Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group-so you know it is higher

[JakeStarkey]

OK. I believe that you think business should be unregulated by government. I am not attacking you, I just want to make sure that I understand your philosophy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shhhhhhh...

To conservatives any regulation= SOCIALISM

Anyone who believes that is fries short of a Happy Meal. And if they want to prove they mean it and aren't just a bunch of loudmouths, I'm buy them a ticket on the first boat to Somalia, aka utopia in the minds of libertarians (after all, no government is the smallest possible government).

anarchists tend to believe in no government
Libertarians tend to believe in limited government

While I agree, no gov't is an impossibility, limited gov't was supported by most of the Founding Fathers of the US

If the founders had agreed with the modern day anti-government kooks on the right, they would have formed 13 countries.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some believed the states remained sovereign in the union: that thinking is the right definition of "statism."

 

[Neotrotsky]

OK. I believe that you think business should be unregulated by government. I am not attacking you, I just want to make sure that I understand your philosophy.

Again, I am not trying to be "funny" here
It depends on the business and type. Free market does not mean no regulations. Such as natural monopolies; public goods etc

It is guided by many things

For example,
collectivism is bad
central economic planning will ultimately erode at individual liberty

The efficient exchange/use of resources is best maintained through the price mechanism in free markets

The central role of the state should be to maintain the rule of law and protect property rights, with as little arbitrary intervention as possible.
etc

 

[Neotrotsky]

Anyone who believes that is fries short of a Happy Meal. And if they want to prove they mean it and aren't just a bunch of loudmouths, I'm buy them a ticket on the first boat to Somalia, aka utopia in the minds of libertarians (after all, no government is the smallest possible government).

anarchists tend to believe in no government
Libertarians tend to believe in limited government

While I agree, no gov't is an impossibility, limited gov't was supported by most of the Founding Fathers of the US

If the founders had agreed with the modern day anti-government kooks on the right, they would have formed 13 countries.

If the founders had agreed with the modern day leftwing fisters kooks on the left, they never would have made a Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

The liberals, neo, were Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, and a good 2/3rds of the Founders who wanted a strong constitution. In fact, government and business interaction and regulation began with the first US bank: 20% of the capital and 20% of the directors were federal.

Unregulated markets lead to monopolies. The balance of regulation is that which is critical, not too much and not to little.

 

[code1211]

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?



I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

Not to split hairs here, but he did fire the head of GM, is regulating the incomes of business executives, is regulating the decisions of the institutions in hock to the bail outs, has engineereed a bailout of the UAW, is trying mightily to nationalize the insurance industry and is engaged in promoting the passage of Cap and Trade.

With what he has done and what he wants to do there absolutely nothing done for profit in the USA that the government would not have direct oversight of or intersection with.

In short, everything he has done since he moved from the podium that said ofice of the president elect to the podium that says office of the president has been aimed creating a managed economy.

What have you noticed him doing that does NOT contribute to that goal?

So he is regulating the businesses that got bailed out in an attempt to ensure that they don't need another bailout as executives walk away with huge undeserved compensation. I don't see the problem nor how that translates into control over the entirety of all compaines as you seem to imply.

Then in the second half of your rant you create a fictitious "goal", assign that to obama without offering proof that is what he has done and then ask others to disprove your argument when you offer nothing of substance to support it?? But I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?? So do you have any proof or not?

The bail outs are a disaster all by themselves. The fact that the administration demanded that banks that did not need bail outs accept them in order to not cause a panic for those that did is one thing. Refusing to allow pay backs from those that did not want the bail outs and did not need them is another. Regulating the payroll of those executive staffs is an extension of the lunacy and is evidence of a managed economy.

What part of controlling the insurance industry and taxing based on Cap and Trade does not not sound like a managed economy to you? What products are on the list of products that the Federal governemnt compels citizens to buy?

Healthcare Insurance is one sixth of the economy. Everything in the economy is run by energy. My "rant" as you call it, is simply stating the fact that this administration is trying to manage this economy at every level. If you don't agree, that's fine. You don't need to agree that a thief is stealing your wallet to not have your wallet after the thief takes it.

Out of curiosity, what has the Big 0 done to prevent the government from assuming the management role in this economy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

anarchists tend to believe in no government
Libertarians tend to believe in limited government

While I agree, no gov't is an impossibility, limited gov't was supported by most of the Founding Fathers of the US

If the founders had agreed with the modern day anti-government kooks on the right, they would have formed 13 countries.

If the founders had agreed with the modern day leftwing fisters kooks on the left, they never would have made a Constitution

Are you closer to the party of Lincoln or the party of Jefferson Davis? In THEIR time...

 

[Neotrotsky]

The liberals, neo, were Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, and a good 2/3rds of the Founders who wanted a strong constitution. In fact, government and business interaction and regulation began with the first US bank: 20% of the capital and 20% of the directors were federal.

Unregulated markets lead to monopolies. The balance of regulation is that which is critical, not too much and not to little.

Classical liberals is a better term for most of the Founding Fathers. This is not equal to today's term of liberal.

Unregulated markets do not necessarily lead to monopolies. It is curious you make a statement that Lenin claimed. Lenin claimed that the advanced stage of capitalism would relay upon the rise of monopolies ie Imperialism.

Perhaps you are thinking of cartels ; oligopoly or collusion (which are against the law)

Either way, a lot of these are caused by gov't intervention in the first place
For example health care, by the gov't limiting the ability to compete across state lines; the gov't unwillingness to address tort reform and the tons of regulations put upon them, they have increased the Economies of scale on these industries to such a point that the market will limit the number of firms that can effectively compete within the industry by putting up barriers to entry.

In effect, the gov't can and has created economic situations to mimic the factors that create a natural monopoly, if you will.

 

[code1211]

Pretty good- they still controlled congress

No they lost Congress and the Senate in the next election, and the presidency in the next election.

Btw, if according to this nonsense only 21% of Americans think they're liberal, and Obama got 52% of the vote, that means that 60% of the voters who chose a liberal Democrat for president aren't themselves liberal??

These self-indentifications are nonsense. If 37%, or 40%, of the country were really conservative, in the purist/litmus test sense of that word (or by the definition of the so-called 'real' conservatives) we wouldn't have Democrats in control of the government at every level from the federal on down.

The last election was a referedum on GWB, the War in Iraq and the celebration of a post racial Black man with wisdom beyond his years.

Turns out, the Big 0 did not have the answers he claimed to have. He's been wrong on everything he has tried. Gitmo is still open. Another couple trillion have evaporated and no good came of it.

The Dems have been exposed as only slightly more corrupt than a group of kleptomaniac Catholic priests stealing the collection plates to buy chocolate chip cookies and ice cream.

The Big 0 told us that if we bailed out GM, they would avoid bankruptcy. We did. They didn't. If we enacted a trillion dollar stimulus, that unemployment would not go over 8%. We did and it did. If we elected him, we'd have universal healthcare and no tax increase on the middle class. The healthcare is NOT universal, the tax increases are universal and the tax increses affect everyone and the healthcare will NOT cover everyone, but everyone will be subject to the penalties for not carrying it.

You may enjoy being swindeled and lied to, but quite a few people get mad, real mad, when this happens to them.

They felt that GWB lied to them. Now they feel that the Big 0 is lying to them. Do you think that their reaction will be less severe with the Big 0?


GOP Lead Slips to Five on Generic Ballot - Rasmussen Reports™

Despite the decline, the latest numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 12-percentage points over the course of the year. Support for Democrats has declined four points since the inauguration while Republican support is up eight points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's interesting you link me with Lenin, neotrotsky, when probably 100 million other folks have said the same thing. The inference is dishonest, my friend. Modern imperialism was one of the reasons for the rise of large corporations, and, eventually, monopolies. I

In fact, health insurance companies have created a monster industry that resists viciously any infringement on its profit margin while it grows increasingly more lucrative as it denies insurance to the the sick and ill.

Yes, it is time for reform, and because my party did not pro-actively encourage the industry to reform on its own. Neo, folks are not happy with the state of accessibility and affordability. All Americans need that accessibility and affordability. Such a belief is not communistic and not socialistic. It is a humanistic and realistic.

 

[oreo]

This isn't really a surprise to me. I remember a poll a little while back that had more Democrats defining themselves as Conservative than Liberal.

From your own link:

Thus far in 2009, Gallup has found an average of 36% of Americans considering themselves Democratic, 28% Republican, and 37% independent. When independents are pressed to say which party they lean toward, 51% of Americans identify as Democrats, 39% as Republicans, and only 9% as pure independents.

That only means our infiltration program is beginning to work. Soon you will only have a choice between conservative and conservative.

Nope----there's always going to be liberal politicians around promising the masses everything at the expense of others. "That's how they got elected in the first place."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe Norman Thomas (Socialist Party presidential candidate in the 1940's) said it the best: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But ...”

Gawd you're pathetic. Cherry picking what some socialist said way back when.

Do you know how many stupid things socialists have said, how many predictions they made, how many plans they deluded themselves into thinking they put into effect?

The American people who you sell short, decided a long time ago that socialism was not a viable solution to the huge flaws in our capitalist system.

Have you never heard of socialist democracies, where life is not as bleak as your idiotic views believe?

socialism was never going to be an end all of anything, but to dismiss out of hand the good ideas socialists had, because of some warped fear...some idiotic assumption that socialism is so appealing...yes you act as if we need to be protected from something we are prone to accept....to asume as you do that socialsm is a threat to American democracy is to live on a world of boogy men and monsters.

good luck with that.

d.

 

[Neotrotsky]

It's interesting you link me with Lenin, neotrotsky, when probably 100 million other folks have said the same thing. The inference is dishonest, my friend. Modern imperialism was one of the reasons for the rise of large corporations, and, eventually, monopolies. I

In fact, health insurance companies have created a monster industry that resists viciously any infringement on its profit margin while it grows increasingly more lucrative as it denies insurance to the the sick and ill.

Yes, it is time for reform, and because my party did not pro-actively encourage the industry to reform on its own. Neo, folks are not happy with the state of accessibility and affordability. All Americans need that accessibility and affordability. Such a belief is not communistic and not socialistic. It is a humanistic and realistic.

I wasn't trying to link you to anything; I just said it was curious that you used the same terminology. If you look back I said " Perhaps you are thinking of cartels ; oligopoly or collusion". 100 million ? where did you get that fact. Besides, number does not make it right- now does it

Modern Imperialism? You do know there is a difference between the historical definition of imperialism and "Lenin" style definition? I only ask because your emphasis on monopolies is not really consistent with the historical definition. (again I am not trying to link you)

Speaking of health insurance profits- did you know :

AP FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat
Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

THE CLAIMS
_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers'"obscene profits."
_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.
_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

________________________________________________________________

"All Americans need that accessibility and affordability. Such a belief is not communistic and not socialistic. It is a humanistic and realistic"

To say all people want no; to say it is some kind of "right" that has to be provided by gov't is ..... unless you believe the US Constitution should have positive rights in it and not negative rights

However the Democrats solutions this time are wrong ones. Even the left and the right hate this bill (for different reasons).

"Yes, it is time for reform, and because my party did not pro-actively encourage the industry to reform on its own."

The Democrats I agree- they gave up all chance for tort reform or allowing competition across state lines- all things to help bring down costs

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's get you right before you get left (that's funny!), neotrotsky.

There was no need for the comment about Lenin.

You have a mistaken notion of just what imperialism was and its effect on the growth of late 19th and 20th century corporations.

The only worthwhile comparison with the health insurance industry would be the construction industry; the others are not industries by themselves.

No one said it was a "right".

My party could have passed tort reform, could have passed portable laws. It didn't.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Let's get you right before you get left (that's funny!), neotrotsky.

There was no need for the comment about Lenin.

You have a mistaken notion of just what imperialism was and its effect on the growth of late 19th and 20th century corporations.

The only worthwhile comparison with the health insurance industry would be the construction industry; the others are not industries by themselves.

No one said it was a "right".

My party could have passed tort reform, could have passed portable laws. It didn't.

My understanding of imperialism is perfectly clear. I have not confused the two definitions as you have. Again, I believe your confusion is one of training and not some "portal" into your political "soul"


As for the Repubs, they did not do enough. They did pass some class action reform measure in 2005, but it was too little too late. Of course, they paid the price.


If you mean the Dems- no way will they pass tort reform or portability laws for health insurance carriers across state lines. It seems the Dems have not learned from Repubs mistakes and will probably pay the same price

 

[JakeStarkey]

I meant my party, the GOP. It did not do what it should have when it had the chance, then it wants to whine when the Dems take the last election as a mandate to push health insurance reform. The Dems' priority is to socialize the insurance risk for all Americans. The GOP could have done that much more cheaply. I am curious to see just how far left the Dems will push their program.