Do Republicans Not Understand How Moronic It Is To Blame Obama For Today's Economy Yet Won't Give..

[Listening]

I've challenged Board liberals repeatedly to tell us all what Barack Obama's plans are to create jobs and stimulate the economy and the only answer that ever seems to come back is that "you can't make plans if you know the other side won't let you do them!" I'm sorry folks but that's a cop out! You CAN make plans and you CAN present them to the American people and let THEM pressure Congress into acting! Barry doesn't DO that because Barry hasn't had an economic stimulus plan since the Obama Stimulus tanked WAY back in the beginning of his first term. Since then he hasn't even tried. I'll bet you can't even tell me who his economic advisers ARE...can you? Think about that! The number one concern for Americans in poll after poll for six years has been jobs and the economy and yet you don't know who Barry's economic "gurus" are!

Hmm well we have had consistent job growth each month since the stimulus came into effect. Hmmmm

Jesus, Billy...are you kidding? It's been the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression! Job growth has been grinding along for years now. I guess you could call that "consistent" growth but consistently sluggish is not something to brag about!

So...did you want to tell me who Barry's economic advisers are? And then give us a brief synopsis of what their plan is to put people back to work? Or are you going to keep on ducking?

So...a few hundred thousand a month isn't enough? Why not?

This is why:

lol you cons cling to this stat when you have nothing else. News flash: the labor participation rate has been declining before Obama came to office and two of the primary reasons why it has been declining is retirement and disability claims.

How and anyone look at that graph and make such a stupid statement. Even a two-year old could see the huge drop shown on the graph. The claim that it is retirement is stupid. People began putting OFF retirement after the crash because they could not afford Obama. The rate then levels out even though we are just starting to hit the time when boomers are supposed to start (and are) retiring in droves.

You are a cretin.

 

[Listening]

BillO is a confirmed Obamabot. Anything Barry does is fine with him.

Barry wasted two years with his absurd ACA that he and the Dems foisted on the American taxpayer instead of focusing on the economy.

Its been six years and the economy is still sluggish at best.

We still have another two years with that idiot in the WH.

A guy who's never held a real job in his entire life. A guy we taxpayers will be supporting for the rest of his life. He doesn't care about the economy. Why should he? He's not running for POTUS again.

Save your breath trying to explain things to BillyO. He also could care less.

I have to wonder if Billy0.000000 is actually a psych student running an experiment (how far will people go to educate an obvious idiot and when do they figure out it can't be done).

We know that his thread premises are shit.

But we still can't resist the need to respond (and then keep responding to his worthless follow up).

I am thinking that the idea is that each new thread is more outrageous in it's content and the idea is to see when we will wake up and quit wasting our time.

I've now reached that point.

 

[mudwhistle]

...any blame to Bush for it? You have this mantra that liberals love to blame Bush for everything yet when it is so obvious something is Bush's fault you still say that bullshit.

Now it's debatable how much Bush had to do with the Great Recession but I think it is safe to say he at least contributed a small part to it (TIME has a great article on that). Despite that, you put most of the blame on Obama for the economy that he inherited and it's just fucking stupid.

According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created close to 3 million private jobs. Not only that, but we have seen twice as many private sector jobs created in his first term than in both of Bush's. These are facts. The stock market has never been better. You can whine about them being false but they are very much true.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say this recovery has been "slow". The economy lost 8 million jobs to that recession. What kind of job growth are you repubs expecting? What would be suitable for you? A million jobs a month? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Do you really expect any economy from any part of the globe to get a million jobs a month? That seems to be what you clowns are demanding. I mean how many jobs should we be creating every month? Why is it Obama's fault we haven't your magic number? Nowadays, we have regained all the jobs we lost. Yes, you can whine about it not keeping up with population growth if you want but it is still true.

Oh, and some of you love to bring up the small number of parttime jobs created under Obama. Tell me, if job creators are wealthier than they have ever been, why is it that you don't put any blame on them for the economic mess this country suffered? Why don't you ask them where all the full time jobs are?

Obama 8217 s Numbers July 2014 Update

Everything thing is Bush's fault.

Obama isn't at fault for anything because he never does anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another Billy Zippo troll thread.
Hey, Billy. Fixing to get your ass beaten again so you can run away like a coward?
Obama has been president for 6 years. For the first 2 years he could and did enact any legislation he wanted. If the present economy isn't Obama's fault, whose fault is it? Bush? He's been out of office for 6years. For the last two years of his term he had a solid Democrat majority in Congress.
We have the worst recovery on record. That is simply a fact. We have the fewest people working since the 1970s. That is a fact. The gains in household wealth have accrued at the top. That is a fact. Income inequality is worse now than it was 6 years ago. That is a fact.
And all of thsoe things are directly traceable to Obama's policies.

Oh, sure it was dumb of Obama to extend Bush's awful tax cuts for the wealthy, but that is literally the only thing by Obama that has contributed to the rising inequality. Of course he did help the lower classes by giving the middle class the biggest tax cut since Reagan. Bush was too much of a moron to understand the vitality of the middle class.

How moronic do you think you sound by putting all the blame on the democratic congress. God it's so pathetic and transparent.

Of course he did help the lower classes by giving the middle class the biggest tax cut since Reagan.

Prove it.

 

[Rinata]

Not true. See when it comes to extending unemployment benefits, there is $1.21 in economic growth for every dollar lost in revenue. For Bush's tax cuts, there was only 70 cents in growth for every dollar lost in revenue. These are facts.

ROFL god you are so dumb, and such a bad liar.

Extended Federal Unemployment Benefits and the Economy

Same tired bullshit you Keynesians have been posting for decades.

She's wrong which makes you stupid.

And yet you can't explain why she is wrong. Have some humility. Economists know more than you, k pumpkin?

I don't need to. The whole foundation of her claims have been blown apart for decades. Her math doesn't add up and she's excluding key parameters. It's all about making the conclusion fit the POV.

She knows nothing...just like you.

Just words. Where is your proof?? Or are we just supposed to believe you?? Tell us, you idiot.

 

[PixieStix]

Another Billy Zippo troll thread.
Hey, Billy. Fixing to get your ass beaten again so you can run away like a coward?
Obama has been president for 6 years. For the first 2 years he could and did enact any legislation he wanted. If the present economy isn't Obama's fault, whose fault is it? Bush? He's been out of office for 6years. For the last two years of his term he had a solid Democrat majority in Congress.
We have the worst recovery on record. That is simply a fact. We have the fewest people working since the 1970s. That is a fact. The gains in household wealth have accrued at the top. That is a fact. Income inequality is worse now than it was 6 years ago. That is a fact.
And all of thsoe things are directly traceable to Obama's policies.

Over the 20-year history of the Index, the U.S.’s economic freedom has fluctuated significantly. During the first 10 years, its score rose gradually, and it joined the ranks of the economically “free” in 2006. Since then, it has suffered a dramatic decline of almost 6 points, with particularly large losses in property rights, freedom from corruption, and control of government spending. The U.S. is the only country to have recorded a loss of economic freedom each of the past seven years.

And in case you were wondering whether Obamacare has had real economic effects, the authors note that the law “appears to be significantly hurting job creation and full-time employment.”

That’s part of a bigger trend: “Substantial expansion in the size and scope of government, including through new and costly regulations in areas like finance and health care, has contributed significantly to the erosion of U.S. economic freedom.”
http://dailysignal.com/2014/01/14/economic-freedom-u-s-dropping-rankings/

 

[Iceweasel]

Is Bush sill responsible for Obamanomics?

 

[Billy000]

Is Bush sill responsible for Obamanomics?

No because then it would be Bush who was responsible for the recovery instead of Obama.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is Bush sill responsible for Obamanomics?

No because then it would be Bush who was responsible for the recovery instead of Obama.

What recovery? Most Americans polled believe we are still in a recession.

 

[Billy000]

Is Bush sill responsible for Obamanomics?

No because then it would be Bush who was responsible for the recovery instead of Obama.

What recovery? Most Americans polled believe we are still in a recession.

Americans are dumb and so are you.

 

[eagle7_31]

...any blame to Bush for it? You have this mantra that liberals love to blame Bush for everything yet when it is so obvious something is Bush's fault you still say that bullshit.

Now it's debatable how much Bush had to do with the Great Recession but I think it is safe to say he at least contributed a small part to it (TIME has a great article on that). Despite that, you put most of the blame on Obama for the economy that he inherited and it's just fucking stupid.

According to the CBO, Obama's stimulus alone created close to 3 million private jobs. Not only that, but we have seen twice as many private sector jobs created in his first term than in both of Bush's. These are facts. The stock market has never been better. You can whine about them being false but they are very much true.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to say this recovery has been "slow". The economy lost 8 million jobs to that recession. What kind of job growth are you repubs expecting? What would be suitable for you? A million jobs a month? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds? Do you really expect any economy from any part of the globe to get a million jobs a month? That seems to be what you clowns are demanding. I mean how many jobs should we be creating every month? Why is it Obama's fault we haven't your magic number? Nowadays, we have regained all the jobs we lost. Yes, you can whine about it not keeping up with population growth if you want but it is still true.

Oh, and some of you love to bring up the small number of parttime jobs created under Obama. Tell me, if job creators are wealthier than they have ever been, why is it that you don't put any blame on them for the economic mess this country suffered? Why don't you ask them where all the full time jobs are?

Obama 8217 s Numbers July 2014 Update

Obama, in charge of everything, responsible for nothing.

 

[Iceweasel]

Is Bush sill responsible for Obamanomics?

No because then it would be Bush who was responsible for the recovery instead of Obama.

You call this a recovery? You must be very young.

 

[MaxGrit]

Economic Freedom and Liberty

Economic Freedom and Liberty
5 Threats to Your Economic Freedom

By Geoffrey Pike
Friday, September 26th, 2014

There is no doubt that some countries are far more economically free than others.

Having a free economy means having strong property rights, a generally stable form of money, and few government regulations.

Where there is more economic freedom, there is usually more prosperity. There is less poverty and a higher standard of living. When people are allowed to voluntarily trade and do business, it encourages savings and investment. It encourages entrepreneurism.

While there is always a risk in starting a business, the risk of government confiscation or interference is diminished in a society that generally respects property rights. An entrepreneur who is successful in a relatively free economy will get to reap the rewards of providing his goods and services.

In some countries, economic freedom outweighs civil liberties. For example, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates are two of the freest places on the planet, economically speaking. They are great places to find a job or do business — but they are not as good in terms of civil liberties and social freedoms.

On the other hand, some European countries are freer when it comes to civil liberties yet not as economically free — they're often considered welfare states.

With that said, there is no question that there is a relationship between economic freedom and liberty in general. It is no coincidence that North Korea is probably the most authoritarian country on Earth and also has almost nothing in the way of a free market. It is an extremely impoverished country.

The United States in the 19th century was perhaps the most economically free country in history (not counting the 1860s, which was a period of war).

This was one of the greatest periods of growth in history, too. It was also a time of great civil liberties in the respect that government, particularly the federal government, had little involvement in people’s lives.

The one major contradiction of this time period was, of course, slavery. This is the glaring exception where liberty did not reign supreme.

Government Intervention and the Economy

Those who identify themselves as Republicans and conservatives (civilians, not politicians) tend to favor economic freedom, including lower taxes and less government regulation.

Unfortunately, many conservatives don’t care to pay a lot of attention to issues of civil liberties and foreign intervention — or worse, they cheer on big government when it comes to these things. There is something of a contradiction in thinking that the government is too incompetent to run our health care system and plan our economy yet is an efficient machine when it comes to fighting wars, stopping drug abuse, and keeping us safe from terrorists.

It must be stressed that economic freedom goes hand in hand with the general cause of liberty. It is rare that you have a government that will spy on you, control you, and intervene overseas, while also maintaining strong property rights and economic freedom at home.

And while this probably won’t come as a surprise, it takes a lot of money for a government to be active. Spying on people is expensive. Fighting a drug war is expensive. Regulating people’s behavior is expensive. Most of all, fighting foreign wars and occupying other countries is incredibly expensive, both in lives and money.

Fighting in a foreign war means buying and maintaining equipment. It means buying oil and gas to run the machinery. It means paying salaries and benefits to a large number of people. It means paying pensions and disability for injuries, both mental and physical. And this money has to come from somewhere.

It can either come from taxes or from inflation and debt. But even the latter scenario affects our economic freedom today. It is capital being diverted away from production and investment.

There is a misconception that debt is only a burden on future generations. In reality, it is a burden right now.

In other words, if you want a big government that is constantly fighting wars, and if you tolerate a big government when it comes to invading certain civil liberties, then you are probably not going to get a small government when it comes to taxes and regulations.

Governments will typically expand and gain as much power as the populace will allow. In the long run, government is generally a reflection of the people. This isn’t to say that people deserve the government they get, but the government is generally limited by the consent of the people.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, he was seen as the pro-liberty candidate. In terms of government spending, he didn’t live up to his reputation, as spending increased quite a bit on his watch.

One area where Reagan was successful in implementing a pro-liberty agenda was in the realm of income tax rates. During his eight years in office, he managed to get the top tax rate reduced from a whopping 70% down to 28%. But how did he manage to get this through a Democrat-controlled Congress?

There were some hard-core leftists that supported (voted in favor of) the legislation to reduce tax rates. Their support was really a reflection of the people.

These Democrats in Congress were receiving thousands of phone calls a day telling them to support Reagan’s tax-cut plan. They had almost no choice but to oblige or risk losing their jobs.

In other words, because Reagan received the support of the American people on cutting marginal income tax rates, it happened. When the will of the people is strong enough, politicians will change with the wind.

Consent to Being Ruled

The point here is that if you concede your liberty on some issues, then don’t be surprised when it is all infringed upon. If you ask the government do something on your behalf, it is going to take that as a green light to do everything on your behalf.

Republican politicians say they want more economic freedom but insist on curtailing civil liberties. Democratic politicians say they want greater civil liberties but insist on taxing the rich and increasing welfare.

So what happens?

Both sides compromise. The Republicans support bigger government for welfare programs. Democrats support bigger government to curtail civil liberties.

If you ask for bigger government in one area, you are probably going to get it everywhere. If you consent to big government, you are going to get big government.

That is why I believe that even if your main goal is to increase economic freedom and capitalism, it is also important to be aware of government in every area of your life. This includes everything from the government fighting wars thousands of miles away to the seemingly little things that go on in your hometown that are endorsed by your city council.

This is why we recently launched a new service called Liberty Briefing. And as a member of Wealth Daily, you can get it free right here.

Plus, my colleague Jeff Siegel has also put together a new report called, “The 5 Greatest Threats to Your Liberty.” This report is also free, and you can get a copy by clicking this link.

Look, if you want to properly build and protect your wealth, you must properly defend your rights to do so. And that means being acutely aware of any threat to your individual liberty.

We'll help you do that at Liberty Briefing.

Until next time,

Geoffrey Pike for Wealth Daily

 

[MaxGrit]

Economic Freedom and Liberty

Religious Liberty and Economic Freedom: Intellectual and Practical Paradoxes
The Role of Economic Liberty in Contributing to Human Flourishing and the Common Good Remains Deeply Underappreciated

Rome, June 06, 2014 (Zenit.org) Dr. Samuel Gregg | 940 hits

One hardly need say that religious liberty is a subject of some urgency for many Christians today. In some cases, it is literally a matter of life and death. Every day we read of the brutal killing of Christians in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Sometimes this has more to do with ethnic and political rivalries than with religion per se. But at least some of the violence flows precisely from antagonism toward Christianity as a religion.

In the West, the situation is certainly different. But can anyone seriously dispute that some governments seem anxious to empty the concept of religious liberty of any meaningful content? Often this is done, strangely enough, in the name of tolerance or equality.

One reason for maintaining strong religious liberty protections is that if governments can substantially nullify religious liberty, they are also capable of repressing any other civil or political freedom—including that of non-believers. It is rare, however, for religious liberty’s defenders to list economic freedom as one of the rights that can be easily suppressed once religious freedom is effectively undermined.

Religious Liberty and Participation in Public Life

One prominent unjust restriction upon religious liberty has been the placing of formal limitations on the ability of members of particular faiths to participate fully in public life. One example is that of Catholics who lived in the England of Elizabeth I and James I. During this period, the English parliament passed a series of acts that gradually stripped Catholics in England of most of their political rights because of their refusal to conform to the Church of England.

The limitations on Catholics’ freedom, however, went beyond this. Usually overlooked is the regime’s attack on English Catholics’ economic freedoms. This came in the form of crippling fines levied on recalcitrant Catholics by governments that, not coincidentally, were short on revenue. The same governments restricted the types of commercially related activities Catholics were allowed to pursue. Incidentally, similar economic restrictions were endured by those Protestants who refused to embrace the Elizabethan religious settlement. Many consequently migrated to America.

I suspect that most people, including some Americans, don’t know that some of these infringements on religious freedom eventually crossed the Atlantic. Take, for instance, the colony of Maryland, founded in 1632 by English Catholics fleeing religious repression. Interestingly, these Catholics insisted on religious tolerance for all Christians in their colony. This resulted in the 1649 Maryland Toleration Act, one of the first laws ever passed that granted religious tolerance to every Trinitarian Christian.

Unfortunately, anti-Catholic laws similar to those in England eventually prevailed in Maryland. For our purposes, however, we should note that economic motives played just as significant a role as anti-Catholic animus in driving this change. As the most famous of Maryland Catholics, Charles Carroll of Carrollton—the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence and the wealthiest man in the American colonies at the time—could not refrain from noting, “Selfish men invented the religious tests to exclude from posts of profit & trust their weaker or more conscientious fellow subjects.”

Here, however, is one of the economic paradoxes of suppression of religious liberty. Limiting a religious group’s participation in political life often results in its members focusing on realizing economic success. Consider, for example, the case of those perennial entrepreneurs: Arab Christians.

Religious Repression and Economic Success

Until the beginning of the twentieth century, Christians constituted almost 25 percent of the Middle East’s population. Less well-known is the fact that Middle Eastern Christians traded extensively with their co-religionists throughout the Mediterranean for centuries. They thus played a major role in facilitating East-West commercial exchange between the Christian and Muslim worlds.

Obviously, the economic success of Middle Eastern Christians has something to do with geography. But another cause may well have been the second-class legal status imposed upon some Arab Christians from the seventh century onwards. In his magisterial History of the Arab Peoples, the late Albert Hourani, Oxford Arabist and historian, relates that Christians in parts of the Middle East were forced to wear special clothes identifying them as non-Muslims. Apart from being obliged to pay a special tax, Christians were also banned from carrying weapons and frequently inhibited from participation in political life. Hourani notes, however, that these constraints resulted in many Christians focusing their attention on those aspects of the economy where they were allowed some liberty. Eventually Middle East Christians, according to Hourani, dominated particular spheres of economic life throughout the region, including merchant shipping and banking.

The Church and the Welfare State

The relationship between economic and religious liberty can, however, work the other way: subtle corrosion of economic freedom can undermine religious liberty. A good example is the modern welfare state. Today, government spending, according to the OECD, consumes a minimum of 40 percent of annual GDP in virtually all Western European nations. The vast majority of this expenditure is on welfare programs.

The modern welfare state is predicated upon the willingness of governments to significantly limit economic freedom. You cannot have large welfare states without extensive regulation, higher taxes, and some redistribution of wealth. All such choices corrode, to some extent, economic freedom. But what does the welfare state have to do with religious liberty? Put simply, there is much to indicate that welfare states have had a negative impact on the Church’s institutional liberty.

Throughout much of the West, Catholic charitable institutions collaborate closely with state welfare agencies. In some cases, they are heavily funded, directly and indirectly, by the government. In most instances, these Church organizations are subject to the same regulations applicable to state welfare institutions, albeit with (a shrinking number of) exemptions concerning activities that the Church considers intrinsically evil.

Part of the problem is philosophical rather than economical per se. As the distinguished American Catholic historian James Hitchcock observes, today’s welfare states are thoroughly grounded upon secularist assumptions about the human person. Since orthodox secularism is based on a hedonistic and nominalist view of man, it is obviously quite different from the understanding of the person articulated in classical Christian anthropology and the natural law. Clashes between these visions explain some governments’ efforts to force Catholic charitable agencies to align themselves with particular secular welfare practices.

But another aspect of the problem is surely the nature of the modern welfare state itself. It cannot help but encourage monolithic approaches to social and economic problems. That is partly because of the welfare state’s top-down approach to society’s challenges. It is also partly a result of modern welfare states’ inevitably bureaucratic character.

This situation has created two difficulties for the Church. First, to the extent that church organizations allow themselves to become incorporated into the welfare state’s workings, their independence of action can become compromised. Second, government funding of church outreach programs to those in need can make such institutions very susceptible to secularist ways of thinking.

How so? As the funds from state contracts begin constituting a significant part of Catholic organizations’ financial resources, reliance on such support creates incentives for such agencies to avoid confrontations with state authorities. It is not unknown for Catholic agencies receiving or seeking government contracts to subtly downplay their Catholic identity. They begin to morph into what George Weigel aptly describes as “mere vehicles for the delivery of state-defined and state-approved ‘benefit’” rather than seeking to live out Christ’s commandment to love our neighbor in ways consistent with the truth revealed by Christ to His Church.

Then there is the depressing fact that acceptance of government funding can encourage many people working in Catholic organizations to view the state as their primary master. This should not be surprising. If 70 percent of a Catholic charity’s income is derived from government subsidies and contracts, the government has effectively become their paymaster.

In principle, the Church has nothing against Catholic organizations working with governments or receiving public funding for purposes such as outreach to the poor. Given, however, the ways in which accepting such funding can subtly diminish the liberty of the Church itself, now is surely the time for Catholics to ask ourselves—and our bishops—some hard questions about the general prudence of the Church in accepting government financial assistance.

Can Market Freedom Advance Religious Belief?

A growth in economic freedom can also positively affect religious liberty. Take the example of mainland China.

Since the early 1980s, China has opened up much of its economy to the world and permitted a degree of private ownership and entrepreneurship. The economic results are well-documented. That’s not to say that China is a model of the market economy. China’s economy is plagued with corruption and rampant crony capitalism. The Chinese Communist Party, military, and government remain major shareholders in thousands of businesses, including, most worryingly, Chinese banks. That said, China is unquestionably more economically free than it was during the dark years of Chairman Mao.

In those Chinese provinces that have been permitted to liberalize their economies, millions of Chinese citizens have embraced Christianity. This is logical. Once you allow more liberty in one area, it is hard to stop freedom from spreading to other spheres of life. Economic liberty, for instance, requires and encourages people to think and choose freely. Without this, free exchange is impossible. It is, however, difficult to limit this reflection and choosing to economic questions. Eventually people will start asking social questions, political questions, and, yes, religious questions. And millions of Chinese have decided Christianity is the answer to their religious ponderings.

This has created immense dilemmas for China’s rulers. On the one hand, China’s president has publicly stated that China is “losing its moral compass” and that religion can “help fill a void that has allowed corruption to flourish.” But the regime also knows that most Christian confessions deny that the state can exercise any religious authority over the church. Such a claim is unacceptable to China’s present rulers because it implicitly challenges the Chinese Communist Party’s insistence that all institutions must be subordinate to its leading role.

This helps explain why the regime persecutes Chinese Catholics who openly insist upon loyalty to the pope, and cracks down whenever Christianity seems to be acquiring wider momentum. In one of China’s wealthiest eastern provinces, Zhejiang, for example, Evangelical Christianity is flourishing. As a result, Evangelical churches are being told to remove their crosses and threatened with having their buildings demolished. The good news, however, is that Evangelical Chinese preachers are publicly denouncing the government’s actions.

As social scientists rightly remind us, correlation does not indicate causation. The fact, however, that many Evangelical ministers in this economically successful and increasingly Christian Chinese province are publicly telling the authorities to back off surely shows us that once the freedom genie is out of the bottle, it is very hard to put it back in. Plainly, religious freedom is not yet a reality in mainland China. Yet, thanks in some part to China’s haphazard market liberalization, bottom-up pressures for a fuller realization of religious liberty are growing.

Of course, the material and economic goods produced through human freedom and enterprise have their own value—but they do not last. Like all worldly things, they eventually disappear from our lives. What do last are those basic moral and spiritual goods developed through human choice and action—including those developed in the economy.

Nevertheless, the role of economic liberty in contributing to human flourishing and the common good remains deeply underappreciated, even by those who are dedicated to religious liberty. Economic liberty is not an absolute. Neither is religious freedom. Both are, however, rooted in the truth about man that we find in Christian anthropology and the natural law: the truth that is knowable through Revelation and right reason. And in the end, these are the only foundations that make all authentic forms of freedom—religious, political, and economic—truly reasonable, fully life-giving, and genuinely indivisible.

 

[Iceweasel]

Unfortunately, many conservatives don’t care to pay a lot of attention to issues of civil liberties and foreign intervention — or worse, they cheer on big government when it comes to these things. There is something of a contradiction in thinking that the government is too incompetent to run our health care system and plan our economy yet is an efficient machine when it comes to fighting wars, stopping drug abuse, and keeping us safe from terrorists.

Horseshit. Those are things only government can do and the primary reason we have government, safety, security and law enforcement. Conservatives don't seem to care about civil liberties to progressives because they don't think gays or transvestites should have special rights. They believe (correctly) that the Constitution applies to individuals, not special interest groups.

In other words, if you want a big government that is constantly fighting wars, and if you tolerate a big government when it comes to invading certain civil liberties, then you are probably not going to get a small government when it comes to taxes and regulations.

(/11 was a classic example of why this author is wrong. The price for doing nothing is often higher than preventative action. Also he's stupid for thinking that means we should simply let government grow. Why is it one or the other, exactly?

Governments will typically expand and gain as much power as the populace will allow. In the long run, government is generally a reflection of the people. This isn’t to say that people deserve the government they get, but the government is generally limited by the consent of the people.

Up to a point. When they take over options are limited. One of the things that keep government in check is an armed populace.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, he was seen as the pro-liberty candidate. In terms of government spending, he didn’t live up to his reputation, as spending increased quite a bit on his watch.

He had a lot of help from the Democrat controlled congress. That's why this asshole said "on his watch". He wanted to obscure that detail. Sounds like a frustrated Libertarian with an ax to grind.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nevertheless, the role of economic liberty in contributing to human flourishing and the common good remains deeply underappreciated, even by those who are dedicated to religious liberty. Economic liberty is not an absolute. Neither is religious freedom. Both are, however, rooted in the truth about man that we find in Christian anthropology and the natural law: the truth that is knowable through Revelation and right reason. And in the end, these are the only foundations that make all authentic forms of freedom—religious, political, and economic—truly reasonable, fully life-giving, and genuinely indivisible.

I don't agree with that either. One can use logic and reason. Revelation is wide open to interpretation. Having a faith is fine and dandy, just don't try to pass it off as universal truth.

 

[RKMBrown]

Unfortunately, many conservatives don’t care to pay a lot of attention to issues of civil liberties and foreign intervention — or worse, they cheer on big government when it comes to these things. There is something of a contradiction in thinking that the government is too incompetent to run our health care system and plan our economy yet is an efficient machine when it comes to fighting wars, stopping drug abuse, and keeping us safe from terrorists.

Horseshit. Those are things only government can do and the primary reason we have government, safety, security and law enforcement. Conservatives don't seem to care about civil liberties to progressives because they don't think gays or transvestites should have special rights. They believe (correctly) that the Constitution applies to individuals, not special interest groups.

Nonsense.

Government is just a group of our employees. There is nothing done by Government that can "only" be done by government. But yes, the reason for government is safety, security, breaking up monopolies, law enforcement, managing tangible and intellectual property, keeping the peace, representing the country ....

Conservatives, is a broad group. So what if many conservatives don't pay attn. to civil liberties and foreign intervention, many do pay attn. You could make the same statement about every group some pay more attn. to certain subjects than others.

In other words, if you want a big government that is constantly fighting wars, and if you tolerate a big government when it comes to invading certain civil liberties, then you are probably not going to get a small government when it comes to taxes and regulations.

([9]/11 was a classic example of why this author is wrong. The price for doing nothing is often higher than preventative action. Also he's stupid for thinking that means we should simply let government grow. Why is it one or the other, exactly?

Nonsense. 9/11 was a classic case of Government failing to do it's job and getting caught with it's pants down, then in response we decided to screw everyone on the planet including ourselves to provide the illusion of doing something. All we needed was to spend a couple bucks putting doors on the cockpit of planes. Instead we knee jerk reacted and spent TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS fighting wars around the planet, created a NAZI like DHS hired SS agents (TSA) to frisk people as they board planes, started reading everyone's instant messages and emails, ... None of which was necessary, and none of which made us safer.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nevertheless, the role of economic liberty in contributing to human flourishing and the common good remains deeply underappreciated, even by those who are dedicated to religious liberty. Economic liberty is not an absolute. Neither is religious freedom. Both are, however, rooted in the truth about man that we find in Christian anthropology and the natural law: the truth that is knowable through Revelation and right reason. And in the end, these are the only foundations that make all authentic forms of freedom—religious, political, and economic—truly reasonable, fully life-giving, and genuinely indivisible.

I don't agree with that either. One can use logic and reason. Revelation is wide open to interpretation. Having a faith is fine and dandy, just don't try to pass it off as universal truth.

Translation... you'd rather use "feelings" than reason, that way you can pretend your handlers are telling you the truth when they use catch phrases that make you feel good.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nonsense.

Government is just a group of our employees. There is nothing done by Government that can "only" be done by government. But yes, the reason for government is safety, security, breaking up monopolies, law enforcement, managing tangible and intellectual property, keeping the peace, representing the country ....

Nonsense. Government was created for a reason, with or without your approval. Here and everywhere else. If you can't understand it that's your problem. Most people don't seem to feel it's best served by the private sector. Which country do you say has a privately run government?

Conservatives, is a broad group. So what if many conservatives don't pay attn. to civil liberties and foreign intervention, many do pay attn. You could make the same statement about every group some pay more attn. to certain subjects than others.

I said it seems that way to progressives because...
If you are going to respond to something read it first. I am well aware conservatives differ, religious and otherwise.

Nonsense. 9/11 was a classic case of Government failing to do it's job and getting caught with it's pants down, then in response we decided to screw everyone on the planet including ourselves to provide the illusion of doing something. All we needed was to spend a couple bucks putting doors on the cockpit of planes. Instead we knee jerk reacted and spent TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS fighting wars around the planet, created a NAZI like DHS hired SS agents (TSA) to frisk people as they board planes, started reading everyone's instant messages and emails, ... None of which was necessary, and none of which made us safer.

Nonsense. You didn't read the post, again. I said it was the classic case of not doing something then you proceed to disagree and back me up on it. WTF? The fact that we haven't had another 9/11 type attack is either a coincidence or something is working. With or without your approval.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nevertheless, the role of economic liberty in contributing to human flourishing and the common good remains deeply underappreciated, even by those who are dedicated to religious liberty. Economic liberty is not an absolute. Neither is religious freedom. Both are, however, rooted in the truth about man that we find in Christian anthropology and the natural law: the truth that is knowable through Revelation and right reason. And in the end, these are the only foundations that make all authentic forms of freedom—religious, political, and economic—truly reasonable, fully life-giving, and genuinely indivisible.

I don't agree with that either. One can use logic and reason. Revelation is wide open to interpretation. Having a faith is fine and dandy, just don't try to pass it off as universal truth.

Translation... you'd rather use "feelings" than reason, that way you can pretend your handlers are telling you the truth when they use catch phrases that make you feel good.

You're a retard. I said logic and reason. That translates into using your feelings? WTF?