Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
more snippage
Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their
philosophy
on others. Liberals.
??
The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational
chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call
themselves "conservatives".
Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you
are
with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support
spending
money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake,
they support major increases in government power, and other things
that we
used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us.
Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not
borrow-and-spend.
Of course there are differences. At least the olde tyme liberals were
willing to pay for their overspending.
Or at least take the heat for raising taxes. That's called
"responsibility". ;-)
Lots of true conservatives feel the same.
But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that
matter?
Most definitions I see are way too simplified.
For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to
control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the
organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to
control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the
individual.
Under that definition, the current administration is conservative!
But another definition says the conservative wants small,
hands-off,
pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the
liberal
wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering
government.
Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal!
Yup, as I noted, there are going to be differences.
I'm more concerned about accurate definition.
Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?
Times changed...
Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as
they
are, and liberals want to run around changing things.
You decide what that one is.
The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social
engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others".
By definition.
For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions
of
people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs.
renting.
Now - is that liberal or conservative policy?
It is an extremely liberal policy.
Some would agree, saying it pushes a populist agenda at the expense of
landlords and bankers. Others would disagree, saying it *helped* the
construction industry and bankers, as well as the auto manufacturers
and many other industries.
Now the tough question: Is it a good policy or a bad policy?
How many self-described
"conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest
deduction?
Not many (any)......... yet.
I remember a time when *all* 'consumer' interest was fed-income-tax
deductible. Sales tax too. Guess who killed that?
Under
extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to
survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to
ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want
to help
with their share of funding.
I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for
their
money.
Odd that at a time of major threat to our way of life, that those who
are benefiting the most appear to need tax cuts!
No, they simply *claim* to need them!
Consider this: Deficit spending is essentially a wealth-redistribution
program that takes from the taxpayers (present and future) and gives to
the bondholders
(domestic and foreign).
Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went
to
unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds
and
paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of
course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much.
Surely
But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production
soared to
incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if
they
could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their
money
on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable.
Buying
bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred
saving.
And a way of reducing demand.
Demand didn't matter, because supply was controlled. IIRC, new cars and
houses were simply not built, consumables like fuel were rationed and
many items were
in limited supply, so people made do with what they had.
And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1
vets
were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill,
which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the
FHA
and projects like the interstate highway system not only created
jobs,
they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans,
either.
Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or
"conservative"?
Extremely liberal.
But were they a good thing or a bad thing?
I think you may be leading toward the point that many of the
benefits
of modern America may be directly tied to a form of government that
is
being dismantled. The liberal approach came after experiments in
almost
pure capitalism, with it's boom and bust economies, and with the
natural
accumulation of power to just a few of the most aggressive.
In part, yes. Perhaps it's better to use the labels "activist" and
"passivist" to describe the differences.
If you are, you are correct. Both sides have great ideas. Of course,
I'd think that, cuz I'm just about dead-center. Of course, I think
both
sides have ideas that are suicidally stupid too! 8^)
Agreed! But in general, I see way too much ignorance of history and
inability
to forsee consequences today. People are offended by the label
"liberal" - but
try taking away the benefits of "liberal" ideas like some of the tax
laws...
It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you
call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints
are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative"
yet behave in a very different way.
Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when
confronted with the truth?
You mean like Len? He's a textbook example!
I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a
bar.
It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually
indistinguishable from each other.
In some ways, I agree.
Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the
center.
But how is the center defined?
Personally I define it as viewing of Government as a good and
necessary
thing, with government control of those things that national
government
does best, and delegation of the things that state and local
governments
do best to their respective sections.
That's easy to say - and almost impossible to define. The devil is in
the details.
The government that governs best is the one that governs least.
With all due respect, that's a motherhood-and-apple-pie bromide.
*Every*
political view says their approach is the least necessary.
It is
important to note that this does not mean that functions once handled
by
the Federal government are simply handed off to state governments.
That
means nothing to the citizen. Federal taxes going down and state and
local going up is a null at best, and passing the buck.
Bingo!
Finally, I think a Centrist is a person who THINKS about issues, not
simply chants party dogma.
Try disagreeing with Shrub...
But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party
chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable
person.
But he isjust too far to the left for my taste.
No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why:
1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run
for
P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around.
Yeah, I was going to mention that.....
Part of smarting up the Dems.
2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important -
notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor
positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up.
Friend of mine once said that the DNC was often its own worst enemy.
Exact
quote: "If you let the DNC organize a firing squad, they'd form a
circle
around the condemned criminal..."
3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than
"using
too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis.
4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree
with
him, but you can respect him.
Yup. I wasn't quite sure what to think of him until one day I was
returning from a business trip, and heard him on NPR in a debate with
Ralph Nader. It was so refreshing to listen to a debate where issues
were discussed, not the weird dance that the presidential debates
have
become.
Agreed!
It would be interesting to have the candidates prepare position papers
that
simply outlined their plans for the future and their beliefs, *without*
any attacks on their opponents nor claims about their past allowed.
Then let
people read the position papers without knowing who wrote them...
Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or
"conservatives"?
Well, they have a republican governor, representatives are 1
democrat
and 2 independents (YAY). I like the way they think!
Me too!
73 de Jim, N2EY