.. I was struck by, and commented on the posts about failures and successes earlier. In all fairness, it is important to note that the liberal successes often occur because liberals see goveernment as providing a capacity to develop public goods (roads, fda, space program, ...). Their record of being able to do this over the years has been good and deserves praise.
Conservatives, ohn the other hand, recognize that governments can fail (and badly) in developing programs {The great society, war on poverty, ...). They also know that the taxes necessary to pay for these programs funnel money out of the private sector and reduce innovation. My read of conservative successes are things they have eliminated or reduced and lowered tax rates. For my liberal friends on this board (and fellow Kerry Voters), remember that President Kennedy proposed and passed a tax cut during the early part of his administration to revitalize the economy.
I for one, hope the government gets more divided after the next election cycle and that we regenerate a more healthy debate between both these camps.
... well, you are either going to think for yourself or take my word for it. I'm more comfortable with governments that can't get much done. My two favorate quotes are from Will Rogers and Ben Franklin
Rogers: We are lucky in America that we never get all the government we pay for.
Franklin: A citizen's liberty and property are always in danger whenever the legislature is in session.
I'm sorry, Harry, that Kennedy tax cut was the beginning of the unravelling of this nation. It's not that taxes weren't too high, a contention in which I would agree, it's that the entire purpose of the progressive income tax had not been for revenue. It was to keep the rich from getting richer and keep the poor from getting poorer. It was one way the United States kept Marxism from gaining a foothold, and it kept the country relatively stable while Europe was hit by convulsions.
Let me tell you what happened when Kennedy cut taxes, and this has not been noted anywhere else. After the cuts, money began to flow into candidates campaigns and lobbying took off like never before. Why? Because as more wealth was allowed, the rich began to fix the laws and bias the government so they could grow richer. Then Reagan cut taxes, especially for the rich. Suddenly donations and lobbying went into hyperdrive. Now Bush has cut taxes, unequally biased to the rich. And guess what? He's probably the most successful fundraiser ever. Attempts at campaign finance reform are doomed, because they attack free speech and ignore the root of the problem, which resulted from either cutting or sabotaging what was originally a device to prevent class stratification. Now the tax system is actually regressive.
It may be blasphemous to point this out, but the same guy said "All men are created equal..." Demonstrably not true, no matter what wise man gives it an air of authority. Jefferson himself did not act as though he believed it, as he practiced enslavement, and perhaps even sexual enslavement.
Of course, if the principle you cited were true, or believed, you must remember that after the Revolutionary War ended, and the British pulled out, there were two full years in which this country had no government. Can't get less government than that. Apparently, this was perceived as unacceptable, as the Founders then put a minimal Confederation in place. Then that was unacceptable, so they created a central government. Jefferson himself became president of that government, and did not act at the time like he believed what you cited. He usurped a lot of power to the federal government when he made the Louisiana purchase, for example.
Jefferson could turn a phrase like few others. Trouble is, when you analyze the thoughts behind them, you find obscurity, or even misrepresentation.
The problem with debate right now is that the scope is too limited, and the people debating are too badly educated or informed. Debate with someone you really disagree with, an enemy, is stressful, even risky. It's always far easier to retreat into the protected enclave of people that agree with you most. In that enclave, though, the information you get and what you see are easily orchestrated. Results, there is no real debate within the enclave, as its perhaps unwritten rules of membership would prevent challenge. Besides, it's also there to provide fellowship, protection and relief from the contentiousness. Meanwhile, between the enclaves there is no debate, just name calling, or devices aimed at converting the neutral.
With these enclaves, we are divided up into market demographics even in our politics, and issues are sold to us, and we buy them, and can never connect them to each other.
I favor the Democrats to the Republicans because I know that even if I attempted to embrace the Republicans, they would show me the door at the soonest opportunity.
... great fan of process, legislative manuvering, and legal delay. It is the way the minority is protected from the excesses of the majority in our society. I think that, on the whole, it is a very good thing. Only these processes save us from leaders with an agenda and a plan. The country seems to be able to pull together in a crisis. However, you are right that it doesn't do well at preventing problems that seem very preventable.
Maybe we are just talking past each other. Otherwise, we will disagree on this point and continue our little version of the great debate.
The idea of a progressive tax came into being before the world was affected much by Marxism: it's a very old idea. While some of the political advantages to progressive taxes are as you describe, there is a solid economic basis for the idea (See the papers by James Ramsey from the 1920s -- BTW, one of the most brilliant men who ever lived).
I'm sure you know American history well enough to know that paying off politicians was occuring long before tax cuts. I would say that lobbying in DC is the consequence of the growth in the size of businesses in the US -- it made economic sense to develop a K street.
Good points. But none of them are in any way contradictory or excluding of the arguments I made. A progressive tax system can predate Marxism, and yet still be used to undercut its appeal.
As for citing "the growth in the size of business," this describes accurately a symptom rather than a cause. Business size grew because the rich were once again allowed to grow richer. The fact supports my point, and doesn't contradict it.
As for the "paying off" of politicians, it's different now in that it is an industry in itself, and largely an open and tolerated one, getting teams of politicians to remake massive amounts of rules.
So, I put it to you, does a government that governs best always govern least, or ever govern least? Would you vote for complete inertia? Would Bush appeal to you more if after 9/11 he did nothing? How appealing would you find that, really?
This statement has been given an aura of a deep insight because Jefferson said it. I think he was having a rather bad day.
and suddenly get "Alzheimer's" when faced with their failures.
Areas of government involvement where it begets the public good, both parties are supportive of. For example, but not limited to, damns and hydroelectric power, national parks and forests, defense, interstate highways, NASA, medical research, etc.
I would add that those most successful endeavors of government were accomplished with government funding and private ingenuity.
When I hear a liberal taking responsibility for the total failure of the LBJ "War on Poverty" or the explosion of medical costs after the advent of Medicare (just like everything else the government gets involved in), or the dismal failure that Social Security will be within 10 -15 years, all programs that were proposed and passed by liberals, then you will have my attention.
These biggest failures are resultant of exclusive government bureaucracy control. And to think that some would turn control of our whole medical industry over to these Einsteins!
The "War on Poverty" failed due to sabotage. Pure and simple. But it would have taken a super-human effort on the part of the rich, and their cronies, to restrain themselves from it.
I don't know what "success" with social security would look like, but since you consider social security a dismal failure at the outset, it's no suprise you'd consider it a dismal failure in 10-15 years. Since you have this crystal ball, tell me what this failure will look like. Or do you just read these words in Ayn Rand and parot them, like a good second-hander? I doubt that Medicare has led to rising medical costs, and I hope you can enlighten me, in your own words, on why that would be the case. I think it has more to do with a philosophy about medicine and human life which is unsustainable, and perhaps medicare is part of that philosophy in action, but it's not the only part.
"War on Poverty" sabotaged? By the rich? When Reagan became president the top tax rate was 90% for crying out loud! That was 16 years after LBJ's attempt at socialism and wealth distribution had done nothing but failed, the exception being the increase the size of the bueaucracy.
The most conservative figures available show the costs to supply Social Security and Medicare benefits through the life expectecy of the Boomer Generation is 40 Trillion dollars, (40,000,000,000,000.00)! Considering our Gross National Product for the same time period I consider it a future failure!
This is based on actuary tables which are constantly being refigured UP, due to advances in medicine and the longivity of the WWII generation and what is expected from the Boomer generation. Since our elected officials will not have the balls to make meaningful changes, what is expected is the age of eligability will most likely increase to block most from receiving any benefits until the age of 77 - 79.
Have you not noticed how both parties have not been discussing Social Security in any meaningful way? They know the numbers and they also know that discussing it in an open and honest way will piss people off.
Your contention that the federal governments involvement in medicine has nothing to do with rising costs puzzles me. I don't think that the government does anything especially frugally, the waste is everywhere. I would also agree that the advancements in medicine and pharmaceuticals have added to increased costs, however, when Medicare sets the fees they will pay for services, in many cases below costs, the public sector is picking up the difference, after already paying for Medicare in the first place.
Although this is anedotal, I live in Orange County, CA and in the past 5 years we have seen several (6) private hospitals closed for economic reasons. These hospitals were mainly serving Medicare and Medi-Cal patients. They simply could not continue to operate with a low market share of private insurance patients. I believe that this trend will continue and increase, increasing the cost of medicine exponentially while diminishing its quality at the same time.
BTW, I have not read Ayn Rand. I take it though you reject her writings and in that, you have piqued my interest.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
