Draw Your Pistol

[Cyrus]

The real costs of a culture of greed

by Robert Scheer



What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.

Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.

Yet the problem is much deeper.

For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.

Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence.

It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.

For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

...

For the rest of the article, click here : Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer6sep06,0,2842553.column?track=hpmostemailedl ink)

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
The real costs of a culture of greed

by Robert Scheer

What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.

Instead of the much-celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people abroad, we have seen a callous official incompetence that puts even Third World rulers to shame. The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.

Yet the problem is much deeper.

For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot. Thus, the symbolism of New Orleans' flooding is tragically apt: Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity; the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.

Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence.

It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.

For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

...

For the rest of the article, click here : Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheer6sep06,0,2842553.column?track=hpmostemailedl ink)

[/ QUOTE ]

.....here's the rest of it.

[ QUOTE ]
And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty line in the Katrina damage area — one-third of whom are elderly — are left exposed.

Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by unemployed, uneducated young men.

In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business. As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million already on the poverty rolls.

For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.

These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate. Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point: The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over long-term community benefits.

Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call an "act of God."

Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that "floats all boats."

They were left floating all right.
And, although the wealthy can soften the blow of this national decline by sending their kids to private school, building walls around their communities and checking into distant hotels in the face of approaching calamities, others, like the 150,000 people living below the poverty line in the Katrina damage area — one-third of whom are elderly — are left exposed.

Watching on television the stark vulnerability of a permanent underclass of African Americans living in New Orleans ghettos is terrifying. It should be remembered, however, that even when hurricanes are not threatening their lives and sanity, they live in rotting housing complexes, attend embarrassingly ill-equipped public schools and, lacking adequate police protection, are frequently terrorized by unemployed, uneducated young men.

In fact, rather than an anomaly, the public suffering of these desperate Americans is a symbol for a nation that is becoming progressively poorer under the leadership of the party of Big Business. As Katrina was making its devastating landfall, the U.S. Census Bureau released new figures that show that since 1999, the income of the poorest fifth of Americans has dropped 8.7% in inflation-adjusted dollars. Last year alone, 1.1 million were added to the 36 million already on the poverty rolls.

For those who have trouble with statistics, here's the shorthand: The rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting, in the ripe populist language of Louisiana's legendary Long, the shaft.

These are people who have long since been abandoned to their fate. Despite the deep religiosity of the Gulf States and the United States in general, it is the gods of greed that seem to rule. Case in point: The crucial New Orleans marshland that absorbs excess water during storms has been greatly denuded by rampant commercial development allowed by a deregulation-crazy culture that favors a quick buck over long-term community benefits.

Given all this, it is no surprise that leaders, from the White House on down, haven't done right by the people of New Orleans and the rest of the region, before and after what insurance companies insultingly call an "act of God."

Fact is, most of them, and especially our president, just don't care about the people who can't afford to attend political fundraisers or pay for high-priced lobbyists. No, these folks are supposed to be cruising on the rising tide of a booming, unregulated economy that "floats all boats."

They were left floating all right.

[/ QUOTE ]

....man all batterys, and stand by for action.

[Exsubmariner]

I called the "Man" last night and thanked him for giving me an entitlement big enough that I could afford to drive such a nice car. I also told him I appreciated having the "win switch" turned on in all my online poker accounts so that I could continue to make money playing poker that I don't really need. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I also asked him to have this liberal boilerplate tripe printed in that rag LA Times so I could have some entertainment this morning. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(sounds of pistol being fired)

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I called the "Man" last night and thanked him for giving me an entitlement big enough that I could afford to drive such a nice car. I also told him I appreciated having the "win switch" turned on in all my online poker accounts so that I could continue to make money playing poker that I don't really need. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I also asked him to have this liberal boilerplate tripe printed in that rag LA Times so I could have some entertainment this morning. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

(sounds of pistol being fired)

[/ QUOTE ]


......nice rhetoric.....np.

Now, what specifically in the article do you agree/disagree with.

[lehighguy]

What a well funded leftist government can do to protect the lifes and health of its citizens:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

Despite immense social programs, air conditioned rooms and cold water just weren't there apparently. If leftist can't protect thier citizens from hot weather, I fail to see how thier societies would be much better at handling a hurricane.

If anything, this took another activitity of the list of services I think government is better at doing. I used to think it was better at handling the military, law and order, and disaster relief. Now I have doubts about that even.

In the complete absence of government this whole affair would have gone alot better. People wouldn't have been herded into the superdome and instead left town. Relief workers and private individuals and companies wouldn't have been turned away from the city because they didn't have proper paperwork. All the government has done, which is all it has ever done, is tell people it can handle a situation it can't. Confident that they will be helped, the people don't make any of the necessary decisions and end up getting screwed when the government doesn't come.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
What a well funded leftist government can do to protect the lifes and health of its citizens:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm

Despite immense social programs, air conditioned rooms and cold water just weren't there apparently. If leftist can't protect thier citizens from hot weather, I fail to see how thier societies would be much better at handling a hurricane.

If anything, this took another activitity of the list of services I think government is better at doing. I used to think it was better at handling the military, law and order, and disaster relief. Now I have doubts about that even.

In the complete absence of government this whole affair would have gone alot better. People wouldn't have been herded into the superdome and instead left town. Relief workers and private individuals and companies wouldn't have been turned away from the city because they didn't have proper paperwork. All the government has done, which is all it has ever done, is tell people it can handle a situation it can't. Confident that they will be helped, the people don't make any of the necessary decisions and end up getting screwed when the government doesn't come.

[/ QUOTE ]

....not much to diagree with there, but instead of railing at "The Government", regardless of what political party is in power, why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them?

The constant, entrenched political bickering in our country is tearing it apart, as the degree of hardball that politcal opponents play increases.

It is my opinion that we would be more likely to resolve some of the immensly complicated issues we face today if we focused on the following issues in a non-particsan manner.

Policy.....

Process......

Infrastructure......

People.....

[Exsubmariner]

OK Myrtle,
I am going to tell you what in the article I disagree about. I am replying here so I can quote.

[ QUOTE ]
What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this guy a deep cover operative from the KGB? "Affluent mask?" I guess being the richest country in the world makes for a pretty good disguise.

[ QUOTE ]
we have seen a callous official incompetence


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
puts even Third World rulers to shame

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a talking point. To say anything is "well reported" in today's press is pure fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the problem is much deeper

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. People are inherently jealous and resentful of those who have more (success, love, property, votes) than they do.

[ QUOTE ]
For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they witnessed what social ideals did to the Soviet Union over 80 years. It's also because government stands in the way of the free market through regulation and taxes. It isn't in a capitalist's best interest to support government beyond the military to protect foriegn trade interest.

[ QUOTE ]
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. The new deal was a lie.

[ QUOTE ]
the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is unsupported. What he might try saying is that Reagan encouraged people to be accountable for themselves and engage in free enterprise. The LA political system is based on bribes, graft, patronage and dole. Self reliance and free enterprise flys in the face of all that. This is why the Port if Houston flourished instead of New Orleans in the oil boom. It's also why the Port of Houston will encroach on the share of commerce that is now available by the destruction of New Orleans and New Orleans will never again see the prominence it once had as a major port. Everything that doesn't have to come down the Mississippi will shift to other areas. In fact, Baton Rouge may take over the Mississippi trade.

[ QUOTE ]
Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Levy improvements have been diverted for forty plus years. This includes the Carter and Clinton administrations. Why didn't these great humanitarian socialist leaders fix the levys to protect the poor helpless population when they were in office? It isn't single incompetence. It's also shared by the Democratic Party.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.


[/ QUOTE ]
See the article about France linked by leighighguy (sp?)

[ QUOTE ]
For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]
Education? is that why test scores have been declining in the US and high school graduates from poorer areas have graduated without knowing how to read?

Policing? Is that why the crime rate in NOLA is so high?

Public Health? Advances in medicine have been driven in large part by privately funded research in the name of GASP making a profit.

Environmental Protections? Are those the same protections that had to be suspended in order to provide fuel to all parts of the US?

Infrastructure Repair? I guess that's why the Levys in NOLA held up?

Emergency Services? Is this how the NOPD kept the looters at bay?

tax cuts and rising military spending? I guess this is why Clinton inherited the biggest depression in economic history and why the USSR is still the biggest threat to the free world.

I could go on and on and on and on and on.

Do you really need me to point out the fallacies in all of this? Are you so "educated" you cannot see the clear picture?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
OK Myrtle,
I am going to tell you what in the article I disagree about. I am replying here so I can quote.

[ QUOTE ]
What the world has witnessed this past week is an image of poverty and social disarray that tears away the affluent mask of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this guy a deep cover operative from the KGB? "Affluent mask?" I guess being the richest country in the world makes for a pretty good disguise.

[ QUOTE ]
we have seen a callous official incompetence


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.


[ QUOTE ]
puts even Third World rulers to shame

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
The well-reported litany of mistakes by the Bush administration in failing to prevent and respond to Katrina's destruction grew longer with each hour's grim revelation from the streets of an apocalyptic New Orleans.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a talking point. To say anything is "well reported" in today's press is pure fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet the problem is much deeper

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is. People are inherently jealous and resentful of those who have more (success, love, property, votes) than they do.

[ QUOTE ]
For half a century, free-market purists have to great effect denigrated the essential role that modern government performs as some terrible liberal plot

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because they witnessed what social ideals did to the Soviet Union over 80 years. It's also because government stands in the way of the free market through regulation and taxes. It isn't in a capitalist's best interest to support government beyond the military to protect foriegn trade interest.

[ QUOTE ]
Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long's ambitious populist reforms in the 1930s eased Louisiana out of feudalism and toward modernity

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit. The new deal was a lie.

[ QUOTE ]
the Reagan Revolution and the callousness of both Bush administrations have sent them back toward the abyss.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is unsupported. What he might try saying is that Reagan encouraged people to be accountable for themselves and engage in free enterprise. The LA political system is based on bribes, graft, patronage and dole. Self reliance and free enterprise flys in the face of all that. This is why the Port if Houston flourished instead of New Orleans in the oil boom. It's also why the Port of Houston will encroach on the share of commerce that is now available by the destruction of New Orleans and New Orleans will never again see the prominence it once had as a major port. Everything that doesn't have to come down the Mississippi will shift to other areas. In fact, Baton Rouge may take over the Mississippi trade.

[ QUOTE ]
Now we have a president who wastes tax revenues in Iraq instead of protecting us at home. Levee improvements were deferred in recent years even after congressional approval, reportedly prompting EPA staffers to dub flooded New Orleans "Lake George."

None of this is an oversight, or simple incompetence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Levy improvements have been diverted for forty plus years. This includes the Carter and Clinton administrations. Why didn't these great humanitarian socialist leaders fix the levys to protect the poor helpless population when they were in office? It isn't single incompetence. It's also shared by the Democratic Party.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life. Manipulative politicians have convinced lower- and middle-class whites that their own economic pains were caused by "quasi-socialist" government policies that aid only poor brown and black people - even as corporate profits and CEO salaries soared.


[/ QUOTE ]
See the article about France linked by leighighguy (sp?)

[ QUOTE ]
For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending. But it is a false savings; it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]
Education? is that why test scores have been declining in the US and high school graduates from poorer areas have graduated without knowing how to read?

Policing? Is that why the crime rate in NOLA is so high?

Public Health? Advances in medicine have been driven in large part by privately funded research in the name of GASP making a profit.

Environmental Protections? Are those the same protections that had to be suspended in order to provide fuel to all parts of the US?

Infrastructure Repair? I guess that's why the Levys in NOLA held up?

Emergency Services? Is this how the NOPD kept the looters at bay?

tax cuts and rising military spending? I guess this is why Clinton inherited the biggest depression in economic history and why the USSR is still the biggest threat to the free world.

I could go on and on and on and on and on.

Do you really need me to point out the fallacies in all of this? Are you so "educated" you cannot see the clear picture?

[/ QUOTE ]

....No, I don't 'need' you to 'point out the fallacies'......I wanted to further understand where you are coming from.

And also, please deep-six the 'attitude' as it doesn't really apply, regardless of your opinion of me.

Your above replies clarify your point of view, and thank you for taking the time to explain it on the many issues you brought up.

Needless to say, there's a lot of 'stuff' that needs to be addressed, and each of the issues that you've raised deserves to be discussed one at a time, on their own merits, or lack of them.

I'd like to do that, but the reality of having to get things done at work right now takes precedence.


I will get back to you later today/tonight to continue.....

[Exsubmariner]

OK Myrtle,
You are now on the "attitude suspended" list. It is refreshing to see someone in the politics forum who wants to actually discuss instead of just argue and bash. It's still fun to argue and bash. I have a tendency take that tact in my choice of diction. I'll try not to for the purposes of our discussions.

X

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
OK Myrtle,
You are now on the "attitude suspended" list. It is refreshing to see someone in the politics forum who wants to actually discuss instead of just argue and bash. It's still fun to argue and bash. I have a tendency take that tact in my choice of diction. I'll try not to for the purposes of our discussions.

X

[/ QUOTE ]

Yo!.....Arguing & Bashing has its' place.....We just haven't gotten to that point yet. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Peace & Later

[lehighguy]

Repair of the levies should have been done by a private company. That company would be held liable for any damage should they break. Also, independent monitors should be hired to make sure thier doing thier job and make reports. This would have been much more effective then different government agencies simply telling eachother it wasn't thier problem.
Edit: Also, tax collection for the levies should be its own special tax, rather then from the general fund. No one would object to an increase in the levy tax, because they know where the money is going. People don't hate taxes, they hate how the money is being used when it just goes into general funding.

On the response level, all laws related to keeping aid workers or national guard out of a place should be repealed. There is no reason truckloads of food and water should be turned away because it wasn't sanctioned by the government.

I also think private companies should have been contracted to provide the relief effort. Wal Mart would have done really well, its resources where on the ground even without being asked. They manage the distribution of huge quantities of resources and have the manpower and technology to perform in that area. If the response was inadequet the company would be liable in court. Unlike the federal government which will not be liable for this disaster. And it's not just NO. As my mom said the other day (she works in the NYC schools), thier evacuation plan is a pile of crap. Everyone knows it won't work and they don't care. If something happens to the city those kids will die.

Yes the people in charge will change, but government produces bad processes by the very nature of its existence. I would also argue it prefers bad leaders to good and even turns the good ones bad. More funding isn't the solution to a bad process. We have to fix the process. And the best way to do that is get government out of there.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Repair of the levies should have been done by a private company. That company would be held liable for any damage should they break. Also, independent monitors should be hired to make sure thier doing thier job and make reports. This would have been much more effective then different government agencies simply telling eachother it wasn't thier problem.

On the response level, all laws related to keeping aid workers or national guard out of a place should be repealed. There is no reason truckloads of food and water should be turned away because it wasn't sanctioned by the government.

I also think private companies should have been contracted to provide the relief effort. Wal Mart would have done really well, its resources where on the ground even without being asked. They manage the distribution of huge quantities of resources and have the manpower and technology to perform in that area. If the response was inadequet the company would be liable in court. Unlike the federal government which will not be liable for this disaster. And it's not just NO. As my mom said the other day (she works in the NYC schools), thier evacuation plan is a pile of crap. Everyone knows it won't work and they don't care. If something happens to the city those kids will die.

Yes the people in charge will change, but government produces bad processes by the very nature of its existence. I would also argue it prefers bad leaders to good and even turns the good ones bad. More funding isn't the solution to a bad process. We have to fix the process. And the best way to do that is get government out of there.

[/ QUOTE ]


......oh boy....Gonna be a hot time in the town tonight! LOL

You introduce more points of discussion that I agree are very relevant to the overall picture.

I've just mentioned this in a reply to another string in this forum.

Policy.......

Process..........

Infrastructure........

People.......

Boring 'chit'....but it's the name of the game if one truly wants to get anything accomplished.

[lehighguy]

Also, the tax collection for the levies should have been a seperate tax rather then funded from general revenues (I'm not sure how it was done, but if it was done from gen revs it should be changed). No ones going to object to an increase in the levy tax. They just don't want to pay more in general taxes which may or may not go towards levies.

People don't hate taxes, they hate having thier tax money wasted or squandered.

[ QUOTE ]
....not much to diagree with there, but instead of railing at "The Government", regardless of what political party is in power, why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them?

The constant, entrenched political bickering in our country is tearing it apart, as the degree of hardball that politcal opponents play increases.

It is my opinion that we would be more likely to resolve some of the immensly complicated issues we face today if we focused on the following issues in a non-particsan manner.

Policy.....

Process......

Infrastructure......

People.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, the flaw in your argument is right under your nose! If you empower the government to deal with all these problems, then it must become a political battle because each side tries to protect its interests while imposing its views/beliefs on the rest through government action (= force). If you want a country where there is less political bickering (which I do as well), the solution is to stop empowering the federal government to make decisions which go beyond its scope. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans will continue to view everything as "us vs. them" and think the solution to society's problems is their party's program, not the scaling down of all federal power and returing it to the people where it does the most good.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....not much to diagree with there, but instead of railing at "The Government", regardless of what political party is in power, why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them?

The constant, entrenched political bickering in our country is tearing it apart, as the degree of hardball that politcal opponents play increases.

It is my opinion that we would be more likely to resolve some of the immensly complicated issues we face today if we focused on the following issues in a non-particsan manner.

Policy.....

Process......

Infrastructure......

People.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, the flaw in your argument is right under your nose! If you empower the government to deal with all these problems, then it must become a political battle because each side tries to protect its interests while imposing its views/beliefs on the rest through government action (= force). If you want a country where there is less political bickering (which I do as well), the solution is to stop empowering the federal government to make decisions which go beyond its scope. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans will continue to view everything as "us vs. them" and think the solution to society's problems is their party's program, not the scaling down of all federal power and returing it to the people where it does the most good.

[/ QUOTE ]


....and your above analysis leads us to the conclusion of......???

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....not much to diagree with there, but instead of railing at "The Government", regardless of what political party is in power, why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them?

The constant, entrenched political bickering in our country is tearing it apart, as the degree of hardball that politcal opponents play increases.

It is my opinion that we would be more likely to resolve some of the immensly complicated issues we face today if we focused on the following issues in a non-particsan manner.

Policy.....

Process......

Infrastructure......

People.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, the flaw in your argument is right under your nose! If you empower the government to deal with all these problems, then it must become a political battle because each side tries to protect its interests while imposing its views/beliefs on the rest through government action (= force). If you want a country where there is less political bickering (which I do as well), the solution is to stop empowering the federal government to make decisions which go beyond its scope. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans will continue to view everything as "us vs. them" and think the solution to society's problems is their party's program, not the scaling down of all federal power and returing it to the people where it does the most good.

[/ QUOTE ]


....and your above analysis leads us to the conclusion of......???

[/ QUOTE ]

An all-mighty federal government and the absence of political bickering cannot be simultaneous goals unless you want a dictatorship. You seem to be suggesting that you accept the federal government's scope, but you object to partisanship. There is your flaw.

[ QUOTE ]
Boring 'chit'....but it's the name of the game if one truly wants to get anything accomplished.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the federal government is "accomplishing things", then it is likely things that are beyond its intended scope and have awful ramifications. I can accomplish a lot to if you give me an army with enough guns, but this doesn't equate to progress. Partisanship and bureaucracy are a necessary evil if you want the govt to be solving every individuals problems, because it can only solve one man's problems by taking from another man, and thus you've already set the battle lines.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....not much to diagree with there, but instead of railing at "The Government", regardless of what political party is in power, why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them?

The constant, entrenched political bickering in our country is tearing it apart, as the degree of hardball that politcal opponents play increases.

It is my opinion that we would be more likely to resolve some of the immensly complicated issues we face today if we focused on the following issues in a non-particsan manner.

Policy.....

Process......

Infrastructure......

People.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Ah, the flaw in your argument is right under your nose! If you empower the government to deal with all these problems, then it must become a political battle because each side tries to protect its interests while imposing its views/beliefs on the rest through government action (= force). If you want a country where there is less political bickering (which I do as well), the solution is to stop empowering the federal government to make decisions which go beyond its scope. Unfortunately, 90% of Americans will continue to view everything as "us vs. them" and think the solution to society's problems is their party's program, not the scaling down of all federal power and returing it to the people where it does the most good.

[/ QUOTE ]


....and your above analysis leads us to the conclusion of......???

[/ QUOTE ]

An all-mighty federal government and the absence of political bickering cannot be simultaneous goals unless you want a dictatorship. You seem to be suggesting that you accept the federal government's scope, but you object to partisanship. There is your flaw.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're entitled to your interpretation of what you think that I think.....

For the record....

I in no way, shape or form accept our federal governments scope in its' current form. I think it is a bloated, corrupt abomination, and an insult to any thinking adult.

I think BOTH parties, but more than anything else, career bureaucrats contribute greatly to this problem.

I take GREAT exception to POLITCAL partisanship, which in its' current 'WIN at any cost' form has mired out country in a divisive mud-slinging contest, while the problems continue to fester and grow.

.........I hope the above clarifies what I think.

[sam h]

The biggest problem with these discussion is that generalizations about "government versus market" are almost always pretty useless (although popular!). Since the empirical fact is that all advanced capitalist countries have mixed economies, you need to address the value of government taking on specific functions in specific contexts.

I should underscore the importance of context. People underestimate the degree to which the American context (in which, in comparative perspective with other advanced industrial countries, government often has been quite inefficient, rent-seeking has been king, and special interests rule) has specifically shaped the ideas of free market proponents. Those ideas are formulated in terms of general "laws," but they are just unfalsifiable theories mostly derived from the American experience.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with these discussion is that generalizations about "government versus market" are almost always pretty useless (although popular!). Since the empirical fact is that all advanced capitalist countries have mixed economies, you need to address the value of government taking on specific functions in specific contexts.

I should underscore the importance of context. People underestimate the degree to which the American context (in which, in comparative perspective with other advanced industrial countries, government often has been quite inefficient, rent-seeking has been king, and special interests rule) has specifically shaped the ideas of free market proponents. Those ideas are formulated in terms of general "laws," but they are just unfalsifiable theories mostly derived from the American experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

...don't you mean..."unsupportable theories"?

"why don't we direct our efforts at the substance of the decisons of those empowered to make them"

The federal govt according to the Const. is NOT empowered to make the decisions it has been making. Sounds like we seem to agree in principle, just that I see govt power as the root of the evil of partisanship and unless that power is addressed, partisanship is a fact of life. I surmise that the level of partisanship is directly related to the growth in federal power.

[lehighguy]

He's saying that a larger federal government causes political partenship.

Consider that you and I are going to play a game of tennis. The first game we play for fun, so we mess around a little.
The second game is for $100 bucks, so we try our best.
The third game we put both of our houses up as a wager. Not only will I play my best, I may try to sabotage your play. After all, the stakes are too high not to.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
...don't you mean..."unsupportable theories"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think many of these neo-classical maxims find very little empirical support in a general sense. But I do think that the devilish aspect of this research program has been to create theories that are not really falsifiable, since whenever the empirical world rises up and shows them to be wrong (which is often), people just say "well, there were factors outside the model at play there" or something like that.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...don't you mean..."unsupportable theories"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I think many of these neo-classical maxims find very little empirical support in a general sense. But I do think that the devilish aspect of this research program has been to create theories that are not really falsifiable, since whenever the empirical world rises up and shows them to be wrong (which is often), people just say "well, there were factors outside the model at play there" or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]


....uh.....as they say up in Maine.....Aye-Up.

or, "dazzle 'em with footwork & baffle 'em will bullchit".

...Politics 101

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest problem with these discussion is that generalizations about "government versus market" are almost always pretty useless (although popular!). Since the empirical fact is that all advanced capitalist countries have mixed economies, you need to address the value of government taking on specific functions in specific contexts.

I should underscore the importance of context. People underestimate the degree to which the American context (in which, in comparative perspective with other advanced industrial countries, government often has been quite inefficient, rent-seeking has been king, and special interests rule) has specifically shaped the ideas of free market proponents. Those ideas are formulated in terms of general "laws," but they are just unfalsifiable theories mostly derived from the American experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Examples?

Every time I read these posts... I'm more and more concerned for the liberal revolution in this country. Why does every Democrat feel that being an American Citizen gives us entitlements to a happy, easy, care-free life?

You know why the bottom 1/5th of America continues to get poorer each year? Because government handouts can't keep up with inflation.

I have an idea... how about we wean these people off the cash-tits of American and make ALL people (big business included) have some personal responsibility.

Case and point... had every able-bodied and middle aged residents of New Orleans evacuated when they were told to... the Cost Guard and other emergency service crews could have focused on the truly needy and elderly.

QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE POOR AND UNFORTUNATE... Bush, The Governor of LA, any political party, and/or the director of FEMA are not the cause of these problems.

LA has been a state of self-serving politicians, crime and poverty, and low education standards for more than 30 years... if memory serves me... their have been several political parties in power since the 1970's.

[ QUOTE ]
LA has been a state of self-serving politicians, crime and poverty, and low education standards for more than 30 years...

[/ QUOTE ]

30 years? You foget the legacy built by the Kingfish (Huey P. Long) back in the 20s and 30s.

Furthermore... If I can please get and actual example of how "Big Business" has done un-repairable damage to the South.

Again... my memory is bad... but not this bad.

As far as I can tell, LA and MS have been the site of immense consumer growth. With Mardi Gras becoming more commercialized every year, Casino's and hotels moving into the area in droves, Wal-Mart and other such stores opening on every corner in the south... I'm sure these "Big Corporations" may have added a job or two?

Here is the thing... have any of you actually lived in the South? Visited the area for more than just a beer and the exploits that make LA such a dangerous, low-class area?

I find it funny how so many of my liberal friends who use to go to LA to blow-off some steam and partake in the illegal drug scene... are so surprised with the action of it's residents over the last 10 days.

Come-on folks... stop talking theory and let's talk reality.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time I read these posts... I'm more and more concerned for the liberal revolution in this country. Why does every Democrat feel that being an American Citizen gives us entitlements to a happy, easy, care-free life?

You know why the bottom 1/5th of America continues to get poorer each year? Because government handouts can't keep up with inflation.

I have an idea... how about we wean these people off the cash-tits of American and make ALL people (big business included) have some personal responsibility.

Case and point... had every able-bodied and middle aged residents of New Orleans evacuated when they were told to... the Cost Guard and other emergency service crews could have focused on the truly needy and elderly.

QUIT MAKING EXCUSES FOR THE POOR AND UNFORTUNATE... Bush, The Governor of LA, any political party, and/or the director of FEMA are not the cause of these problems.

LA has been a state of self-serving politicians, crime and poverty, and low education standards for more than 30 years... if memory serves me... their have been several political parties in power since the 1970's.

[/ QUOTE ]


...and when responses begin with......Democratic this or....Republican that, we get distracted from the core of the issue.

Do we want to piss & moan about it and blame the politcal party that we don't care for, or do we want to do something that resembles a reasonable attempt at understanding and resolving the issues at hand?

For cripes sake, even though this is only a lousy internet Politics forum, what hope is there if the few of us here can't set aside falling back on partisan politics?

Quite frankly........Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Vegetarians, Septugenarians, Barbarians, Agrarians, Librarians.....& whatever other kind of gd 'arians that I missed.....we all can eat chit & bark at the moon if we persist on doing this.

It's ISSUES that matter.........

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure which point you are referring to. But examples where I think you need to get specific about the value of "government versus market" include pensions, health care, corporate governance, and environmental policy (among others).

Regarding the second point, many of the economists and political economists who began to attack the role of government in the economy in the 1960s and 1970s and developed "public choice theory" - such as Anne Krueger, for instance, who defined the term "rent seeker," or Gordon Tullock - took empirical evidence to support their claims from the American case. They saw an inefficient bureaucracy and a lot of special interests successfully seeking rents and developed a series of models to try to explain it.

What I'm saying is that one reason those models haven't travelled so well is that they were very influenced by the American case. If you look at the historical experience of a place like Japan or France, where in the post-war era key ministries were staffed by the highest acheiving people in the entire country and were often insulated better from interest group pressure, then your perspective on "government versus market" tends to change.

Again... we don't live in a utopia... let's get away from theory and talk facts.

I agree that there is a ton of waste with the great bureaucracy in this country and that big-business is not the end-all / save-all.

However, what I'm trying to point out is that when anyone (dems/repubs/whatever)... gets on the anit- "big-business" bandwagon ... I don't get it.

Big business has helped, not hindered the attempted renewal of LA and MS

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Again... we don't live in a utopia... let's get away from theory and talk facts.

I agree that there is a ton of waste with the great bureaucracy in this country and that big-business is not the end-all / save-all.

However, what I'm trying to point out is that when anyone (dems/repubs/whatever)... gets on the anit- "big-business" bandwagon ... I don't get it.

Big business has helped, not hindered the attempted renewal of LA and MS

[/ QUOTE ]


....please try to get past easy, convenient, over-general labels.

Is it "anti-big business" or....."anti-big business excesses"?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Again... we don't live in a utopia... let's get away from theory and talk facts.

I agree that there is a ton of waste with the great bureaucracy in this country and that big-business is not the end-all / save-all.

However, what I'm trying to point out is that when anyone (dems/repubs/whatever)... gets on the anit- "big-business" bandwagon ... I don't get it.

Big business has helped, not hindered the attempted renewal of LA and MS


[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[natedogg]

This idiot's entire screed is easily identified as nonsense

Under Bush, spending has gone up. The size of government has increased. The scope of its responsibilities has increased.

This guy Sheerer is obviously so blinded by his own preconceptions that facts are of little relevance to him.

natedogg

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Under Bush, spending has gone up. The size of government has increased. The scope of its responsibilities has increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to all.

But for what ?

Did "spending" go to civilian infrastructure rather than military programs ?

Did "the increased size of the government" result in better living conditions for the citizens or in more Big Brother-ism ?

Are "the government's increased responsibilities" more about repairing buildings or more about spying on buildings ?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under Bush, spending has gone up. The size of government has increased. The scope of its responsibilities has increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to all.

But for what ?

Did "spending" go to civilian infrastructure rather than military programs ?

Did "the increased size of the government" result in better living conditions for the citizens or in more Big Brother-ism ?

Are "the government's increased responsibilities" more about repairing buildings or more about spying on buildings ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under Bush, the spending has gone up for ALL of it. Social programs, military programs, disaster agencies. Everything. Social program spending has increased DRAMATICALLY under Bush. Sheerer is nuts.

Look, Sheerer is putting the blame for Katrina on small government advocates. This is sheer nonsense because small government advocates have never even gained an inch of ground with either party.

He says:
[ QUOTE ]

It is the result of a campaign by most Republicans and too many Democrats to systematically vilify the role of government in American life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would give my right arm to live in a country where "most Republicans and many Democrats" would vilify the role of government in american life. But that is simply not the case.

The National Guard, FEMA and DHS and everything else have had increased budgets under Bush. To blame small government conservatives for the government failures re: Katrina requires ignoring all facts and simply spewing mindless rhetoric.

He continues:


[ QUOTE ]

For decades we have seen social services that benefit everyone - education, community policing, public health, environmental protections and infrastructure repair, emergency services - in steady, steep decline in the face of tax cuts and rising military spending.

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat, under Bush, the spending for all these things has *increased*. The budget has ballooned. The revenues, the borrowing, and the spending have increased.

There are NO small government conservatives in power and there certainly haven't been any in power for the "decades" Sheerer claims.

Revenues have increased as well, all the while the deficits have grown. So they are taking in MORE money than before, and borrowing MORE money than before, and spending RECORD levels of money, and expanding government's role and scope in every way imaginable, and yet Sheerer thinks that post-Katrina failures are due to NOT ENOUGH government.

This can only be explained by him having no grip on reality, or perhaps not knowing how to read.

[ QUOTE ]
it will certainly cost exponentially more to save New Orleans than it would have to protect it in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this much is true but it has nothing to do with small government conservatism. If anything, the small government types would have actually focused on levy maintenance instead of say, gay marriage. Wait, Sheerer and his ilk are spending their time on agitating about things like gay marriage too!

Maybe we should have MORE small government types in office who wouldn't spend any time at all on gay marriage and instead would focus on essential services like LEVY REPAIR.

What an incompetent, uninformed ass this man Sheerer is.

natedogg