Idealogues are Wrong

[Indiana Oracle]

We need forward progress along many economic fronts. Right now, how we do that is pretty much immaterial.

We also need to stay away from new spending amd borrowing which do not have a direct, positive impact on the economy. On this front Obama is off the rails. Even many Democrat policy thinkers are starting to become loud about it.

In the for-what-it-is-worth column, who really cares about Bush or Obama? Who cares whose fault all of this is? People exercised at this level are nothing more than foot soldiers for idealogues.

Investigate and decide these issues for yourself. Think out of your current framework.

 

[editec]

If my thinking gets much further out of the framework of the mainstream thinking of most Americans I'll have to retreat to a cave in Northern Maine, IO.

 

[xsited1]

They may be wrong, but that's the way most Americans think. Most think two-dimensionally. They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'. For example, if you are against Obama, then you MUST be a right-wing Republican. If you say anything against gays, you MUST be a homophobe. If you say anything against Public Education, you MUST hate Public Education and believe that Public School Teachers are worthless.

At least 95% of Americans vote for one of the two major candidates in every major election. Your words are true, but difficult for most Americans to put into practice.

 

[Xenophon]

They may be wrong, but that's the way most Americans think. Most think two-dimensionally. They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'. For example, if you are against Obama, then you MUST be a right-wing Republican. If you say anything against gays, you MUST be a homophobe. If you say anything against Public Education, you MUST hate Public Education and believe that Public School Teachers are worthless.

At least 95% of Americans vote for one of the two major candidates in every major election. Your words are true, but difficult for most Americans to put into practice.

I would rep this post if if I had some left.

How many times have people replied to me with 'Bush' when I critize Obama?

People nowadays are locked into an us/them mentality and that just isn't right.

 

[rayboyusmc]

They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'.

Really, been looking in the mirror lately?

 

[xsited1]

They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'.

Really, been looking in the mirror lately?

Which 'team' do you think I'm on?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

They may be wrong, but that's the way most Americans think. Most think two-dimensionally. They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'. For example, if you are against Obama, then you MUST be a right-wing Republican. If you say anything against gays, you MUST be a homophobe. If you say anything against Public Education, you MUST hate Public Education and believe that Public School Teachers are worthless.

At least 95% of Americans vote for one of the two major candidates in every major election. Your words are true, but difficult for most Americans to put into practice.

I would rep this post if if I had some left.

How many times have people replied to me with 'Bush' when I critize Obama?

People nowadays are locked into an us/them mentality and that just isn't right.

While that may be true... the simple fact remains that "THEM" are socialists; Socialism is responsible for the financial meltdown and it's Socialsim that is usurping the US Constition and assualting the freedoms on which this nation is founded and it is THAT which is driving this criminal, Constitutional usurping, throughly absurd spending.

And it is "US" that are against that socialism...

Where "you" (third person) think for one second that compromising with THEM is going to solve this problem, then "YOU" are a function of THEM... and thus a part of the problem on the whole.

"THEM" are the problem... and "US" are most decidely against THEM...

Xeno... that "you" is not a conclusion of you personally... but directed at the objective third party reading the post.

 

[sealybobo]

We need forward progress along many economic fronts. Right now, how we do that is pretty much immaterial.

We also need to stay away from new spending amd borrowing which do not have a direct, positive impact on the economy. On this front Obama is off the rails. Even many Democrat policy thinkers are starting to become loud about it.

In the for-what-it-is-worth column, who really cares about Bush or Obama? Who cares whose fault all of this is? People exercised at this level are nothing more than foot soldiers for idealogues.

Investigate and decide these issues for yourself. Think out of your current framework.

Hi. I wanted to go back and see how you think on some old posts.

First, spending is more stimulitive than tax cuts are.

I would understand if we didn't need anything that we should not spend, but since we do need to rebuild America's infrastructure, why not? If not now, when?

And that spending will put money in people's pocket, and the government will get it back. Will it cause inflation, deflation or stagflation? I don't know. I'm sure they'll figure that out.

And I care very much who's fault it is. It will matter come the 2010 election.

So who did you vote for in 2000? 04? 96? 92? 88?

 

[Meister]

We need forward progress along many economic fronts. Right now, how we do that is pretty much immaterial.

We also need to stay away from new spending amd borrowing which do not have a direct, positive impact on the economy. On this front Obama is off the rails. Even many Democrat policy thinkers are starting to become loud about it.

In the for-what-it-is-worth column, who really cares about Bush or Obama? Who cares whose fault all of this is? People exercised at this level are nothing more than foot soldiers for idealogues.

Investigate and decide these issues for yourself. Think out of your current framework.

Hi. I wanted to go back and see how you think on some old posts.

First, spending is more stimulitive than tax cuts are.

I would understand if we didn't need anything that we should not spend, but since we do need to rebuild America's infrastructure, why not? If not now, when?

And that I don't know. I'm sure they'll figure that out.
spending will put money in people's pocket, and the government will get it back. Will it cause inflation, deflation or stagflation?And I care very much who's fault it is. It will matter come the 2010 election.

So who did you vote for in 2000? 04? 96? 92? 88?

So you think things like tattoo removal is the kind things we should be spending the stimulus bill on?
Here's a little econ 101 for you...when you print up money you don't have to spend...it will be inflation guaranteed.

 

[slackjawed]

IMHO there will be no solution to these or most other problems as long as the American people fall into the trap of partisan politics. Until the people, no matter their differences, stand together, nothing real will be accomplished.

 

[Chris]

If my thinking gets much further out of the framework of the mainstream thinking of most Americans I'll have to retreat to a cave in Northern Maine, IO.

Sorry....

Divecon is already living in that cave.

 

[cbi0090]

They may be wrong, but that's the way most Americans think. Most think two-dimensionally. They like to choose 'their team' and deride anyone on the 'other team'. For example, if you are against Obama, then you MUST be a right-wing Republican. If you say anything against gays, you MUST be a homophobe. If you say anything against Public Education, you MUST hate Public Education and believe that Public School Teachers are worthless.

At least 95% of Americans vote for one of the two major candidates in every major election. Your words are true, but difficult for most Americans to put into practice.

It would help if the media would just report the news and not their opinions. Unfortunately, there just isn't any mainstream source for good news these days. It's also easier for politicians to operate in a black and white environment. It makes things more predictable for them, makes deals and trades easier. People don't know who to trust, anymore, so someone with radical honest ideas are immediately suspect. I don't know what will change that.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

At the bottom is a post I made a while ago on the above which includes some questions posed by Sealybobo. Good Friday feels like a good time to answer his (her?) questions as well as the broader question that my original post engenders: if I think ideologues are wrong, what do I think is right when it comes to looking at politics and political figures. Here goes.

1 --
Do no harm to America's traditional values, its citizen's ability to earn a livelihood, its national security, its future generations.

2 --
Advocate initiatives to locate and solve corruption's root causes in government and industry.

3--
Be intolerant of the Tyranny of the Few.

4 --
Be intolerant of idealogical initiatives in government policy, institutions and in education.

5 --
Do not promote or discourage religious observance.

6 --
Nominate persons to the Supreme Court and appoint justices who adhere to the principles outlined here.

7 --
Propose and endorse initiatives that are fiscally responsible.

8 --
Tell the whole, direct truth to the American people when proposing initiatives. Outline their positives and negatives to the people and measure them against the principles outlined here.

9 --
Start no war.

10 --
Do not be outspent by any country in the defense area. Prepare for the worst. Take politics out of the CIA and significantly expand our field intelligence gathering capabilities.

11 --
Initiate a multi-generational dismantling of the welfare state accompanied by the following: Increased focus on self-reliance, countering the culture of victimhood, educating for economic purpose, removing incentives to bear children out of wedlock. In parallel work with industry and national policy toward job creation in the private sector.

12 --
Promote free trade and directly reciprocate against unfair practices.

13 --
Prop no American industry up with tariffs or government funding. Allow the weak to fail.

14 --
Improve K-12 education through teaching excellence. Remove all ideology from the classroom.

15 --
Vastly simplify the tax code. Do not punish wealth. Do not redistribute income except when directly called for and then on a temporary basis.

16 --
Provide healthcare for all citizens. Focus first on the flaws of its existing structure. Afterwards, put a plan in place through private industry.

17 --
Enforce illegal immigration laws in full. Use this as the primary vehicle to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Put no illegal immigrant on government social support.

18 --
Legalize and control the sale and dispensation of selected drugs. End the war on drugs as now consitituted.

19 --
Any government initiative based on scientific invention, finding or hypothesis should first be fully exposed to normal scientific proof. Once passing proof, any government initiative thus founded should be presented to the public as outlined here.

20 --
Budget earmarking without being preceded by public exposure and debate should be outlawed.

21 --
Term-limit both houses of Congress.

22 --
Halt government funding of abortion.

23 --
Greatly expand America's use of nuclear power. Upgrade power transmission capability. Begin an immediate migration to electric cars and trucks using federal funding. In the interim explore and drill for fossil fuels anywhere in the US territory where they can be found. Fund this activity where and when necessary.




__

Yesterday, 03:09 PM
sealybobo

Beavis
Member #11281
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,035
Thanks: 1
Thanked 48 Times in 44 Posts
Rep Power: 20

Quote: Originally Posted by Indiana Oracle
We need forward progress along many economic fronts. Right now, how we do that is pretty much immaterial.

We also need to stay away from new spending amd borrowing which do not have a direct, positive impact on the economy. On this front Obama is off the rails. Even many Democrat policy thinkers are starting to become loud about it.

In the for-what-it-is-worth column, who really cares about Bush or Obama? Who cares whose fault all of this is? People exercised at this level are nothing more than foot soldiers for idealogues.

Investigate and decide these issues for yourself. Think out of your current framework.


Hi. I wanted to go back and see how you think on some old posts.

First, spending is more stimulitive than tax cuts are.

I would understand if we didn't need anything that we should not spend, but since we do need to rebuild America's infrastructure, why not? If not now, when?

And that spending will put money in people's pocket, and the government will get it back. Will it cause inflation, deflation or stagflation? I don't know. I'm sure they'll figure that out.

And I care very much who's fault it is. It will matter come the 2010 election.

So who did you vote for in 2000? 04? 96? 92? 88?

 

[garyd]

No spending isn't more stimulative than tax cuts. The only thing spending stimulates is inflation. Especially so with poverty progams which now make up about 70% of the federal budget and about to increase further under Obama.

Before one says that the ideologues are wrong one should at least look into what the ieologies they represent have to offer. There is currently a war within the Republican party between the Country clubers and the conservatives. If the country clubers win then I become - against my better judgement -a libertarian and I suspect I'll have a hell of a lot of company. If the conservatives -they aren't actually conservative in the dictionary sense of the word - win then I suspect they will pull in a lot of libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No spending isn't more stimulative than tax cuts. The only thing spending stimulates is inflation. Especially so with poverty progams which now make up about 70% of the federal budget and about to increase further under Obama.

Before one says that the ideologues are wrong one should at least look into what the ieologies they represent have to offer. There is currently a war within the Republican party between the Country clubers and the conservatives. If the country clubers win then I become - against my better judgement -a libertarian and I suspect I'll have a hell of a lot of company. If the conservatives -they aren't actually conservative in the dictionary sense of the word - win then I suspect they will pull in a lot of libertarians.

Against your better judgement? That may be the best judgement you ever make.

 

[midcan5]

The great irony in this thread is if ideologies are wrong then the author is wrong because what (s)he is proposing is simply another ideological stance. Ideas are ideas they work or they don't work. Trickle down, supply side, free market, voodoo economics, whatever you choose to call it failed - face it, it is time for change from the stale ideas of the past forty years.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ideology-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019280281X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239452038&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: Ideology: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Michael Freeden: Books[/ame]


"Although, this is often used with negative connotations, I see ideology as an inherent part of culture." Dario Fo

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How did the free market fail when it was not in use?

 

[editec]

If my thinking gets much further out of the framework of the mainstream thinking of most Americans I'll have to retreat to a cave in Northern Maine, IO.

Sorry....

Divecon is already living in that cave.

Well there goes the neighborhood!

 

[tigerbob]

No spending isn't more stimulative than tax cuts. The only thing spending stimulates is inflation. Especially so with poverty progams which now make up about 70% of the federal budget and about to increase further under Obama.

Have you got a source for that?

 

[editec]

How did the free market fail when it was not in use?

Actually that's true.

However, one would be making nearly as much sense if one posted

How can a the unicorn fail when it never existed?​

Doubt me?

Which came first ... government or capital?

This is relevant because without government, capital cannot exist, and without capital, the concept of a free market is meaningless.

A barter economy is a kind of market of course, and a barter economy CAN exist sans capital, hence sans government.

But honestly, there will be very little use for a Tech Lawyers or internet publishers in that universe.

You and I, my friend, are captive creatures of a civil society.

And as much as I HATE government (and I know you probably cannot believe this, but I hate authority far more than you do) I see no alternatives to crappy governments that aren't actually worse than crappy goverments.

So my proposal is extrmely radical.

I think we should try to improve governments.

What a concept, huh? Why hasn't anyoine else EVER come up with such simply solution?

Yeah, I know... I'm a genius.

It's a gift.