Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ronald Reagan was a Borrow-and-Spend Liberal

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) writes | more than 3 years ago

User Journal 30

Or where the governmental debt in the United States really came from- overwhelmingly supply side tax cuts to the rich. I'm sorry- but the record is clear- the Republican Party is *big government* without bothering to *pay for it*- and obviously doesn't believe in subsidiarity enough to overturn RoeV.Wade and battle out abortion on a state's rights basis.

Or where the governmental debt in the United States really came from- overwhelmingly supply side tax cuts to the rich. I'm sorry- but the record is clear- the Republican Party is *big government* without bothering to *pay for it*- and obviously doesn't believe in subsidiarity enough to overturn RoeV.Wade and battle out abortion on a state's rights basis.

Of course, sometimes the truth has a distinctive Left-wing bias.

cancel ×

30 comments

"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33838890)

I don't like throwing "Tax and Spend Liberal" on someone like Reagan, because he wasn't a liberal. When people are willing to recognize that ANY politicial, Liberal or Conservative are able to be Tax-and-Spend, then we can start approaching the problems in the right way.

Namely, we need Socialist programs to advance the social welfare of the nation in general, but we need small government politicians to ensure that the interests are balanced against paying for them.

So long as we draw the line and claim that only liberals are the ones who tax and spend we don't approach the real problem of recognizing who is really drawing our country into debt.

Example: no one would describe George W Bush as liberal, and the way he increased the national debt has more to do with cutting taxing without cutting spending. If we didn't label liberals as the bad people automatically here, then maybe we'd be more likely to recognize reckless practices in general, rather than focus on destroying the opposition.

It's like all those governments in Africa, where the opposition gets into government on claims of destroying the corruption of their governments. They succeed, and stamp out all the corruption... only the supplant it with their own corruption.

Corruption, and deficit spending are bad period, not matter how it comes into effect. If we can start labeling POLITICIANS as deficit makers, rather than PARTIES... maybe we'll start getting somewhere.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33840328)

Reagan is the executive that began the "Liberal Policy" of State gun control laws vs. 2nd amendment provisions.

As Gov. of California he reacted to the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, in sponsoring the most restrictive ownership and carry laws the nation had seen. It set a pattern for other states and the Federal government.

After they shot him and Brady - the other shoe dropped. Poppy Bush made sure that happened - the other great liberal seizer of guns.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33843882)

Reagan is the executive that began the "Liberal Policy" of State gun control laws vs. 2nd amendment provisions.

As Gov. of California he reacted to the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, in sponsoring the most restrictive ownership and carry laws the nation had seen. It set a pattern for other states and the Federal government.

After they shot him and Brady - the other shoe dropped. Poppy Bush made sure that happened - the other great liberal seizer of guns.

As noted in another series of posts, authoritarianism is not necessarily a liberal policy, and in fact, is widely used by our current conservatives in the USA.

Anyone who thinks that libertarians are the conservatives in power in this country is retarded, and ignoring facts.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33851188)

I think the meaning of these terms has changed in our lifetimes, and it's of utility to be up-to-date.

For example my impression of the hippies, i.e. today's Liberals that are running the country, but when they were younger, is that they were maybe as you are -- social libertarians and economic authoritarians. But then as they got older, most of them realized that you can't achieve your economic ends without forcing social ends. For example, health insurance for all is nowhere near economically feasible unless everyone joins in in doing everything they possibly can to keep up optimum health. So Liberals tell us to stop smoking (except for pot), what we can't eat, what restaurants can't cook with, etc. So today a Liberal is someone who is authoritarian both socially and economically.

And on the Right I think there is (and has been) a migration of philosophy as well. The Religious Right used to be much stronger and more vocal than it is now. Like when Pat Robertson's and Ralph Reed's Christian Coalition helped sweep in the "Republican Revolution" during the Speaker Gingrich era. There was a lot of family values talk then, and social Conservatism (and authoritarian at that) was the emphasis of that movement. Whereas today with the Tea Party movement, there might be some occasional talk about abortion and "defense of marriage", but the bulk of the anger and attention is about the ridiculous spending and debt (given to us by both parties). So today a Conservative is more likely to be someone who is generally libertarian both socially and economically. (Whereas the Republican Party has not veered strongly libertarian while the rest of their former base has, and therefore is no longer really considered Conservative by us (who have veered strongly libertarian/are recovering and former social authoritarians).)

p.s. So the trouble you're having with MH42, if I may (and I have conversed with him at length about this), is that he personally defines "conservative" as someone who is authoritarian both socially and economically. Which actually makes him a modern-day Liberal. But to him it makes him a "true conservative", whereas GW, for permitting the rich their liberty with their money and actually increasing that liberty (via tax cuts), was being liberal about it. Combine that with being stuck on not differentiating the meanings of "liberal" and "Liberal", and we get him considering people like GW and me and other people on the Right who have some strong pro-freedom stances to be "Liberals". Hence, by his redefinitions, Reagan would then indeed be a Liberal.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33852566)

I can't really argue with anything that you posted, except that the Hippies seemed to have an authoritarian bend from the beginning. The quadrant of socially libertarian, yet economically authoritarian (which I will call the "socialist quadrant") has crazy low representation in America, since the population is center-right. (More accurately, the bell curve peaks in the moderate area, but towards social authoritarianism and economic libertarianism) In fact, none of our parties are actually in the "socialist" quadrant, and never have been.

Hippies were quite reviled in their day as well by conservatives because they kept telling people what to do. "Get off the grid, live free, man. Fuck the man." etc. Basically arrogantly insisting that their way of life is the only valid way of life, and all others are raping mother earth, or whatever nonsense they felt necessary to heap into the argument.

I will agree that the greater majority of the conservative group is starting to lean more towards libertarianism, which is awesome. I would much rather argue and discuss economics than social policy in politics. However, not only is the republic party not responding well, but even the representatives held up by the tea party are socially authoritarian. Palin is totally a social authoritarian. Christine O'Donnell is totally a social authoritarian, or at the very least has been.

So, while the public is responding with a more social libertarian bend in general (possibly why I am more social libertarian than the hippies, as well) the republican party, but as well, the people picked to represent in the tea party, are not. It seems like just a new fad to exploit to keep oneself, or project oneself into power.

At last, I get to my real issue. MH42 is classifying something he doesn't like a "liberal", just to use an epithet, without any thought as to if the term should actually apply. It's like me declaring Obama a right-winger for ditching the public option. (Forget the fact that he actually had fairly little input into the actual content of the healthcare reform bill itself.) In such a sentence, I'm throwing the term "right-winger" in there for no other reason than to use an epithet. ("Hm... I don't like right-wingers, so what Obama is doing that I don't like, must be a right-winger stunt!")

Rather, use more accurate terms: Reagan was a deficit spender. Sure he did deficit spending a different way, cut taxes, but not spending, rather than keeping taxes where they were, but raising spending. NEITHER of those ideas work, and labeling the boneheaded behavior what the behavior is, rather than throw a social group's name onto it just 'cause you hate them doesn't help matters. NO ONE would suggest that tax cuts are a liberal idea... except apparently MH42, but for what reasons? Apparently, no more better reason than just to call Reagan a liberal.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33853974)

NO ONE would suggest that tax cuts are a liberal idea... except apparently MH42, but for what reasons?
 
Actually, I got this from James K. Galbraith.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33860654)

NO ONE would suggest that tax cuts are a liberal idea... except apparently MH42, but for what reasons?

Actually, I got this from James K. Galbraith.

And people got "Don't mix Milk with Meat" from "Do not boil a goat in its mother's milk." You'll forgive me for being skeptical that your reading is accurate.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33864924)

Considering that James wrote his article on this in 1989, during that strange time that I can't seem to find articles on the web, I can't link to it. But his was a Leftist point of view. John McManus of the John Birch Society also wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal calling Reagan a Liberal- in 1993- but I can't find it online either.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33847788)

Which is why I say he was a borrow and spend Liberal, rather than a Tax and Spend.

And there's no difference between a socialist welfare program that supports the poor and a liberalizing tax cut for the rich combined with free trade.

And yes, I consider George W. Bush to be a liberal- cutting taxes and increasing spending to give more liberty to the rich.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33849804)

Which is why I say he was a borrow and spend Liberal, rather than a Tax and Spend.

And there's no difference between a socialist welfare program that supports the poor and a liberalizing tax cut for the rich combined with free trade.

I feel that you're using Liberal too widely, which is exactly what I was complaining about.

Deficit spending is not an exclusively liberal action.

And yes, I consider George W. Bush to be a liberal- cutting taxes and increasing spending to give more liberty to the rich.

OMG, you're doing crazy amounts of semantic gymnastics right here to apply "liberal" to Bush.

Can we please use descriptive comments about people, rather than slather titles that we hope to turn into epithets? "Liberal" is not everything bad in the world, and it doesn't mean wild spending.

Oh, and there is a difference between a socialist welfare program that is paid for, and a tax cut for the rich, without cutting spending.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33853940)

Deficit spending is not an exclusively liberal action.
 
True conservatives follow the idea of "Neither borrower nor lender be"; and don't even accept usury in their private lives, let alone in government. But you see, that's the problem- we don't have any true conservatives in the United States any more, at least none that reject liberty in favor of morality.
 
  Oh, and there is a difference between a socialist welfare program that is paid for, and a tax cut for the rich, without cutting spending.
 
Both use government to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who don't- so no, I don't see any difference at all between a Steve Forbes getting an unfunded tax cut and a Welfare Queen living off of taxpayer's money. BOTH are socialism.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33860314)

True conservatives follow the idea of "Neither borrower nor lender be"; and don't even accept usury in their private lives, let alone in government.

Oh, so we're going straight to the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and not even going to try and hide it at all?

Both use government to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who don't- so no, I don't see any difference at all between a Steve Forbes getting an unfunded tax cut and a Welfare Queen living off of taxpayer's money. BOTH are socialism.

No, they are not both socialism. Socialism puts money where it is necessary. It isn't just "wealth redistribution", but NECESSARY wealth redistribution to better equalize mankind.

Unfunded tax cuts to the rich in fact isn't even wealth redistribution, it's LACK of wealth redistribution. Unless your argument is that the rich should be paying more taxes...

Oh and "Welfare Queen"... lol, I love the silly images people have of people living off welfare...

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33864964)

Socialism puts money where it is necessary.
 
From the neoconservative trickle-down voodoo economics point of view, tax cuts for the rich IS putting money where it is necessary.
 
  It isn't just "wealth redistribution", but NECESSARY wealth redistribution to better equalize mankind.
 
Exactly. And the Ronald Reagan voodoo economics theory is that the rich, having more money, will create more opportunities for individuals, and *better equalize mankind*.
 
  Unfunded tax cuts to the rich in fact isn't even wealth redistribution, it's LACK of wealth redistribution. Unless your argument is that the rich should be paying more taxes...

Oh and "Welfare Queen"... lol, I love the silly images people have of people living off welfare...
 
Some have seen it with their own eyes- it would be stupid to assume fraud does not exist in the system. But in both cases- it's taking money away from those who EARN it, to support those who don't (merely invest in the first case, a form of fraud, or lie about their inability to earn in the second case, which is also a form of fraud).

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#33880164)

Some have seen it with their own eyes- it would be stupid to assume fraud does not exist in the system. But in both cases- it's taking money away from those who EARN it, to support those who don't (merely invest in the first case, a form of fraud, or lie about their inability to earn in the second case, which is also a form of fraud).

Yeah... when I was on welfare, I was living high on the hog with my $350 a month...

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33911868)

And the Ronald Reagan voodoo economics theory is that the rich, having more money, will create more opportunities for individuals, and *better equalize mankind*.

But isn't this trying to explain Right-wingers in terms of Left-wing values? I.e. given that they're very disparate value sets, isn't that an invalid way of looking at and thinking about it? Specifically, the Left sees life's inequities as a problem, and the Right does not. So your sentence about the Right's thinking is correct up until that last clause, which is only what Right-wingers would furthermore think if they had Left-wingers' morality system. And since they don't, that last part doesn't hold. And therefore, snowgirl is right, they are not both socialism. It appears that your mistake in thinking is that you're defining redistribution as not only govt.-invoked wealth transfer, but also a lack of govt.-invoked wealth transfer. It would appear that this is a strained attempt to try to paint the Right as no better than the Left. The problem is that it's so off-base, even a Leftist here is apparently reacting with a big WTF. And since you hold to the (flawed) belief that if both Right and Left are against something, that then it's prolly right on, then presumably when both Right and Left are saying that a POV of yours is flawed, you'd seriously question yourself and consider that you might have made a mistake in that thinking, no? Or doesn't it work the same in the converse?

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33912916)

"But isn't this trying to explain Right-wingers in terms of Left-wing values?"

Not at all, because neoconservatives are not right wingers- and this description of Ronald Reagan's trickle down theory was taken *directly* from his own speeches.

" I.e. given that they're very disparate value sets, isn't that an invalid way of looking at and thinking about it?"

Maybe it is to you- but neocons aren't right wingers, they're left wing liberals who are *specifically* using trickle down economics to engineer society into centralized ownership.

"Specifically, the Left sees life's inequities as a problem, and the Right does not."

Then why do they want to be OWNERS instead of being content with the class they were born into, if life's inequities are not a problem? In fact, if life's inequities are truly not a problem for you, why work at all? No incentive left.

"It appears that your mistake in thinking is that you're defining redistribution as not only govt.-invoked wealth transfer, but also a lack of govt.-invoked wealth transfer."

Ain't no such thing- tax breaks for certain crony-capitalist "approved transactions" are government-invoked wealth transfer, just the same as any other entitlement payment.

"And since you hold to the (flawed) belief that if both Right and Left are against something, that then it's prolly right on, then presumably when both Right and Left are saying that a POV of yours is flawed, you'd seriously question yourself and consider that you might have made a mistake in that thinking, no? Or doesn't it work the same in the converse?"

The fact that both the Left and the Right are against the POV that they are in reality both socialists and the same, is proof that they are both socialists and the same, yes.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33913992)

...*specifically* using trickle down economics to engineer society into centralized ownership.

To me the flaw here is that you seem to believe in some kind of Conservation of Conspiracism law, whereby if one side is out to destroy us then the other side must similarly also be. Only one side directly seeks our destruction -- capitalism and America's freedom-based society must be wrecking balled [a new verb I just made up here!] in order to replace it with the Left's ideal systems. The other side could at most be considered to be indirectly or incidently seeking our destruction, because those today who are on the Right economically are blinded by their excessive greed (which is destroying us). So I still say what you're engaging in here is trying to analyze Right-wing views by looking at them thru Left-wing-colored glasses.

In fact, if life's inequities are truly not a problem for you, why work at all? No incentive left.

Then you're not seeing things thru a Right-winger's eyes. I work to support myself and to hopefully build a more comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle for myself. It's not about "inequities", which is a relativistic concept. As in, I don't want "more than someone else", I want "more than what I've got". Right-wingers are absolutists and individualists, not relativists and collectivists. Righties just want to be rich, period, not simply richer than their neighbor. We would not be satisfied being poor, just because our neighbors were poorer. That thinking doesn't make any sense to Righties. Where I'm at compared to anyone else doesn't change the fact of where I'm at. That's Right-wing logic.

Ain't no such thing- tax breaks for certain crony-capitalist "approved transactions" are government-invoked wealth transfer, just the same as any other entitlement payment.

By that logic then it's "welfare" if I don't rob you. You're playing fast and loose with terms here.

The fact that both the Left and the Right are against the POV that they are in reality both socialists and the same, is proof that they are both socialists and the same, yes.

(Wow.)

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33935426)

To me the flaw here is that you seem to believe in some kind of Conservation of Conspiracism law, whereby if one side is out to destroy us then the other side must similarly also be.

Or to put it another way- the Bolshevik theorem of George Orwell. Or at least, that's the first author that pointed it out to me; that any LARGE revolution only succeeds at copying the methodology of that which they are revolting against; regardless of specific ideology otherwise. That was as true with the NKVD and the KGB as it is with the "Reagan Revolution".

Only one side directly seeks our destruction -- capitalism and America's freedom-based society must be wrecking balled [a new verb I just made up here!] in order to replace it with the Left's ideal systems.

Nope. On the other side from Atheist Libertarianism is Atheist Socialism- which is equally as evil. The key problem is LARGE and BIG overwhelming the ability to serve man as God intends. Deus Est Caritas is my reference for that- largely seen by lefist cafeteria Catholics as an example of a *right-wing* conservative document.

From that, anything BIG- anything that has the potential to destroy the lives of more than a few people, needs to be destroyed, merely because it is big.

Then you're not seeing things thru a Right-winger's eyes. I work to support myself and to hopefully build a more comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle for myself.

Thus you are concerned with life's inequities- which prevent you from enjoying a "more comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle". To switch to buddhism for a second- the only man who is NOT concerned with life's inequities, is the man who does not wish for or expect a more comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle.

It's not about "inequities", which is a relativistic concept. As in, I don't want "more than someone else", I want "more than what I've got".

But how do you know there is more than what you've got, to get? What makes you think that what you've already got isn't the top allowed for EVERYBODY by God?

Right-wingers are absolutists and individualists, not relativists and collectivists.

If you were truly individualist and absolutist, you wouldn't want any more. There would be no more to want, for you would have eliminated poverty internally, simply by being satisfied with what you have.

Righties just want to be rich, period, not simply richer than their neighbor. We would not be satisfied being poor, just because our neighbors were poorer. That thinking doesn't make any sense to Righties. Where I'm at compared to anyone else doesn't change the fact of where I'm at. That's Right-wing logic.

Then perhaps you need a little non-wing logic. Where you are at is good enough- regardless of where everybody else is. No need to be rich- rich just means you're more concerned with material wealth, than with God. No need to be concerned with being poor- for why worry about being poor, if you have God?

ONLY if you are comparing yourself to others, do the words "rich" and "poor" have any meaning at all, for those are words that are *relativistic* and *collectivist* in their very meaning. Without relativism, rich and poor means NOTHING.

A great for instance I keep coming back to is the Kalapuya Tualatin Atflati Eena, who used to live on the land my house is now on. They had NOTHING by materialist standards- the first white man to set eyes on this land called it "a swamp, looking like nothing more than a huge lake separated by tarweed patches and beaver dams". Even clothing was considered winter-only to the Atflati Eena; houses were where you sent the rainy October-to-February months, eating smoked fish and other preserved foods such as Camas Cakes fried in Tarweed oil. During the spring, summer, and early fall, men hunted, women gathered. That was their life. And the last speaker of the Tualatin dialect of the Kalapuya people- called his people Weatlhy- for they had all they needed provided by the Great Spirit. To him, the materialistic wealth of "private property" was indeed POVERTY- the wealth was destroyed when they were moved to the reservation.

Switching back to Catholicism, John Paul II said that the problem with socialism and capitalism is that the depth of all of the world's wealth, was insufficient to fill mankind's poverty. And he's right. Searching for everybody to be rich is impossible, searching for even ONE person to be rich is impossible. Look at the number of people who hate Obama classifying even those earning $250,000/year as rich! It is impossible to ever be rich by those standards.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940106)

the Bolshevik theorem of George Orwell

I'm having trouble trying to find out what this is.

That was as true with the NKVD and the KGB as it is with the "Reagan Revolution".

And how exactly was the "Reagan Revolution" like the Russian communist secret police and spy agencies?

From that, anything BIG- anything that has the potential to destroy the lives of more than a few people, needs to be destroyed, merely because it is big.

You contradict yourself. The only way to enforce all the behaviors you want on people is thru a big enforcement apparatus -- lots of laws, lots of investigators and litigators and jailers and bureacrats, and a big budget to pay for all that. It's Right-wingers who want small govt., low taxes, and less regulation. It is *you* who are for bigness. Like your ginormous church apparatus. I go to a non-denominational church that is loosely affiliated with a larger body, but believes mostly in local decision-making and local control. You and your side, both politically and religiously, are the antithesis of this.

So when you call for the destruction of the Catholic bureacracy and the U.S. federal govt. bureacracy and teachers union bureacracies and the U.N. and all the things that you Lefties like that are big, and demand that they all be severely shrunk down, then I'll believe that you're serious about that.

I'll even start, by calling for severely cutting down the size of things the Right likes. Huge corporations: have to go. We should've never allowed all the mergers and consolidation in industries that we have. And with the advantage afforded to public corporations of easier ability to raise huge amounts of capital, there should be and should have been limits on how large they could become before having to sell some of themselves off.

A huge military: Has to go. We can't afford it, and we shouldn't be nation-building anyways. Maintaining the capacity to fight two simultaneous conflicts is twice as much as we need -- we only need to be able to fight one war at a time, that of defending our border. Defense expenditures are partly necessary but partly corporate welfare to defense contractors and partly social welfare in that its a jobs program and healthcare and retirement program for people. We need to take care of people who bravely volunteer to defend the nation, and we need to keep up on defense technology, but we could prolly do with about half of what we're doing. Slash that budget.

How about foreign aid: Has to go. I still love Israel, but God will protect it, we don't need to, they can keep themselves safe, and what are they taking so long for in blowing up Iran's nuclear program anyways. It's time they stop being such pussies sucking up to world opinion, which they can never win anyways (the world is Satan's, so it can only hate God's chosen people), and stand on their own feet. Same with South Korea, and our unnecessary bases in Germany, and giving grants to South American countries to drill for oil, and anywhere else we're throwing money around. Charity begins at home.

If there's anything else that's a pet institution of the Right that's too big and needs huge cutting in size, let me know and I'll put that on the chopping block as well. Then you can tell me how you wish to sacrifice those bloated things on the Left that you guys love and make excuses for so much. Or am I the bigger man here, plus way less partisan than you? I'm not holding my breath on that.

To switch to buddhism for a second- the only man who is NOT concerned with life's inequities, is the man who does not wish for or expect a more comfortable and enjoyable lifestyle.

Well I'm not Buddhist, my pagan/heathen friend, nor do I subscribe to the philosophies of false, man-made religions, so I don't know what the fsck you're talking about here. And I reject your invalid redefining of the word "inequities" -- if I don't have everything I want in life, does not mean that I'm unequal in my life. I can't be unequal with myself.

But how do you know there is more than what you've got, to get?

Marketing. Advertising. I want a 412 hp new Mustang. I want it because it exists and is more than what I've got, not because someone else might have one. I don't give two shits what someone else has. They could have a 1200 hp Hennessey Venom GT and I don't give two shits about that. I only want what I want. Damn it, I'm not a fucking Leftie like you guys! Get it thru your head -- I do not *think* like you! I am totally different from and totally opposed to how you guys look at the world and think about things.

What makes you think that what you've already got isn't the top allowed for EVERYBODY by God?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? You haven't established that there even is a top for everybody that's allowed by God. Logically you would need to first establish that I beat my wife, before asking if I've ceased or not. Since you guys are always crying about gaps in wealth, evidently God does allow different tops for different people. So I don't see how you even could establish a basis for that question to make it valid or addressable.

If you were truly individualist and absolutist, you wouldn't want any more. There would be no more to want, for you would have eliminated poverty internally, simply by being satisfied with what you have.

I'm not relativist w.r.t. others. Think about what collectivism is -- it's about people. That's what I'm talking about. Of course I'm not individualist and absolutist on absolutely every possible thing, to the last possible degree.

Where you are at is good enough-

Ugh. That's not for you decide for anyone else. Only Lefties deign to tell other people how much they should have.

No need to be rich- rich just means you're more concerned with material wealth, than with God.

Agreed. I don't want to be rich. Being rich is a curse. Similarly, no need to be a Lefty -- being a Lefty just means you're more concerned with other people and their business, than with God.

ONLY if you are comparing yourself to others, do the words "rich" and "poor" have any meaning at all,

Only to you Lefty heathens, for whom everything is about coveting thy neighbors stuff or resenting how much they have. God commands believers to mind their own damn business and keep their eyes off what their neighbor has. To a Christian, there is richness in all of God's blessings. What could be more poor than to not be saved? The lost are not poor because some are saved and they are not, they're spiritually poor because of their own condition, period.

They had NOTHING by materialist standards

There are no materialist standards. "Materialist" is an epithet used by those who break God's commandments in obsessing about thy neighbor's stuff:
Exodus 20 [biblegateway.com] :
The Ten Commandments
  1 And God spoke all these words:
[...]
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

You cannot fool me, sinner, with your Devil's idealogy. It will never work on me -- that you can be sure of.

the materialistic wealth of "private property"

You commies can rail on private property all you want, but it's a false religion that you Lefties have got there. God obviously didn't command us to not have private property, else He wouldn't have commanded us to mind our own damn business about it.

the depth of all of the world's wealth, was insufficient to fill mankind's poverty

That I doubt very much. AFAIK a shortage of food and medicine for example are distribution problems, not scarcity problems. With sufficient charity, there would be no poverty. (And there would be a lot more poverty if it weren't for the charity that we do feel and engage in, esp. the people of the U.S.) Unfortunately, middle class people like me can only do so much, and of those who could do a lot more, some choose to spend it on politics instead of charity. Like Meg Whitman, who's spent at least $140 million of her own money just to pursue being governor of this God-forsaken state. That could've done a lot to alleviate world-wide poverty. Or George Soros, who stole from the British people and spends billions funding Left-wing thinktanks and causes. Except for investment/swindler types like Soros who should be in jail, the Gateses and Hiltons and Heinzes and Rockefellers and Kennedys and Forbeses and Whitmans et al. have a right to spend their money as they see fit, but they could cure poverty, I believe.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940660)

I'm having trouble trying to find out what this is.
 
The simplest way I've ever heard it put is "That which revolutionaries fight against, they become".
 
In the case of the Bolsheviks, one of the *big* reasons for their revolution was the Czar's Secret Police, the NKVD. And what did Lenin do as soon as he got into power? Formed the KGB- with many of the spies being former NKVD agents.
 
The Great Reagan Revolution was formed in the recession of 1979; and proceeded to be just as collectivist as anything Carter's Democrats ever did, perhaps more so.
 
  You contradict yourself. The only way to enforce all the behaviors you want on people is thru a big enforcement apparatus -- lots of laws, lots of investigators and litigators and jailers and bureacrats, and a big budget to pay for all that.
 
No it isn't. All it really needs is a local militia- and every man in it sworn to protect his neighborhood against outside influence. Bullets work better than jails when it comes to fraud.
 
  So when you call for the destruction of the Catholic bureacracy and the U.S. federal govt. bureacracy and teachers union bureacracies and the U.N. and all the things that you Lefties like that are big, and demand that they all be severely shrunk down, then I'll believe that you're serious about that.
 
The Catholic Bureaucracy is already organized this way- each archbishop is as powerful as the Pope, officially. Each Abbot or Abbotess is in complete control of the Abbey, and not even the Papal Nuncio can countermand their decisions.
 
  If there's anything else that's a pet institution of the Right that's too big and needs huge cutting in size, let me know and I'll put that on the chopping block as well. Then you can tell me how you wish to sacrifice those bloated things on the Left that you guys love and make excuses for so much. Or am I the bigger man here, plus way less partisan than you? I'm not holding my breath on that.
 
How about the stock market itself? Or the dollar? here's one I think you and I both agree on: Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution grabs too much power for Congress, those should ALL be organized at the level of the State.
 
But you're right as well- I'm for *strong* local government.
 
  Marketing. Advertising. I want a 412 hp new Mustang. I want it because it exists and is more than what I've got, not because someone else might have one. I don't give two shits what someone else has. They could have a 1200 hp Hennessey Venom GT and I don't give two shits about that. I only want what I want. Damn it, I'm not a fucking Leftie like you guys! Get it thru your head -- I do not *think* like you! I am totally different from and totally opposed to how you guys look at the world and think about things.
 
But it is the other guy who has the Mustang- the one who is advertising it. You want to take it from him. The WANTING alone is about inequity.
 
  You haven't established that there even is a top for everybody that's allowed by God.
 
The mathematical finite nature of the planet shows that- it's an obvious fact that cannot be changed. There's only so much matter available to us- and mankind's WANT is more than that, therefore God has given us an upper limit on what we can have.
 
  Since you guys are always crying about gaps in wealth, evidently God does allow different tops for different people.
 
How do you know it's not the Devil creating different tops for different people and encouraging differences among individuals?
 
  Agreed. I don't want to be rich. Being rich is a curse. Similarly, no need to be a Lefty -- being a Lefty just means you're more concerned with other people and their business, than with God.
 
So why allow anybody to do evil?
 
  God commands believers to mind their own damn business and keep their eyes off what their neighbor has.
 
Then shouldn't you be keeping your eyes off of advertising and wanting more than you have?
 
  To a Christian, there is richness in all of God's blessings. What could be more poor than to not be saved? The lost are not poor because some are saved and they are not, they're spiritually poor because of their own condition, period.
 
And I would say, any man who refuses to share with his neighbor, is indeed spiritually poor. Especially any man who would say to the next generation "My right to private property is more important than your life, I will not share and you must die", as the pro-choicers do.
 
  You cannot fool me, sinner, with your Devil's idealogy. It will never work on me -- that you can be sure of.
 
And yet, you've broken Exodus 20:17 above, by coveting a Mustang- which belongs to somebody else.
 
  That I doubt very much. AFAIK a shortage of food and medicine for example are distribution problems, not scarcity problems. With sufficient charity, there would be no poverty. (And there would be a lot more poverty if it weren't for the charity that we do feel and engage in, esp. the people of the U.S.) Unfortunately, middle class people like me can only do so much, and of those who could do a lot more, some choose to spend it on politics instead of charity. Like Meg Whitman, who's spent at least $140 million of her own money just to pursue being governor of this God-forsaken state. That could've done a lot to alleviate world-wide poverty. Or George Soros, who stole from the British people and spends billions funding Left-wing thinktanks and causes. Except for investment/swindler types like Soros who should be in jail, the Gateses and Hiltons and Heinzes and Rockefellers and Kennedys and Forbeses and Whitmans et al. have a right to spend their money as they see fit, but they could cure poverty, I believe.
 
Ah, but above, you originally defined being poor as having less than you WANTED- not needed. Yes, we could eliminate need- but we will NEVER be able to eliminate WANT.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33977670)

"That which revolutionaries fight against, they become".

Did our founding fathers become like the British crown? No. Your mistake is in confusing when one evil tries to wrest ultimate power from another evil, and assuming that that is the only case.

The Great Reagan Revolution was formed in the recession of 1979; and proceeded to be just as collectivist as anything Carter's Democrats ever did, perhaps more so.

How so?

Bullets work better than jails when it comes to fraud.

I thought you claimed to be pro-life (where that means abortion is acceptable but the death penalty is not (i.e. the Leftist position))? Or are you talking about just maiming people, like shooting the hands off a thief?

The Catholic Bureaucracy is already organized this way- each archbishop is as powerful as the Pope, officially. Each Abbot or Abbotess is in complete control of the Abbey, and not even the Papal Nuncio can countermand their decisions.

I doubt all that very much. And then how about the other big entities that are big faves of you Leftists?

How about the stock market itself?

(I thought I had saved some notes for this, but I guess not.) Basically, we do need to shrink the size and influence of the stock market. Here's how:

One of the problems is that we invented this category of corporation called a public one, but these businesses have this single-minded goal of "maximizing shareholder value". Which is fine, but combine this with the fact that this route makes it easy to raise large amounts of capital very quickly, and without sensible limits on number and size, you get a skewed business community, rather than diversity of corporate owner priorities. And choice is good, and the free market relies on people being able to "vote with their dollar".

So we should've never allowed so many IPO's and so many mergers consolidating industries. Capitalism is successful because of the forces it harnesses, but nothing is good on this earth that's unchecked. Capitalism can lead to pursuing every last level of efficiency, as it can lead to pursuing every last dollar that can be wrung out of a situation. At that point entrepreneurial energy should be redirected to new ideas and ventures. I know all this confuses you, as you're thinking right now "great, he wants to rule with an iron fist like I do", but I'm talking about a totally different level from what you wannabe Russian tzars want. I don't want to see peoples' interactions choreographed, just kept inside the playing field, of rules, and this country's borders.

So then, on the stock market, you have this situation plus then the govt. using the tax code to socially engineer everyone to give their money to public corporations. It's good that there's a market for the little guy to invest in things he couldn't normally, due to having payments to invest and not lump sums, and due to the amounts that he can muster. Without the stock market, only the wealthy could invest in big things, and then your precious wealth gap that you Lefties cry and fret so much about would be even bigger. It serves a valid and good role, it just needs competition. If there's going to be any govt.-sanctioned (i.e. permitting the use of pre-tax money) investment opportunities, there should be many others. Including way(s) for the middle class to invest in real estate, and other things that are less manipulated by Wall St. Wall St. has a virtual monopoly, and like the monopoly position of govt., that always leads to abuses and a sub-optimal situation for the little guy. So these institutions must be kept small, and with plenty of competition.

Or the dollar?

The Right-wing view is for a large dollar and that's wrong and it should be shrunk? What do you mean?

Article I Section 10 of the US Constitution grabs too much power for Congress

Ah, that's what I paused this for, until I could look that up:

Contracts clause: I believe it's best that treaties and currency are uniform across the nation. And things like state govt.'s engaging in stealing from their citizens thru I guess how royalty historically did, seems wise to ban. Seems all good to me.

Export clause: Nationally uniform tariffs sound best, too.

Compact clause: No state-level tariffs on ships and waging of war. Sounds good.

I don't see what's wrong with these, only SCOTUS decisions favoring a statist view. But for that we just have to keep Lefties off the court. (If you're for decentralized control, then that is one notable example of where you diverge from your philosophical ilk.)

I'm for *strong* local government.

Then I oppose you.

You want to take it from him.

I want to buy it from him, i.e. what both parties consider a fair exchange (if any).

The WANTING alone is about inequity.

Like I said, I cannot be unequal with myself, so the concept of inequity doesn't fit here. I don't want it because he has it, I want it because I don't have it. There's no injustice present here, I just simply want something, that's all. And if my financial fortunes don't improve, it might have to stay a want, as they're now $30K cars. More engineering and technology and govt. regs means gone are the days of a cheap, if crude, powerful car.

There's only so much matter available to us

But not value. We reform matter into things with much more value (to us) than their intrinsic worth. Big example is gold. People with lots of gold aren't "rich" because they've got a big pile of some metal, it's because we assign value to it. We are "richer" when we have the things we want, so wealth can be "increased" by simply perceiving things as worth more to us. And in the case of material goods, reconstituting matter in new ways helps that along. I.e. that's "added value".

therefore God has given us an upper limit on what we can have

You're changing the subject -- you said: "What makes you think that what you've already got isn't the top allowed for EVERYBODY by God?" I.e. you didn't say "what makes you think that what *we've* got...", indicating that you were referring to individual quotas on wealth placed by God. Which there obviously aren't.

How do you know it's not the Devil creating different tops for different

It is -- excessive wealth is a curse. But the Devil can't do anything that God doesn't permit. Ergo God has no such upper limit on what any man may have.

So why allow anybody to do evil?

Ask God. I'm just deferring to His what I trust to be overall wisdom on this.

Then shouldn't you be keeping your eyes off of advertising and wanting more than you have?

That's not a "then", because it's completely different, no matter how you try to strain our thinking otherwise. You cannot twist me into adopting man's morality. Satan tries to trick people this way too. It won't work on me, sinner.

And I would say, any man who refuses to share with his neighbor, is indeed spiritually poor.

My neighbors are all rich. (I'm the riffraff in this neighborhood.) You're wrong: A man who refuses to share with those in need, is what is spiritually poor.

Especially any man who would say to the next generation "My right to private property is more important than your life, I will not share and you must die", as the pro-choicers do.

Except pro-choicers don't view it as a private property issue -- you're projecting your commie philosophy where it's not present. That's why you get so much wrong -- you can't seem to view things thru any perspective other than your Marxist one. To pro-choicers, they consider the baby a "piece of meat" and just an extension of their own bodies. My body is not my property, it's just my body/me. And it's not about a lack of desire to share, they just don't want to have a kid then. Prolly plenty of pro-choicers give to charity or volunteer in their communities, they just don't want to be inconvenienced with an untimely child.

And yet, you've broken Exodus 20:17 above, by coveting a Mustang- which belongs to somebody else.

You grow more nuts as the conversation goes on, I've noticed.

but we will NEVER be able to eliminate WANT

Good, that's what keeps man striving, and life interesting. Without desire, life would be dull.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33980392)

Did our founding fathers become like the British crown?

Yes, our constitution mimics many of the rights in the Magna Carta, as well as in 49/50 states, English Common Law still stands (the exception being Louisianna, where the Roman Code is the basis of law).
 
  How so?
 
The Reagan Revolution was actually designed to hand over ownership of the majority of goods (85%) to a minority of people (20%). David Stockman actually admitted that Reagan's economic system was designed to be a Stalinesque redistribution of wealth: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/5760/ [theatlantic.com]

And you've already adopted Man's morality- every time you give in to advertising.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33980692)

>> Did our founding fathers become like the British crown?
> Yes, our constitution mimics many of the rights in the Magna Carta

It was hardly the British crown that established the Magna Carta, being a reform aimed at limiting the king's power. So it still doesn't stand that revolutionaries necessarily become what they overthrow.

> The Reagan Revolution was actually designed to hand over ownership of the majority of goods (85%) to a minority of people (20%).

TL;DR, but I read the CliffNotes version [wikipedia.org] , and didn't see anything about a "Stalinesque redistribution of wealth". Maybe you could direct me to specific paragraphs in that 18,000+ word piece that you linked to, that support your wild accusation?

> And you've already adopted Man's morality- every time you give in to advertising.

"Giving in" to advertising is not a sin -- God never said "thou shalt not let thyself be swayed by advertising". I've only violated the morality of your man-made religion of Leftism.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33980794)

Hmm, it just occurred to me, I'm sending resumes to companies advertising job openings. Are they "sinners" in your religion for advertising job openings? I guess then I'm a "sinner" according to the Church of Marxists, for "advertising" myself in my resume. I sure hope to God that one employer and I are swayed by each other's advertising to form an employment relationship, and soon.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987510)

In a subsidiarity system- instead of a globalist economy- you'd be protected from competition and wouldn't need advertising. You'd do all your marketing through personal friendships and personal relationships instead.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33992082)

You'd do all your marketing through personal friendships and personal relationships instead.

I'm an introvert (and with less advanced social skills than a normal, non-nerdy person), so I don't really have those. (Not to mention that the last 7 years of my employed life have been working on projects solo, mostly. So no one but my immediate supers know what kind of worker I am.)

So your variation of economic Leftism (redistribution to cure inequity) again falls short due to the gross inadequacy of a one-size-fits-all approach. (I first realized this from a much earlier discussion where you explained that your idea was that everyone should (must) have an equal means of production. But that doesn't work for those who don't want to be their own boss and would rather work for someone else.)

A globalist economy is undesirable to me, but so is your alternative (and it's not the only one there is). I don't want protection from competition (which is part of what makes for example the unions so evil), I can compete just fine, and historically have tended to kick ass, when it's been a fair competition. (Altho I *am* at a severe disadvantage right now, having been clipped by a severe recession just as my main skill set was becoming obsolete and needing to transition to a newer one. It's the timing that has hurt me so bad, even more than Free Trade has.)

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33987490)

"The hard part of the supply-side tax cut is dropping the top rate from 70 to 50 percent—the rest of it is a secondary matter," Stockman explained. "The original argument was that the top bracket was too high, and that's having the most devastating effect on the economy. Then, the general argument was that, in order to make this palatable as a political matter, you had to bring down all the brackets. But, I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate."

A Trojan horse? This seemed a cynical concession for Stockman to make in private conversation while the Reagan Administration was still selling the supply-side doctrine to Congress. Yet he was conceding what the liberal Keynesian critics had argued from the outset—the supply-side theory was not a new economic theory at all but only new language and argument to conceal a hoary old Republican doctrine: give the tax cuts to the top brackets, the wealthiest individuals and largest enterprises, and let the good effects "trickle down" through the economy to reach everyone else. Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" he explained, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."

In other words- it's just a fake- an attempt to transfer wealth from the lower classes to the upper. As socialist as Stalin.

Re:"Tax and Spend politician" (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33991898)

And Megan McCain goes on Liberal talk shows and trashes Republicans. If one person sells out his side because he didn't really believe in that side fully to begin with, is not evidence of a grand conspiracy on that side. So a phony Republican says Christine O'Donnell is crazy and unfit, and so a phony Republican says "tax cuts for all" is fake on the Right. BFD. It could only approach credibility if from multiple sources, and from otherwise solid Right-wingers.

IOW if multiple staunch Republicans are caught off guard and are revealed to have said out loud or talking amongst themselves that it's a phony ploy by the Right, then I could take it seriously. But one man who's a detractor and cooperating with the other side and coincidently telling them what it is they want to hear (or rather what they want to report), doesn't smell so coincidental.

The Left absolutely *loves* to feature turncoats and RINO's in their mainstream news media. It fits within their strategized narrative. This seems too perfect (for the Left), too good to be true, or as depicted. I don't draw conclusions, about either side, on one data point, and a dodgy one at that.

Produce more, of better quality. Like internal memos or recordings, that were never intended to be revealed publicly. Or somes things said in unguarded moments, as slip-ups. For example Glenn Beck took about a year of TV shows of video clips and books et al. of Leftists giving talking amongst other Leftists about things, and a year of coraborating concurments from other dominant Lefty thinkers and policy advisers, for me to be convinced that we're living thru our generation's Red Scare, and big threat and push by communists to destroy America, as basically our biggest threat overall. Something I wouldn't have believed for a minute, just two years ago.

So for me to believe in conspiracies, I require *a lot* of evidence for them. Provide more, and I'll consider it. (I could be wrong -- there is a chance of that.)

an analogy (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33849774)

Say your wife was making $50K when you met her. She also had $50K in credit card debt. Over the years she had gotten raises and is now making $100K. And she's also grown your household's total credit card debt to $80K.

Is $80K in debt not as bad as $50K in debt?

Do you think your household debt situation has improved, just because her income has grown faster than her rate of piling on more and more debt?

What if there's an economic downturn and she has to take a pay cut for a while? Is it only then that $80K of debt is worse than $50K of debt?

So when you want to assess your debt situation, what then is the validity of looking at it relative to some other fluctuating measurement, vs. just looking at it period?

Re:an analogy (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 3 years ago | (#33853988)

Debt is debt, and all debt is evil. If you're not bringing in the revenue, you shouldn't be spending. And if you have responsibilities, you ALSO have a responsibility to do everything possible to bring in the revenue.

In other words, if you have $80k in debt, you have a responsibility to increase your revenue to pay off that debt.

So therefore- if the government is in debt at all, cutting taxes is immoral.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...