Top Priorities

[Foxfyre]

And with reports of Iran now being just hours away from putting its nuclear reactor on line, you would think somebody would have put national defense somewhere up there as a top priority. But the Obama administration isn't even making it a priority at all, and in fact intends to cut spending further.

With an exploding budget crisis, President Obama is proposing spending cuts, but not where you’d think. Has he decided to stop campaigning on behalf of Democratic Congressional members up for reelection at the taxpayers’ expense to the tune of two million dollars? No. Has he decided not to spend $100,000 per teaching job to bail out teachers’ unions? No. Instead, he has decided to cut defense funding and reclassify what constitutes defense spending. The National Security Strategy now declaring a focus on climate change, green energy, and women’s rights.

Iran and North Korea are rapidly developing nuclear weapons capability while the Obama administration relies on more of the same sanctions that not only haven’t worked, but that the administration itself continues to undermine. We are still fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and facing the continued threat of terror attacks, all while President Obama nickel and diming American’s safety. In 2007 America spent near historic lows as a percent of GDP on defense. With this further reduction in defense spending, America is even more vulnerable to attack from rogue states, terrorist groups, and conventional military powers such as China and Russia. . . .
Heritage Foundation: Defense priorities dangerously off-track

A bit of trivia history:

On this day, August 20, in 1998 – U.S. embassy bombings: the United States launches cruise missile attacks against alleged al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

That was 12 years ago. Who here thinks that this kind of thing won't become even more commonplace if the USA blinks or demonstrates weakness or an unwillingness to retaliate?

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit. The defense budget has cut out unnecessary (and useless) aircraft and other very expensive toys that neocons can't seem to live without. To imply that the Pentagon's national security policy is solely toward green energy is a flat-out lie. It's also a flat-out lie to imply that the U.S. doesn't have enough warheads, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy not just Iran, but the entire planet. Heritage, of course, also ignores the fact that terrorism is a METHOD that can't be detroyed by weapons. God you're gullible. When will you start looking at facts and not fiction for your repeated posted partisan junk?

I'm so glad to know that you think yourself to be more well read, informed, and skilled at this stuff than the economists at the Heritage Foundation, Maggie. But if believing that gives you comfort, carry on.

Meanwhile, as for those links you requested:

There is no way I can link years of sitting his history class or the entire works of Forbes, Friedman, Williams, Sowell, et al that would be necessary for a full education.

You might want to start with the more condensed stuff:

Economic Myths and Irrelevancy
A MINORITY VIEW

Politics and Blacks
A MINORITY VIEW

Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time
Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time

OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity
OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity | Cato @ Liberty

How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status
Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status | The Heritage Foundation

And I refer you to some really informative books:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman;

APPLIED ECONOMICS
BASIC ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC FACTS AND FALLACIES
THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST
KNOWLEDGE AND DECISIONS
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF RACE​

by Thomas Sowell​

Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism
More Liberty Means Less Government Our Founders Knew This Well
America: A Minority Viewpoint​

by Walter E. Williams​

Milton Friedman on Limited Government (Video)
Milton Friedman on Limited Government

That would be a pretty good start. There are lots and lots more.

 

[MaggieMae]

And with reports of Iran now being just hours away from putting its nuclear reactor on line, you would think somebody would have put national defense somewhere up there as a top priority. But the Obama administration isn't even making it a priority at all, and in fact intends to cut spending further.



A bit of trivia history:

On this day, August 20, in 1998 – U.S. embassy bombings: the United States launches cruise missile attacks against alleged al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical plant in Sudan in retaliation for the August 7 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

That was 12 years ago. Who here thinks that this kind of thing won't become even more commonplace if the USA blinks or demonstrates weakness or an unwillingness to retaliate?

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit. The defense budget has cut out unnecessary (and useless) aircraft and other very expensive toys that neocons can't seem to live without. To imply that the Pentagon's national security policy is solely toward green energy is a flat-out lie. It's also a flat-out lie to imply that the U.S. doesn't have enough warheads, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy not just Iran, but the entire planet. Heritage, of course, also ignores the fact that terrorism is a METHOD that can't be detroyed by weapons. God you're gullible. When will you start looking at facts and not fiction for your repeated posted partisan junk?

I'm so glad to know that you think yourself to be more well read, informed, and skilled at this stuff than the economists at the Heritage Foundation, Maggie. But if believing that gives you comfort, carry on.

Meanwhile, as for those links you requested:

There is no way I can link years of sitting his history class or the entire works of Forbes, Friedman, Williams, Sowell, et al that would be necessary for a full education.

You might want to start with the more condensed stuff:

Economic Myths and Irrelevancy
A MINORITY VIEW

Politics and Blacks
A MINORITY VIEW

Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time
Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time

OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity
OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity | Cato @ Liberty

How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status
Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status | The Heritage Foundation

And I refer you to some really informative books:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman;

APPLIED ECONOMICS
BASIC ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC FACTS AND FALLACIES
THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST
KNOWLEDGE AND DECISIONS
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF RACE​

by Thomas Sowell​

Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism
More Liberty Means Less Government Our Founders Knew This Well
America: A Minority Viewpoint​

by Walter E. Williams​

Milton Friedman on Limited Government (Video)
Milton Friedman on Limited Government

That would be a pretty good start. There are lots and lots more.

Oh wow. I suppose if I wanted to take the time, I could find an equal number of good old-fashioned liberal hypothesis to post in rebuttal. See that's what you don't GET, and apparently never will. The right is NOT always right, as can be proven by actual events. If I had devoted my education to JUST the conservative viewpoint, of course I would think just like you do. It's called being brainwashed, and you prove that you suffer from that just by your comprehensive choices of literature. Why wouldn't you be?

 

[Foxfyre]

That Heritage Foundation blurb is bullshit. The defense budget has cut out unnecessary (and useless) aircraft and other very expensive toys that neocons can't seem to live without. To imply that the Pentagon's national security policy is solely toward green energy is a flat-out lie. It's also a flat-out lie to imply that the U.S. doesn't have enough warheads, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy not just Iran, but the entire planet. Heritage, of course, also ignores the fact that terrorism is a METHOD that can't be detroyed by weapons. God you're gullible. When will you start looking at facts and not fiction for your repeated posted partisan junk?

I'm so glad to know that you think yourself to be more well read, informed, and skilled at this stuff than the economists at the Heritage Foundation, Maggie. But if believing that gives you comfort, carry on.

Meanwhile, as for those links you requested:

There is no way I can link years of sitting his history class or the entire works of Forbes, Friedman, Williams, Sowell, et al that would be necessary for a full education.

You might want to start with the more condensed stuff:

Economic Myths and Irrelevancy
A MINORITY VIEW

Politics and Blacks
A MINORITY VIEW

Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time
Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time

OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity
OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity | Cato @ Liberty

How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status
Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status | The Heritage Foundation

And I refer you to some really informative books:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman;

APPLIED ECONOMICS
BASIC ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC FACTS AND FALLACIES
THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST
KNOWLEDGE AND DECISIONS
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF RACE​

by Thomas Sowell​

Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism
More Liberty Means Less Government Our Founders Knew This Well
America: A Minority Viewpoint​

by Walter E. Williams​

Milton Friedman on Limited Government (Video)
Milton Friedman on Limited Government

That would be a pretty good start. There are lots and lots more.

Oh wow. I suppose if I wanted to take the time, I could find an equal number of good old-fashioned liberal hypothesis to post in rebuttal. See that's what you don't GET, and apparently never will. The right is NOT always right, as can be proven by actual events. If I had devoted my education to JUST the conservative viewpoint, of course I would think just like you do. It's called being brainwashed, and you prove that you suffer from that just by your comprehensive choices of literature. Why wouldn't you be?

Well if you can find credible non-partisan sources (which all my sources are) to rebut the PhD economists linked, go for it. And I doubt my college history courses were guided in any way by partisanship either as I couldn't tell you the political leanings of ANY of my professors. Until then, I'll assume you are speaking from your own pretty extreme partisanship and leftist ideology. But, as I said, if that gives you comfort, I doubt anybody would be able to change your mind.

(P.S. The above writers DID change my mind. I used to think pretty much as you do on some of this stuff. But once actually educated on in, I then knew at least some of the truth.)

 

[MikeK]

And with reports of Iran now being just hours away from putting its nuclear reactor on line, you would think somebody would have put national defense somewhere up there as a top priority. But the Obama administration isn't even making it a priority at all, and in fact intends to cut spending further.

What about the possibility that the sudden removal (transfer) of 100,000 combat troops from Iraq and into a staging area in Kuwait is not simply coincidental? Or does the implied contingency interfere with the condemnation of the Obama Administration you've constructed as thoughtfully as if you have a direct line into the Pentagon's planning room.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm so glad to know that you think yourself to be more well read, informed, and skilled at this stuff than the economists at the Heritage Foundation, Maggie. But if believing that gives you comfort, carry on.

Meanwhile, as for those links you requested:

There is no way I can link years of sitting his history class or the entire works of Forbes, Friedman, Williams, Sowell, et al that would be necessary for a full education.

You might want to start with the more condensed stuff:

Economic Myths and Irrelevancy
A MINORITY VIEW

Politics and Blacks
A MINORITY VIEW

Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time
Smothering Economic Growth One Regulation at a Time

OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity
OECD Admits High Personal and Corporate Tax Rates Hurt Prosperity | Cato @ Liberty

How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status
Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status | The Heritage Foundation

And I refer you to some really informative books:

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman;

APPLIED ECONOMICS
BASIC ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC FACTS AND FALLACIES
THE HOUSING BOOM AND BUST
KNOWLEDGE AND DECISIONS
ON CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
THE ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF RACE​

by Thomas Sowell​

Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism
More Liberty Means Less Government Our Founders Knew This Well
America: A Minority Viewpoint​

by Walter E. Williams​

Milton Friedman on Limited Government (Video)
Milton Friedman on Limited Government

That would be a pretty good start. There are lots and lots more.

Oh wow. I suppose if I wanted to take the time, I could find an equal number of good old-fashioned liberal hypothesis to post in rebuttal. See that's what you don't GET, and apparently never will. The right is NOT always right, as can be proven by actual events. If I had devoted my education to JUST the conservative viewpoint, of course I would think just like you do. It's called being brainwashed, and you prove that you suffer from that just by your comprehensive choices of literature. Why wouldn't you be?

Well if you can find credible non-partisan sources (which all my sources are) to rebut the PhD economists linked, go for it. And I doubt my college history courses were guided in any way by partisanship either as I couldn't tell you the political leanings of ANY of my professors. Until then, I'll assume you are speaking from your own pretty extreme partisanship and leftist ideology. But, as I said, if that gives you comfort, I doubt anybody would be able to change your mind.

(P.S. The above writers DID change my mind. I used to think pretty much as you do on some of this stuff. But once actually educated on in, I then knew at least some of the truth.)

I'm not saying your Ph.D references are liars. But for every ideological point they make, a counterpoint can also be made. It's why we even HAVE liberals and conservatives. Paul Krugman is a Ph.D in economics too. Do you believe everything he says just because he's got the degree? Didn't think so. But he does know what he's talking about too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh wow. I suppose if I wanted to take the time, I could find an equal number of good old-fashioned liberal hypothesis to post in rebuttal. See that's what you don't GET, and apparently never will. The right is NOT always right, as can be proven by actual events. If I had devoted my education to JUST the conservative viewpoint, of course I would think just like you do. It's called being brainwashed, and you prove that you suffer from that just by your comprehensive choices of literature. Why wouldn't you be?

Well if you can find credible non-partisan sources (which all my sources are) to rebut the PhD economists linked, go for it. And I doubt my college history courses were guided in any way by partisanship either as I couldn't tell you the political leanings of ANY of my professors. Until then, I'll assume you are speaking from your own pretty extreme partisanship and leftist ideology. But, as I said, if that gives you comfort, I doubt anybody would be able to change your mind.

(P.S. The above writers DID change my mind. I used to think pretty much as you do on some of this stuff. But once actually educated on in, I then knew at least some of the truth.)

I'm not saying your Ph.D references are liars. But for every ideological point they make, a counterpoint can also be made. It's why we even HAVE liberals and conservatives. Paul Krugman is a Ph.D in economics too. Do you believe everything he says just because he's got the degree? Didn't think so. But he does know what he's talking about too.

Paul Krugman is a Keynesian socialist. That does not mean that he is always wrong, but he is almost never going to take a conservative point of view on anything. And he is partisan. And he is an ideologue.

The links, book suggestions, etc. I provided are non partisan--all proponents criticize Republicans every bit as much as they do Democrats--and they are not ideologues. They are economists and historians and they provide perspective that is quite difficult to dispute once placed in historical context. Again, if you can produce equally non partisan and non ideological rebuttal go for it. But good luck. Believe me I've tried. And failed. I actually had to pull this as a topic for a debate team because there was simply not enough of two sides to give the opposing team a fair chance.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for the defense priority:

The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.

Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.

The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.

The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.
Barack Obama's Budget Reduces Defense Spending - WSJ.com

 

[Againsheila]

I wanna know what happened to Obama's idea of charging 25 cents for all service calls leaving the US? I had such hope of my job coming back.

 

[Greenbeard]

And he is partisan. And he is an ideologue.

It's kind of amusing that you can type that with a straight face after posting links to Heritage.

Anyway, if the definition of integrity is criticizing members of one's own party, I'm not sure what your beef is with Krugman. He's been on an anti-Obama crusade for about three years now.

 

[Foxfyre]

And he is partisan. And he is an ideologue.

It's kind of amusing that you can type that with a straight face after posting links to Heritage.

Anyway, if the definition of integrity is criticizing members of one's own party, I'm not sure what your beef is with Krugman. He's been on an anti-Obama crusade for about three years now.

Why? Heritage is about as thorough in their research as any organization of that type is, are absolutely ecumenical in criticizing any hairbrained scheme or idea no matter what political letter is beside a name, and don't base their conclusions on anything other than pure history and evidence of what works and what doesn't. What keeps them from being ideological is that they don't deal in 'theory' but rather deal in evidence.

 

[Bill Angel]

If the Republicans did gain control of Congress, one would guess that they would try to rely on "Supply Side" economics (i.e lowering marginal tax rates and reducing government regulation) as the preferred method to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Remember "Reaganomics", which was Ronald Reagan's formulation of "Supply Side" economics?

 

[MikeK]

I'm sure that you are just salivating at the thought of prosecuting George Bush and his entire administration. And I've read, watched, listened to, and had emailed to me every possible perspective of people like you who seem to see only villains and the only thing important to you is vengeance to justify your anger and/or hate.

Bugliosi is only one of many, and after so much of his other works, his expose of JFK's assassination for instance, have proved to contain significant faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions, I won't accept his opiinion as authoritative on much of anything. He's sort of the male version of Kitty Kelly.

So yeah, you guys on the left keep up your vendetta against President Bush and his administration. That's a pretty harmless target and less damaging than a whole bunch of other stuff you could be targeting. Let folks who actually want to set the country back on a reasonable course set their priorities there.

There is no impetus for salivation because I've long ago accepted the fact that the Obama Administration will not under any circumstances move in the direction of prosecuting the Bush crime family. I'm not sure if the reason is simple political cowardice, collusion or fraternal dispensation, but it's clear that the Bush gang has been given a pass.

I will ask if your dismissive criticism of Vincent Bugliosi is based on your having read his book(s) and drawn conclusions from certain specifics or if you are simply parroting the opinions of pro-Bush neo-Conservative critics. If you have read the book, please provide specific examples of the "faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions" you've referred to.

Arguing with stupid people is tiresome. But in some cases there is hope that they might be receptive to facts and perspectives not previously considered. However, you are by no means stupid, which means there is no such hope. Unfortunately, in spite of your obvious intelligence, you are effectively indoctrinated as evidenced by the amazing fact that you believe the Obama Administration is responsible for bringing the U.S. economy to the brink of ruin. That you can believe this is manifest evidence of an impenetrable intellectual barrier.

I will recommend another book to you. It is, Escape From Freedom, by Dr. Erich Fromm. Published in the 1950s, this classic work is an in-depth examination of the nature and origin of the authoritarian personality which is prevalent in contemporary right-wing politics. Interestingly, Fromm carefully and very clearly explains why the same phenomenon also prevailed in the thinking of those who supported the rise of the Third Reich.

This book is still in print, in paperback, and you can get it from Amazon for a couple of dollars. Well worth it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh yeah Mike. I'm indoctrinated and you aren't.

I gave you my critique of Bugliosi as a political theorist, and Fromm was required reading in one class I took awhile back. If you are a disciple of Fromm then at least I know where you're coming from as he is definitely a guru and darling of the extreme left and antithesis to much of what modern American conservatives embrace.

 

[MaggieMae]

As for the defense priority:

The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.

Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.

The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.

The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.
Barack Obama's Budget Reduces Defense Spending - WSJ.com

With Reagan and Gorbechev ending the cold war, there was no need for the increased military budgets and troop strength that Reagan had instituted. Therefore, Clinton brought both down to pre-Reagan levels. End of THAT story.

 

[MaggieMae]

And he is partisan. And he is an ideologue.

It's kind of amusing that you can type that with a straight face after posting links to Heritage.

Anyway, if the definition of integrity is criticizing members of one's own party, I'm not sure what your beef is with Krugman. He's been on an anti-Obama crusade for about three years now.

No one believes me when I say that Obama is a centrist Democrat, not a liberal. And I often use Krugman as an example because he IS a true liberal.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm sure that you are just salivating at the thought of prosecuting George Bush and his entire administration. And I've read, watched, listened to, and had emailed to me every possible perspective of people like you who seem to see only villains and the only thing important to you is vengeance to justify your anger and/or hate.

Bugliosi is only one of many, and after so much of his other works, his expose of JFK's assassination for instance, have proved to contain significant faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions, I won't accept his opiinion as authoritative on much of anything. He's sort of the male version of Kitty Kelly.

So yeah, you guys on the left keep up your vendetta against President Bush and his administration. That's a pretty harmless target and less damaging than a whole bunch of other stuff you could be targeting. Let folks who actually want to set the country back on a reasonable course set their priorities there.

There is no impetus for salivation because I've long ago accepted the fact that the Obama Administration will not under any circumstances move in the direction of prosecuting the Bush crime family. I'm not sure if the reason is simple political cowardice, collusion or fraternal dispensation, but it's clear that the Bush gang has been given a pass.

I will ask if your dismissive criticism of Vincent Bugliosi is based on your having read his book(s) and drawn conclusions from certain specifics or if you are simply parroting the opinions of pro-Bush neo-Conservative critics. If you have read the book, please provide specific examples of the "faulty and manipulated research and unsupportable conclusions" you've referred to.

Arguing with stupid people is tiresome. But in some cases there is hope that they might be receptive to facts and perspectives not previously considered. However, you are by no means stupid, which means there is no such hope. Unfortunately, in spite of your obvious intelligence, you are effectively indoctrinated as evidenced by the amazing fact that you believe the Obama Administration is responsible for bringing the U.S. economy to the brink of ruin. That you can believe this is manifest evidence of an impenetrable intellectual barrier.
I will recommend another book to you. It is, Escape From Freedom, by Dr. Erich Fromm. Published in the 1950s, this classic work is an in-depth examination of the nature and origin of the authoritarian personality which is prevalent in contemporary right-wing politics. Interestingly, Fromm carefully and very clearly explains why the same phenomenon also prevailed in the thinking of those who supported the rise of the Third Reich.

This book is still in print, in paperback, and you can get it from Amazon for a couple of dollars. Well worth it.

That beautifully sums up how I feel about FoxFyre also (and Political Chic, too, who makes an appearance occasionally with the same dogged opinions and refuses to budge one iota). Ironically, there are many conservative ideals and values that are fine, but far too many of them simply do not work in today's diverse (and huge) society.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh yeah Mike. I'm indoctrinated and you aren't.

I gave you my critique of Bugliosi as a political theorist, and Fromm was required reading in one class I took awhile back. If you are a disciple of Fromm then at least I know where you're coming from as he is definitely a guru and darling of the extreme left and antithesis to much of what modern American conservatives embrace.

See? There's absolutely no point in arguing with you. We are expected to embrace all YOUR printed "theses" outlining rigid conservative ideals, yet you dismiss any opposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well then educate me Maggie as you seem to think I am far more ideological and stubbornly entrenched than you.

Here's the definition of conservative again:

Modern American Conservatism is the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism (classical liberalism) of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The "normative core" of MAC/classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of some basic public goods with what constitutes public goods being seen as very limited. The American conservative today promotes strong national defense and such regulation as necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the the people and prevent the citiziens/states from doing violence to each other. Conservatives are otherwise suspicious of all but the most minimal government necessary to perform its Constitutional mandates and object to most of a federal welfare state.

It is important that the limitations on government inherent in American conservatism applies to the Federal government only leaving the states and local communities otherwise free to form whatever social contracts best serve them.

What part of this is unworkable in modern America?

 

[asterism]

With Reagan and Gorbechev ending the cold war, there was no need for the increased military budgets and troop strength that Reagan had instituted. Therefore, Clinton brought both down to pre-Reagan levels. End of THAT story.

I don't think an accurate picture can be painted by just using budget numbers. I do agree that there was a general concept called the "peace dividend" and that was near universally accepted. I don't blame Clinton for the sum of his defense budget cuts. However, he missed a pretty big threat that was emerging and got largely ignored as it pertains to defense priorities and budgeting: the threat of middle eastern terrorism. Largely considered a law enforcement matter, the focus was on "catching the bad guys" instead of "eliminating this military threat."

That didn't work out too well. I'm not sure if I blame Clinton for that, but it certainly happened on his watch despite all the warnings by people who he believed were correct in assessing the Soviet threat.

Perhaps that Gorelick wall wasn't such a good idea and the lack of funding for HUMINT and information processing weakened our capabilities to thwart and/or respond to situations that would later expand into full long scale wars.

 

[MaggieMae]

With Reagan and Gorbechev ending the cold war, there was no need for the increased military budgets and troop strength that Reagan had instituted. Therefore, Clinton brought both down to pre-Reagan levels. End of THAT story.

I don't think an accurate picture can be painted by just using budget numbers. I do agree that there was a general concept called the "peace dividend" and that was near universally accepted. I don't blame Clinton for the sum of his defense budget cuts. However, he missed a pretty big threat that was emerging and got largely ignored as it pertains to defense priorities and budgeting: the threat of middle eastern terrorism. Largely considered a law enforcement matter, the focus was on "catching the bad guys" instead of "eliminating this military threat."

That didn't work out too well. I'm not sure if I blame Clinton for that, but it certainly happened on his watch despite all the warnings by people who he believed were correct in assessing the Soviet threat.

Perhaps that Gorelick wall wasn't such a good idea and the lack of funding for HUMINT and information processing weakened our capabilities to thwart and/or respond to situations that would later expand into full long scale wars.

The Clinton Administration always treated "terrorism" as a crime, not as an enemy that could be defeated militarily. He was right, of course. Ironically, it was the Bush Administration that eliminated the counterterrorism branch which fell under the Pentagon's budget. Go figure.