mine. I just base opinions of what I hear and read.

Jack,

Those Jim Crow traditions are gone. Nobody of any consequence believes in them anymore.

I believe both parties could learn from this sentiment. I hope it is true. It is also my observation (right or wrong) that the civil rights act helped break this tradition.

Jack:
“I disagree that the politicians don’t give a rats ass about the causes they are advocating.”

Oh, I agree — its just exactly WHAT our current leaders truly give a rats ass about that I am calling into question.
So let me be very precise: I do not believe that our current leaders authentically care when it comes to the Religious Right — BUT they know that these people’s well-organized agenda is to control the country and install their brand of morality as the law of the land, therefore, due to the convenience of pairing these religious goals with their own TRUE goals (catering to the wealthy elites of their own social class), they have managed to garner many more votes for their party while simultaneously furthering their actual agenda.
But when one looks closely at what these men do, one can see the raw edges of the disconnect quite clearly.
For instance (and I could give you plenty of other such examples), they pay lip service to the “culture of life” knowing full well those words toss fire upon the zeal of the Religious Right — and yet, Bush sent more people to their executions than any other governor in modern history, including those who were mentally retarded. And he has done nothing to alleviate the crisis of our healthcare situation — something obviously much more closely tied to the “culture of life”, yes? Or didn’t try to broker a better deal for prescription drugs, but instead let Big Pharma dictate the prices we will pay. Or cut the medical benefits of our soldiers, etc. etc.
Take the the Shiavo case — we saw Delay grandstanding after he himself had previously agreed to having his own father’s plug pulled in the exact same circumstance. And we saw Frist doing likewise, even though he routinely pulled the plug on such patients during his own medical career. This kind of hypocrisy is rampant among the Neocon’s (though not, it seems to me, among those I consider traditional Republican’s).

You spoke of true believers — and I absolutely feel our current leaders are — not about religion (although they are extremely eager to use that to their advantage whenever convenient), but about protecting the interests and furthering the goals of their own wealthy social class.
This is nothing new, of course. Robber Baron’s always ride roughshod over the middle class and the poor whenever they’ve been given even half a chance — and certainly this isn’t just an American phenomenon, but has always been true the whole world over.

“Those that are not true believers can make compromises. That is precisely the problem with the abortion debate. We have nut case extremists on both sides and they run the show.”

Well, call me a nut case extremist if you will, but I don’t think what happens between a woman’s legs when she’s in her doctor’s office is anyone’s business but her own. Nor do I think her personal moral decisions should be allowed to fall under the heading of things to be voted upon by the nation’s general population.

(Sigh) Ah well, sorry I couldn’t be more positive, but I’d rather give you an honest reply than a bunch of happy-phony BS.

Ryan,

“The government that has the lest power over its citizens governs best.”

I would say that is an incorrect interpretation of Thoreau. The point is really more that the government should have less tyrannical powers. That doesn’t mean, however, that by taking away government power you are enabling it to govern better.

Reed

Absolutely the civil rights laws helped break the racist tradition. They were necessary, but not sufficient.

Zeek

The founding fathers made a very precise definition between tyranny and usurpation. Tyrannical powers are those that nobody ought by rights to have and usurpation are those that somebody might have but not the person (or entity) who has taken them. Governments and leaders can be guilty of both. We more easily recognize the tyrannical powers, but the usurpation can be more dangerous because it is stealthy. If you let government run your life, it will gladly run your life. At first it might be good, maybe even a more just situation, but that doesn’t last long.

Thoreau was a walking contradiction, so it is hard to figure out exactly what he might have meant, but the interpretation that government should have the minimum power needed to carry out its duties is a good general interpretation.

Adrienne

I think you overestimate the greed and cohesion among rich people. A good number of the super rich are liberals. Some of the highest paid people in the U.S. are entertainers, and if you subtract Mel Gibson, the late James Stewart and a few others, they are almost all liberals.

Besides, the secret of tax codes is that the rich tend to pay more when the highest brackets are lower and they have fewer places to hide their money. In 1979 (before the Reagan tax cuts) the richest .1% paid 5.06% of all taxes and the richest 20% paid 58.28%. Today it is 9.52% and 67.47% respectively. The poorest 20% paid 1.22% back in 1979 and only .65% today. That includes the payroll tax (SS). I know you like links. So the politicians would not be doing a very good job of protecting their class interests.

Re abortion, there has to be room to compromise. The whole issue is a lot like religion on both sides. When President Clinton said it should be safe, legal and rare, he spoke to all the aspects. Right now it has unusual protections. When my daughter had her wisdom teeth pulled (they call it surgery) I not only had to sign some papers, I had to come to the office with her and show identification. It just makes sense for parents to care for their minor children. If she wanted an abortion (they also call that surgery) she could do it all on her own. A little consistency is all I ask for in this case.

I do like links Jack, but I’m afraid I’m unwilling subscribe to the Wall Street Journal to look at the one you’ve put up. And I’m not sure I’d be believing it anyway. :^) Maybe you know of an Independent source (and a free one) that would back up whatever that was?

As for teens getting abortions without parental consent, I can certainly understand your feelings, however, all I can think of is a friend I had in highschool whose Irish Catholic father (who was also the chief of police in her town) beat the bloody hell out of her after finding out that not only was she having sex, but that she’d also had an abortion (one of his officers saw her leaving the abortion clinic). So, I guess you could say I can definitely see both sides of that argument — and I don’t have an easy answer to give.

Define “governs least”. I’d have to say this Administration has failed, as have other Republican Administrations of late.

Truth is, there is a corollary of quality there: the government that can govern the least and still govern well is the best kind of government. This is not merely a question of size, but also of efficiency.

Alas, the Republlican solution is to govern least by failing to govern, failing to enforce, and covering things up when they fail to do the job right. Meanwhile, they overextend themselves when circumstances demand that they lay down the law, doing little better than their stereotypical liberal in keeping government from interfering in people’s private affairs.

The Republicans need to stop thinking with bumper-stickers, and start thinking of ways to deal with our problems in the real world. I know the political consultants have taken you on a ride to the top, but if you guys want to stay there, y’all have to stop worrying so much about political ascendancy, and start getting the everyday business done.

I did a google search and found the CBO report re. It is at this link

You have to sort through all the numbers, but they seem to be the same ones. WSJ aggregated them and translated everything into today’s dollars and tax rates.

Re abortion

In the abortion debate, we can always think of worst case scenarios. Yours is worst case. Beating the crap out of your kid is against the law. We could well apply those criteria to anything that might promote such illegal behavior. Some kids are abused when they bring home bad grades, should we also withhold this information?

Abortion is something that can cause a woman to feel guilt and regret for the rest of her life. Maybe a fourteen-year-old girl needs to talk to someone who loves her, even if that talk will be uncomfortable for everyone involved. Of course, she will want to avoid the confrontation and she will believe the worst. But she may find she has the family support to have the baby. Or she may find support for having the abortion and her parents can take some of the responsibility off her young shoulders. Most parents love their children and want to do what is best for them. And kids make bad decisions. That is why we don’t let them have oral surgery, buy a car, rent an apartment or many other things without the consent of their parents. The only big thing they can do is have an abortion.

The choice is ultimately up to the woman, but it is not hers alone to make. Even if you don’t believe that the fetus is a baby, it certainly is a potential son, daughter, sister, brother or grandchild. There are a lot of people with a stake in that decision.

Jack,

“Some kids are abused when they bring home bad grades, should we also withhold this information?”

Oh, please, the controversy is nowhere near the same. Parents are far more liable to freak if they find out their daughter got pregnant rather than if she got a bad grade. I guarantee you that if you ask parents whether they would prefer a bad grade or an unexpected pregnancy, they would want their child to have the bad grade.

“Even if you don’t believe that the fetus is a baby, it certainly is a potential son, daughter, sister, brother or grandchild. There are a lot of people with a stake in that decision.”

This is true. Which is exactly why such decisions should not be made in haste, but how can we control that? All that we can control is whether or not abortions are legal.

Stephen,

“The Republicans need to stop thinking with bumper-stickers, and start thinking of ways to deal with our problems in the real world.”

Don’t get me wrong, those bumber-stickers are the bane of my driving experience, but you can’t say the Republicans are alone in this kind if useless politicking. Democrats can be just as useless as Republicans can; it just so happens that right now there’s nothing for them to bull-shit about.

However, I remember the Native Americans used to be pretty big on the liberal media, and the liberals BSed the hell outta that without ever actually helping the Native Americans.

…the liberals BSed the hell outta that without ever actually helping the Native Americans.

You mean like Tom DeLay?

“Ironically enough, Bill Clinton was the first President in decades who did not fit the above criteria.”

Really, Aldous? How about Reagan?

Reagan was a great example of what Jack was describing. Opponents complained that Reagan was lazy, but at the same time, both parties considered him one of the best presidents ever. He was a master of delagation. And both the rich and the poor got richer under Reagan.

What Jack described holds very true for 90% of leadership in the real world. Unfortunately it may not be quite the same in the public spotlight of government, where most things are seen and reported.

Jack,
Your info was too confusing for me to attempt to wade through.
This is much easier to look at.

You wrote:
Re: Republican�s
�So the politicians would not be doing a very good job of protecting their class interests.�

It is to laugh!!!
I wonder if you think I�m a complete idiot when you say things like this?
Since Bush has entered the Whitehouse, it has been nothing but new tax deductions, credits and exclusions for the wealthiest American�s. Two weeks ago the Republican majority in the House passed legislation to permanently repeal the federal estate tax by a wide margin. As we speak, the estate and gift tax is under assault in the Senate — and we all know it will be repealed and stand as the crowning achievement of Bush�s enormous tax cuts for his own pampered social class.
The increasing favor toward income received by the wealthiest has come mainly in the form of capital gains and dividends — it began with Clinton and has been rapidly escalating (practically once a month, it seems) since Bush took office. If I may paraphrase John Edwards, it is the evolution of the income tax into a wage tax, shifting the federal tax burden from wealth to work.
You know this and I know this — so don�t expect me to somehow believe that the wealthiest American�s aren�t getting special treatment with the Republican�s charge — because I ain’�t buying that for a second.

Adrienne

I don’t know what you mean. According to the figures you sent me the picture is even clearer. On your figures, the top quintile pay 85% of all Federal income tax and 70.5% of all taxes (including payroll etc). This is even more than my figures.

The poorest quintile pays only .3% of the tax and the poorest 40% pay only 2.9% ALL TOGETHER.

So the rich pay for almost all the costs of the government and they pay a greater part now than they did in 1979 (before Reagan’s cuts). This is how it should be, but it is really hard to see how this is oppression on the part of the Feds, George Bush or anyone else.

Taxes!!! I’m ready for the next thread on taxes as I’ve done my estimate of my 2004 total tax liability! It came as no real surprise that I pay more in SS and Medicare taxes (when the employer match is included) than I do in all other taxes combined! And that includes my heavy gasoline tax bill…..

“they pay a greater part now than they did in 1979 (before Reagan’s cuts).”

Jack, what the hell are you talking about? Right now people earning over half a million dollars a year are subject to the lowest tax rate in more than 50 YEARS.
BTW, I noticed that you conveniently did not reply to the comments I just made about how those same people aren’t getting taxed at all on their unearned income.

We are looking at two different things. I believe that the percentage that someone pays of the total is more important than the rate they are paying. If you and I go out to eat and you pay 90% of the bill, I really can’t complain that you have so much more money in your wallet. And if today you pay 90% and yesterday you paid only 80%, I can’t say that you are paying less.

Capital gains on dividends distorts the way firms operate and how they take on debt. It encourages them to invest in less profitable ventures in order to raise the stock price instead of distributing it as dividends because of the tax treatment. It also can result in someone being taxed when they have actually lost money. For example, the market was down in 2000. If you had an investment in a firm whose stock price went from $100 to $50. Since many people reinvest the dividends, you could have a stock value total of $55. You lost $45. However if that firm paid a dividend of $5, you would pay taxes on that.

Dividends and capital gains are taxed, although at a lower rate under the new laws.

You might want to soak the rich, but you are also soaking those who have modest incomes and just hope to become rich. As per the old Polish saying, the law is like a spider web. The little flies get caught, but the big bird flies right through. Another thing you might think about is that the super rich tend to have a lot of their portfolio in tax free bonds. You can’t get at them with a capital gains tax unless you change constitutional precedent (I think it is McCulloch v. Maryland from 1819)

Besides, we have a corporate income tax. The money the firm makes is taxed already. From that AFTER TAX income, the firm pays dividends. It is double taxation.

You may be willing to create economic distortions that in the medium and long run make the economy work less well and so make us all poorer, but you need to recognize what you are proposing. Studies have shown that lowering the capital gains tax (which began under Clinton) has the effect of creating more, not less tax revenue, because it fosters a better use of capital. So we all can pay a lower tax rate. The question is, is the pleasure derived from soaking the rich sufficient compensation for making even the poor pay more in taxes?

Jack, I’m just going to let Warren Buffett answer you — twice.
Sorry, but I feel I should take his word over yours.

Warren Buffet doesn’t contradict what I wrote. He is of the opinion (and it is a valid one) that he should pay more in taxes and so should his colleagues. He also advocates in the article that we cut the SS payroll tax. That is also a valid position. But it is his opinion about what he thinks is good and bad, not a judgment on the tax itself. Buffet, as I am sure you know, is a liberal financier. I have great respect for him, but he is what he is and his opinions reflect that.

We are still on the difference between tax rate and total tax. Warren Buffet is talking about tax rate, which he thinks should be higher. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about total percentage of the tax bill paid by various income groups. The two are not contradictory.

There is an interesting thing that happens to rich people. You think they are greedy, but my experience is that they are actually less greedy than average income people once they have had money for a while. It is very noble for Warren Buffet to advocate paying more of his money for capital gains. Since he has billions of dollars, he will pay a lot but it won’t affect his fortune. Some “poor” guy with a portfolio of $100,000 needs that money to build his fortune so that he won’t be dependent on the government should he have a reversal of fortune.

Jack,

“There is an interesting thing that happens to rich people. You think they are greedy, but my experience is that they are actually less greedy than average income people once they have had money for a while.”

First off, the term “greedy” here is being horribly misused. If we term the word “greedy” to mean excessive desire, then how does one go about defining what is excessive? Don’t we all want a lot of the nice things money can buy? What’s so wrong about that? The tricky thing is that if your desires (greed) are not tempered with self-control and sensibility, it will become self-destructive and potentially harmful to those around you.

Second, to say that rich people have their thirst for money satiated after having it for awhile is ridiculous. Some people find contentment, and some don’t. You can’t ignore the swaths of megalomaniacs out there whose sole quest in life is to amass capital. Again, you need to be specific because generalizations simply don’t work here (it’s like generalizing poor people).

“Some ‘poor’ guy with a portfolio of $100,000 needs that money to build his fortune so that he won’t be dependent on the government should he have a reversal of fortune.”

Bush’s tax cuts don’t help this “poor” guy so much as it helps corporate America and the super elite. So, basically your example lends itself to a steeper progressive tax.

Zeek

Helping corporate America helps the guy with the $100,000 portfolio if he owns stocks (and if he doesn’t he will never have more than that size portfolio).

The Bush tax cut have saved this guy a couple thousand a year. This is not the big bucks of those that have big bucks, but it is enough to help him build his nest egg in the time of his working life. Take a look at some of the compounding charts and see how such things can add up over a lifetime.

Jack,

“Helping corporate America helps the guy with the $100,000 portfolio if he owns stocks (and if he doesn?t he will never have more than that size portfolio).”

Do not give me that bull-shit. OK, Haliburton’s stock did ok for awhile, but that’s just because it’s an oil company. Other than that, no big corporation that benefited from Bush’s tax cuts did anything in the way of paying dividends. To think that the stock prices themselves benefit from this just goes to show how little you know about stocks.

Thus, all your subsequent conclusions are irrelevant.

The tax cuts stimulated the economy and helped stocks recover after the dips of 2000-2001. I have been investing in stocks for twenty-five years and do all right. I don’t know much about them, but I guess I have been lucky.

I bet you know a lot more about the theories involved.

Which tax cuts, Jack? According to everything I’ve seen and heard from Greenspan and the CBO, the cuts that had the most significant effect were the end of the marriage penalty, the child tax credits, and the extension of the 10% bracket - all of them Democrat-proposed cuts. And all of which were unanimously extended last year.

The other three quarters of the tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthy did nothing to stimulate the economy.

Also, the stock market is not a good indicator of the strength of the economy.

Could I ask you a question, Jack? When did those first tax cuts come into effect? And isn’t a reliance on tax cuts to improve the economy a poor subsitute for innovation and better business practices? I think we could reap far greater rewards in the long run from having corporate finance valued transparently, than by deficit-bloating tax-cuts. If people are better able to trust the stockbrokers and companies about what investments are good and not, then people will be far more willing to take the kinds of risks that keep an economy robust. Otherwise people get too careful and too hidebound.

Stephen

I frequently don’t disagree with you. I am an investor. It is important for me to trust my broker and trust in the reliability of reports. (I trust, but verify). The government is a lousy innovator. Of course the wealth of the country depends on the cleverness of its people and the innovation of its firms. The best thing the government can do is regulate lightly and manage micro business almost not at all.

Tax cuts are useful stimulus. I am not in love with cuts, but do believe that government can grow to any size to swallow any amount of tax we are willing to pay and taxes will creep up over time. That is why we need to cut taxes.

An interesting “new” tax is the alternative minimum tax. A lot of us are going to be paying that very soon (if you haven’t already). That is a stealth tax rise, for example. Eventually it will need to be remedied with a tax cut.

AP,

“Also, the stock market is not a good indicator of the strength of the economy.”

You have to be kidding me… What better indicator than the stock market exists?

You’re being sarcastic, right?

Jack-
The question that I posed before stands, though perhaps I should reformulate it: can the tax cuts really take credit for economic expansion, or are they simply a Johnny-come-lately factor in the recovery of business?

I don’t want 70’s style tax rates. I certainly don’t want the government getting too grabby. But I think it’s also undesirable to cut taxes simply on principle. It’s like maxing out your credit cards on principle. It’s instant gratification at the price of crippling debt. Were debt not a problem, taxes would not be a problem for me. But as we are running a half billion dollar deficit, with the politicians unwilling to seriously cut spending (and in some senses unable to, with the war and the entitlements), higher taxes may be the only sensible, if unpleasant option.

You may complain about spending being increased to fit the taxes being paid out, but I’d point out to you that the divorce of spending discipline from tax reduction has meant that tax cuts are not functioning well as a brake on new spending. We need to recognize the need to raise taxes to fit our expenditures. One, it will prevent us from having to pay more when the debt and the interest attach come due, and two, it will make further spending increases attach themselves to further tax increases, creating negative feedback. Heck, it’ll make people eager to reduce spending from its current levels as it is.

As long as Bush’s debt financing allows people to increase debt free of immediate charge, spending will not be reined in. We must make the consequences clear for a lack of fiscal discipline: unpopular tax hikes.

Stephen,

It’s not half a billion dollar deficit.
It’s half a trillion dollars.

AP,

“You’re being sarcastic, right?”

No, I’m not being sarcastic. Tell me, what better economic indicator exists than the stock market?

Maybe if you dirty retarded ‘Protest Warriors’ really want to fight terror you should stick your guns in your mouths and pull the trigger!

There. For all you human dirt who infect politically-left sites. Quid pro quo, you retarded faggots!

LJP, your comments in violation of our critique the message, not the messenger policy, are no longer welcome here. Take it somewhere else..

—-WatchBlog Manager

LJP,

“Maybe if you dirty retarded ‘Protest Warriors’ really want to fight terror you should stick your guns in your mouths and pull the trigger!”

And the same to you, good sir!

“There. For all you human dirt who infect politically-left sites. Quid pro quo, you retarded faggots!”

Aha! I see we have an intellectual! You honor us with your grace!