Pity for the Impotent Dick

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The people are in charge hardly have open contempt for government. They see government (ie "legal" force) as a tool for furthering their agenda...hell, the Bush administration has expanded the size of the federal government at a rate that compares only to FDR (and he may have even surpassed FDR at this point). The only difference is that liberals don't agree with the current admins agenda, but they certainly have no problem using government (ie "legal" force) to further their own agenda(s). That is why I don't get the term "neo-con", as conservatives generally stand against big government, etc. "Neo-liberal" makes much more sense to me.

Either way, this is something I don't understand about many liberals. We can bring up crummy administrations throughout our history - other presidents besides Bush have trampled the Constitution, infringed on our rights, etc. (some of them Democrats even <gasp> ). However, Bush has or should have highlighted for you how government has and will continue to be abused. Historically, the temptation and abuse of government power attracts more as$holes than not. Also, as Bush should also now highlight, advocating central power in government for things you want is tantamount to advocating that same amount of power in the hands of your enemy. Proof is in the pudding, as they say. We can simply say, "Well, I just don't like the way the 'neo-cons' are using the power; power in and of itself is not a bad thing so long as it is applied correctly." Fine, but, as I said, history shows that government power attracts more as$holes than not, so if the government should have this power, at the very, very best, from time to time it will get in the hands of as$holes (some may say it is with as$holes most of the time), and it will be abused - and Bush is hardly an illustration of the worst possible case. So, why or why do liberals still think that government is the solution to many of our problems?

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

But of course the general population is too stupid to think, and they don't have all the facts.....So just let the Dems think for you and everything will be fine Don't forget posts 35-36!

[skippy3481]

DTS,
I didn't post for a reason. I don't really have enough information to accurately state how i feel about cheney. Do i like him as a person... NO? Do I like him as a vice president... I don't know. But instead of writing a paragraph about something I don't have a firm opinion on, I simply passed. Posting articles without comment is absolutely a waste a time, bu its fine I'll just put you on ignore and forget about it.

GR,
I agree that people posting articles is a good thing;however my premise still stands, I dont want just articles, i want the posters comment on the article. When you post articles you at least put your on idea's at the bottom. DTS has some valid points, but the problem is wading through postings of just articles to get to something interesting. But thats just me, and bababooyee, that was exactly what i meant.

[timmgirvan]

Skippy: Bud, there's no reason to put people on ignore! It's just a conversation,hopefully!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by skippy3481

DTS,
I didn't post for a reason. I don't really have enough information to accurately state how i feel about cheney. Do i like him as a person... NO? Do I like him as a vice president... I don't know. But instead of writing a paragraph about something I don't have a firm opinion on, I simply passed. Posting articles without comment is absolutely a waste a time, bu its fine I'll just put you on ignore and forget about it.

GR,
I agree that people posting articles is a good thing;however my premise still stands, I dont want just articles, i want the posters comment on the article. When you post articles you at least put your on idea's at the bottom. DTS has some valid points, but the problem is wading through postings of just articles to get to something interesting. But thats just me, and bababooyee, that was exactly what i meant.

Skippy,
I am not sure you will read this if you have me on ignore.
With due respect, all I will say is that the links I posted, especially the one from the Washington Post, and also the one that reports on Rahm Emmanuel's position regarding defunding the executive portion of the vice president's share should he claim to not be a part of the executive branch (an thus subject to oversite), because in my humble view, these events are currently in the "news" and perhaps would spark discussion.
We should be entitled to agree or disagree on relevant topics. Providing information (and opinion) on those topics is suitable. Perhaps it might not be of interest to you, nor something that you wish to comment on. That's up to you to decide.
Respectfully,
DTS

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, I'd argue the exact opposite. That we are woefully uneducated. When we're taught by the government, why should we not expect our history to be whitewashed and ignored? Why shouldn't it be expected that we are taught everything has been mostly great and be lucky, if at best, many transgressions are given a footnote, and often outirght lied to? You think this perspective starts with Watergate? C'mon now...that's just silly - how much of the writings and debates from the Founders have you read? That's the whole point of the Constitution - limit government because of distrust of government. I mean, that isn't the best place to start, we could start with many things much earlier (because the Founders did not just pull the Constitution out of their asses - it was a result of a lot of education, research and debate). But Watergate?? C'mon now.

To put trust in government, to the extreme extent liberals do, is, in part, to outright ignore history (talk about a short attention span!) and/or be woefully uneducated. I mean, it is a blue print outlined by Plato a long time ago...people are to be but a cog in the machine, so you have to have the machine teach them - the machine is good, making the machine bigger is will make it all better.



Not to mention collecting a racial minority into concentration camps, and all that...(the same thing socialists were doing across the pond, btw).



Like take measures which prolonged the Depression?



SS is an example of a governmental success???? Really!??!?! You mean the pool money the government couldn't keep their hands off, said pool now being full of IOUs?? Eek.

Hell, one of the few things that government does OK is deliver the mail; however, that has a lot to do with the government being kind enough to let us have competition in that arena, so the USPS is forced to be efficient, etc. otherwise we'll take our business to UPS, FedEx, etc.



And socialism/collectivism was seen by many as the solution in Nazi Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. Internment camps, concentration camps, gulags, etc. Socialism has a great track record...and body count to boot.

I know what you're thinking at this point, but continue to the next part where I further explain...



Hardly. Let's say there is no government at all...what would type of economy would we have? Free market capitalism! People trading goods and services in return for goods and services. So, how can you say that he, by government, saved what would exist without government in the first place!?!? He didn't. His programs WERE socialist.




Wanting results right away is the path of liberals, and hating complexity is ignoring history, simple economics, and human nature. Wanting government to do so much is hardly complex - it is the simplest thing to suggest - pass the buck, let them handle it. Other solutions will take too long, so let's have the government do it!

"But government can handle it if goverment is set up complex enough (enough central planners, putting enough brain power into it)"...yeah, well that's what they thought in the USSR, too. Worked out wonderfully - about the only thing they did efficiently was trample on basic human rights (freedom of speech, religion) and murder.

Also, distrusting goverment is very healthy and is rooted in our history and tradition. It comes from a proper historical perspective whereby we understand and appreciate what happens to the individual as goverment grows - our Founders knew it way back when and tried to limit what the government could do and their concerns/distrust/fears have been proven warranted around the world over and over again: the individual becomes the servant to the government instead of the opposite (which was the whole point of America in the first place - which is another reason I questioned your take on the Founders).

B, here is where I think you misunderstand liberals- most liberals aren't advocating more government- they're advocating BETTER government. I see no reason why subsidies to the oil and coal industries should continue, for example. End 'em. And gas will cost close to $13 a gallon, but that's true free market- if the gas companies really had to pay what it cost to produce their product (including cleaning up the environmental damage from creating it, which your and my tax dollars pay for), I'd be cool with it. Think that's likely to happen? People will scream bloody murder if they had to pay the actual cost of things like gas and oil. Though honestly, I'd be willing to do so if it meant an end to the energy subsidies.

Government size has been swelling, no question (and more under Republicans lately than under Democrats). But not swelling in any way to address the rising inequality in the US- it's rising as government gets even deeper in bed with Big Business. And it doesn't make economic sense. For all that the media has us running scared from the idea of national health care, for example, we still pay more per person than any other industrialized nation and we have higher infant mortality and lower life span than any other industrialized nation. France is rated #1 in health care; we're #37. AND IT COSTS OUR NATION MORE. Whaaaaa?

Social Security is a brilliant program- the government stealing the surplus is wrong. But again, that's where I'd say better government, not less.

I also don't see what the internment camps (which were wrong, duh) have to do with anything currently- I don't think I was nominating FDR for sainthood. To look at the other Roosevelt, there's a man that helped found the National Park system (another example of government doing the right thing- setting aside public lands so we can all have an opportunity to be in the great outdoors), and also was such a racist he said white women had an obligation to bear at least four children. Does the fact that Yellowstone is not owned by some rich corporation; that I can go there, suddenly become a bad thing because of TR's feelings on racial dominance? No, of course not. We're all complex human beings. I can separate the two.

B, the truly free market is a lovely idea if people all behaved honestly. But they don't- they're going to band together and lie and cheat and monopolize (another thing TR took on). It's why I favor regulated capitalism. Don't keep a close watch on something and you get the junk bond scandal of the late '80s-- which a whole lot of our tax dollars went to bail out.

Explain to me how wanting results right away is the path of liberals. If you're going to make a huge generalized statement like that, you need to back it up for me. Women had the first suffrage meeting in 1849. We got the vote in 1920. If that's not patience, what is? And don't try telling me THAT was a conservative movement.

My point on socialism is that it wasn't seen in the 1930's as the great evil it now is, and it took men in gov't not to cave into it. I think maybe you didn't get what I was saying.

And of course, I'm well aware corruption in gov't is as old as gov't itself (like anything else). My point was, Watergate marked a shift in how Americans in the 20th Century viewed gov't- I think that's when the cynicism REALLY set in. I'm well aware the Founders distrusted even their own ability to maintain a fair governing system- it's why the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms is for the purpose of forming a militia, not just 'cause people want to have a gun, right? So really, David Koresh and co. were being strict Constructionists. Huh. I just thought of that. How far we've come. They were ready for the revolution Jefferson thought would happen every few generations or so (or so I was once told; I'll have to look that up).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

B, here is where I think you misunderstand liberals- most liberals aren't advocating more government- they're advocating BETTER government. I see no reason why subsidies to the oil and coal industries should continue, for example. End 'em. And gas will cost close to $13 a gallon, but that's true free market- if the gas companies really had to pay what it cost to produce their product (including cleaning up the environmental damage from creating it, which your and my tax dollars pay for), I'd be cool with it. Think that's likely to happen? People will scream bloody murder if they had to pay the actual cost of things like gas and oil. Though honestly, I'd be willing to do so if it meant an end to the energy subsidies.

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

AWWWWW comeon Chuck!
Cut her a break.
We all get a bit carried away at times (myself included).
LOL.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

AWWWWW comeon Chuck!
Cut her a break.
We all get a bit carried away at times (myself included).
LOL.

I should have prefaced with "Non-PG1985" illogical, ill informed posts

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I should have prefaced with "Non-PG1985" illogical, ill informed posts

There ya go! Thanks for the qualifier. You too, huh?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

There ya go! Thanks for the qualifier. You too, huh?

I kinda liked him but he would say the dumbest things...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This may be the most illogical, illinformed post I have ever seen.

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

In fact, Cannon, here's my first backup, from Rolling Stone. I await your well-informed, logical response.

<<According to Terry Tamminen, former director of the California EPA, the true costs of our oil dependence run as high as $807 billion a year ? or $2,700 for every U.S. citizen. If all the hidden costs that Americans currently pay for oil were reflected in the price at the pump, gasoline would cost more than $13 a gallon. In short, taxpayers and consumers are essentially giving the oil industry a subsidy of $10 for every gallon of gas sold in America. If we simply eliminated those subsidies and created a truly free market, renewable sources of energy would beat oil ? as well as nuclear power and coal, which receive equally grotesque subsidies. It is only through these giant subsidies that gasoline has a prayer of competing with alternative sources such as biofuels and wind, which produce energy far more cleanly and efficiently, at far less cost.>>

B, you might find the article interesting; it's by Robert Kennedy, Jr., arguing that the private market offers our best chance at developing alternative energy sources, not go'vt.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...eal_solution/1

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

In fact, Cannon, here's my first backup, from Rolling Stone. I await your well-informed, logical response.

<<According to Terry Tamminen, former director of the California EPA, the true costs of our oil dependence run as high as $807 billion a year ? or $2,700 for every U.S. citizen. If all the hidden costs that Americans currently pay for oil were reflected in the price at the pump, gasoline would cost more than $13 a gallon. In short, taxpayers and consumers are essentially giving the oil industry a subsidy of $10 for every gallon of gas sold in America. If we simply eliminated those subsidies and created a truly free market, renewable sources of energy would beat oil ? as well as nuclear power and coal, which receive equally grotesque subsidies. It is only through these giant subsidies that gasoline has a prayer of competing with alternative sources such as biofuels and wind, which produce energy far more cleanly and efficiently, at far less cost.>>



http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...eal_solution/1

This is fiction.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is fiction.

Again, I look forward to you actually posting any material to backup your opinion.

Gasoline first then Cheney.

Oil. Its everywhere. Its easy to get out of the ground, easy to process, easy to transport. And most importantly Cheap compared to any other form of energy other than nuclear (this would be for the generation of electricity of course).
And there is a very clear reason. The infrastructure for oil into gasoline and other petroleum products is in place and has been for some time. We are very, very good at turning oil into all sorts of things and getting it to market. We will have problems with OPEC, we will have refinery problems, we will have pollution problems, etc... But when all is said and done, it is cheap form of energy. Incredibly cheap compared to wind, solar, you name it except nuclear. And we cant put nuclear energy in cars (although we may try in the future long after I am dead).
I am happy people keep an eye on big oil, etc... but gasoline is mainly expensive because we tax the bejesus out of it. We will eventually change to other forms of energy as soon as technology makes it possible to produce other forms of energy cheaply. Then we might have a wind or a solar infrastructure some day. If people want change, then pray for oil prices to skyrocket making alternative forms competitive.

Cheney. Is probably one of the most powerful VP's of all time. And he has, in hindsight, made a mess of things in Iraq. And now he appears to want to make the office of VP as immune to review as possible by claiming it is not a part of the executive branch (he is the unelected head of the Senate by his reasoning). What he really wants is to increase the latitude of the executive branch. Very curious way of accomplishing this task.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So why don't you do more besides throw insults, Cannon? Back up your insults with a counterargument. I'm all ears. Or eyes, in this case.

First of all there were no insults thrown. I simply stated that your post was illinformed and illogical.
Where do I start? You are suggesting that we drive the price of gas to $13 a gallon and somehow it would be a good thing? In your lust to lower oil company profits you would decimate the American economy and pretty much insure that 1/3 of Americans would starve to death. Sounds like a good idea.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

First of all there were no insults thrown. I simply stated that your post was illinformed and illogical.
Where do I start? You are suggesting that we drive the price of gas to $13 a gallon and somehow it would be a good thing? In your lust to lower oil company profits you would decimate the American economy and pretty much insure that 1/3 of Americans would starve to death. Sounds like a good idea.

In my personal opinion, oil costing what it should actually cost would motivate fast-tracking alternative energy sources, which would, I'm hopeful, be better in the long run for our health and environment. I was citing this as an example of liberals being perfectly happy to shrink government- in this case, ending oil and coal subsidites, which would end oil and coal's monopoly on our energy policies. I am presuming, then, that you are content to support the oil industry with your tax dollars?

Again, you need to provide backup if you are going to throw out stats like "1/3 of Americans would starve to death." Please post your sources for those statistics, as I'm sure you wouldn't just make it up, because that would be being very ill-informed, right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

In my personal opinion, oil costing what it should actually cost would motivate fast-tracking alternative energy sources, which would, I'm hopeful, be better in the long run for our health and environment. I was citing this as an example of liberals being perfectly happy to shrink government- in this case, ending oil and coal subsidites, which would end oil and coal's monopoly on our energy policies. I am presuming, then, that you are content to support the oil industry with your tax dollars?

Again, you need to provide backup if you are going to throw out stats like "1/3 of Americans would starve to death." Please post your sources for those statistics, as I'm sure you wouldn't just make it up, because that would be being very ill-informed, right?

You do understand that subsidies are not unique to the USA right? I dont want to insult you but your thinking is so impractical that I really have a hard time responding because you just seem unaware of how the world works. Subsidies often are granted to keep the price of goods and services static so that the companies which are individual or unique providers can compete with foreign competitors and/or keep important goods and services being produced. You do understand that some of our biggest companies like Boeing are competing with Airbus which is supported by the govt's of the EU which have a lot more money than an individual company. You do understand that many airlines in this country would be out of business if not for govt subsidies. And your idea of letting gas go to $13 a gallon (which I believe is a bad number based upon false pretenses) would pretty much force most business to go out of business. That Farmers would not be able to transport food to market because it would cost too much to get it there. That the average citizen would be destitute because the unemployment rate would go through the roof when businesses failed and they were laid off. That the few that survived would have to take pay cuts in order to stay employed at the same time the costs of goods and services skyrocketed making them much worse off. And the list would go on.

And what do you suppose we do with our cars and homes? Just sell your car for scrap iron? Simply convert to solar panels even if you live in an urban area? It is just not realistic.