RadioBanter - ARS License Numbers

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

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". ;-)

An one thing is for certain. The present group is not to blame or
responsible for anything...... Not responsible at all.

Unless it's a good thing, and then it's all their doing...

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.

HAH! If I could give one, I'd be rich.

How about my "activist" vs. "passivist" definition?

Think Dixiecrat! Just where did the Dixiecrats go?

Times changed...

TRue enough, but that isn't the answer I was looking for. The
Dixiecrats became Republicans.

Yup.

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?

I don't find that tough at all. Any policy that is aimed at
benefiting
the most people is generally a good policy. Not always, but pretty
often

And that's where the trouble is: what *really* helps the most people?
Some
will undoubtedly argue that if the subsidy didn't exist, property
values and taxes
would be lower (because every deduction has to be made up somewhere
else).

Or consider this: the original FHA rules favored new construction over
existing housing. This helped the Levitt brothers and their imitators
enormously, and caused the suburban boom.

But it also helped empty the cities of those who could leave,
tremendously increased dependence on the automobile, and increased
per-capita consumption of all sorts of things. So now we have a nation
that is heavily dependent on imported energy, much of which is used
solely because of suburbanization.

OTOH, isn't a big part of the reason for government to protect the
rights of
the individual against the mob? And the weak against the strong?

Or to ask a related question, let us assume that the political
atmosphere of the late 1800's continued until this day. How many of
us
would be enjoying "middle classdom" and enjoying the activities that
come with it?

Impossible to tell! But consider this:

From reading old books and biographies, it seems to me that 100 or so
years ago there existed a class of people in the USA that have all but
disappeared.

I don't have a name for this class. The main characteristic of them was
that they didn't have to work. They were folks who had amassed enough
wealth to live comfortably on their investments.

From what I've read, in those days if a person owned a paid-up house,
and had some decent income-generating stocks and bonds, they could live
pretty well on
relatively little income because taxes were very low and only in
specific areas.
In most towns and cities you didn't need a car or a horse.

Income tax did not exist until WW1, property taxes were low in many
places, etc. Of course if you got sick, the available treatments
weren't expensive because there weren't many treatments!

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?

I'm assuming the Republicans. 8^)

Under the guise of "tax simplification" and "getting the govt. off your
back".

A lot of things were eased out of the tax laws so that while the rates
didn't rise, people's actual payments did.

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!

That's why I said "appear!

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.

And isn't that a mixed metaphor? ;^)

Nope. !

*Every* political view says their approach is the least necessary.

Well, I don't want them regulating my behavior in the bedroom, and I
don't want them regulating my behavior in the market.

One side would regulate the first and deregulate the second, and
vice-versa.

Now that being said, there are certain things that I think are common

sense, such as bedroom behavior doesn't include Michael Jackonesque
(alleged) behavior, or robber Baron behavior.

Agreed - but who defines where the line is?

But a person has to start
from somewhere, and too strict of definitions forces one either into
pure Libertarian or pure dictatorial view.

Extremes are rarely what is needed.

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...

Like I said.......... 8^)

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..."

HAH! I like that..... Pretty much spot-on.

It may be cynical, but the fact is that a lot of modern politics
consists of playing the game better than the other guy. For example, in
a number of key swing states, the Pubs managed to get gay 'marriage'
referenda on the ballot. More important, they managed to form a
connection in voter's minds between gay 'marriage' and the presidential
election, even though marriage laws are determined at the state level,
not national level. Rather than debate and decide as a society whether
gay 'marriage' should be legal or not, the issue was used as a tool of
the presidential election.

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...

Campaigns should be no longer than 4 months.

And the nonsense about the early primaries has to go.

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