Looking for Arguments AGAINST the angle of socialism in America....

[BoyJupiter]

For the passed few days, I have tried to find articles that argue from (from a legitimate angle) why the whole “socialism” charge in America is BOGUS.

Of course I have my own thoughts and I know that Karl Marx is laughing from the grave at these idiots who claim socialism is thriving in America thanks to Obama. It wasn’t socialism when the concentration of wealth was obviously isolated to a small percentage of America.

However, I have found that internet search results yield very little articles exposing the bogus argument of Socialism in America.

Any help appreciated, any good articles or reads.

 

[Gunner]

For the passed few days, I have tried to find articles that argue from (from a legitimate angle) why the whole “socialism” charge in America is BOGUS.

Of course I have my own thoughts and I know that Karl Marx is laughing from the grave at these idiots who claim socialism is thriving in America thanks to Obama. It wasn’t socialism when the concentration of wealth was obviously isolated to a small percentage of America.

However, I have found that internet search results yield very little articles exposing the bogus argument of Socialism in America.

Any help appreciated, any good articles or reads.

Sir may I suggest a book by Thomas Sowell? " Basic Economics " This guy is my favorite author. You will not find him in ebony or jet magazines as one of the most 100 influential black Americans. The book is huge but Professor Sowell lays it all out for anyone to understand. Many of our laws protect many of our liberties from socialism. I promise you if you read this book you will see why many of us on the right are pointing to the white elephant in the living room.
The back of the book has many pages of footnotes to check his data.

Here he is at a town hall discussion back in the day with Milton Friedman
He's not a slouch debater.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GklCBvS-eI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GklCBvS-eI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[BoyJupiter]

Sir may I suggest a book by Thomas Sowell? " Basic Economics " This guy is my favorite author. You will not find him in ebony or jet magazines as one of the most 100 influential black Americans. The book is huge but Professor Sowell lays it all out for anyone to understand. Many of our laws protect many of our liberties from socialism. I promise you if you read this book you will see why many of us on the right are pointing to the white elephant in the living room.
The back of the book has many pages of footnotes to check his data.

Here he is at a town hall discussion back in the day with Milton Friedman
He's not a slouch debater.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GklCBvS-eI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2GklCBvS-eI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Okay...I see how this could support what is referred to as Welfare Capitalism, but not Socialism.

How does this support socialism? It was a great listen regarding how Welfare is helping destroy certain segments of society. However I have always understood socialism to involve state owned "means" of capital.

 

[Gunner]

Okay...I see how this could support what is referred to as Welfare Capitalism, but not Socialism.

How does this support socialism? It was a great listen regarding how Welfare is helping destroy certain segments of society. However I have always understood socialism to involve state owned "means" of capital.

My friend I just wanted to let you see him in action.

Some of my favorite blogs are

www.bookerrising.net ( My favorite filled with Black Intellectual Opinions) Shay post views from the left and right she leans right but she has links to all political leanings.

hiphoprepupblican.com, leans right.

www.americanthinker.com - conservative

www.heritage.org - conservative

Drudge report- for the latest headlines

www.realclearpolitics.com - mostly filled with op-eds

afronerd.blogspot.com - opinion

Most of these are conservative sites. Booker Rising is the most balanced start there. Plus it's updated throughout the day.

I hope this helps!!!!

Peace

 

[BoyJupiter]

My friend I just wanted to let you see him in action.

Some of my favorite blogs are

www.bookerrising.net ( My favorite filled with Black Intellectual Opinions) Shay post views from the left and right she leans right but she has links to all political leanings.

hiphoprepupblican.com, leans right.

www.americanthinker.com - conservative

www.heritage.org - conservative

Drudge report- for the latest headlines

www.realclearpolitics.com - mostly filled with op-eds

afronerd.blogspot.com - opinion

Most of these are conservative sites. Booker Rising is the most balanced start there. Plus it's updated throughout the day.

I hope this helps!!!!

Peace

Okay. Cool. Thanks for that info. Even still, do you feel that we are heading towards socialism?

 

[Gunner]

It's all about how much governent you want in your life. Let me say this read both sides and detemine which view make sense. I think some of the policies our present administration is pushing is similar to the views of Karl Marx . We are not that close. The country is almost split down the middle. The book I referenced above, is a great start. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a timeless classic. Your views are predicated by your life experiences. Step outside of your current view and see how others view the world. You'll be fine. Hopefully others can chime in.

Good luck

 

[BoyJupiter]

It's all about how much governent you want in your life. Let me say this read both sides and detemine which view make sense. I think some of the policies our present administration is pushing is similar to the views of Karl Marx . We are not that close. The country is almost split down the middle. The book I referenced above, is a great start. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a timeless classic. Your views are predicated by your life experiences. Step outside of your current view and see how others view the world. You'll be fine. Hopefully others can chime in.

Good luck

Gunner,

Ayn Rand lived in a fantasy world where Capitalism was God. It was a good book; very well put together and even interesting to read. However, John Gault was not a vision of what our current view of capitalism should be.

John Gault worked with his hands, he toiled and grew to reap the benefits of his own hands; our capital markets no longer rely on things of this nature.

Our capital markets have become havens for monetary isolation to a select few; the trickle down affect didn't work. I don't know how else to say this because its been said so many times in so many ways. Capitalism needs more regulation, Obama is coming into our homes to seize our every freedom.

He understands wall street and the economy (I believe) better than most Republicans.

Government INTERVENTION is necessary in order for Capitalism to survive. It has never been a perfect animal, that's where Reagan had everyone fooled. He made people believe that market deregulation was synonymous with laissez faire...power to the people even. This couldn't be more wrong.

The premise is simple, I just don't understand why people can't see it.

 

[actinanass]

I don't believe we are full fledged socialist yet. However, I think most of the stuff you are reading is really a good, clear warning on where we are heading at. Obama is clearly the closest president to a socialist than we have ever had. That's not opinion, that's fact. Just look at his policies he is supporting. Not to mention, that he is using the same rhetoric that many socialist leaders have used before him in OTHER countries. The "swift and bold" approach is a common political tool many social authoritarians have used in the past. While I do not believe that we are a socialist country, we are heading towards it really fast.

 

[Gunner]

Very astute take. Although JFK did believe in tax cuts. In his 1962 speech to the Economic Club of New York he stated that " An economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget. You see, the government receive their revenue from you and I. Just like when the gas prices soared we spent less on goods and services. If we are taxed at high rates the economy slows down. Like you said government intervention is a good thing such as public libraries, police and firemen. But to many well intentions can slow the economy.

One of the problems we face is a huge number of baby boomers who are now retiring and people are living longer than before. That means less people are working to pay into the system. It's like a ponzi scheme (Bernie Madeoff). So many have to pay in to reach desired results. Order the book I mentioned by Thomas Sowell. It really opened my eyes to how small countries like Japan et al. are self sufficient and Africa relies on world aid due to corrupt leadership. Capitalism is by no means perfect. Socialism is for those who desire sameness. By saying that look to Cuba. Those good people risk life and limb through shark infested waters to get to this country. Mexicans do the same all in the name of freedom and the need improve their stock in life

Check out this well known economist take on Greed and Capitalism

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C4KJwHbS-7M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C4KJwHbS-7M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[BigUnc]

To answer your question

A line of defense would be those that advocate government intervention do not desire socialism but instead are engaging in necessary actions to maintain the general welfare of the country as noted in the Constitution.

Of course you would have to clearly delineate yourself from those that do advocate socialist policies. If you don't you could be accused of at least enabling socialist or of being an undercover socialist yourself.

Slippery position to put yourself into. It leaves you open for attack from both sides.

 

[TheDynasty]

Hahaha..

 

[actinanass]

To answer your question

A line of defense would be those that advocate government intervention do not desire socialism but instead are engaging in necessary actions to maintain the general welfare of the country as noted in the Constitution.

Of course you would have to clearly delineate yourself from those that do advocate socialist policies. If you don't you could be accused of at least enabling socialist or of being an undercover socialist yourself.

Slippery position to put yourself into. It leaves you open for attack from both sides.

the only way to not be accused of being a socialist is to promote anti-socialist policies. Meaning, create a system that will trigger individual's greatest potential. Promote self-responsibility to the highest order. Promote smaller government with basic regulations. In fact, allow some businesses to fail in order to help smaller businesses to take its place. Pretty much everything we are NOT doing right now...

 

[Lamarr]

My contribution to the thread:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before, but had, one time, failed an entire class. That class had collectively agreed that socialism worked and that under its control, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. The system was a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, in this class we will have an experiment on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same collective grade ... so no one person will fail and no one person will receive an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who previously studied little had studied even less and the ones who previously studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little. The second test’s class average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in ill feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because: “When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.”

 

[TheDynasty]

My contribution to the thread:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before, but had, one time, failed an entire class. That class had collectively agreed that socialism worked and that under its control, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. The system was a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, in this class we will have an experiment on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same collective grade ... so no one person will fail and no one person will receive an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who previously studied little had studied even less and the ones who previously studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little. The second test’s class average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in ill feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because: “When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.”

BINGO!

 

[BigUnc]

the only way to not be accused of being a socialist is to promote anti-socialist policies. Meaning, create a system that will trigger individual's greatest potential. Promote self-responsibility to the highest order. Promote smaller government with basic regulations. In fact, allow some businesses to fail in order to help smaller businesses to take its place. Pretty much everything we are NOT doing right now...

It's obvious that people that subscribe solely to this concept will believe anyone that advances concepts such as a social safety net or concern for the general welfare of society as a whole would be called a socialist.

I agree with your post to a degree but I do not believe that's the end all, be all to maintaining a prosperous society. That concept leads to periods of high flying booms then a crash and burn collapse just as unfettered socialism leads to prolonged stagnation from the burdensome weight placed on it then collapse.

How a society treats it's most vulnerable members is the true measure of it's greatness and longevity.

Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is.But I'm on a mission to find it.

 

[QueEx]

It's obvious that people that subscribe solely to this concept will believe anyone that advances concepts such as a social safety net or concern for the general welfare of society as a whole would be called a socialist.

I agree with your post to a degree but I do not believe that's the end all, be all to maintaining a prosperous society. That concept leads to periods of high flying booms then a crash and burn collapse just as unfettered socialism leads to prolonged stagnation from the burdensome weight placed on it then collapse.

How a society treats it's most vulnerable members is the true measure of it's greatness and longevity.

Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is.But I'm on a mission to find it.

Good advice.

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

It's obvious that people that subscribe solely to this concept will believe anyone that advances concepts such as a social safety net or concern for the general welfare of society as a whole would be called a socialist.

I agree with your post to a degree but I do not believe that's the end all, be all to maintaining a prosperous society. That concept leads to periods of high flying booms then a crash and burn collapse just as unfettered socialism leads to prolonged stagnation from the burdensome weight placed on it then collapse.

How a society treats it's most vulnerable members is the true measure of it's greatness and longevity.

Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is.But I'm on a mission to find it.

I agree that you do have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. However, we do not need to take care anyone who CAN take care of themselves. That was my whole point....

 

[QueEx]

I agree that you do have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. However, we do not need to take care anyone who CAN take care of themselves. That was my whole point....

Whats the standard: paraplegic; severly handicapped; insane; what ???

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

It's obvious that people that subscribe solely to this concept will believe anyone that advances concepts such as a social safety net or concern for the general welfare of society as a whole would be called a socialist.

I agree with your post to a degree but I do not believe that's the end all, be all to maintaining a prosperous society. That concept leads to periods of high flying booms then a crash and burn collapse just as unfettered socialism leads to prolonged stagnation from the burdensome weight placed on it then collapse.

How a society treats it's most vulnerable members is the true measure of it's greatness and longevity.

Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is.But I'm on a mission to find it.

very inspiring piece of writing Unc!

 

[Gunner]

My contribution to the thread:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before, but had, one time, failed an entire class. That class had collectively agreed that socialism worked and that under its control, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. The system was a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, in this class we will have an experiment on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same collective grade ... so no one person will fail and no one person will receive an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who previously studied little had studied even less and the ones who previously studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little. The second test’s class average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in ill feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because: “When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.”

Saving to my documents. Nice post!

 

[actinanass]

Whats the standard: paraplegic; severly handicapped; insane; what ???

QueEx

our veterans, the physical/mental impaired, our elderly who cannot work, and the kids who do not have the ability to take care of themselves due to being born in a bad situation. All must be United States citizens also.

 

[Spectrum]

My contribution to the thread:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before, but had, one time, failed an entire class. That class had collectively agreed that socialism worked and that under its control, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. The system was a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, in this class we will have an experiment on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same collective grade ... so no one person will fail and no one person will receive an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who previously studied little had studied even less and the ones who previously studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little. The second test’s class average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in ill feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because: “When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.”

Brilliant.

 

[BoyJupiter]

I don't believe we are full fledged socialist yet. However, I think most of the stuff you are reading is really a good, clear warning on where we are heading at. Obama is clearly the closest president to a socialist than we have ever had. That's not opinion, that's fact. Just look at his policies he is supporting. Not to mention, that he is using the same rhetoric that many socialist leaders have used before him in OTHER countries. The "swift and bold" approach is a common political tool many social authoritarians have used in the past. While I do not believe that we are a socialist country, we are heading towards it really fast.

Again, people are getting the situation confused with the leader. Obama is the first president in a LONG TIME to be in this position, the careless acts of a select few powerful individuals have brought us into our current state of "quasi-socialism"

Obama is a president that is having to make decisions that were never required before. The market is not a "save all" for our economy. The market is sporadic, uncertain and at times down right emotional. Governement intervention is required in order to tame this beast. beast (simple). The intentions have been stated clearly, government intervention until the companies are at a comfortable point of profitability. What else did people expect from an economy that fostered the concept "Too Big To Fail" ????????

 

[BoyJupiter]

My contribution to the thread:

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before, but had, one time, failed an entire class. That class had collectively agreed that socialism worked and that under its control, no one would be poor and no one would be rich. The system was a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, in this class we will have an experiment on socialism. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same collective grade ... so no one person will fail and no one person will receive an A.”

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who previously studied little had studied even less and the ones who previously studied hard decided they wanted a free ride, too, so they studied little. The second test’s class average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the class average was an F. The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in ill feelings, and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed the class, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because: “When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great. But when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.”

But what happens when that depreciating moral is found even in our strongest capital reign (such as recent). Corporations filled with glass ceilings and limited avenues even with a college degree.

My point is, this case isn't limited to the idea of socialism, it has existed in capitalism also. I feel that the DREAM of capitalism causes people to push and succeed economically...but the reality of it was hitting harder (recently) than the ideal. This is why government regulation is needed.

 

[nittie]

The question is when were we not socialist. Isn't a Constitution that protects the wealth of rich white men socialist. Isn't segregating people of color so whites can benefit socialist. Give President Obama credit because he admits the status quo cannot last. People are getting hip to privatizing profits but socializing debt bullshit.

 

[Lamarr]

The question is when were we not socialist. Isn't a Constitution that protects the wealth of rich white men socialist. Isn't segregating people of color so whites can benefit socialist. Give President Obama credit because he admits the status quo cannot last. People are getting hip to privatizing profits but socializing debt bullshit.

the Constitution only says that gold & silver be legal tender. It also was written to restrain the power / force of govt against the people and protect the liberties of all of us.

You have to do your own research on how we got the Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act, FISA, the War on Drugs and all the other unconstitutional BS you see today.

 

[Lamarr]

But what happens when that depreciating moral is found even in our strongest capital reign (such as recent). Corporations filled with glass ceilings and limited avenues even with a college degree.

My point is, this case isn't limited to the idea of socialism, it has existed in capitalism also. I feel that the DREAM of capitalism causes people to push and succeed economically...but the reality of it was hitting harder (recently) than the ideal. This is why government regulation is needed.

trust me , I understand but check it out. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are all systems created by bankers. This nation was founded upon freedom and capitalistic principles. Capitalism rewards innovation and hard work. Of all the systems, capitalism provides the most oppurtunity for self-fulfillment and if you f*ck up, you should be allowed to fail. I could go on but hopefully you get my message.

None of the systems are perfect but I'd refer to what Unc said about trying to find a common ground between people. Also, about how our society is measured by how we treat our most vulnerable members. A lot of wisdom in his post

 

[QueEx]

None of the systems are perfect but I'd refer to what Unc said about trying to find a common ground between people. Also, about how our society is measured by how we treat our most vulnerable members. A lot of wisdom in his post

When you strip away the political theory, i.e., the various politico-economic theories, you have to come down to real life, real situations, and real application of theory to, real life intercourse. If you notice, it was there that BigUnc and you, above, become more vague and undefined and broad, i.e.:

• common ground between people (actually he said it differently, but wtf);and

• how our society is measured by how we treat our most vulnerable members (which implies how we apply the politico-economics to people lives).

Does this not imply that one can certainly have and try to adhere to various political philosophies, but practically speaking, life is a zillion compromises?

QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

When you strip away the political theory, i.e., the various politico-economic theories, you have to come down to real life, real situations, and real application of theory to, real life intercourse. If you notice, it was there that BigUnc and you, above, become more vague and undefined and broad, i.e.:

• common ground between people (actually he said it differently, but wtf);and

• how our society is measured by how we treat our most vulnerable members (which implies how we apply the politico-economics to people lives).

Does this not imply that one can certainly have and try to adhere to various political philosophies, but practically speaking, life is a zillion compromises?

QueEx

I don't know QueEx, I can't speak for BigUnc but to start, we must provide an incentive for people to invest/work in America. Allowing people to keep more of the fruits of their labor is a start, but that would require a more responsible, frugal govt. Sorry to say it but the Constitution doesn't give us the authority to "Police the World" besides, we can't afford it. I see people across the spectrum cutting back on spending within their household but all we see from the govt is the exact opposite, and everyone should know by now that its always the "little guy" that gets stuck with the bill. I don't mind taxes that help kids, the elderly & disabled. I'm just one of those people that wants to do what is fair.

Thomas Jefferson left us with this quote: "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

 

[QueEx]

`

I was going to start by saying you missed my point. On the other hand, I am responsibile for conveying a clear message, so, I have to take the blame for not being, clear.

• we must provide an incentive for people to invest/work in America . . .

• Allowing people to keep more of the fruits of their labor is a start . . .

• require a more responsible, frugal govt.

• Constitution doesn't give us the authority to "Police the World" besides, we can't afford it.

These things I call politico-economic theory or broad politico-economic goals. Political parties, for example, hang them across their political mantle-piece as "What They Stand For." The followers of those political movements, republicans, librarians, etc., say, "this is what we stand for." Some people, acting an ass, emblazen them across their chest.

The "Goals" or "Theory" are noble and sound, great. Putting them into practice, however, is much a different matter. For example, when you weave-in "real life", you have to make exceptions. Each little different twist of real life calls for another and different exception to the theory. MY POINT: The theory may sound good, but human political intercourse is actually a multitude of compromises off of the political theory/goals. Hence, it is easy to articulate the theory/goals, but the hard part is, as BigUnc noted,

"Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is. But I'm on a mission to find it. "​

________________

• So, we have those yelling "Less Government" until, its a matter that "they" feel is important. (Compromise of theory their way).

• Then we have those yelling, "Less Spending", until is a matter that they agree with as being important, notwithstanding, the other side believes it stands on solid ground, for making a different "investment" in the country.(Compromise of theory another way)

• And we have a chorus yelling "Let the People keep more of the fruits of their Labor" - but, at the very same time, demanding the antithetical, more services. (compromise of theory against compromise of theory)

Many times, the result is somewhere other than strict adherence to the political theory/goal, and there is no magical formula for determining where that compromise lies. Maybe it (the middle or semi-middle) results from the seemingly constant and often vicious political tension from the competing interests (the left, right, moderate, democratic, republican, librarian, anarchist, fascist, peace-nik, etc). Maybe the rabid political backbiting and backstabbing is just an aspect of the modern Leviathan Man. Maybe, its slowly destroying our society. Maybe its crystallizing enemies, within. Maybe then, we should spend more time actually listening and learning the art of compromise.


QueEx

 

[BoyJupiter]

`

I was going to start by saying you missed my point. On the other hand, I am responsibile for conveying a clear message, so, I have to take the blame for not being, clear.


These things I call politico-economic theory or broad politico-economic goals. Political parties, for example, hang them across their political mantle-piece as "What They Stand For." The followers of those political movements, republicans, librarians, etc., say, "this is what we stand for." Some people, acting an ass, emblazen them across their chest.

The "Goals" or "Theory" are noble and sound, great. Putting them into practice, however, is much a different matter. For example, when you weave-in "real life", you have to make exceptions. Each little different twist of real life calls for another and different exception to the theory. MY POINT: The theory may sound good, but human political intercourse is actually a multitude of compromises off of the political theory/goals. Hence, it is easy to articulate the theory/goals, but the hard part is, as BigUnc noted,

"Finding a common middle economic ground is the key.

I'm not smart enough to know exactly where that is. But I'm on a mission to find it. "​

________________

• So, we have those yelling "Less Government" until, its a matter that "they" feel is important. (Compromise of theory their way).

• Then we have those yelling, "Less Spending", until is a matter that they agree with as being important, notwithstanding, the other side believes it stands on solid ground, for making a different "investment" in the country.(Compromise of theory another way)

• And we have a chorus yelling "Let the People keep more of the fruits of their Labor" - but, at the very same time, demanding the antithetical, more services. (compromise of theory against compromise of theory)

Many times, the result is somewhere other than strict adherence to the political theory/goal, and there is no magical formula for determining where that compromise lies. Maybe it (the middle or semi-middle) results from the seemingly constant and often vicious political tension from the competing interests (the left, right, moderate, democratic, republican, librarian, anarchist, fascist, peace-nik, etc). Maybe the rabid political backbiting and backstabbing is just an aspect of the modern Leviathan Man. Maybe, its slowly destroying our society. Maybe its crystallizing enemies, within. Maybe then, we should spend more time actually listening and learning the art of compromise.


QueEx

Good response. Thanks for that.

However, I feel that Obama has always sought the middle ground between the two parties. He doesn't seem as leftist as the news stations try to portray him. He seems very pragmatic.

I just feel like some people haven't given his ideas a chance yet. We let Bush run a train over liberal ideals without a significant backlash until his SECOND TERM.

Its like the country's overnight fixation that has been so visible in quick wealth, quick weight loss, etc, has finally expanded into the realm of Quick Political fixes.

 

[QueEx]

Good response. Thanks for that.

However, I feel that Obama has always sought the middle ground between the two parties. He doesn't seem as leftist as the news stations try to portray him. He seems very pragmatic.

I hope you're right (always [seeking] middle ground) but, like you recognize, its just too early to tell. Its a well worn phrase, but this guy took office with more "Dire" problems on his plate than any other President, Ever, and he actually appears to be trying to tackle those problems and some say, he's attempting too much, too soon. Whatever; I don't think that we've seen enough yet, to form a good opinion.


Unfortunately, there are those who had seen enough on Day 2. Their opinion was negative then and remain so today. We can only hope they simply stop telling everyone else about their supposed objectivity.

I just feel like some people haven't given his ideas a chance yet. We let Bush run a train over liberal ideals without a significant backlash until his SECOND TERM.

I was going to do one of my Q-Blogs on this very subject.

It is unfortunate and I don't yet know how long it has been going on, but it is clear to me that the losing party goes on the attack on the evening of the inauguration and it never stops. The party that wins must then immediately go on counter-attack, and so it goes. The In-party finds it difficult to rule because the Out-party won't let it. The roles reverse when the Outs become the Ins but the New Ins who were the Old Outs find it difficult to govern for the same reasons that the New Outs who were the Old Ins, couldn't.

Its like a chicken-and-egg argument of which came first: the dems first attacked the repubs countered; or the repubs first attacked the dems countered. However, it really doesn't matter because it the vicious cycle of attack, counter-attack, seems unending and, in my humble opinion, is just destroying the damn country, FROM WITHIN.

Its like the country's overnight fixation that has been so visible in quick wealth, quick weight loss, etc, has finally expanded into the realm of Quick Political fixes.

I agree absolutely.


QueEx

 

[Lamarr]

Good response. Thanks for that.

However, I feel that Obama has always sought the middle ground between the two parties. He doesn't seem as leftist as the news stations try to portray him. He seems very pragmatic.

I just feel like some people haven't given his ideas a chance yet. We let Bush run a train over liberal ideals without a significant backlash until his SECOND TERM.

Its like the country's overnight fixation that has been so visible in quick wealth, quick weight loss, etc, has finally expanded into the realm of Quick Political fixes.

Hope you found some good insight. QueEx raises good points as do all the posters here and I'm not saying anybody is right or wrong. I, personally, despise the party system and the debates should be open to more ideas, the topics have been defined and the debate is already scripted.

For the record, Capitalism died 10-3-08 when they bailed the banks out with taxpayer dollars! Credit Dubya & the democratic leadership with that one. Failure is the "invisible hands" way of purging the system of irresponsible business practices and incompetence.

I'm not fixated on a quick economic fix but history has provided some positive examples of how to deal with an economic downturn! Look into the Depression of 1920 - It was over so fast it hardly gets mentioned nowadays peace