Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

 

[Bern80]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

No. It isn't about them not supporting a point of view. It's that they have nothing to do with your point of view. You're graphs aren't evidence that progressivism works.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..



If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

No. It isn't about them not supporting a point of view. It's that they have nothing to do with your point of view. You're graphs aren't evidence that progressivism works.

Such absolute horseshit. The conservatives answer to the depression was austerity. Today's conservatives answer to our economic crisis...AUSTERITY.

My graph shows the greatest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

 

[Bern80]

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

No. It isn't about them not supporting a point of view. It's that they have nothing to do with your point of view. You're graphs aren't evidence that progressivism works.

Such absolute horseshit. The conservatives answer to the depression was austerity. Today's conservatives answer to our economic crisis...AUSTERITY.

My graph shows the greatest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

Things occurring at the same time does not a correlatin make. That's the other problem with you idiot progressives; you think government is supposed to be all controlling and whatever happens in society is because they engineered it or allowed it. Seriously, your answer to all our problems is that we still need to give government MORE money? They STILL don't have enough? THAT is what is horsehit here Bf.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

I understand why you do, they hide inconvenient truths that explain away the point you want to reinforce. The growth after WWII had nothing to do with government policy and everything to do with the fact that the US had just fought two wars and wiped out the entire manufacturing base of the entire planet. If anyone wanted anything from a can opened to a fully equipped aircraft carrier they had to come to us. That growth happened ins spite of, not because of, the government.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

I understand why you do, they hide inconvenient truths that explain away the point you want to reinforce. The growth after WWII had nothing to do with government policy and everything to do with the fact that the US had just fought two wars and wiped out the entire manufacturing base of the entire planet. If anyone wanted anything from a can opened to a fully equipped aircraft carrier they had to come to us. That growth happened ins spite of, not because of, the government.

You conveniently ignore the fact Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

LOOK at the dates on the chart.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn:::

Oh I LOVE data.. Live by data. And pretty graphs. I only have adversion to data that's been massaged to fit the message. Like when dishonest folks normalize a PERCENTAGE by the bottom value of a curve, like say --- in your graphs. So I prefer the RAW data and perhaps data that shows a bigger picture..

Like for instance -- the unemployment rate...

All that looks a LOT different with a new view -- don't it? In fact, unemployment at the end of 1938 wasn't a heck of lot different than it was in 1935. And neither was the Dow Jones.
And when you look at ABSOLUTE GDP (3rd chart down) -- it's not quite so impressive is it? But it's a more honest view of the mathematical truth.. Amazing how you can spin the presentation of numbers ain't it? You didn't know that the vertical axis of your GDP graph was "juiced" did ya? But I guarantee you it can be "re-juiced" from the real GDP plot above if one had a desire to spin a yarn..

In fact ---

The year of 1937 was the year that the New Deal chickens came home to roost. Rapid unionization courtesy of the Wagner Act was raising the cost of labor in an economy swimming in surplus labor. In the first six months of 1937 wages had risen 11 percent. In the steel industry wages went up 33 percent. And higher wages without higher output hurt company profits. Then there was the new tax on wages mandated by the Social Security Act of 1935 that employers and workers started paying in 1937. The Undistributed Profits Tax of 1936 was biting business, and companies were laying off employees. A new concern about balancing the federal budget meant cutting the federal budget from $10.5 billion to $8.6 billion and an end to the vote-buying programs like the Public Works Administration and the Works Progress Administration. The crash when it came was more severe than in 1929. The Dow Jones Industrials collapsed from 190 in August to a low of 114 on November 24.(1937)

Anyway -- I'm NOT a history buff. Not out to break up your bromance with FDR. It bores me to tears to argue these numbers. Especially when my country is experiencing a UNIQUE 21st century kind of ailment. And it's not likely to find the causes back in 1933...

BTW: Pearl Harbor was in 1941 -- but US industry had cranked up for the war effort starting in 1939. For example, Explosives and munitions were up 40% and shipbuilding was up 59% from 1939 to 1940 before Lend-Lease was even conceived.. So the war effort had an appreciable effect starting in about 1939..

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-3.html

 

[Mr.Nick]

Whistle all you want, you are missing the point...

From the article I posted:

Facing a rapidly industrializing economy, a swelling and diverse populace, and unstoppably powerful corporations, they sought to introduce public accountability and regulation to enhance individual freedom and opportunity.

The signal challenge of the age was the overwhelming power of the corporations. Unchecked by the government, their pursuit of profit created great wealth but consigned millions to misery and injustice. As cruel working conditions and widespread economic unfairness increasingly defied justification, Democrats and Republicans alike turned to reformist politicians—specifically Roosevelt and Wilson—who believed that political leadership meant tackling these problems. They wanted to maintain a dynamic capitalist economy while protecting laborers, farmers, consumers, and others who lacked recourse. Such reformers came to be called progressives.

Roosevelt and Wilson had plenty of differences, but in the long view of history their affinities loom large. For Roosevelt, presidential activism meant cracking down on the railroads, regulating food and drugs, breaking up trusts, protecting lands from exploitation, and arbitrating labor disputes. For Wilson, it involved regulating finance and the money supply, limiting the corporations' demands on their laborers, aiding farmers, preventing monopolistic practices, and making the new federal income tax a graduated one. Just three months ago, I wrote in Slate that over the last century, almost no one has questioned these achievements; clearly, I hadn't been watching enough Fox. Nonetheless, it's telling that these Progressive Era reforms have enjoyed such an enduring and uncontroversial place in our sense of what government should do. Their long-reigning acceptance shows better than anything else just how deeply reactionary Beck and company are.

You miss my point. I'm not saying everything Progressive is bad. Good was done. Some good was done. You cannot violate Individual Liberty, Human Right's claiming it is good for the State, without Consent and Due Process. Be honest about your disdain for the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence because of what they stand for. You have abandoned core values precisely because they stand in the way of your vision, and Progressiveness is lying about it.

It is easy to find criticism when you are on the outside looking in, another thing to come up with viable solutions. Your solutions steal Human Rights. That does not make things better, just different. Human Nature is corrupt. You think because Progressive Government takes over they can do no wrong. That's Bullshit. You are abandoning Founding Principles for your convenience with out regard for what is lost, precisely because you think you can do no wrong. Check your premise. It is flawed. Progressivism has abandoned too much, trading one Hell for another. Who is to crack down on Government when it abuses? Where are your checks and balances? The system is plagued with incompetence and fraud. We are stuck with it.

And you said you don't need Beck to tell you how to think. You are talking like a paranoid "Beckster". All your accusations are in YOUR head, not in my beliefs.

Any nation is measured in human capital. How are the people doing? Well the middle class is not doing well, and it hasn't for a long time. We don't need austerity and cuts to social programs. The people who lost their jobs did NOTHING wrong. This was brought about by Wall Street bankers. The same wealth disparity that helped spur the progressive movement exists today.

The Tea Party best show some humanity or they will be sanctioned by the American people...

During the Great Depression conservatives raised objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

Ever hear of the baby boom?

Of course GDP went up - not because of government but because of a population explosion (meaning more workers, hence more demand for products). Not only that but because of faster communication.

The telegraph, then the telephone made it possible for a business in San Francisco to do business with a business in New York, or Chicago - or wherever for that matter.

Government had nothing to do with any of it - innovation did.

 

[Intense]

Ironic, Oddball/Dude accuses me of ANARCHIST!" strawman, but THAT is what you and Intense are PROMOTING...

All your rant proves is the dangers of a corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Something that the conservative era has re-created. Regulatory capture is not regulation; it is wealth capturing the power to crush We, the People.

What is the remedy? The wealth disparity and human conditions today mirror the Gilded age. We need a new progressive movement that will lead to a second 'New Deal'.

You can emote all you want, but the PROOF is not on your side.

When you understand what conservatism is, every argument they make leads to the same end.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

When you understand this and view their words, ask the question; will this lead to some form of an aristocracy?

The answer is always YES...


Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral

Actually no. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchists make lousy roommates too. Take it from me. The first rule is there are no rules. What you cannot hold on to, by force if necessary is history. You can forget labeling anything you put in the fridge too, unless you mean it as a joke. I learned many years ago, wherever You bring Yourself, you bring your baggage. Best to work through those life lessons soberly and with integrity. Put that in your Peyote Pipe and smoke it. Remember to walk towards the Light.



Who is empowering these big Corporations with special Privilege? Government. Who taxes at every level of production and distribution? Government.
Recreated? It never went away.

You obviously think that you have not obstructed or spent enough. When Going off in a wrong direction, picking up speed compounds the problem, accelerates the decline. Why not instead, try teaching your wards marketable skills? I dare you. Maybe you can teach them to do your job?



To Me, speaking as a part Conservative, part Libertarian, part Classic Liberal, Conservatism is not wasting, not scheming, not misrepresenting. We follow "Constructive Liberty", not tearing down what works, but adapting it to need, through consent and Due Process. We try to follow the Rule of Law, both when it is convenient, and when it is not. That is also true of Enforcing it, when it is our Job. Your answer is absurd. Who do you think is pulling the Progressive Strings of Fascism. Follow the money. Your Progressivism is not true, it is a mask for the Power Grab. You seek to transform the Society into one Subject to your own Arbitrary Indulgences, it doesn't matter what the flavor of the week is, as long as the Society jumps when you tell it to.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Sounds like he smoked allot of weed. Weed does make you Paranoid, sometimes. Trust God, Love Each Other.

BTW, Gladstone was a classic liberal...

Of course, people who support an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy don't want chaos, especially from the serfs. They want ORDER. So, government's role is to remove the 'riff raff' and clean the blood off the streets. That is why conservatives created the most expensive 'Nanny State' in history.

The wealthy are not stupid. They know that capturing government is their best avenue to an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. Ronald Reagan was the pied piper on the road to serfdom, he was the biggest 'socialist' in our history; he transferred about 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class to the opulent.

Intense, it's time to put aside all your emotional chanting and doctrinaire. Start presenting cold hard present facts. PROVE laizze faire creates more than just an aristocracy/corporatocracy and a plutocracy. But you can't because the more we dismantle the New Deal, the worse it gets for We, the People and our nation in economic terms and human terms.

The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Table 1: Average Annual Growth in Real GNP per Capita

Country / 1980-1994 / 1985-1994
South Korea* 7.72% / 8.17%
Thailand* 5.81% / 7.74%
Taiwan* 6.20% / 7.07%
Peoples’ * 6.46% / 5.83%
Indonesia* 3.26% / 4.40%
Ireland 3.08% / 4.11%
India* 3.07% / 3.00%
Japan 2.88% / 2.78%
Spain 1.98% /2.65%
Italy 1.62% /1.89%
Belgium 1.48% /1.88%
Austria 1.58% / 1.74%
Netherlands 1.29% / 1.73%
United Kingdom 1.79% / 1.72%
Germany 1.56% /1.70%
Denmark 1.99% / 1.61%
Norway 2.09% /1.58%
Australia 1.54% /1.47%
United States 1.52% / 1.32%
Switzerland 0.84% / 0.80%
France 1.31% / 0.12%
Sweden 0.81% / 0.06%
Canada 0.86% /-0.73%
U.S.S.R.* -2.64% / -5.05%


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Nah. It was the Drug Revolution. We are still struggling with it now. You need to grow up and stop blaming Conservatives for everything. How old are you, 9? Pretty Whacky, sometimes when you go off of the Reservation.

 

[Bfgrn]

You miss my point. I'm not saying everything Progressive is bad. Good was done. Some good was done. You cannot violate Individual Liberty, Human Right's claiming it is good for the State, without Consent and Due Process. Be honest about your disdain for the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence because of what they stand for. You have abandoned core values precisely because they stand in the way of your vision, and Progressiveness is lying about it.

It is easy to find criticism when you are on the outside looking in, another thing to come up with viable solutions. Your solutions steal Human Rights. That does not make things better, just different. Human Nature is corrupt. You think because Progressive Government takes over they can do no wrong. That's Bullshit. You are abandoning Founding Principles for your convenience with out regard for what is lost, precisely because you think you can do no wrong. Check your premise. It is flawed. Progressivism has abandoned too much, trading one Hell for another. Who is to crack down on Government when it abuses? Where are your checks and balances? The system is plagued with incompetence and fraud. We are stuck with it.

And you said you don't need Beck to tell you how to think. You are talking like a paranoid "Beckster". All your accusations are in YOUR head, not in my beliefs.

Any nation is measured in human capital. How are the people doing? Well the middle class is not doing well, and it hasn't for a long time. We don't need austerity and cuts to social programs. The people who lost their jobs did NOTHING wrong. This was brought about by Wall Street bankers. The same wealth disparity that helped spur the progressive movement exists today.

The Tea Party best show some humanity or they will be sanctioned by the American people...

During the Great Depression conservatives raised objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Bfgrn:

In addition to your gilded view of the glory of FDR, and your irrational love affair with a larger more powerful state apparatus --- Seems like you're also prone to being easily distracted by shiny objects.

I really don't give a dam about "wealth gap" charts. Whether the top 10% of wealth is concentrated in 10 people or 100,000. This is not a primary cause of decline in this country. It's merely an excuse to start cannabalizing the leftovers by the weak and flabby.

It's a side-effect of the economic COMPRESSION that we are in.. Something that the LEFT has ADVOCATED for years. Since GDP growth and expansion were an absolute abomination to Progressives --- Wasn't it BFgrn??? The reality that we are finally seeing the pain and anguish associated with the Progressive vision to HOBBLE the economy and make it "sustainable" -- is the first proof positive of the wrong-headedness of the Progressive mission. Think the American people want to CONTINUE the Progressive agenda now that they've seen the first Act of the playbook?

I DO however care about incarceration rates, since that is a real indication of state mandate over personal freedoms and rights. But you have failed to prove that our DEM/REP political monopoly gives any choice over that matter. Since neither party has addressed the fundamental reason for the rise in incarceration. In fact, California with it's 3 strikes law is NOT a hotbed of Conservatism and even with Med MaryJane stores on every urban street, there are STILL WAAY too many non-violent drug offenders cluttering up the prisons there.

Looking to tortured quotes from Gladstone using century old definitions of political affilation is not helpful to diagnosing and curing current economic problems. Even today's economists are using outdated models for our current economy. For instance the shift to a service economy has completely changed the "stimulus" model of encouraging consumption. It affects the size and growth patterns of business and their ability to fund expansion as well. Too many people looking over the stern..



If you were to diagnose this properly -- we'd be in agreement. There IS collusion between GOVT and "wealth". There is collusion between GOVT and Corporations. But you have the cause and effect ass-backwards.

When you ALLOW GOVT to increase it's ability to hand out favors, meddle in mergers, define phoney markets (like Green Jobs), and select winner/losers, --- there is NO CHOICE for wealth and corporations. They MUST be engaged in the process. Like it or not -- they (like Bill Gates learned when he was attacked by the state behemoth for handing out free software) will be recruited to lobby and influence the process.

Like I said, the GOVT can't prescribed an INTELLIGIENT, WORKABLE energy policy unless they know what's in the LABS, under the ground, and in the plans at ALL the energy companies. That involves ample fornication with "the enemy". And a need to get access to things that even INVESTORS don't have access to. After seeing the reality of NON-Intelligient investment aka Solyndra -- you start to realize that the govt isn't quite shooting even THAT accurately. This is the REALITY of GOVT/CORP collusion. No amount of reminiscing about FDR is gonna get you to this fact..

You don't blame the Corps and wealthy for TAKING the bait. You stop the chumming process. You get GOVT to concentrate on the BASIC Services for the people like Fair Elections and Voting, Like less international war and tension, Like Public Education, Like living within it's means. You wean all those corporate parasites OFF the bloodstream and force them to go wild again..

Til you get cause/effect right Bfgrn and accurately diagnose the problem --- there is no sense prescribing meds..

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

Ever hear of the baby boom?

Of course GDP went up - not because of government but because of a population explosion (meaning more workers, hence more demand for products). Not only that but because of faster communication.

The telegraph, then the telephone made it possible for a business in San Francisco to do business with a business in New York, or Chicago - or wherever for that matter.

Government had nothing to do with any of it - innovation did.

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

 

[Intense]

And you said you don't need Beck to tell you how to think. You are talking like a paranoid "Beckster". All your accusations are in YOUR head, not in my beliefs.

Any nation is measured in human capital. How are the people doing? Well the middle class is not doing well, and it hasn't for a long time. We don't need austerity and cuts to social programs. The people who lost their jobs did NOTHING wrong. This was brought about by Wall Street bankers. The same wealth disparity that helped spur the progressive movement exists today.

The Tea Party best show some humanity or they will be sanctioned by the American people...

During the Great Depression conservatives raised objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

Ever hear of the baby boom?

Of course GDP went up - not because of government but because of a population explosion (meaning more workers, hence more demand for products). Not only that but because of faster communication.

The telegraph, then the telephone made it possible for a business in San Francisco to do business with a business in New York, or Chicago - or wherever for that matter.

Government had nothing to do with any of it - innovation did.

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Yes, Preparation and Aid to Our Allies.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

No. It isn't about them not supporting a point of view. It's that they have nothing to do with your point of view. You're graphs aren't evidence that progressivism works.

Such absolute horseshit. The conservatives answer to the depression was austerity. Today's conservatives answer to our economic crisis...AUSTERITY.

My graph shows the greatest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

NO, you're wrong...

The population exploded...

You going to deny that?

The New Deal didn't work - as a matter of fact the GDP in accordance to population growth is minimal at best....

It's funny how progressives totally forget the baby boom when they attempt to hail the tyrant FDR as God.

 

[Bfgrn]

No. It isn't about them not supporting a point of view. It's that they have nothing to do with your point of view. You're graphs aren't evidence that progressivism works.

Such absolute horseshit. The conservatives answer to the depression was austerity. Today's conservatives answer to our economic crisis...AUSTERITY.

My graph shows the greatest growth in GDP was during FDR's New Deal.

NO, you're wrong...

The population exploded...

You going to deny that?

The New Deal didn't work - as a matter of fact the GDP in accordance to population growth is minimal at best....

It's funny how progressives totally forget the baby boom when they attempt to hail the tyrant FDR as God.

What don't you understand Nick?

United States

The term "baby boom" most often refers to the dramatic post–World War II baby boom (1946–1964). There are an estimated 78.3 million Americans who were born during this demographic boom in births.

 

[daveman]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Summary: daveman is only capable of blurting out polarized bluster...

 

[Trajan]

the money shot-

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

 

[Londoner]

the money shot-

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

This construction seems to presuppose that in the absence of state intervention on behalf of (say) middle class workers, the market is free and competitive - as if large corporations don't exert massive forms of 'extra'-market control.

Regardless: A deeper question arises which you never see asked on the Right: one wonders if there is such a thing in practice as a political economy which is so pure that it does not protect one set of interests over another.

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

Indeed, we don't hear much about the trillions of lobbying dollars poured into politics. Nor do we hear about the culture of subsidies and bailouts which socializes the costs and risks of business. All of these things imply an upward distribution of wealth which could be far greater than the New Dealers ever intended for the middle class. (I say "could be" because the structures of "socialism" which benefit business is largely invisible, that is, the folks who pay Sean Hannity's salary have no interest in directing the serf's gaze at the real loci of power)

A question arises. Why is the Right so selective on which forms of state intervention and re-distribution they expose? It's almost as if the main benefactors of Government intervention have sent a massive portion of voters on a wild goose chase . . . as they loot the country through risk mismanagement and monopolization of every major sector, only to get bailed out for their crimes by both parties, whom they generously fund.

(At least they share a portion of their profits with FOX News, Talk Radio, Think Tanks, university econ departments, publishing groups, and the blogosphere ... for the purpose of keeping the serfs agitated with stories about persecuted billionaires. Attention serfs: it's no longer the 30s. Business now owns government, and they pay handsomely for unprecedented subsidies, bailouts, and regulatory favors a.k.a. redistribution)

(How did we raise an entire generations of conservatives - many of them really, really bright - to be so fooled by their information sources?)

 

[daveman]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Summary: daveman is only capable of blurting out polarized bluster...

"Polarized bluster"? That's amusing, coming from you, Mr. "Rich People Ruined The Universe And I Hate Them".

 

[Bfgrn]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Summary: daveman is only capable of blurting out polarized bluster...

"Polarized bluster"? That's amusing, coming from you, Mr. "Rich People Ruined The Universe And I Hate Them".

Way to cement my case...

 

[Bfgrn]

the money shot-

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

This construction seems to presuppose that in the absence of state intervention on behalf of (say) middle class workers, the market is free and competitive - as if large corporations don't exert massive forms of 'extra'-market control.

Regardless: A deeper question arises which you never see asked on the Right: one wonders if there is such a thing in practice as a political economy which is so pure that it does not protect one set of interests over another.

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

Indeed, we don't hear much about the trillions of lobbying dollars poured into politics. Nor do we hear about the culture of subsidies and bailouts which socializes the costs and risks of business. All of these things imply an upward distribution of wealth which could be far greater than the New Dealers ever intended for the middle class. (I say "could be" because the structures of "socialism" which benefit business is largely invisible, that is, the folks who pay Sean Hannity's salary have no interest in directing the serf's gaze at the real loci of power)

A question arises. Why is the Right so selective on which forms of state intervention and re-distribution they expose? It's almost as if the main benefactors of Government intervention have sent a massive portion of voters on a wild goose chase . . . as they loot the country through risk mismanagement and monopolization of every major sector, only to get bailed out for their crimes by both parties, whom they generously fund.

(At least they share a portion of their profits with FOX News, Talk Radio, Think Tanks, university econ departments, publishing groups, and the blogosphere ... for the purpose of keeping the serfs agitated with stories about persecuted billionaires. Attention serfs: it's no longer the 30s. Business now owns government, and they pay handsomely for unprecedented subsidies, bailouts, and regulatory favors a.k.a. redistribution)

(How did we raise an entire generations of conservatives - many of them really, really bright - to be so fooled by their information sources?)

Great post Londoner! We have laissez-faire for the middle class and socialism for the elite. Just like Ronald Reagan envisioned it.

In his book Tyranny of the Bottom Line, Ralph Estes examined the extent of this cost externalization in the case of U.S. corporations. Factoring in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, Estes found that external costs to U.S. taxpayers totaled $3.5 trillion in 1995-four times higher than the profits of U.S. corporations that year ($822 billion). This sort of externalization toll is routinely evident in hazy skies, injured consumers, and impoverished workers in the United States and elsewhere.

According to a 2004 report released by U.S. Representative George Miller, one 200-employee Wal-Mart store may cost federal taxpayers $420,000 per year because of the need for federal aid (such as housing assistance, tax credits, and health insurance assistance) for Wal-Mart's low-wage employees. Moreover, many corporations fill their labor needs offshore in order to exploit unorganized workers in low-cost and politically friendly countries. Over 40 million people now work in export-processing or "free trade" zones. These areas, often exempt from national legislation, allow manufacturers to demand long hours, pay lower wages, and ignore health and safety regulations.

Corporations have achieved considerable freedom to act in ways that harm the host on which they depend. They have done so primarily by means of regulatory capture, the redesign of societal laws by vested interests for their preferential benefit. This is not new; corporations have always sought to influence lawmakers. TNCs' current levels of power, money, and freedom are unprecedented, however, and regulatory capture has become widespread. The results can be seen in the scores of laws and court rulings that now protect corporations' right to profit, right to pollute, right to patent intellectual property-at the expense of citizens, farmers, workers, consumers, communities, and indigenous peoples. As U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes once remarked, "This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations." That was in 1884; it's truer now than ever. ref.