Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: "There was no Reagan Revolution."; or, why libertarians should abandon conservatives - Page 3







Post#51 at 11-26-2013 02:16 AM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
11-26-2013, 02:16 AM #51
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
This much is absolutely true.

I'll note, however, that even at the height of their power, they religious right endorsed "civil unions" as a solution to the gay marriage issue. The intent was actually to provide gays with ALL of the rights of marriage. They simply asked the gay community to respect the beliefs of the faithful by not using the word "marriage." At the time, it was thought of as a huge olive branch to the gay community.... essentially surrendering opposition altogether.

But, the gay community didn't take it that way. (Understandable, since it is arguably still a subtle form of discrimination.) But, instead of recognizing that the religious right was really attempting to move in the right direction, the left chose to insult them for not moving far enough, fast enough. The result is that while some have come to accept the more liberal argument, some are simply angry and insulted.
I've only recently become aware that this is a semantics issue. Most people use the term "marriage" as shorthand for "spousal partnership" though: even the "quickie" ones done in Las Vegas, or in secular settings such as by the local justice of the peace, or even by "common law" (no ceremony or even (IIUC) license, just after a particular tenure of cohabitation as recognized by some states), are known as "marriages" in common speech--it is not, and has not been for some time, an exclusively religious term.

I'm not sure if all or even most on "the religious right" endorsed "civil unions" though either. But for those that did, fair enough. As long as whatever you call it bestows all the same legal rights as marriage, for practical purposes it is merely a distinction without a difference. But when I (and I think most people) say "gay marriage" it simply means the "whatever" that bestows those partnership rights. Now for gays who actually get married in a religious ceremony, maybe that term "marriage" is a particularly meaningful term to them, in terms of their faith as well. And if a church does consent to marrying them then it should be able to (of course, no church should ever be forced to). But really, marriage has long been used in secular as well as religious terms, so hangups over these semantics seem ridiculous or incomprehensible to most people.
Last edited by Alioth68; 11-26-2013 at 02:37 AM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan

"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut

"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky







Post#52 at 11-26-2013 04:08 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-26-2013, 04:08 AM #52
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
This much is absolutely true.

I'll note, however, that even at the height of their power, they religious right endorsed "civil unions" as a solution to the gay marriage issue. The intent was actually to provide gays with ALL of the rights of marriage. They simply asked the gay community to respect the beliefs of the faithful by not using the word "marriage." At the time, it was thought of as a huge olive branch to the gay community.... essentially surrendering opposition altogether.

But, the gay community didn't take it that way. (Understandable, since it is arguably still a subtle form of discrimination.) But, instead of recognizing that the religious right was really attempting to move in the right direction, the left chose to insult them for not moving far enough, fast enough. The result is that while some have come to accept the more liberal argument, some are simply angry and insulted.
I think the religious right is against civil unions too, though some may accept them because they are losing the argument. Civil unions are not legal in most red states, if memory serves.

Conservative ARE predominantly middle class. The same middle class you seem to think conservatives want to suppress. While it is true that conservatism is not a belief system widely embraced by the poor, it is also not the belief system of the rich. The hyper rich give to liberal candidates at a rate of almost two to one.
But it is the rich that bankroll the Tea Party and they are larger supporters of Republicans. They are spending millions thanks to Citizens United to elect conservative candidates and support conservative causes. Some rich people have noblesse oblige, and so do the right thing, whether charity or support for liberals. I don't think it's the 1%, but the upper middle class seems to vote for liberals more often in some elections. These are not the tycoons, but the professionals/yuppies in urban areas.

Uh, no. Those corporations are largely run by liberal CEOs. So, having them run things is actually a pretty scary thing for conservatives.
Talk about nonsense, stilltim. You forget that the conservative libertarian-economics ideology is specifically designed to defeat liberal reforms and elect politicians who reduce taxes on the wealthy and reduce regulations on corporations, and who oppose social programs that help the poor. I don't know how that could be any more plain. If CEOs were "liberal," maybe they would stop producing fossil fuels, unhealthy foods, factory farms with GMOs and frankenfoods, start paying workers a living wage, support health care reform and single-payer medicare, stop all pollution, enforce worker safety codes on their own, support financial reform and transparency, support taking money out of politics, stop buying up smaller companies, and so on. They don't do any of those things at all, so in no stretch are they "liberals." Liberals are needed specifically to restrain them. If CEOs were liberals, there would be very little need for actual liberals.

Oh, for God's sakes look at the history of the conservative movement, will you. For the vast majority of it, conservatives were isolationist. That includes right now. Only the neocons endorsed a bit more aggressive use of the military and they have fallen out of favor in the conservative movement.

Get over this, stupid, liberal conspiracy theory crap. It has about as much credibility as the nutty Roswell fanatics.
Roswell probably happened. But be that as it may, conspiracy theories are usually wrong. What's not wrong is that conservatives today are militarists. They elected Reagan and the Bushes so we could go fight wars. Only the Paul wing are anti-militarists. Paul was the only Republican in the debates or primaries who opposed the stupid and deadly Iraq War. Some isolationists; the rest all supported it! You strike out badly on that one. You have to go back to Robert Taft to find a prominent isolationist conservative.

It is almost certain that the individuals you discuss believe that fiscally conservative policies create growth. They may be interpreting that as follows:
+ More growth = more money to spend, which creates demand and inflates prices for commodities like food.
+ More growth = more money... so prices for food are more affordable (even if literally higher)
That is the trickle-down theory, which supports and works only for the wealthy. That's why Reagan promoted and instituted it, to serve his wealthy clients. Many others support this theory who are not wealthy; they are simply deceived, hoodwinked and ignorant. The trickle-down theory needs to be defeated so America can move forward again. 32 years of Reaganomics is more than enough. Even 1 day of it is more than enough.

Of course, they use that quote only when discussing conservative legislation. When discussing liberal legislation, they seem to think it's OK to limit liberty in the most extreme ways imaginable.... for any reason whatsoever.
Liberals do not limit liberty. They may limit the "free" market, which isn't free, and IS oppressive. Liberal legislation is liberating. That does not mean I think that bureaucrats are always right.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-26-2013 at 04:15 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#53 at 11-26-2013 05:21 AM by Einzige [at Illinois joined Apr 2013 #posts 824]
---
11-26-2013, 05:21 AM #53
Join Date
Apr 2013
Location
Illinois
Posts
824

I take great delight in noting that the self-same poster who most vociferously denies the very existential possibility of a left-winged libertarianism is the one who cried and whined about a Fourth Turning being a 'Quenching' and bitching that the results of the 2012 elections had 'suppressed' his political philosophy. Intellectual co-existence: it's good for me, but not for thee.







Post#54 at 11-26-2013 12:24 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-26-2013, 12:24 PM #54
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Einzige View Post
I take great delight in noting that the self-same poster who most vociferously denies the very existential possibility of a left-winged libertarianism is the one who cried and whined about a Fourth Turning being a 'Quenching' and bitching that the results of the 2012 elections had 'suppressed' his political philosophy. Intellectual co-existence: it's good for me, but not for thee.
Almost everyone on this board has an agenda that the 4T could solidify. A 4T can be a time in which a nation or a civilization coalesces on the best and noblest objectives in the name of survival or in which it reaches into a never-quite-discarded legacy of the worst demons in its history. America has its demons in cruelty, greed, superstition, bigotry, inequity, and militarism. America is one Hitler away from being the greatest nightmare that humanity has ever seen. It's also one effective, principled leader away from serving as a model for long-term solutions for ecological distress and social inequity.

We have no immediate "Red" menace, at least in the old sense of Marxism-Leninism. But that said, we have more of a fascist menace. Fascist regimes have typically arisen when those who have little are so scared of being left behind economically that people with greatest wealth turn them against the middle class (especially if it is somehow different), organized labor, and the very poor 'losers' with the prompting of big landowners, tycoons, and business executives.

Were it not for the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class, America would probably be deep into a right-wing ascendancy. In normal times the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class would be assimilating into conservative politics. Maybe fifteen or so years from now those people will redefine what 'conservative' means, and that could imply a classicist approach to culture -- back to Shakespeare, back to Mozart, back to Cezanne, and altogether back to sanity. For now, American 'conservatism' has become an alliance between those who want to whittle away the middle class and those who want their superstitions imposed upon us all as an exercise in alleged patriotism. I don't hide my opinion; I have contempt both for people who see virtue only in what enriches and pampers them irrespective of the human cost to everyone else and to people who insist that anyone who accepts the fossil record and astrophysics as truth instead of Biblical literalism is going to Hell.

The non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class seem to have more virtues than the Economic and Religious Right. Those people generally have nothing that they have not earned. They are intelligent (they had to be to get ahead, and they generally had no powerful political friends to accelerate their rise in the American economy) and they are generally either small businesspeople or degreed professionals. They are the American dream, although they see the elitist dreams of selfish people and the resentment of economic losers who would rather tear others down for being non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class. Their position is shaky because of such bigotry that arises in economic distress. Model minorities can become pariahs quickly -- just think of German Jews -- when people think that by helping rob them on behalf of a political and economic elite they elevate themselves. (The fools!)

We Americans choose a rational, moral course in politics and economics or lest we ultimately bring ourselves defeat, shame, disgrace, and ruin. We are far wiser to promote the better angels of our nature (Lincoln) so that we can have government of the People, by the people, and for the People (again, you know who!). If we fail and chose evil madness we may find this Crisis ending with some foreign general dictating to a physically-wrecked nation of mass graves and destroyed property what is possible and what isn't. So it was in Italy, Germany, and Japan nearly seventy years ago.

A 4T is a quenching -- but it can be a quenching of evil. Those who see some temporary advantage in aligning themselves with evil will find themselves assimilated into that evil, and most likely be destroyed with it. We Americans must choose wisely. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, torture, do injustice, and betray those who deserve loyalty. Right-wingers need recognize that economic exploitation is itself theft.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#55 at 11-26-2013 01:21 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 01:21 PM #55
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by Galen View Post
Abortion is not a settled question among libertarians. Ron Paul is also of the opinion that the abortion question is not among the powers delegated to Congress and is not the business if the federal government. The "libertarians" you are describing are in fact neocons and fundamentalists trying to masquerade as libertarians which is an indication of where the Republican party will end up going in order to survive in the future. I have never had much use for them myself.
This is a good point that I missed reading the first time. I'd add that a lot of non-libertarian conservatives have moderated on this one as well. Increasingly, the goal among conservatives is to bring the law into alignment with what the majority of Americans believe about abortion rather than ban it altogether. Essentially, the goal is now that it should be legal in the first trimester, but illegal thereafter. (About two-thirds of Americans agree with drawing the line there... and it matches the laws in most of the civilized world.

BTW, they don't view it as purely a "liberty" issue. Once the fetus is mature enough to be deemed human, it has rights and is covered by that whole "freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of your neighbor's nose" argument. Basically, what their arguing is that at 30 days, two-thirds of Americans consider the fetus to be a human being and worthy of the same legal protections as the rest of us. In the past, Americans agreed much less on when that status should be given. But, the consensus is now well beyond that of simple majority.

At least, that's what I'm hearing from the mainstream conservatives these days.







Post#56 at 11-26-2013 01:46 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 01:46 PM #56
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I think the religious right is against civil unions too, though some may accept them because they are losing the argument. Civil unions are not legal in most red states, if memory serves.
It depends on which members of the religious right you're talking to. There are hate filled individuals on both sides of the aisle who will never be satisfied.

My impression, however, is that the majority of the religious right would have been happy with this compromise.[/QUOTE]


Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
But it is the rich that bankroll the Tea Party and they are larger supporters of Republicans.
Uh, no, they're not. I know libs love to cry about the Koch brothers.... who most conservatives have never heard of (and If they have heard of them, it's only due to liberal whining). But, money flowing into liberal think thanks outnumbers money flowing into conservative think thanks 10 to 1.

Of course, money comes from the wealthy. They're the ones who have the money to spend on it. But, the idea that the rich support conservatives more than they do liberals is just silly.... and not at all supported by the facts.


Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Talk about nonsense, stilltim. You forget that the conservative libertarian-economics ideology is specifically designed to defeat liberal reforms and elect politicians who reduce taxes on the wealthy and reduce regulations on corporations, and who oppose social programs that help the poor.
Uh, no. If you wish to oppose conservatives, you should really attempt to understand what they actually believe rather than falling back on liberal assumptions of what they believe.

Libertarians basically believe in economics from the Austrian school. That is, that government intervention in the economy ends up being bad for EVERYBODY. The middle class tends to be well aware of this because we see the negative impacts every day. The ultra rich often don't care because it usually doesn't affect them significantly enough to hurt their lifestyle.... and left-leaning social causes are currently fashionable in elitist social circles.

Moreover, and this is important, the liberal obsession with concentrating power in the hands of the hands of a few government officials... who are easily corrupted.... who are often friends with the 1%.... and who typically fill their ranks from the elite anyway.... is far better for the 1% than low taxation and limited government. With power concentrated in the central government, the elite is free to extract money from the populace via taxation and redirect it into the pockets of their friends and their friends pet projects.







Post#57 at 11-26-2013 04:32 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
11-26-2013, 04:32 PM #57
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Fascists

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
We have no immediate "Red" menace, at least in the old sense of Marxism-Leninism. But that said, we have more of a fascist menace. Fascist regimes have typically arisen when those who have little are so scared of being left behind economically that people with greatest wealth turn them against the middle class (especially if it is somehow different), organized labor, and the very poor 'losers' with the prompting of big landowners, tycoons, and business executives.
I again would protest the word 'fascist' and comparisons with Hitler. I am overly familiar with the list of fascist attributes designed to echo the Bush 43 policies. Still, I think the notion that Bush 43 or similar Republican politicians are fascist is no more accurate, responsible or original than saying Pbower is fascist. One might talk about any of the issues on the list and have real concerns, but throwing the word 'fascist' around polarizes rather than promoting real talk on the issues.







Post#58 at 11-26-2013 04:36 PM by B Butler [at joined Nov 2011 #posts 2,329]
---
11-26-2013, 04:36 PM #58
Join Date
Nov 2011
Posts
2,329

Left Arrow Sources

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
Uh, no, they're not. I know libs love to cry about the Koch brothers.... who most conservatives have never heard of (and If they have heard of them, it's only due to liberal whining). But, money flowing into liberal think thanks outnumbers money flowing into conservative think thanks 10 to 1.
Could you suggest a neutral source or three for the 10 to 1 claim? I quite believe there are liberal think tanks that get money from somewhere, but your ratio seems excessive and makes me doubt your perspective.







Post#59 at 11-26-2013 04:54 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-26-2013, 04:54 PM #59
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
This is a good point that I missed reading the first time. I'd add that a lot of non-libertarian conservatives have moderated on this one as well. Increasingly, the goal among conservatives is to bring the law into alignment with what the majority of Americans believe about abortion rather than ban it altogether. Essentially, the goal is now that it should be legal in the first trimester, but illegal thereafter. (About two-thirds of Americans agree with drawing the line there... and it matches the laws in most of the civilized world.

BTW, they don't view it as purely a "liberty" issue. Once the fetus is mature enough to be deemed human, it has rights and is covered by that whole "freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of your neighbor's nose" argument. Basically, what their arguing is that at 30 days, two-thirds of Americans consider the fetus to be a human being and worthy of the same legal protections as the rest of us. In the past, Americans agreed much less on when that status should be given. But, the consensus is now well beyond that of simple majority.

At least, that's what I'm hearing from the mainstream conservatives these days.
Maybe my math is fuzzier than I think it is, but a normal gestation period of 38 weeks (266 days) breaks into thirds a lot closer to 90 days than 30.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#60 at 11-26-2013 05:00 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-26-2013, 05:00 PM #60
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
Could you suggest a neutral source or three for the 10 to 1 claim? I quite believe there are liberal think tanks that get money from somewhere, but your ratio seems excessive and makes me doubt your perspective.
FWIW, the 501 (c) 4, the shadow banking of political action, seems to break heavily the other way. Remember the IRS "scandal" that involved oversight of these entities? The Darrlyl Issa whine was biased oversight by the IRS, until the number of groups on the two camps was revealed.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#61 at 11-26-2013 05:50 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 05:50 PM #61
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Maybe my math is fuzzier than I think it is, but a normal gestation period of 38 weeks (266 days) breaks into thirds a lot closer to 90 days than 30.
Right. As I implied in the first paragraph, the limits being discussed ARE 90 days/three months not 30... as are the current limits in most of the civilized world. Sorry. My own math got a little fuzzy there.
Last edited by stilltim; 11-26-2013 at 05:54 PM.







Post#62 at 11-26-2013 05:53 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-26-2013, 05:53 PM #62
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
I again would protest the word 'fascist' and comparisons with Hitler.
Dubya was neither a racist nor a religious bigot. To give some idea -- Saddam Hussein was far closer to being a fascist than Dubya. If one wants to see what fascism looks like in America, the Klan and some militia groups usually suffice.

Most significantly there was no political violence, and there has been no effort to establish any youth group dedicated to the glorification of the President or of political bosses. No violence -- no fascism. But even then -- we are far from any danger of a proletarian revolution.

I am overly familiar with the list of fascist attributes designed to echo the Bush 43 policies. Still, I think the notion that Bush 43 or similar Republican politicians are fascist is no more accurate, responsible or original than saying Pbrower is fascist.
All of those fourteen traits are pathologies. Dubya was an awful President, and the nastier a political leader is the more and more severely he usually shows those pathologies. At that, I find the 43rd President more troublesome for his lies than for his scheming.

One might talk about any of the issues on the list and have real concerns, but throwing the word 'fascist' around polarizes rather than promoting real talk on the issues.
One sip of wine does not make one an alcoholic, and a few superficial similarities to Mussolini or Pinochet not overblown into something monstrous does not make one a fascist. It is worth remembering that the Republican Party could lose control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 and the Presidency as well in 2008.

That said, the sordid alliance between economic elites with ignoramuses who get some psychic delight by tearing down 'educated elites' is a common thread of fascist movements.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 11-28-2013 at 08:26 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#63 at 11-26-2013 06:09 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 06:09 PM #63
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
Could you suggest a neutral source or three for the 10 to 1 claim? I quite believe there are liberal think tanks that get money from somewhere, but your ratio seems excessive and makes me doubt your perspective.
I'd love to, but this one goes back a year or two and I just don't save that kind of link anymore. It just doesn't matter to me anymore whether I can convince a bunch of wingnuts that don't want to be confused with the facts. So, I don't bother. I'm here to have an interesting discussion, not present a legal case.

FYI - I was actually referring to a listing I had seen of all the liberal and conservative think tanks and what their reported incomes were. Honestly, I was pretty stunned at the amounts myself. I'm not sure I would have believed the size of the gap it if I hadn't seen the data either. I would have been more likely to believe a 2 to 1 comparison, which is roughly how much the ultra rich donate to liberal candidates vs. conservative candidates.

The accompanying article said something about the fact that yeah, the Koch brothers fund some stuff. But, they're practically the only big players on the right that do so. There are multiple such players on the left. Soros is only one of them. But, if I remember correctly, he's spent more and funded more liberal organizations than the Koch brothers have by himself. Additionally, the gap in funding is more a reflection of the fact there are many, many more liberal think tanks than there are conservative ones... not any disparity in the size of individual organizations on opposite sides of the aisle.
Last edited by stilltim; 11-26-2013 at 06:13 PM.







Post#64 at 11-26-2013 06:11 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
11-26-2013, 06:11 PM #64
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Please stop embarrassing yourself. I used the chart from this site, but if you took a minute to use a search engine before typing your post, you would find the exact same numbers on hundreds of other sites. They are not "made up".
I know where you got it from. Critical hint: good research doesn't use the term "guestimate", also usually doesn't come in a format that looks like the design philosophy was "for schizoids by schizoids". Just because the same faulty information is used repeatedly doesn't mean it's suddenly true, it just means that it's faulty.

Quote Originally Posted by JPT
Here's a 2010 chart from Wikipedia that provides more detail:




As you can see, in 2010 SS, Medicare and Medicaid, and welfare and unemployment were 56.7% of federal spending, and the DoD was 18.74%. Some of the smaller items also contain welfare programs.
And it still does not include most discretionary spending and appropriations, and you can tell by just looking at it. They're going off the budget and the budget doesn't include most of the discretionary spending or spending done by appropriations. Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security/Welfare/Unemployment are mostly mandatory budget items. When they're showing roughly the same numbers in proportion to the military that they did from the budget, I can look at it and tell that it's just the budget. So yes, the wiki graph is accurate to the budget, but it's not accurate to total spending.







Post#65 at 11-26-2013 06:43 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 06:43 PM #65
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by Alioth68 View Post
I've only recently become aware that this is a semantics issue. Most people use the term "marriage" as shorthand for "spousal partnership" though: even the "quickie" ones done in Las Vegas, or in secular settings such as by the local justice of the peace, or even by "common law" (no ceremony or even (IIUC) license, just after a particular tenure of cohabitation as recognized by some states), are known as "marriages" in common speech--it is not, and has not been for some time, an exclusively religious term.

I'm not sure if all or even most on "the religious right" endorsed "civil unions" though either. But for those that did, fair enough. As long as whatever you call it bestows all the same legal rights as marriage, for practical purposes it is merely a distinction without a difference. But when I (and I think most people) say "gay marriage" it simply means the "whatever" that bestows those partnership rights. Now for gays who actually get married in a religious ceremony, maybe that term "marriage" is a particularly meaningful term to them, in terms of their faith as well. And if a church does consent to marrying them then it should be able to (of course, no church should ever be forced to). But really, marriage has long been used in secular as well as religious terms, so hangups over these semantics seem ridiculous or incomprehensible to most people.
Common parlance is one thing. But, the political issue is about what the LAW should say. The religious right wanted "marriage" reserved for the traditional definition, while "civil union" applied to others... even though they would be functionally the same. It was actually a meaningless distinction, yes. But, it meant something to them.







Post#66 at 11-26-2013 06:45 PM by JohnMc82 [at Back in Jax joined Jan 2011 #posts 1,962]
---
11-26-2013, 06:45 PM #66
Join Date
Jan 2011
Location
Back in Jax
Posts
1,962

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
Common parlance is one thing. But, the political issue is about what the LAW should say. The religious right wanted "marriage" reserved for the traditional definition, while "civil union" applied to others... even though they would be functionally the same. It was actually a meaningless distinction, yes. But, it meant something to them.
Civil unions isn't a position I would associate with the "religious right," more like "moderate Republicans."

What I heard coming from the actual religious right was downright paranoia, like a pervasive fear that the big bad government was going to come down to their church and force the pastor to marry any one who wants it. I never actually heard someone from the left advocating that, but I saw the fear repeated non-stop on FreeRepublic, local newspaper comments, etc...
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.

'82 - Once & always independent







Post#67 at 11-26-2013 06:57 PM by stilltim [at Chicago, IL joined Aug 2007 #posts 483]
---
11-26-2013, 06:57 PM #67
Join Date
Aug 2007
Location
Chicago, IL
Posts
483

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMc82 View Post
Civil unions isn't a position I would associate with the "religious right," more like "moderate Republicans."
How do you know. Do you know any personally?

I do. They're more moderate than you might expect. But, like a lot of groups, the ones you tend to hear are the loudmouth extremists rather than the population as a whole.







Post#68 at 11-26-2013 08:41 PM by Copperfield [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 2,244]
---
11-26-2013, 08:41 PM #68
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
2,244

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
Please stop embarrassing yourself. I used the chart from this site, but if you took a minute to use a search engine before typing your post, you would find the exact same numbers on hundreds of other sites. They are not "made up".
Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
I know where you got it from. Critical hint: good research doesn't use the term "guestimate", also usually doesn't come in a format that looks like the design philosophy was "for schizoids by schizoids". Just because the same faulty information is used repeatedly doesn't mean it's suddenly true, it just means that it's faulty.
And it still does not include most discretionary spending and appropriations, and you can tell by just looking at it. They're going off the budget and the budget doesn't include most of the discretionary spending or spending done by appropriations. Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security/Welfare/Unemployment are mostly mandatory budget items. When they're showing roughly the same numbers in proportion to the military that they did from the budget, I can look at it and tell that it's just the budget. So yes, the wiki graph is accurate to the budget, but it's not accurate to total spending.
Perhaps neither of you realize this but the federal government throws up the documents that contain both budget and spending online nowadays.


The meat and potatoes stuff that you two are fighting over can be found here.







Post#69 at 11-26-2013 09:47 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-26-2013, 09:47 PM #69
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
It depends on which members of the religious right you're talking to. There are hate filled individuals on both sides of the aisle who will never be satisfied.
I think it's clear which side of the aisle the hate is on.
My impression, however, is that the majority of the religious right would have been happy with this compromise.
Not mine; and again I don't think civil unions are allowed in states they control.

Uh, no, they're not. I know libs love to cry about the Koch brothers.... who most conservatives have never heard of (and If they have heard of them, it's only due to liberal whining). But, money flowing into liberal think thanks outnumbers money flowing into conservative think thanks 10 to 1.

Of course, money comes from the wealthy. They're the ones who have the money to spend on it. But, the idea that the rich support conservatives more than they do liberals is just silly.... and not at all supported by the facts.
Yeah it is. I've seen figures before about who contributes to whom. The wealthy support Republicans; they are more pliable to their goals. And of course they also completely support the role of money in politics; the more the better, with no controls. To them, money is speech and "freedom."

Uh, no. If you wish to oppose conservatives, you should really attempt to understand what they actually believe rather than falling back on liberal assumptions of what they believe.
And then you go on to say what you know I already know....
Libertarians basically believe in economics from the Austrian school. That is, that government intervention in the economy ends up being bad for EVERYBODY. The middle class tends to be well aware of this because we see the negative impacts every day. The ultra rich often don't care because it usually doesn't affect them significantly enough to hurt their lifestyle.... and left-leaning social causes are currently fashionable in elitist social circles.
Libertarians does not equal conservatives. The rich are against government because it means regulation and taxes. They are the only ones who care about that. They cannot have too much money. But the middle class can be hoodwinked. The Austrian School is flat wrong, and it hurts them, but a charming actor can deceive them-- and did. You don't see the "negative effects of government intervention every day," because they do not exist. That is a myth propagated by the wealthy.
Moreover, and this is important, the liberal obsession with concentrating power in the hands of the hands of a few government officials... who are easily corrupted.... who are often friends with the 1%.... and who typically fill their ranks from the elite anyway.... is far better for the 1% than low taxation and limited government. With power concentrated in the central government, the elite is free to extract money from the populace via taxation and redirect it into the pockets of their friends and their friends pet projects.
Liberals are not obsessed with concentrating power in the hands of a few government officials. The only power they want in the hands of government officials, is the power to control business tycoons who want to abuse the people.

If you are not one of these business people, why do you buy their line? And if you are, why not go along with the responsibility of being a businessman, and pay your taxes and observe the regulations without complaint and the desire to repeal them?

The wealthy like to corrupt government officials; that is true; but what do they get them to do? Give them favors, not pass liberal programs to help poor and average working people. You skimmed over my list of bad behavior that liberals and progressives seek to curtail with government. Again, if the wealthy were liberals, there would be no need to curb their behavior, and there would be less taxes and regulations needed. Sadly, power corrupts, and the biggest power in our society is wealth. Wealth is enabled by Austrian Economics of the kind Mises and Galen represent. If you're smart, you will see through their lies and get off their bus.

Libertarians might have a few good points, but they cannot see that the oppressive power in society is not government, but business.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#70 at 11-26-2013 10:13 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-26-2013, 10:13 PM #70
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by stilltim View Post
How do you know. Do you know any personally?

I do. They're more moderate than you might expect. But, like a lot of groups, the ones you tend to hear are the loudmouth extremists rather than the population as a whole.
Many people who consider themselves "Rockefeller Republicans" now vote Democratic.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#71 at 11-26-2013 10:25 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-26-2013, 10:25 PM #71
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
Many people who consider themselves "Rockefeller Republicans" now vote Democratic.
That makes sense. Today's Democrats are the Rockefeller Republicans of 40 years ago.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#72 at 11-26-2013 10:53 PM by Einzige [at Illinois joined Apr 2013 #posts 824]
---
11-26-2013, 10:53 PM #72
Join Date
Apr 2013
Location
Illinois
Posts
824

This notion that all libertarians must either accept Austrian heterodoxy or be drummed out of the tribe is, quite frankly, retarded. There are libertarians who completely reject the school. And even those who accept it often do by drawing conclusions alien to orthodox right-libertarians. The fault lies both on the orthodox Left - who have long satisfied themselves with indirect State cradling of favored industries (like green tech) at the expense of direct action by the working classes - and the orthodox "libertarian" Right - who want to behave in an ironically monopolistic fashion, denying the validity of alternate libertarian critiques through their efforts to strangle left-libertarianism in the crib.

http://mutualist.org/id10.html

Although the state capitalism of the twentieth century (as opposed to the earlier misnamed "laissez faire" variant, in which the statist character of the system was largely disguised as a "neutral" legal framework) had its roots in the mid-nineteenth century, it received great impetus as an elite ideology during the depression of the 1890s. From that time on, the problems of overproduction and surplus capital, the danger of domestic class warfare, and the need for the state to solve them, figured large in the perception of the corporate elite. The shift in elite consensus in the 1890s (toward corporate liberalism and foreign expansion) was as profound as that of the 1970s, when reaction to wildcat strikes, the "crisis of governability," and the looming "capital shortage" led the power elite to abandon corporate liberalism in favor of neo-liberalism.

But as Stromberg argues, the American ruling class was wrong in seeing the crises of overproduction and surplus capital as "natural or inevitable outgrowths of a market society." (2) They were, rather, the effects of regulatory cartelization of the economy by state capitalist policies.


The effects of the state's subsidies and regulations are 1) to encourage creation of production facilities on such a large scale that they are not viable in a free market, and cannot dispose of their full product domestically; 2) to promote monopoly prices above market clearing levels; and 3) to set up market entry barriers and put new or smaller firms at a competitive disadvantage, so as to deny adequate domestic outlets for investment capital. The result is a crisis of overproduction and surplus capital, and a spiraling process of increasing statism as politically connected corporate interests act through the state to resolve the crisis.


Although I cannot praise Stomberg enough for this contribution, which I use as a starting-point, I diverge from his analysis in several ways. Stromberg, himself a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist affiliated with the Mises Institute, relies mainly on Schumpeter's analysis of "export-dependent monopoly capitalism," as read through a Misean/Rothbardian lens. Secondarily, he relies on "corporate liberal" historians like Williams, Kolko and Weinstein. To the extent that he refers to Marxist analyses of monopoly capital, it is mainly in passing, if not utterly dismissive. But such theorists (especially Baran and Sweezy of the Monthly Review group, James O'Connor, and Paul Mattick) have parallelled his own Austrian analysis in interesting ways, and have provided unique insights that are complementary to the Austrian position.

Starting with Stromberg's article as my point of departure, I will integrate both his and these other analyses into my own mutualist framework. More importantly, as a mutualist, I go much further than Stromberg and the Austrians in dissociating the present corporate system from a genuine free market. Following the economic arguments of Benjamin Tucker and other mutualists, I distinguish capitalism from a genuine free market, and treat the state capitalism of the twentieth century as the natural outgrowth of a system which was statist from its very beginning.


Like the author of this piece, I am both pro-free market (up to and including notions of a really, really free market) and a socialist.







Post#73 at 11-26-2013 10:58 PM by Einzige [at Illinois joined Apr 2013 #posts 824]
---
11-26-2013, 10:58 PM #73
Join Date
Apr 2013
Location
Illinois
Posts
824

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
That makes sense. Today's Democrats are the Rockefeller Republicans of 40 years ago.
Not that this is a good thing. The old northeastern Rockefeller Republicans were responsible for, among other abominations, the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the direct inspiration for Nixon's original "War on Drugs" and the legal package most directly responsible for the criminalization of black manhood.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, New York legislators faced a drug problem they feared was growing out of control. Federal statistics showed as many as 559,000 users nationwide and state police saw a 31 percent increase in drug arrests by 1972. In response Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, a liberal-leaning Republican who was said to have had presidential aspirations, created the Narcotic Addiction and Control Commission in 1967, aimed at helping addicts get clean. After the program proved too costly and ineffective, New York launched the Methadone Maintenance Program, which similarly caused little reduction in drug use. But by 1973, calls for stricter penalties had grown too loud to ignore, prompting Albany to enact legislation that created mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life for possession of four ounces of narcotics — about the same as a sentence for second-degree murder.

The statutes became known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws — a milestone in America's war on drugs and the subject of one of the most abrasive legal tug-of-wars in the nation. The laws almost immediately led to an increase in drug convictions, but no measurable decrease in overall crime. Meanwhile, critics argued that they criminalized what was primarily a public health problem, incarcerated nonviolent felons who were better off in treatment, caused a jump in recidivism rates, and prevented judges from using discretion in sentencing. In January, during his State of the State address, New York Gov. David Paterson told his audience: "I can't think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws."
The effect of the new sentencing guidelines has been dramatic. Drug offenders as a percentage of New York's prison population surged from 11% in 1973 to a peak of 35% in 1994, according to the state's Corrections Department. The surge was mostly a result of convictions for "nonviolent, low-level drug possession and drug sales" Paterson told TIME, "people who were addicted and were selling to try to maintain their habits." According to Paterson, just 16% had a history of violence. "And so really," he says, "you're shipping off a generation." In 1979, the laws were amended, reducing penalties for marijuana posession. But despite the ongoing criticism in New York, other states began to enact laws to deal with their own drug problems. In 1978, for example, Michigan passed its infamous "650-lifer" law which required judges to incarcerate drug offenders convicted of delivering more than 650 grams of narcotics. Also, in 1987, Minnesota passed laws that imprisoned offenders for at least four years for crack cocaine possession. (Read "Mandatory Sentencing: Stalled Reform".)


It's very true that the old liberal Republican wing of the GOP - the "actually existing Republicans", as it were - have been absorbed into the Democratic coalition. This is, in terms of social policy, a very bad thing. In addition to these drug laws, it's probably the reason the Democrats pushed such asinine authoritarian policies as school uniforms and the V-Chip in the 1990s.







Post#74 at 11-27-2013 02:16 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-27-2013, 02:16 AM #74
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504



dark blue Same-sex marriage
blue Unions granting rights similar to marriage
light blue Legislation granting limited/enumerated rights
gray Same-sex marriages performed elsewhere recognized
light gray No specific prohibition or recognition of same-sex marriages or unions in state law
light red State statute bans same-sex marriage
red State constitution bans same-sex marriage
dark red State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-se...-state_listing

You can see by the map and the listings, that NO, in the states which the religious right culture warriors control, civil unions are not allowed. You know which states are red; everyone knows. That completely refutes your assertion, stilltim.

It's as clear a red-blue divide as there is on any issue, except perhaps the environment and global warming; the same divide is seen. I assume you read through my posts on the Connecticut the best state thread? I mean, what excuse could anyone here have for not knowing this?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-27-2013 at 03:01 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#75 at 11-27-2013 02:33 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-27-2013, 02:33 AM #75
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Here is a map showing who rich people donate to:



http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/27/...he-super-rich/

Wealthy donors support GOP candidates in 2012 election


it’s good to read Martin Gilens’ excellent work showing convincingly that where rich people and poor people disagree on policy, the federal government pretty much always sides with the rich people. Gilens (a professor of politics at Princeton) has a new book out called Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2...contributions/

Gilens notes that on many issues, there’s not a whole lot of difference between what poor, rich, and middle-class people think. But on some issues there are some serious differences, particularly on tax, regulatory, and trade issues. Gilens writes:

"Greater representational equality would have a substantial effect on several important economic policies. We would have a higher minimum wage, more generous unemployment benefits, stricter corporate regulation (on the oil and gas industries in particular), and a more progressive tax regime. "
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-27-2013 at 02:43 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------