↓
 
Home » Democrats or Republicans: does the difference make a difference?

Democrats or Republicans: does the difference make a difference?

The New Neo Posted on by

In the comments section of yesterday’s post, “ghost707” writes

The reasons the Republicans rolled over is that they found out that they could fleece the public and get away with it. Democrats controlled most of the institutions in this country, so all they had to do was wave a little money in Republicans’ direction and say “you wanna’ get rich”?

Become a Washington insider and make yourself rich, be above the law. Insider trading, zoning code manipulation, voter fraud – hell anything you want to fill your pockets with cash – never having to worry about consequences.

Democrats will run the country into a brick wall at 200 mph.
Republicans will run the country into a brick wall at 150 mph.

Slight difference, same result.

Commenter “mike Mc.” replies:

The difference between R and D is between 150 and 200mph collisions. Very clever. Not. That’s cute. Sophomoric truly.

And wildly wrong.

And fundamentally its own disaster from about 5 different directions.

I’ve heard “ghost’s” comment, or something very much like it, many times before, on this and many other blogs. It says that essentially “there’s no difference, they’re all bums, choose your poison.”

It’s a sentiment that often fuels voter apathy. It’s a sentiment that can also fuel third-party enthusiasm. It’s a sentiment that lurks around the edges of the Tea Party movement. And it’s similar to the sentiment that—in another place and time—ended up leading to this dreadful result.

It’s the sentiment that was responsible for Ross Perot’s respectable showing in 1992, and therefore at least indirectly for Bill Clinton’s victory despite his getting less than 50% of the total. And therein lies the problem. If you really think there’s no difference between the two parties, or that it’s merely the difference between two different types of fatalities (as ghost indicates), then go right ahead and stay home, or vote for a fringe candidate. Because the most likely result of your actions will be to favor a candidate you despise.

And yes, if more people did those things, we’d probably have a chance of a third-party nominee actually winning an election (by plurality, not majority). But then we’d have had President Perot; does anyone really think that would have been a good thing? Not I, although it certainly would have been an interesting thing.

I believe that ghost’s real complaint is that power corrupts, and that government is an invitation to it. I agree. But I believe that a better way to attempt to counteract that phenomenon is to pay attention to the checks, balances, and limitations wisely written into our form of government by our founders, who were well aware (perhaps even more so than we) of the problem and its potential dimensions, and to work hard for the election of people who promise to do just that. And most of those people appear to be Republicans, although unfortunately not all Republicans (or even most of them) fit into that camp.

That leaves the question: are Republicans in general really all that different from Democrats in general? I agree with mike Mc. that the answer is, “Of course they are, and it matters.” But I’m with ghost707 in saying “but it hasn’t mattered enough, especially fiscally.”

Republicans have acted like Democrats-lite in recent years. But lite and heavy are two very different things, and right now we’re getting the full bore heavy Democrat treatment. I think the differences are readily apparent, part of which is the speed of the fiscal unraveling during the present administration. Another important difference involves foreign policy and the acceleration of the world’s perception of our weakness.

As I see it, what the Republicans did wrong in the early years of the twenty-first century involved the flaws and frustrations inherent in government itself, a slow bleed of integrity and an accretion of power and of corruption by money. Such imperfections seem to be part and parcel of all government—except for some ideal, Platonic one that exists only in our imaginations or legends. The remedy is not to opt out, it is to work for those who seem to be most resistant to such temptations, and to hope they continue to avoid them as long as possible, and then to toss them out as soon as they succumb.

[NOTE: for a graphic example, take HCR (please!). Does anyone think that were Republicans in charge they would have enacted something as dreadful as the current bill? Not even close. But we did get Bush’s much-criticized prescription drug bill in 2003 when they were (slightly, anyway), although I doubt very much that such a bill would have ever been passed by a Republican Congress in the teeth of an economy like the one we face today. Another problem is that when Republicans were in charge they accomplished little to fix the very real defects of our health insurance system, although they probably could have imposed some conservative solutions such as portability, which might indeed have improved the situation, both for us and for them.]

Comments

Democrats or Republicans: does the difference make a difference? — 94 Comments

  1. Neo,

    Also keep in mind that things were not the same just 6 years ago, The silent majority was still relatively mute; there was no Tea Party. Under those conditions, it is understandable that institutional Republicans would have seen “Democrat Lite” as the was to go. Even recently, old school voters were unwilling to vote for new blood in John Murtha’s district, his soiled coattails notwithstanding.

    I’m not defending past Republican sins, just trying to understand them to answer the important current question; have the Republicans learned their lesson? We certainly have found out that the Democrats are incapable of and unwilling to depart from their extreme progressive agenda.

  2. I don’t support all Republicans, only some of them. I’m not remembering any Democrats I support, though a few have proved at least honorable.

    The excellent few all seem to be in the same party. They ask us to support the flawed others in order to have any chance of controlling the direction of the country. Until some other party offers a better deal, that offers some real chance of success, I will endure the many for the sake of the few.

  3. Good points, all.

    Maybe enough Republicans (and the American electorate) have learned their lessons. Let us hope.

    And AVI, I like that phrase: “the excellent few.”

  4. I’m not sure it’s entirely correct to assume the republican brand is resurgent these days.

    Instead, I think you may be witnessing a situation wherein the democrats completely pi$$ed the unholy hell out of a sizable percentage of the population with their overreaching in so many areas since 2008.

    Since we have a basic two-party political system (at the moment), there was a natural tendency for the unenlightened, unannointed malcontents to gravitate towards whatever political entity was in the best position to thwart the democrat party goals.

    Since the democrat party is seen as the instigator of the things that are so ticking off the populace, that political entity that was left as a choice was the republican party.

    What I think you are seeing right now is a hostile takeover of the republican brand by the great unwashed masses who are fed up with the Obammer zombies.

    The tea party types are in the process of weeding out any republican that has shown conciliatory tendencies to the democrats.

    Yep, that specifically means the RINO’s.

    Republicans the party establishment would have quite been comfortable with are now being put out to pasture, and that dreaded crazy woman from Alaska is aiding and abetting this drive to take over their country club party.

    The leadership that is left standing at the end, will of course, go along as they will see themselves gaining political power at the end.

    The question is going to be if the grassroots style tea party type politicians, who replaced the sclerotic dinosaurs the republican leadership typically kept in office, will continue with the same fervor they have now for winding back government – or will they get comfortable and begin compromising their way into a lifetime as a politician?

    If the tea party types can fundamentally change the personality of the republican party, they may be able to get a decade or so out of it before it becomes too corrupt once again.

  6. Proir to the past annus horribilis X 2 there were no masses of citizens repeatedly marching on DC as modern day Sons of Liberty. The Republicans are the current best hope for understanding that the American Revolution 2.0 is already underway. If they do not rise to the occasion, they too will become persona non-grata as Sen. Murkowski just did. I believe that this movement will gain momentum and the politicians will eventually have to get on board.

  7. Scottie,

    You are correct, as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Still at the risk of sounding like a conservative mirror of James Carville, I can’t help but wonder if the progressive fiasco of the last 4 years has damaged the dem party for a generation.

    In my personal discussions, I keep pointing out that this is not (nor has it been for many years) the Democrat party of my parents’ working-class generation. That party died with Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Tip O’Neill. I think some life-long Dems are beginning to realize this now.

  8. From Tsunami …
    If you don’t want the “death of a thousand cuts” of crushed dreams and opportunities, from a bunch of arrogant snots controlling absolutely every aspect of your lives, then your best hope (at present) is to purge out as many Democrats as you possibly can and replace them with Republicans.

    While the Republicans may be cursed with a few of these controlling types, the Democrats seem absolutely infested with them.

    So, never delude yourself that there is no real difference between the two parties. What I’ve just described above is fundamental, and worth fighting for.

    –

  9. T,

    You have an excellent point.

    Honestly, I want there to always be a viable other choice where national politics are concerned.

    We have already seen that the republicans are not immune to a feeling of entitlement and entrencment – but as has been pointed out the democrats took it to a whole different level and are getting what should have been a predictable reaction from the people.

    Should the republicans become blatantly corrupt, I would expect a similar shifting to the democrat side of the aisle.

    I remember how popular Reagan was during the 1980’s, yet it took until 1994 – 8 years after he left office – before the republicans managed to gain sufficient control over congress to begin exerting their will.

    Things typically changed slowly in the past.

    However, the process may be speeding up now and what used to take years now may take months to accomplish.

    That can work both ways.

    The democrats could see their power completely shattered in November, but manage to rebuild by 2012 if the republicans don’t live up to expectations.

    I’m putting my faith into the guys taking over the republican party right now that they will be honorable if they can attain political majorities in Congress.

    They will absolutely have to lead by example.

  10. That’s the dilemma, all right:

    (1) Do we vote for a real-live conservative candidate –but virtually unknown and with a low probability of winning– and thereby allow the voice of protest to be diluted and offer a greater chance for the Democrat to win?

    (2) Or do we vote for the standing Republican with a good chance of winning, even if he’s one of the good-old-boy, go-along-to-get-along types, a known RINO (or “Democrat-lite”) in hopes that we can convince the GOP to persuade their Liberal Elitists toward more conservative policies? (It’s especially troubling in Maine, where Collins and Snowe always vote Democrat even though they have a big fat “R” by their names.)

    I know that Newt Gingrich’s idea is to “vote for the electable guy”, the name-brand Republican. I don’t much like Gingrich, but I *AM* certain he’s good at the “game of politics”. (If only elections were recognized as dead-serious and important, instead of “Nyah-nyah, I WON, and I get to be the boss of you-and-your-tribe for the next 4 years”.) Hugh Hewitt wrote a recent column that also pushed “Vote-for-the-Republican-no-matter-what”, in order to break the Progressive-Democrat stranglehold on our country.

    I guess that view makes sense; the Dems have been PURE POISON for the last couple of years, and have shown TOTAL DISREGARD for what We-The-People want. In all probability, the Repubs would pay a little more attention to the Voice of the People.

    — I hope !

  11. Scottie,

    I agree. Remember the Republicans have already (recently) shown their propensity to move to the dark side. That’s how Nancy Pelosi was able to campaign on the maxim of “draining the swamp.”

    I also agree about the “young guns.” It’s the potential evinced by individuals as Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor (in the wonk dept.) and Sarah Palin and Chris Christie (in the executive and PR depts) that give me hope and make me cautiously optimistic.

  12. A nony mouse,

    Your point ignores one important point. The real battle is in the primaries. In the primaries for the candidate supported by the Tea Party. In the general election, vote the Republican even if you must hold your nose to do it.

    That may only improve things a little, but it will help to break the progressive stranglehold.

  13. ”no matter who you vote for the government always get in”

    Apologies to the wag who said it first said it for not remembering and properly crediting him for recognizing the infection happens after you’ve come into contact with the government.

    There is so little difference between the parties that when one finds any they’re left picking nits. The ‘separation of powers’ institutions that make up the government are now conjoined into a leviathan, progressive activist juggernaut, To absolve or even attempt to mitigate the Republicans’ hand in the bankruptcy of this country and the burden it will impose on the next couple of generations is to close an already blind eye.

    The CATO Institute reported recently that most Americans approve of high government spending. That the majority of Americans are wary of global trade and don’t trust free markets, and also think the benefits from… Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs of those programs. Restrict the poll sample to people who support the Tea Party movement – and the poll number are virtually the same.

    Those few (Republicans) who would say the hard things about the problems facing this country are immediately relegated to the fringe. The status quo ante reigns. The grand old party is a clone of the democrats; virtually the same just not the prototype.

  14. George Pal,

    I understand where you’re coming from; I hope, for the sake of the nation, that you’re wrong.

    We shall see.

  15. Run on a platform of

    lower taxes
    predictible taxes
    less government intrusion in people’s lives
    more streamlined government
    less wasteful spending
    strong national defense

    and you’ll do OK.

    Run on a platform of “we’re just like the Democrats, except fiscally more responsible” and you’ll lose. What’s the point of voting against the Democrat if you’ll get Democrat Lite.

    Now, as for crashing into a wall at 150 and 200 mph, I’d prefer not to crash at all, but I’d rather at 150 than 200 if I’m in a NSCAR vehicle, as I’m liable to survive.

  16. For the first time since the Reagan Revolution, we have a real opportunity to change the character of the Republican Party this cycle. Rubio, Paul, Toomey, Miller, Buck, Lee, and Angle are more conservative than about 95% of the current Senate. If 4 or 5 of this group do get elected, we will have the best chance to influence not only legislation, but the judiciary through the confirmation process, since the 1980s. (That’s a pathetic indictment considering the Republicans controlled all three houses for 6 years earlier this century, but the three houses were populated with RINOs, so it’s true).

    DeMint and Coburn are constantly banging their heads againt the wall strying to get Republicans to act like conservatives. Getting as many of those 7 conservatives elected in the general election will give DeMint and Coburn some help.

  17. One of the most critical differences between Democrats and Republicans is the kind of judges they appoint. If it weren’t for Republicans the people of Chicago and Washington D.C. would be unable to have a gun in their home for self defense. That’s but one example.

    Politics is the art of the possible. The true believers who picked Sharron Angle in Nevada may have saved Harry Reid. That was dumb.

  18. I’m of the mind that the Rs and the Ds are two wings of the same party. Defending individual Rs, some of whom actually appear to hold some principles I endorse, requires extensive cherry-picking.

    Government is compromise. And what is always sacrificed is liberty. I might accept an R if he voted my way on 1/3 of the questions. Not just the third that gets headlines or drives blog posts, but on the full raft of crap that does not see the light of public scrutiny. The Federal Register never gets smaller. Unelected bureaucrats never say this behavior or this material need not be documented and controlled.

    Or, who was saying government should get out of health care entirely? Who is willing to articulate that the Constitution puts real limits on government power, and that means that some people might will suffer and die because we simply can’t save everyone?

    The crash is inevitable. I say let’s get this thing up to 250 or 300mph. Hit the wall and get it over with.

    My voting strategy has switched to picking the worst of all evils. Lets put as many Progressive moonbats in office as possible. Give them Cloward-Piven, then rebuild on top of the rubble.

  19. Problem with big government is that it disposes of huge amounts of money. It can do a lot for you or to you.
    It therefore benefits various interest groups to snuggle up.
    If government couldn’t do as much, didn’t collect and spend as much, had less impact on your life, the benefits of snuggling up, which is to say make the pols rich, would decrease correspondingly.

  20. foxmarks Says:
    September 1st, 2010 at 5:08 pm

    My voting strategy has switched to picking the worst of all evils. Lets put as many Progressive moonbats in office as possible. Give them Cloward-Piven, then rebuild on top of the rubble.

    That’s just nuts. You won’t be allowed to vote when you’re in a concentration camp.

  21. I lean toward the belief that the Republicans in recent years are increasingly Democrat-Lite, and I think I know the reason for it. As government grows ever more powerful and all-encompassing, it tends to attract power-hungry control freaks to run for office, regardless of their party. Once they’re elected, they aren’t going to vote for measures that will reduce their power. It takes a very strong, principled leader to do that, and those types are being winnowed out of the current establishment.

    This is the same phenomena that operates in Europe, where the “right” party is reduced to arguing that they can administer National Health better than their opponents. That it should be abolished is not even a fit topic for discussion.

    So we must work to elect the most conservative candidates possible in the primaries, at all levels. In the general election we might have to hold our noses and vote for the R, no matter who it is. The idea that we must have candidates who are “electable” is nonsense. How did McCain work out again?

    An earlier commenter mentioned Newt Gingrich and Hugh Hewitt. I don’t pay much attention to either of them, since they both strike me as loyal Republican Party men first and foremost. The hell with that. I want someone who is conservative first and Republican second.

  22. rickl, they can’t run the camps without money. The hard truth of supply and demand is my strongest ally. And, by voting for all the moonbats, I can credibly masquerade as one of them. It is far easier to collapse a structure from the inside.

    From what I glean of your posting, you’re on board for the 150mph crash. You offer nothing new.

    Or, I am already in the camp (lite version) and my vote is worth nothing beyond my own amusement. What have you got to offer that actually increases my freedom or total freedom?

    People often call me conservative, but remember the other 2/3rds of legislation that nobody notices. Conservatives get some things right, but they still want me pacified and working their plantation.

  23. rickl, they can’t run the camps without money.

    Kim Jong Il does just fine, and he’s broke.

    Grow up.

  25. foxmarks:
    Yes, I often believe that the system is broken beyond repair and the only thing left to do is push the reset button. But that’s something that needs to be done with extreme caution, since there’s no going back once the SHTF. There is no telling what will happen after that point. We could easily end up with a Robespierre or Napoleon, or a Mad Max scenario with roving gangs and warlords. So I’m not quite there yet. I’d much rather try to elect good, principled people to office, while simultaneously stocking up on food, water, and ammo.

  26. There was an excellent article at the Market Ticker a couple of days ago, in which Karl Denninger argued that Tea Party candidates must focus completely on sound fiscal policies, and avoid all wedge issues like the plague:

    To The Tea Party (And Related Organizations)

    After you read the whole thing, click on “Discuss this entry” at the bottom. At last count there were 14 pages of comments, many of them quite contentious, but well worth reading.

  27. Barone mentions “the still reviled Republicans”.

    But if Republicans are reviled, that is a temporary artifact (historically speaking) of the rock solid 100% true fact of reality that the MSM has engaged in at least 8 years (the length of the Bush Presidency) in revilement.

    It’s been 24/7, 365, every day, every week, every month, every year, on the hour and half hour and every ten minutes non-stop for 8 years and more.

    In other words, the Dem revilement has been won (by them) despite MSM propaganda as much in their favor as against the Republicans.

    In truth, the revilements are not both real ones.

    The people who “revile” Republicans are weak and battered minds who just can’t stand another argument with Dems or the pop culture and gave up years ago. They have found that saying they revile R’s is the easier path to some social harmony.

    On the contrary, they will soft-peddle their dislike of Dems for the same reason.

    In actual fact, the revilement of Dems is real, true, earned and merited.

    The revilement of R’s is fake phony and shallow, indulged in by fake phony and shallow people who are easily led by the nose and won’t even take their own side in a fight.

    History, sad to say, will be the only fair judge on that, but it is my firm opinion on the matter.

  28. An election between Thomas Jefferson and Adolf Hitler could lead to Nazism, because Adolf would promise more payoffs to voters, since he believed in big, centralized government. But such a contrast doesn’t exist in the present system.

    Whoever wins, we’re going to get a pro-war, big-business, and big-government party in power.

    No wonder Americans are again talking about secession.

  29. No more career politicians. Term limits and no benefits for serving in Congress. Serving the public is an honor not a free ride for life. You lose an election and dont have a job you get unemployment like the rest of us. I can understand Ghosts frustrations,but we allowed this to happen.

  30. Republican establishment circa 2006 is to blame for the electorate’s confusion around (R) vs. (D) – and for perfectly good reason. The great political chemical reaction in progress RIGHT NOW is a pricipled conservative takeover of the GOP from the group up and the outside in. Call it the Pachyderm Rennaissance.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  31. The people who I know who think all Ds and Rs are the same (including thinking Obama and Bush are exactly the same!!!) are the same ones who think Ron Plau* is our Only Hope. What has he really accomplished besides saying lots of stuff and bringing lots of pork home to his district? If he can’t get enough members of Congress to unite with him to do things he wants to do, like audit the Fed, how will he get anything accomplished as President? I do agree with some of what he says, but he’s got too many negatives.

    Plus, I think the Only Man That Can Save America stuff is stupid. When applied to any man or woman, including the Sarahcuda.

    *deliberately misspelled

  32. Progressive democrats, progressive republicans, same thing. they are both progressives first, canceling anything else after. they transfer the popularity of what they target till untenable, then switch.

    A wolf in sheep’s skin needs a new skin when the old one gets smelly and the sheep start noticing.

    this is why no matter what you vote for, you get a progressive…

    example
    NOW’s Progressive Feminist Agenda for Peace
    http://www.now.org/issues/peace/index.html

    and
    Congressional Progressive Caucus
    http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/

    sometimes the progressive is silent too…
    sometimes like Hillary Clinton at the debate they drop the term over and over.

    they tend to make themselves known right in front of you using terms and phrases that those in the know respond to and others ignore.

    since we stopped giving to politicians and fund parties, parties put up what they select now. you may not want vegetables, but you only get a choice between peas and carrots.

    While many contemporary Democratic party leaders and Green Party leaders have at times called themselves “progressives,” the term is usually self-applied by those to the left of the Democratic party, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, Al Franken, Debbie Stabenow, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney,The Green Party candidate for President in 2008 John Edwards, Sherrod Brown, Kathleen Sebelius, David McReynolds, Ralph Nader,The Green Party presidential candidate in 2000 Howard Dean, Peter Camejo, Al Gore, and the late Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy. At the same time, the term is also applied to many leaders in the women’s movement, cosmopolitanism, the labor movement, the American civil rights movement, the environmental movement, the immigrant rights movement, and the gay and lesbian rights movement. Other well-known progressives include Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti, George Lakoff, Michael Lerner, and Urvashi Vaid, however Chomksy and most American leftists disapprove of the co-option of the term “progressive” by overwhelmingly pro-corporate and pro-military politicians.

  33. But then we’d have had President Perot; does anyone really think that would have been a good thing? Not I, although it certainly would have been an interesting thing.

    Back in 1992, I supported Perot, until I heard him say how Bush goons had ruined his daughter’s wedding. I found that hard to believe, and voted for another third party.

    Years later, I made the acquaintance of someone who had done some consulting for Perot’s company circa 1992. He told me that the consensus in Perot’s company was the Perot had a few screws loose.

    Different sources, same conclusion.

  34. This “they’re all the same” rubbish is the political equivalent of characterizing relativity theory as “everything is relative,” i.e., a refuge for the cognitively disenfranchised to pose as if they had something meaningful to say. They don’t.

  35. There is little difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties.

    But, there is a vast difference between their respective electorates.

    Allow me to submit two logical proofs:

    1) The United States government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

    2) Garbage in, garbage out.

    The Republican party base has been at its worst xenophobic, spoiled, lazy and undisciplined.

    For that we got Hastert and Tancredo.

    The Democratic party base has been at its most typical self-loathing, hypocritical, self-centered and anti-American.

    For that we got Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd and Reid.

    The electorate has moved past all that now.

  36. Things are different now. The Government run Ponzi scheme, most usually referred to as “Social Security”, is broke. So is Medicare. If our various government’s were private organizations they would have declared bankruptcy years ago.

    We have hit an inflexion point in history where we have to choose between socialist mediocrity (Europe, Argentina) or capitalistic energy (Asia, Chile, 19th century America).

    Obama has crystallized that choice. He has taken us to the precipice. He threatens to make us North America’s Argentina, a rich country destroyed by poor governance.

    The people reject his agenda. The Tea Party movement expresses that rejection. So we (being a Tea Party person) want to return Washington to our Founder’s principles. We have a pretty simple agenda:

    Fiscal Responsibility
    Constitutionally Limited Government
    Free Markets

    Obama and the DC establishment stand for:

    Fiscal Irresponsibility
    Unlimited Government
    Government controlled Markets

    We are working hard to convert the GOP into a viable alternative to the Democrats. We just scored another huge victory with Joe Miller. Sarah Palin, God bless her, carries our flag. This from an atheist.

  37. Occam’s B, your argument is well below the standard you’ve set for yourself here.

    rickl, the core of my perspective is not political, but economic. The stuff is going to hit the fan no matter who gets elected. I don’t feel any better for the thought that my team might be in charge at the time.

    Mike Mc’s reply (in the original) is about as pithy as Occam’s. Neo does the usual fine work of finding some political justification for trying to win control.

    But all y’all aren’t paying any respect to the economic side of collapse. The increasing regulatory burden inches toward a command economy. The financial sector has captured too much wealth (thanks to politics) and put it into non-productive uses. Some incrementally pathetic Republican isn’t going to solve the unfunded liabilities the US Federal government faces. Voting for even a sound conservative is not going to correct the fraud in the financial system and prevent a collapse of our currency. Small steps are too little, too late. Add the equally inevitable individual State government collapses, and who cares if it happens to be some 21st-Century Perot trying to tell flyover country that he’s got it all under control? How many art history majors does it take to grow enough food for 300 million people?

    It is an illusion (delusion?) of the political frame that anyone (or any faction) can “push a reset button” at the time of their choosing. Or that the right leadership can defeat the iron laws of economics.

    Y’all put too much faith in the power of the ballot. You can’t vote yourselves off the Titanic.

    Mike Mc, I need not yield to tyrants. For them, I have a different prescription. People who think even somewhat like me have recourse that Kim Jong Il’s people do not.

  38. I’m not going to name names…

    but I’m dissappointed in a few of you here.

    Stop reacting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Think about your core principles.

    Where do you stand??????

    Let candidates speak for themselves!!!

    Some of you have judgemental negative opinions of some leaders that have no basis in fact.

    This judgmentalism disease had Nyom (previous commenter here) voting for the virus (Obama)

    This country needs more:
    Opportunity
    Personal Responsibility
    Attention to National Security
    Less attention to race
    fiscal responsibility at local, state and federal levels

  39. Let’s not impugn good people by acting like we ‘know’ their motives…

    The prescriptions are clear.

    The virus is clear.

    Which one will you be voting for???

    More dependency? Or more personal responsibility. Who cares about a politicians ‘motives’????? I don’t. Let’s vote for the solutions not the cancer.

  42. Absolutely yes and no. I do believe ghost707 is actually, factually, correct. I believe that myself. I also note the real differences though too. Further, I do believe that several generations of mostly “R”, along with stronger vetting as the brand’s viability increases (if the party follows at least as much as it leads the rest of us), we can pull back from socialism. It will not, however, be done by the fobs replacing the worse fobs. It will be an incremental step by step process, with us pushing and pulling, as we had to do with the last President Bush. Hopefully, after enough elections and enough tugging, the stupitards running the thing will be re-educated properly.

    The chances of that, however, are slim. Many of the so called Republicans, and the “party leadership” are way out of touch and seem quite reluctant to change. If they cannot keep their corrupt ways, they may, again, bunt to the eviltards. Only time will tell.

  43. “” Y’all put too much faith in the power of the ballot. You can’t vote yourselves off the Titanic.””
    Foxmarks

    Herein lies the problem and Occam’s Beard exactly nails it.

    How can a man wake up in the mornings in a country that has the relative miracles of bountiful food, electricty, running water and housing that most of the world would die for, and only see hopeless despair as though he’s in Uganda or Ethiopia?

    This sort of irrational hopelessness while standing in the closest thing to the garden of eden this world has ever seen is what has given us politicians like Barak Obama. People simply with an inability to put the world in perspective. And if they could put it in perspective, they couldn’t get past the childish view that it’s all just too difficult and UNFAIR.

    We ain’t seen difficult. And we have the history of the entire human race to validate that statement with proper perspective.

  44. Encouraging cynicism only helps the cynical party, i.e. the “Democrats.” I’m not saying that there no cynical Republicans; of course there are. I am saying that the Democrats cannot win without running false flag operations, and then trying to loot to Treasury for their supporters. The Democrats “foreign policy” is equally cynical: remember H. Clinton’s saying the Surge required a “suspension of disbelief,” or Obama defending Afghanistan as the “Good War” to deflect charges that he is a typical wet.

  45. The gloom and doom of the previous posts is not unwarranted, but the but the sense of all of this being a futile effort is (IMHO).

    As to foxmarks (11:49 above) et. al. who seem to think that we’re just rearranging the deck chairs, these economic problems are solvable with hard work.

    The solution to the debt malaise is twofold: 1) to encourage business growth so that the current debt, once again, becomes a smaller percentage of the GDP (i.e., grow the GDP exponentially); 2) use the increased tax revenues from that growing economic boom to pay off a good portion of that debt (i.e., abandon, the deficit spending of the past).

    It;s simply a matter of applying sound economic solutions to economic problems. That’s why the suggestion above—of “compassionate” solutions—is unworkable. Compassionate solutions is a euphemism for social engineering; you can’t apply politically correct solutions to economic problems and expect them to work. It’s like taking your car to a mechanic for transmission problems, telling him to work on the brakes and then wondering why there are still problems with the transmission.

  46. My above post is exactly why the Obama administration will never be able to solve these economic problems. They keep thinking in terms of social solutions for economic problems. Furthermore, since the policies this administration wants to impose are generally anti capitalist (therefore anti business) there is no way that this administration can do what needs to be done to get us out of our current economic problems.

    THey applied a stimulus, selectively shifted govt money to supporters (unions & and states) rather than to businesses and the economy and now wonder why the recovery summer didn’t materialize. You can’t work on the brakes when the problem is the transmission.

  47. How can a man wake up in the mornings in a country that has the relative miracles of bountiful food, electricty, running water and housing that most of the world would die for, and only see hopeless despair as though he’s in Uganda or Ethiopia?

    thats easy… collectivism, i explained about five times the story of the purple horse and Chinese emperor.

    Matthews explains it in Stalin’s children, or rather brings the point into focus.

    “This was the true dark genius behind the purge. Not simply to put two strangers into a room, one a victim, one an executioner, and convince one to kill the other, but to convince BOTH that this murder served some higher purpose. It is easier to admit that such acts are committed by monsters, men whose minds had been brutalized by the horrors of war and collectivization. but that fact is that ordinary ,decent men and women, full of humanistic ideals nand worthy principals, were ready to justify and even participate in the massacre of their fellows” – Matthews

    To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that its a well considered act in conformity with natural law– Solzhenitsyn

    O’Brien stopped him with a movement of the hand. “There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,” he said. “Repeat it, if you please.”

    “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,” repeated Winston obediently.

    “Who controls the present controls the past,” said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. “Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?”

    Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether “yes” or “no” was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one. O’Brien smiled faintly.

    “You are no metaphysician, Winston,” he said. “Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?”

    “No.”

    “Then where does the past exist, if at all?”

    “In records. It is written down.”

    “In records. And–?”

    “In the mind. In human memories.”

    “In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?”

    “But how can you stop people remembering things?” cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. “It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!”

    O’Brien’s manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial. “On the contrary,” he said, “you have not controlled it. That is what brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline.

    You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one.

    Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston.

    You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident.

    When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.

    Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal.

    Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston.

    It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane. “Do you remember,” he went on, “writing in your diary, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four?”

  48. Yes, differences in degree between the two parties are appreciable.

    What’s needed is a difference in kind, expressed in a way that the voters will listen.

  49. As to foxmarks (11:49 above) et. al. who seem to think that we’re just rearranging the deck chairs, these economic problems are solvable with hard work.

    technically this is true… that unlike the titanic the end play is not completely fixed. however, rearranging the deck chairs is what we are doing and we are NOT paying attention to the big boys who have the most to lose and what they are doing.

    How much time was wasted with people like Hux?

    How many people listening to him, didn’t prepare in any way, and so now are not in as good a position as if they could choose between validity, not wishful outcomes?

    Way back when I said, it was the reasonable who grease the slide, and prevent us from examining and concluding and then acting when such acts were well within reason.

    they made it appear unreasonable to discount electing a man because of his ideas and affiliations, because they did not want to appear unreasonable to those who pretended the reason not to was because of race.

    today, we are not willing to stand up to the well detailed unreasonable goals that have been worked on for almost 200 years, because we think it unreasonable to throw bums out.

    forgetting who taught us it was unreasonable… the unreasonable themselves who do what they want, and reasoning with them has no effect. the easiest way to win a competition is to convince your competitors the race is the day AFTER it starts

    The left is antithetical to reason, ie. unreasonable.

    Did lee really reason and win the debate, or did he decide that somehow, holding a gun and having bombs he was going to compel by the seriousness and passion of his commitment to an unreasonable act to move the reasonable?

    Violent protest was designed for aristocracy, not self governance as it denies self governance, and makes normal unreasonable as the only way to win.

    They made it seem unreasonable that we all were voluntarily complying with a process, and made reasonable the acts which were antithetical and destructive to that process, while claiming to be fixing the breaks they were causing.

  51. Artfldgr,

    What I wrote is not just technically true, it’s practically true as well. Again I note that cynicism is warranted due to our past inaction ( or mis-action) but keep in mind that we are at the beginning of a new time. We have never seen the silent majority this vocal; they’re “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”

    Now, is this the beginning of a new era, is this just a short lived explosion of frustration or is this something in between these two extremes? Only time will tell. I recommend skepticism, not synicism.

  53. “”The people who “revile” Republicans are weak and battered minds who just can’t stand another argument with Dems or the pop culture and gave up years ago.””
    mike Mc

    Thank you! You’d think the first clue for some of these people would be recognising how inappropriate emails to a house page gets placed on the same plane of importance with rampant corruption compromising the liberty of millions of people.

    There. is. no. perspective.

  54. Social security link: “for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years”

    This is meaningless without specifying the interest rate assumed: the rate *should be* what alternatively could have been earned in a conservative investment portfolio.

    More seriously, the analysis ignores the fact the social security is like an annuity, not a permanant asset: when the recipient dies, nothing in the fund passes to his heirs. By no means all of the people who retired in 2002 at 65 will live for 16.9 years.

    It is often argued that s/s is an inferior investment for the individual when compared with private accounts: that statement and the one in the linked article cannot both be true.

  56. David Foster,

    You are correct, many people argue “that s/s is an inferior investment for the individual when compared with private accounts” without realizing that this is a nonsensical comparison.

    As you point out, ss is like an annuity; it is cash flow from current contributions. Those people contributing now are actually paying for those people currently receiving ss benefits.

    To re-phrase the argument, it would be like saying that my annual income (ss) is not as good as the money I have in the bank. They are two different things.

  57. While it is hard to believe that our great life could be destroyed, I don’t find it all that far-fetched. I follow FerFAL’s blog and Argentina was once a decent first-world country. However, corruption and a lack of a rule of law has brought it to its knees.

    And I think it could happen here. Our society is precarious – it’s based on trust and mutual belief. I truly believe that the Dems have no intention of playing by the same rules. We’ve seen that with health care, and there’s no reason to believe that the ‘moderate’ dems even care about the rules.

  58. we are at the beginning of a new time

    Such is the rhetoric of past ages…

    Are you claiming as in Weimar, that a new zeitgeist is taking hold? That we are on the cusp of a new dawn? Or is just the new age after the new age of the Aquarius? Does it refer to Carlos Fuentes?

    Or is it like “we live in a new time, when any day may be the beginning of the struggle…” The red network — Who’s who, a handbook of Radicalism for patriots — Elizabeth Dilling 1934 [you can read this online…]

    Or new feminist time?
    The “Woman Patriot,” May 1, 1922, states: “Frequent changes of name as advised by Nicolai Lenin are resorted to by the International feminist-pacifist blocas often as necessary, but the entire movement originates with the International Woman’s Suffrage Alliance. The work is divided up like an army’s artillery, cavalry and infantry into three mobile divisions:
    The political under Mrs. Catt and her International Woman Suffrage Alliance and League of Women Voters. The pacifist under Miss Jane Addams and her W.L.P.F. The industrial under Mrs. Raymond Robins and her International League of Working Women and Womens Trade Union League” (also Garland Fund-supported).

    “The three branches are employed pre-cisely as a wise general would engage artillery, cavalry or infantry ; using all three together whenever necessary, each one alone for special objectives.”

    Or Lech Welesa’s new time?
    the symbolic rhetorical caesura between the
    old and the new was the expose of Tadeusz Mazowiecki on
    September 12, 1989, with its leading theme of a “new time” and the
    famous image of the “thick line” separating the past from the future.

    Or is it more like this slightly modified paragraph?
    “We say to them: You must decide whether you want to be the last of an unworthy people despised by future generations, or whether you want to be part of a new time, marvelous beyond all imagination.” – Artur Axmann

    Or is it the “new time” cyle as the woman priestess Savitri Devi Mukherji wrote?
    Alone Kalki – the last Man “against Time,” at the end of every
    historical Cycle; the last Saviour, Who is also the greatest Destroyer –
    impersonates that double ideal perfectly, and succeeds completely. It is He
    Who restores to the world its primeaval health, beauty and innocence, thus
    opening a New Time-cycle.     the Lightning and the Sun…

    or are we referring to the concept of:
    The Man “against Time”?
    Do we remember what these things refer to or know?

    Or maybe like this:
    “we have arrived at a new time. let us realize it. and with that new time strange methods, huge forces, larger combinations — A TITANIC WORLD — have sprung up around us. The foundations of our power are changing. To stand still would be to fall; to fall would be to perish. We must go forward. We will go forward into a way of life more earnestly viewed, more scientifically organized, more consciously national than any we have known. Thus alone we will be able to sustain and to renew through the generations which are to come, the fame and the power of the British race.” – Liberalism and the Social Problem: A Collection of Early Speeches as a member of parliment… By Winston Spencer Churchill

    How did that “new time” work out to this “new time”?….

    My family has heard and read and survived a lot of “new times”…

    Could this be why I quote the song, Everything old is new again?

    The rhetoric of the new age, new dawn, new times, and all that is the rhetoric of the socialists… to those who have read extensively, the idea and notion is very old and part of the process of welcoming.

    It was all these new times concepts that created the changes and competitions for ideas and solutions in Weimar Germany.

    The progressives here loved the term…

    [edited for length by n-n]

  59. It is so nice to see y’all still have so much confidence. I prefer to put my faith in things beyond the human.

    No, I am not filled with despair. No, I do not fail to see the wondrous abundance in the United States. I’m not sure which psychological mechanism you’re blinded by, but you’re arguing against things I am not asserting.

    I love it when people I do not know put me in their own boxes. You’ve called me young and naé¯ve. Awesome! How about responding to something like the economic arguments I’ve breezed through? Handwaving about the resilience of humanity tells us zero about who to vote for, and why.

    The collapse does not bring us back to the stone age. It merely puts our per-capita output somewhere between 2/3rd and 3/4ths of what we thought it was. There is still abundance for those who work.

    What you miss is the violent period of adjustment when the economically worthless third of the economy is faced with the fact that they are producing nothing. When the currency is no longer reliable and everything gets revalued by something closer to a barter-system measure.

    What do infants do when you take the bottle away? They throw tantrums. They can’t really hurt you, because they have no powerful weapons.

    Y’all also have the political illusion that the levers which government uses to influence economic activity are actually connected to something. Sure, you can vote and put a different hand on the lever, but the incremental moves are lost and overwhelmed by the slop in the system.

    As a lazy example, the current Congress just spent $800B on a stimulus. It had no macro effect. The levers aren’t connected to anything.

    Meanwhile, as you pray for incrementalism to work in your favor, unelected masters in the financial systems are quietly converting private debt into public debt via the operation of the Federal Reserve. Who are you going to vote for that will stop that process?

    When the government is in default, the levers in which you have so much faith will be completely broken off.

    Go ahead, somebody show me how the economic collapse can be avoided. Prove me wrong. Remember, you have to save everyone by only incremental change. You’re not going to get a capital gains tax holiday. You’re not going eliminate the Department of Ed, the FDA, the various “guardians” of environment and health. You’re not going to get to audit the Fed or arrest the market manipulators.

    Y’all, we all, are still a minority.

  60. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

    Voting in Republicans, from the ’94 “revolution”, to the 2000s, didn’t fix runaway spending. It didn’t fix “crony capitalism”, it didn’t fix the entitlement doomsday we’re just now crossing the threshold of. It didn’t fix education, or our tax code, or our debt, or our border problems. It didn’t restore faith in politicians, it didn’t reconnect with the people. It didn’t stop earmarks. It didn’t fix the abuse of the commerce clause. It didn’t …

    Some have tried. Some little good has been done. But this unconstitutional governance has been going on and getting worse for generations. By and large, the power circles in both parties have at best perpetuated it.

    The Baby Boomers got used to all the loot granted them by the antics of the “Greatest Generation”. My generation is even worse.

    Cutting money to fat-cat institutions seems… wrong to my generation. We’re used to Big Government. Anything less is scary and probably greedy and evil.

    Why do you think suffocating slightly more slowly is the better option?

    The people won’t see it coming. Two generations have proved that; hell, history proves that.

    From Prof. Bainbridge:
    “Perhaps the President is the second coming of William Jennings Bryan. In other words, his chief achievement will be the backlash that he generates.”

    Read the link. It’s an interesting premise.

    If the pols show a real willingness to abandon politicians who keep this going, they’ll tack whichever direction they need to to win a plurality.

    The problem so far has been that people aren’t willing to support reform, because they think their goodies are good. Frankly, maybe it’s time for a shock to the system.

    Maybe.

  61. I should clarify:

    Before “Why do you think suffocating slightly more slowly is the better option?”, insert: You suggest that the “150 mph” Republicans should be supported over Democrats?

    Also:
    After: “If the pols show a real willingness to abandon politicians who keep this going, they’ll tack whichever direction they need to to win a plurality.”, append: “This may mean a lost election cycle or two. The short-sightedness of ‘winning the next election’ means we all are walking off the pier together. We sacrifice our future merely to elect someone who will somehow kill this nation less quickly.“

  62. “”But all y’all aren’t paying any respect to the economic side of collapse.””
    Foxmarks

    I see your argument and fear the ominous economic signs just like you do. But what i see you doing is like noticing you got an inch of rain in each of the past three days and extrapolate that trend to mean your house will surely be under water in a month. Neither weather or economies lend themselves to such linear thinking and projection.

    There will be unseen events. There will be seeming tipping points that aren’t tipping points. There will be terrible news. There will be great news. All of it playing out the struggle we face.

    And if you have no faith in your fellow American to win this struggle, what species of animal would you prefer do it or have God direct to do it?

  63. Chris,

    1998 if I remember marked the end of the Republican majority.

    From what year until what year was there a surplus. Was it 1996 or 1997 – 1999?

    Hello !!!

    And given this was the first Republican majority Congress in 40+ years !!!! We had Democrats over Congress for 40+ years prior to 1994.

    With the welfare reform and the caps on spending… we had quite a different outlook.

    Except for YOU!!!!

  64. With Jumpin Jim Jeffords and who was the other jumper….

    What are Republicans to do?

    We need to convince MORE voters of conservatism – until then conservatism can’t even be tried~!

  65. We need a dose of personal responsibility and Michelle Bachmans and Mike Pence’s in power.

  66. “”Why do you think suffocating slightly more slowly is the better option?””

    Chris

    So why are you still alive? Surely you must know by now that no matter how right you live your life no matter how superior life decisions you make, you’re going to be dead even before Halley’s Comet gets back around to us. Whats the point in you choosing such a slow drawn out death instead a quick one that can be had today?

  67. SteveH, who are “my fellow Americans”? In whom should I place faith? We are a minority and the majority thinks this is a democracy.

    You want to hear me as an Erlich or Malthus, blind to the power of human innovation. All I see are waving hands that claim, “we can’t know the future!” Humanity will prevail, but on what time scale? And on what social scale. Erlich and Malthus were wrong, but there was still crop failure and starvation as humanity overall learned to feed its growing population. The USA is looking at a metaphoric major crop failure, not a permanent loss of food production.

    If you like a weather analogy, I have seen increasing rain and the satellite photos show a hurricane just offshore. Only a fool would act as if there is no storm coming. We can’t know exactly when and where it will make landfall, but destruction is guaranteed. And we can’t vote the hurricane away.

    If you see the same signs (which I prefer to describe as “data”), what do you do about it?

    My strategy is akin to Aikido or the Tao. There is a strong and sluggish opponent. I win not by chipping at his great bulk, but by helping him along in the direction he wants to travel. Use his attributes against him: vote Progressive!

  68. “Go ahead, somebody show me how the economic collapse can be avoided.” (foxmarks)

    This statement is also linked to several mentions of the grotesque inflation of the Weimar Republic in German after WW I. Keep in mind that things are quite different now.

    Europe was always a continent where land ownership was the primary measure of wealth. Even with staggering inflation, the ruling class remained the ruling class, the landed gentry remained ther landed gentry. Those who were mostr effected where normal human beings like you and I.

    Today, in this country, the primary measure of wealth is the dollar; not ownership of agricultural land or oil rights. If my dollar becomes worthless so does John Kerry’s dollar and George Soros’ dollar and Warren Buffet’s dollar and Nancy Pelosi’s dollar (etc.).

    Regardless of what you or I think, they are not about to let this happen.

  69. “…the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan October 27, 1964

  70. foxmarks,

    I also am keeping an attentive eye on the coast for the hurricane. It’s currently a CAT 4.

    Having experienced quite a few hurricanes during my lifetime – especially since I grew up in eastern NC – I’m more than familiar with the devastation these storms can cause. I was on the phone with my mom not even 2 hours ago checking on her.

    These storms are to be respected.

    They are to be feared.

    They are to be prepared for.

    However, no amount of respect, fear, or preparation will truly protect you from what these monsters can inflict as there is nothing – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – you can do about them except get out of their way.

    I don’t put the leftist, liberal democrats in the same catagory at all.

    They are not an invincible monstrosity that must be dodged – they are an ideology that can be defeated.

    Doesn’t mean the fight will be short and sweet and fun and to the point – quite the contrary.

    We are in a slug fest and war of attrition. We did not get into this situation overnight, and we won’t get out of it overnight.

    There have been generations who have been raised to believe complete nonsense that have to be, at best, re-educated with facts and at worst outnumbered in votes.

    We have current generations that are being brainwashed, as we argue amongst ourselves, into leftist mindsets that have been repeatedly proven unworkable – yet generations are being indoctrinated still in the schools and universities to believe this crap still.

    We have to educate them in the real world as to how there are other choices.

    Then finally we have the future generations.

    We either nut up and take action to educate these young minds – or we simply concede the battle and let the leftists *educate* these future generations unhindered.

    In all honesty, if all you have to contribute to the cause is a defeatist mindset – then please by all means retire from the battle field.

    I’d rather deal with people I know I disagree with, and have fewer people at my side that I know have my back, than have to wonder at what point someone like you will simply walk away from the fight because you decided it was too hard….

  71. We can only hope when the new bunch of Republicans arrive in D.C. that they don’t act and legislate like the democrats.

  72. We can only hope when the new bunch of Republicans arrive in D.C. that they don’t act and legislate like the democrats. We can only hope that there is a big difference and they do make a difference.

  73. Baklava:

    Wrong.. That was hard.

    Listen, I’m on your side. But claiming that “We had a surplus” is a very, very far cry from “We’ve begun rolling back the commerce clause to something sane.” It didn’t happen. And the same Republican party that did fought to keep Clinton “in check” (successfully, arguably) by and large turned out for more big government over the last 10 years.

    SteveH: “Whats the point in you choosing such a slow drawn out death instead a quick one that can be had today?”

    If things go terribly wrong, you could get that. It could happen.

    But over the past two generations, true to Jefferson’s observation, liberty has continued to yield. The first big successes we’ve had in a long time was the backlash against HillaryCare and Clinton’s first two years before he settled down from a leftist President to more of a practical centrist. The second appears to be the coming Republican (dare I hope “conservative”) wave coming in November.

    Hey, on the other hand, I can tell you what will happen if we keep boiling this frog. As I said: “My generation is worse.”

  74. To put it another way…

    If we keep electing people, especially like the Republican party in the 2000s, they will continue to fark things up, and people will sway to the other side. And we keep moving down this path of statism.

    On the other hand, if you elect fiscal conservatives (which is what America is, fiscally conservative), we move in the right direction.

    Baklava, you got it right: “We need to convince MORE voters of conservatism – until then conservatism can’t even be tried!”
    Truth is, most Americans are apathetic about it. Boiling frog. What needs to be clear is the choice of statist government vs fiscal conservatism. America arguably got that choice in 2008, and chose wrongly. Now we are seeing the correction, hopefully; Americans are getting a taste of where statism is taking them, and I believe as a majority the answer is “no.”

    I guess what I’m saying is: I don’t believe this would have happened had Obama et. al. taken just three steps instead of ten. I believe the slide would have continued.

    Backlash.

  75. There is a chart that McQ blogged about (and others as well, no doubt) that showed the Bush era deficiets.

    Deficits went down under Bush, while he had a Republican congress. The first Democrat budget (FY 2008) significantly drove up the deficiet. The highest Bush era deficiet was $0.4T, vice Obama’s $1.4T.

    Clinton was able to balance the budget (if we ignore a few things, like the fact that SS was money already spoken for) because in fact it was a Republican congress that balanced it, and the dot.com boom resulted in high revenue.

    Bush inhereted the lower revenue of the dot.com bust, and shortly afterwards the effect of 9/11, which was reduced revenue and increased spending.

    All properly considered, there is a big difference between the parties. I would have preferred if Bush hadn’t supported No Child left Behind, medicare Part D, and TARP, etc. But Bush + Republican congress resulted in falling deficiets and military strength, and a strong response to attacks on America.

  76. Chris,

    I agree that this popular “uprising” that is the Tea Party may well not have happened a) if McCain had been elected or 2) as you say, if Obama had taken two steps instead of ten.

    You can tell someone not to touch a hot pot only so many times; when they really learn is when they touch it anyway and feel the effects.

    Now, not only has the American voter “touched the hot pot” and gotten burned, but progressive overkill has allowed the mask to slip and much of the truth to be revealed. From Hare’s I don’t care about the consitution quote to Deval Patrick’s recent I wish it weren’t (a free country), to shoving an unwanted HCR bill down American throats, the left will not be able to hide behind the facade of self-righteous moral superiority for a long long time.

    This is good news for the American public. They now can clearly see that “feel good” democrat policies are, in reality “screw you” policies.

  77. Is there “a dimes’worth of difference” between the Democrats and Republicans?

    Well, the Democrats have been a horror show of demagoguery, hubris, condescension and arrogance, lies, corruption, self-dealing, and stupidity, and have tried to deliberately run this country into the ground, and to frog march it towards Socialism, and likely some form of Tyranny.

    Republicans definitely do have their rotten apples, but overall, the Republicans have not been anywhere nearly as bad, but they have not exactly been the “300” either, standing solidly against the Democrats, and all their pernicious schemes, willing to give up their (political) lives if that was what it took to stop them. Republicans in Congress have been mostly standing on the platform looking at the Democrat’s train as it leaves the station, when they should have been busy “monkey wrenching” like mad, sabotaging the engine, draining the water tanks or shorting out the electricity, locking up the engineer, brakeman and fireman, tearing up the tracks, and lying down in front to the train if that is what it took, and —all the while–pointing to what the Democrats were doing, and yelling like hell; “comity” and “decorum” be damned.

    Nonetheless, come this November, it is much better to have Republicans, even though most might be very reluctant “heroes,” in charge than it would be to have Democrats hold on to their majorities in the House and Senate. If things go right, and Republicans gain control of the House and hopefully the Senate, the more liberal, “go along to get along,” “hands across the isle,” “bi-partisan” Republicans can be replaced–election by election–by more honest, courageous, conservative Republicans with some backbone and with strong principles.

    But first, we have to break the Democrat’s majorities in House and Senate.

  78. Fiscal conservatism needs to be understood and tried before it will be embraced.

    So why is it we try to “show” America conservatism by electing Republicans who, most of which, would be thrilled to end up on the Appropriations Committee, handing out pork?

    My own Senator Hutchison fits that bill. That’s why, as much as I dislike Perry, I didn’t support her in her bid for governor.

    It looks like this may be a trend. God I hope so.

    Here’s the rub. Voters are often apathetic (won’t educate themselves) and even moreso they distrust politicians’ claims (“We’ll save the economy!”). If you don’t actually demonstrate fiscal conservatism in the real world, how do you suddenly expect to garner support for it?

    If you keep sending big spenders to Washington because they “spend less”, how do you expect to show people why your philosophy is better?

  79. “In all honesty, if all you have to contribute to the cause is a defeatist mindset – then please by all means retire from the battle field.”

    Scottie, I know the thread is getting long, but where the freak did you invent the idea that I am walking away from the battlefield? My strategy is aimed squarely at victory. I want to push Leviathan over the cliff. Most of the rest here merely want to adjust his wardrobe.

    It has been an enlightening exercise to learn how ossified y’alls minds are. Because I see an economic collapse on the horizon, you assume I am a defeatist. I am an opportunist.

    Dancing through analogies, if you like schools as an ideological battleground, look at New Orleans. Only by a catastrophic destruction of the entire school system was it possible to remake it as something more amenable to choice and liberty. You want to break Big Ed? Vote Prog and watch Big Ed go bankrupt.

    Or if you are really ready to put your @ss where you ideas are, unschool your kids.

    At somewhat of a tangent, how do you defeat an ideology? Sounds like rhetorical nonsense. Is there an ideology that has ever been defeated?

    “Today, in this country, the primary measure of wealth is the dollar; not ownership of agricultural land or oil rights. If my dollar becomes worthless so does John Kerry’s dollar and George Soros’ dollar and Warren Buffet’s dollar and Nancy Pelosi’s dollar (etc.).”

    The measure of wealth is not the wealth itself.

    If these gnomes have such control, then voting is surely a pointless exercise.

    I say the collapse is precisely a product of their manipulations of the measuring stick. We have devoted so much energy to increasing the stash of dollar-tokens that the connection to real wealth has been lost (except maybe to Buffett…).

    Since the players you name are in the set that I accuse of fraudulently manipulating the financial-political system, look for them to find a way to profit from the collapse. Somehow Soros will find a way to convert each of his current dollars to 10 New Dollars.

    But will it work? Or are they only Madoffs who write their own laws? Even if a ponzi scheme is not criminal, it will still collapse. So let’s push more lies faster (vote Prog!) and get the thing over with.

  80. “This statement is also linked to several mentions of the grotesque inflation of the Weimar Republic in German after WW I. Keep in mind that things are quite different now.”

    Yup. Now we know black swans do exist.

    If you’re into economics, I see deflation ahead. The collapse will be a collapse of our debt-based money.

  81. > If the tea party types can fundamentally change the personality of the republican party, they may be able to get a decade or so out of it before it becomes too corrupt once again.

    This argument of yours has some validity, which is one reason I’ve long been in favor of a substantial form of term limitation.

    I don’t think you can actually pass something like the below, but I’d like to see getting re-elected to get increasingly difficult with time.

    Start out, first election, you need only 50% of the vote in the primary. Prior to the next primary where you would be re-nominated, the politician must pass a “He’s OK!” vote — a simple “yes/no” vote — you must get 55% of the turnout “yes”, or you are disallowed from running again. For your third term, you must get 60%… and so forth, until you’re having to get a 75% result to run again. If you fail, it’s an open primary, and you’re a lame-duck (for senators, make those numbers 60%, 70%, and 75% in order)

    This would force people to not just say “He’s better than the other guy”, but “He’s doing WELL, and notably so”.

    This resolves the issue of actually good politicians (rare as they are) getting tossed out when simple term limits are implemented.

    It would require constitutional amendment, but would be worth it.

  82. Foxmarks
    September 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    “My strategy is aimed squarely at victory. I want to push Leviathan over the cliff. Most of the rest here merely want to adjust his wardrobe.”

    No, your strategy is not aiming for victory so much as it is aiming for a collapse of the system.

    Pop Quiz – exactly how many times in human history has a societal collapse resulted in a better form of government?

    Cogitate on that one for a few years then get back to me.

    I can see it goes against your short sighted and more anarchist tendencies, but we still have the best form of government, and the most free society, that mankind has ever come up with.

    The original form of our government is the best man has been able to come up with so far, imperfect as it is.

    I’m sure this is where you blow a gasket and start spouting off about all of the imperfections you see, but the fact remains that my statement remains essentially correct.

    It’s not perfect, and there is corruption in high places that is really screwing up the works – but you don’t completely discard the system before you try to fix it.

    If anything, drastically cutting back the federal government – as has been suggested here and for which the tea party types have been advocating all over the country – would be a great way to rein in the government and it’s spending BACK to what it should have been in the first place.

    A complete collapse of the system is not necessary, only a restoration of the original system.

    Since you like car analogies I’ll give you one.

    It’s like you driving your car down the road and it starts knocking and hesitating and the temperature gauge pegs out.

    Most intelligent people are going to pull over and try to figure out what the problem is before they do more damage.

    Your hysterically suggested course of action is tantamount to floorboarding the accelerator so you can really get your money’s worth out of your mechanic!

    As for your doom and gloom economic projections, yes – there are challenges ahead and the multi trillion dollar deficits DO worry me – but nothing is insurmountable.

    I’ve been hearing from people like you for decades, and they are all sincerely convinced of their own intelligence and just how right they are and how wrong everyone else is and how we are all going to end up living off of dog food before it’s over with.

    I wish I (literally) had a nickel for every apocalyptic prediction I’ve ever heard – I wouldn’t have to work another day in my life!

    You ain’t being very original.

    How did you put it? Oh yeah:

    “It has been an enlightening exercise to learn how ossified y’alls minds are.”

    Here’s a clue – when you are the only one in the room holding a particular opinion, you are either brilliant and everyone else is wrong – or – you’re completely wrong and everyone else is right.

    I’d suggest you consider your views a little more intently before demanding we all simply agree with you.

  83. Foxmarks,

    Your writings come off as extremist even if they are opportunist or positive in your mind.

    I would rather solve the problem.

  84. Will you be able to sell your message to Mom’s and Dad’s and Grandparents?

    No.

    Not me.

    I want my earnings that I’ve saved not to be devalued and go to waste.

    The only people who benefit from the cliff are a few – not families who have had “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” over the years.

    We need a plan that rewards personal responsibility. Yours isn’t.

  85. Another thing that needs to be considered is that one of the chief reasons for the current problem is that the government is not bound by GAAP.

    Almost all the current fiscal issues come from that.

    If you want a major way to fix this flaw in the original system, it would be to constitutionally require all government, state, local, and federal — to be done using GAAP rules for all accounting practices.

    The amount of sheer, inarguable chicanery that would be tossed right out would be a huge benefit.

  86. Keep in mind, you need FULL GAAP, not just a “balanced budget” requirement.

    A balanced budget requirement doesn’t mean squat when your budget doesn’t have to be anything but bogus made up numbers and associations.

    Example:

    “The federal government does not adhere to GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles. Nor does it use independent accountants. In other words, politicians, not accountants, decide how to keep track of the federal government’s financial affairs.
    But politicians, like the rest of us, tend to follow the path of least resistance in pursuing their self-interests. It is a lot easier to cook the books a little than it is to make hard political choices on taxes and spending.
    That’s why a balanced budget amendment would not reduce the deficit; it would result in a lot of cooked books, instead.
    Just consider New York State, whose government in more ways than one is the federal government writ small. Like many states, New York has a constitutional requirement that its expense budget be balanced. But in 1992 Albany found itself $200 million short of that mandate. Did the legislature and the governor raise taxes or cut spending? Certainly not. The state of New York simply sold Attica Prison to itself.
    I am not making this up. The Urban Development Corporation, a state agency established to help redevelop troubled urban areas, borrowed in the bond market, turned the money over to the state, and took title to the prison. The state, in turn, recorded the $200 million its own agency had borrowed as income, proclaimed the budget balanced, and now rents Attica from the UDC.”
    – John Steele Gordon –

    Clearly, without GAAP, a balanced budget is effectively worthless when it comes to controlling the chicanery the government can get up to.

  87. Baklava,

    “The only people who benefit from the cliff are a few – not families who have had “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY” over the years.”

    Exactly! The world foxmarks is advocating is not a world I want my kids or their kids to have to grow up dealing with.

  88. “” I win not by chipping at his great bulk, but by helping him along in the direction he wants to travel.””
    Foxmarks

    Judo isn’t practical in real life, just in demonstrations. The UFC is proof of that by being dominated by guys who basically just know how to pound the hell out of some judo master’s head.

  89. Scottie,

    Thank you sir.

    I will not see my assets and savings and hard work be flushed down the drain by somebody promoting so-called opportunity and positive ideas of a ‘cliff’.

    Let’s solve the problem.

  90. It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to
    do it….anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be
    allowed to do the job. DOUGLAS ADAMS (1952-2001), The Restaurant at the End of the Universe,
    1980.

  91. They always give advice, want to do everything themselves, find new dangers and never rest until the
    other person, confused and discouraged, confides himself to their care. … The neurotic aspires to
    make the laws for the others. ALFRED ADLER (1870-1937), “The Function of Neurotic Symptoms,” in
    The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler, 1956.

  92. Stripped of ethical rationalizations and philosophical pretensions, a crime is anything that a group in
    power chooses to prohibit. FREDA ADLER, Sisters In Crime, 1975.

  93. The basic symbolic interactionist proposition at the heart of labeling theory is that the formation of an
    individual’s identity is a reflection of others’ definition of him or her. The theory advances the thesis
    that individuals who are labeled or dramatically stigmatized as deviant are likely to take on a deviant
    self-identity and become more, rather than less, deviant than if they had not been so labeled. … An
    ironic, unintended consequence of labeling, therefore, is that the person becomes what the
    sanctioning process meant to prevent, even if he or she did not set out that way. RONALD L. AKERS,
    Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation, 1994.

    “You Fascist!!!!”

    life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the
    politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruptions fears life. SAUL ALINSKY (1909-1972), Rules
    for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Radicals, 1971.

    Seductiveness may be characterized as the polar opposite of nurturance, which indicates
    hopefulness, the belief that if you are open, trusting, and giving, there is a real chance that instead of
    being exploited, your actions will be reciprocated. …It is understandable, therefore, that the seductive
    personality will search for and tend to gauge potential partners in terms of their weakness, inferiority,
    and vulnerability to being exploited. GERALD ALPER, The Puppeteers: Studies of Obsessive Control,
    1994.

    The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the
    political field. He argues and analyzes in a way he would readily recognize as infantile within the
    sphere of his real interests. He becomes a primitive again. JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER (1883-1950),
    Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 1950.

    Mass behavior is associated with activist interpretations of democracy and with increasing reliance on force to resolve social conflict. … The breakdown of normal restraints, including internalized
    standards of right conduct, and established channels of action … frees the mass to engage in direct,
    unmediated efforts to achieve its goals and to lay hands upon the most readily accessible
    instruments of action. PHILIP SELZNICK, The Organizational Weapon, 1952.

    The result of a narcissistic version of reality is that the expressive powers of adults are reduced.
    They cannot play with reality, because reality matters to them only when it in some way promises to mirror intimate needs. RICHARD SENNETT, The Fall of Public Man, 1976.

    “Boredom: the desire for desires” Tolstoy

    “Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom” Schopenhauer

    “I’ve got a great ambition to die of exhaustion rather than boredom.” Carlyle…

    “Your true traveller finds boredom rather agreeable than painful. It is the symbol of his liberty – his excessive freedom. He accepts his boredom, when it comes, not merely philosophically, but almost with pleasure.” Aldous Huxley

    “The life of the creative man is lead, directed and controlled by boredom. Avoiding boredom is one of our most important purposes.” Sontag

    “Is boredom anything less than the sense of one’s faculties slowly dying?”

  94. Frankly, elections may not stop them, since Obama has accomplished much of his agenda by Executive Order. In the Senate, waiting for a vote, is the CLEAR ACT. This bill is the total giveaway of US sovereignty. The bill doesn’t say it is giving our sovereignty away, but it refers to an executive order signed by Obama, which bypasses congress and enables the takeover of US waterways, the airspace above and surrounding the waterways, and the land and all minerals over to the UN for governance. This bill takes away congressional oversight by giving appropriation of monies, without having to go through congress EVER AGAIN, which is basically another blank check. Only this time, the money is being given to the UN. It also creates three new agencies to oversee enactment. Please study the CLEAR ACT and Obama’s executive order pertaining to the LOST treaty. They go hand in hand to devastate the US.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑