Anybody still think the economy has turned the corner?

[exhelodrvr]

Wasteful programs did not reduce or cease during Republican administrations. So this notion that Republican like to portray - "Waste Police" is nothing but hypocrisy.

No, but they generally don't grow as quickly.

 

[Clux4]

No, but they generally don't grow as quickly.

Another attempt to minimize Republican culpability.

I get it. It is waste but not as much waste.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Another attempt to minimize Republican culpability.

I get it. It is waste but not as much waste.

If I have to choose between waste and more waste, and unfortunately I do have to choose, I will opt for waste. And hope that enough other people are smart enough to do the same.

 

[SkywardET]

The United States of America has the most dynamic, innovative, creative, and productive people and economy in the world, all based on a simple formula:

1) Low taxes
2) Limited government
3) Fiscal conservatism
4) Free-market capitalism
5) Individualism

Total government spending should be only around 35% of GDP, but right now, total government spending (local, state, and federal) is getting close to 50% I believe.

Such a shame that we do not have a political party that believes in those principles. Democrats do not pay lip service to any of them, while Republicans generally support part 1), but substantively reject the rest.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

So regulation of shared airspace and radio spectrums is socialism?

There's a little more to the FAA and FCC, don't you think?

 

[desertoasis]

Such a shame that we do not have a political party that believes in those principles. Democrats do not pay lip service to any of them, while Republicans generally support part 1), but substantively reject the rest.

That would be the Democratic-Republicans of the Jefferson-Madison era...but those days are long gone. They opposed the Federalist's ideas of a strong central government, opting instead to campaign on states' rights and the yeoman farmer being of higher importance than the banker. Ironically, one of the descendants of that party is the modern Democratic Party.

It's a shame that it takes the equivalent value of a small European nation to start a political campaign, let alone run a national political party, otherwise there would probably be a few of the so-called 'minor independent' parties (the Libertarians and the Constitution Party come to mind) that would be all too eager to take the center seats away from the Democrats and the Republicans. Congress could use some fresh ideas, because the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin, and 'change' is never going to come when its the same two groups repackaging the same bulls**t year after year after year.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Republicans are emphatically against government take over but when you ask them about the Fire, Police, or even the FDA the conversation drastically changes to taxes. It is all about the taxes. It is not really government take over that they are worried about, it is the taxes. So how else do we fund the Fire, Police, FAA, FDA and the many other function the government provides without taxes.

These same Republicans share the notion that we should look our for the little man because no one else will. So then you ask them how exactly one would go about looking out for the little man. They are usually short of words. For one they will not offer up the status quo as a desirable option and they know that they cannot offer up a government intervention as a solution because that is against the core of their believe.

This is not a Republicans vs. Democrats thing. And I'm a little confused by your allusion to the "little man." You've done it in other posts. Who is the little man?

 

[HercDriver]

Yea, that chart was a good find, wasn't it? Now, let's put it into context. For those that missed it, this is what we're talking about. And HercDriver, next time at least post a link to it or attribute its source.

My bad...thought I did, since I thought the Atlantic's article and follow-on posts were interesting.

The chart is very clean and pretty. It does a fine job of visually showing the percentage of corporate assets nationalized by the government. But what does that mean in regards to socialism? Well, pretty much nothing.

That chart does responds to the post above mine, since "banks, auto companies or health care industries" are covered by it. And these are some of the main things touted by folks on the Right to show our slide into socialism. And if you go by the increase of Gov't spending of GDP (usually broken out separately, but whatev), it looks like Reagan was more of a Socialist than Clinton (sure I suspected, but this chart proves conclusively...)

Ten Planks of Socialism and you

I've seen your arguments before, but in more colorful form:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
Always interesting to read those fringe websites.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

And as if you go by the increase of Gov't spending of GDP (usually broken out separately, but whatev)

What is usually broken out separately?

it looks like Reagan was more of a Socialist than Clinton (sure I suspected, but this chart proves conclusively...)

You're not getting it. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats or one particular president compared to another. New Deal legislation opened the door for progressives to consistently move the U.S. more and more towards socialism over the last several decades.

I've seen your arguments before, but in more colorful form:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
Always interesting to read those fringe websites.

Yeah, those crazy kooks. You can't articulate any logical argument for why it doesn't indicate a move toward socialism, so you resort to calling the ideas fringe. I realize the idea of all this is a hard pill to swallow. But you can't keep saying ,"it's not socialism because it's not socialism." Me thinks you've never even seen or heard of the 10 planks outlined in the Communist Manifesto until today. Have you ever bother to read it?

Here, let's start with an easy one....public education. According to Marx, free public education for all children is one of the socialist principles. Do we, the U.S. provide free public education for all our children? If we do, please explain how that does not meet that particular requirement of socialism as outlined by Marx.

 

[Clux4]

This is not a Republicans vs. Democrats thing. And I'm a little confused by your allusion to the "little man." You've done it in other posts. Who is the little man?

The fraction of Americans caught between Big government and Corporate America.

 

[Brett327]

What is usually broken out separately?

You're not getting it. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats or one particular president compared to another. New Deal legislation opened the door for progressives to consistently move the U.S. more and more towards socialism over the last several decades.

Yeah, those crazy kooks. You can't articulate any logical argument for why it doesn't indicate a move toward socialism, so you resort to calling the ideas fringe. I realize the idea of all this is a hard pill to swallow. But you can't keep saying ,"it's not socialism because it's not socialism." Me thinks you've never even seen or heard of the 10 planks outlined in the Communist Manifesto until today. Have you ever bother to read it?

Here, let's start with an easy one....public education. According to Marx, free public education for all children is one of the socialist principles. Do we, the U.S. provide free public education for all our children? If we do, please explain how that does not meet that particular requirement of socialism as outlined by Marx.

Are you suggesting that we abandon the concept of public education for K-12? Are there any developed nations that have a 100% privatized education system? I don't know the answer, but I'm sure it would be instructive. Would you be in favor of public education if it was funded completely from state and local governments?

Brett

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The fraction of Americans caught between Big government and Corporate America.

I'm still not clear who that would be. Post a picture or something as an example? I'm a visual kind of guy.

 

[HercDriver]

What is usually broken out separately?

I haven't been forced to look at a GDP chart since a college course I took 12+ years ago, but the charts I saw broke out Gov't spending separately from GDP. My understanding is this was standard.

Yeah, those crazy kooks. You can't articulate any logical argument for why it doesn't indicate a move toward socialism, so you resort to calling the ideas fringe. I realize the idea of all this is a hard pill to swallow. But you can't keep saying ,"it's not socialism because it's not socialism." Me thinks you've never even seen or heard of the 10 planks outlined in the Communist Manifesto until today. Have you ever bother to read it?

Yep; forced to in a PolySci class 20+ years ago in college. And I read your same arguments before (hope you didn't think you were the first one or were offended by my pointing out the same) on the internets. I look at arguments like:"6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Check FCC, DOT, ICC, FAA, AMTRAK" as a whole bunch of black and white, where I see grey. Is the means of transport really centralized in the hands of the state because of regulation...arguable, IMO.

I see the website I cited before, and organizations like the Flat Taxers as out of the mainstream in today's political climate with little political power. That may change, but for today they can safely be classified as "fringe".

My conclusion: Argue all you want to about our slide since FDR...what is the bottom line? Will the progressive income tax be abolished, will all of those gov't agencies you cited disappear, etc., etc.? I realize this is a hard pill to swallow, but I doubt it.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I see the website I cited before, and organizations like the Flat Taxers as out of the mainstream in today's political climate with little political power. That may change, but for today they can safely be classified as "fringe".

My conclusion: Argue all you want to about our slide since FDR...what is the bottom line? Will the progressive income tax be abolished, will all of those gov't agencies you cited disappear, etc., etc.? I realize this is a hard pill to swallow, but I doubt it.

I think I'm seeing issue at hand now since you couldn't even answer a very simple question. You see all these notions of socialism as being out of the mainstream, regardless of whether there are actual examples in the U.S. staring you right in the face. If you were to believe any of it, that would make you part of the "fringe" and that scares you. If you did believe any part of it, you would be out of the mainstream which you feel has little political power, or in other words, little control in the outcome in political issues. Aviators being who they are, want to be in control of their environment. They need to feel they control the outcome or at the very least have a say in it. If you were to accept any of these ideas, you would no longer have the same level of control that you're used to. Makes sense now.

 

[Brett327]

I think I'm seeing issue at hand now since you couldn't even answer a very simple question. You see all these notions of socialism as being out of the mainstream, regardless of whether there are actual examples in the U.S. staring you right in the face. If you were to believe any of it, that would make you part of the "fringe" and that scares you. If you did believe any part of it, you would be out of the mainstream which you feel has little political power, or in other words, little control in the outcome in political issues. Aviators being who they are, want to be in control of their environment. They need to feel they control the outcome or at the very least have a say in it. If you were to accept any of these ideas, you would no longer have the same level of control that you're used to. Makes sense now.

Since you won't address my (rather interesting) questions, what's your bottom line, Steve?

Brett