Upon reflecting a bit on the implications of my post from yesterday, I want to clarify that I can no longer realistically say I aspire to be a Republican even if the party were cleaned up as it needs to be.
The Republicans have in too many ways shown that this is a failed ideology, and I have grown to understand that.
I expect to remain a political independent, but I'll no longer indulge even the metaphor of being displaced. Maddow is correct that any goal state from which I might perceive myself as displaced exists only as a confused nostalgia fantasy. I am finally satisfied that there is not a pot of golden political happiness at the end of the rainbow of coalitions fabricated by the Republicans (whether Rockefeller, Goldwater, Reagan, or Bush) and the Libertarians.
I'll continue to critically examine ideas from all sides, and champion those that are good ideas no matter who they come from—even if they come from the Republican party. A thoughtful person cannot afford to close off sources of ideas. Ideas stand on their own and can be evaluated for their intrinsic worth, independent of their source.
Republicans talk a good game about being “The Party of Values” but there are no useful values in what they've been doing with the environment, with the health care system, and with the economy. It looks more like the aftermath of hedonism to me. They have destroyed these things, and with them the American middle class, in a selfish and unchecked Randian fantasy centered around the notion often articulated as “greed is good.”
In fact, greed is not good. Greed is greed. Good is good. The two are really quite distinct, and we as a public need to get about the business of distinguishing them. To quote some very good advice from former President Reagan, somewhat out of context:
“Trust, but verify.”
If greed is good, show me how I can verify that claim. Because I'm not seeing it. As far as I'm concerned, the ongoing political move by some to reduce control on Big Business has all the credibility of a coalition against parenting. And following in that metaphor, what a number of businesses these days need is a serious “time out,” a stern “talking to,” and/or an outright spanking. And who else is there to offer such discipline to these “legal juveniles” than We The People, acting to promote our own “general Welfare” through our collective avatar, the United States Government?
And let's hear nothing about how the Constitution doesn't intend us to take control of what we need to take control of in order to assure our collective welfare. To quote former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson from his dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949):
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.
This is part two of a two-part series.
If you missed it, you can see the first part here:
The Spoils of Libertarianism
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
RomanticPoetess
Sandra Stephens
old new lefty
marytkelly
oaxacangringa
CoyoteOldStyle
Salon.com
Comments
I've been here for a while and, I've got to warn you that it's not a comfy place. EVERYBODY, both on the right and the left, consider you a traitor to the "Dream".
I ended up here because I am a big advocate of social justice. That should have put me squarely in the middle of the Left's camp, but I'm also a CPA who believe that if you can't pay for it, no matter HOW many laws you pass to make it happen, it ain't gonna happen.
I also was a long time member of the Log Cabin Republicans, but between the concept of "Trickle Down Slavery" and the numerous fascist/anti-gay planks of the Republican Party's platform, I just couldn't stomach it any longer.
Bottom line is it sucks to be us, but we also, I believe, are the only "realists" in the crowd.
I've read Ayn Rand myself. I must confess I've only read a few of her short stories and skimmed her works about objectivism. Perhaps I missed a chapter, because I found nothing in her writings which advocated childish irresponsibility. I think the Republicans have bent and twisted Ms. Rand's writings in order to suit their own agenda just as likeminded people have bent and twisted Charles Darwin's works to justify our economic caste system. Oh yes, I understand that Ms. Rand was an atheist, something which the theo-cons seem to be ignoring. Word is that she didn't like it when Ronald Reagan sucked up to people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
What you said about greed in the paragraph labeled "Trust But Verify" should be on the front page of every major newspaper in America. Ambition is good. Ambition builds. Ambition gave us among many other things, the Internet. Greed tears down, as the residents of the Gulf Coast are finding out the hard way. Rated.
On the bigger issue of greed as a motivator, it's ok in cases where that's not at odds with the goal. But push comes to shove on things like health and the environment, where greed can work against the real goal and we ought to apply greed, if at all, only in very tactical and narrowly scoped ways.
What I object to is some philosophy that says we should trust greed or individualism or some private enterprise to sort out our shared societal goals. What's ironic is that the Republicans aren't afraid to use government for a specific set of issues (gay marriage, etc.) that they allege are societal goals, and yet these of all things are really truly something that could be private with no real harm. That's just opportunistic meddling. But decisions about whether we're going to allow oil wells to spew oil into a shared community resource like the Caribbean somehow they think can be made privately...
Regarding Ayn Rand, please do see my article on that. And Dr. Spudman will probably show up at some point with lots of cross-references, too. I don't know what you mean by not advocating childish irresponsibility, but the only responsibility she ever advocated was to oneself. Her novel The Fountainhead repeatedly makes points about the dangers inherent in giving to charity, for example. This is an interesting thing because the Republicans are often saying that if people had lower taxes, they'd have more of “their own money” to contribute to charities, etc. But many of them, especially the politically influential ones, are also followers of or at least admirers of Ayn Rand, so that's a bit counter-intuitive.
Regarding “ambition” I might say that the oil spill was caused by ambition. Personally, I would focus on “caring” See my post Tax Policy and the Dewey Decimal System if you want to know where I'm going with that.
Roy, thanks for that pithy summary. :)
Great post. Yes. We cannot afford to reject any ideas, regardless of their source, if they help to get us out of the trouble that we are in. Having said that, however, the criteria for these ideas is that they must focus on the long-term and they cannot be designed to please the lowest common denominator. The anti-intellectual bias in this country is killing us, and the cognitive dissonance all around me is killing me.
I wish we knew our candidates- not just casually, but got to be around them and watch them maneuver for a few years. I recently saw an ex running for candidacy- how he looks on paper is completely different from how he is as a person (in private), but how many people know that? It's frustrating to know that I have probably voted for sociopaths in the past just because they were in the party I supported. Independent here, too, if I ever vote again.
"May I ask the gentleman," Roosevelt replied, quieting the crowd, "why he is a Democrat?"
"My grandfather was a Democrat, my father was a Democrat and I am a Democrat."
"My friend," Roosevelt interjected, moving in for the kill, "suppose your grandfather had been a jackass and your father was a jackass. What would you then be?"
Alas, Roosevelt was thwarted by the quick-witted heckler, who promptly replied: "A Republican!"
Always funny...
What emerged was a party marked by a belief that the "market" can solve everything if left to itself, an attitude of hate and intolerance from the social conservatives, and a system that favored the investment capitalists and executives in large companies.
There has never been a free market. A free market would have let all the wall street banks to crash and burn.
Reagan era ideals of trickle down economics has resulted in what a friend dubbed "trickle over" economics where the recipients of profit are investors and workers in third world countries.
Glad you are looking at things objectively.
I would without hesitation abandon my social and economic liberalism for a more conservative approach--"trickle-down" economics, for instance--if it actually worked. If helping ultra rich people buy bigger yachts brought financial security to everyone, I would vote for it. But it doesn't work, so for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would continue to support that or any other tried and failed (or not tried and likely doomed to fail) philosophy.
Unfortunately, it appears to me as if the GOP's coalition has sunk to new lows in my lifetime, being composed of libertarians who worship supercapitalists at the expense of everyone else, Christian fundamentalists and other anti-semites, old fashioned racists, tax dodgers, right wing extremists, and a smattering of moderate Republicans who find themselves alienated and castigated by their cohorts.
The current ideological trajectory of the Republican Party is unsustainable given the demographics of this country. And until such time as there is a purging of some of the extremist elements of the party at the ballot box, the GOP will continue to excel in hypocrisy. And I predict that the Tea Party and its spawn will soon hit the concrete wall. So perhaps it will be easier for you to be a Republican in the near future.
For me, the main problem with the Republican party isn't that are wrong. It's that they are boring. It's the same thing -- no abortion lower taxes, less government -- over and over again.
As you know, I see virtually no value in the labels “Democrat” and “Republican”, and I know I’m just one among many who recognizes a perceived distinction between the two for the fallacy it is. It has become clearer and clearer over the past 20 years, or so, and with our present presidential administration and, perhaps more importantly, our current Congress the fallacious nature of that distinction simply can’t be denied. Most of us are so deeply invested into the Republican-versus-Democrat mindset that it is difficult to break out of.
I also classify myself as an Independent. Both Clinton and Obama have helped cement that disposition on my part. I don’t, however, really see what the Republican Party has had to offer anyone who cares about anything other than greed since about the 1870s. The GOP has been profusely big-business-anti-little-guy during our entire lifetimes, so I am amazed that someone with your ability to think things through would have ever “aspired” to be a Republican. WTF?
RATED
Unfortunately, this is a 2 party country. There are some things that Libertarians proclaim that I like (stay out of other nation's business, de-criminalize victimless crimes) and I'd like the idea of the US staying within a budget - if either of the parties were inclined to do so (Bush being one of the most profligate spenders in history). But, if the money is to be spent, I'd like to see it spent to benefit those who don't have the benefits of wealthy parents, stock options and tax lawyers.
In other words, I believe one purpose of government is to further the good of those who need it most. That means healthcare and daycare and job training and college tuition for those that can't afford it. I see that leading back to the American Dream, where anyone can succeed on a level playing field. I'd really like to see it be paid for by the government. That is the antithesis of conservative dogma, and you don't mention how you stand on that.
What? You're not running? Damn. I'm in anyway.
It is sad but true, money has hijacked the political process leaving people like us without the shelter or the magnifying power of belonging to a party. Ive been saying for years that first the railroads, then the oil companies hijacked the Republican party. Then Clinton and the DLC hijacked the soul of the Democratic party and sold it to Wall Street. But there wasnt much soul left after Reagan started the dismantling of unions, so the working class no longer had much of a voice.
I am posting this to facebook and digg in the hopes that 2 or 3 more people will read it who wouldnt otherwise.
Right on (pun intended, of course.)
Editors - any way you can post this to Big Salon?
Rob, I like “fiscal realism.” Some prices are worth paying—even some societal costs. We used to be a society prepared to sacrifice to achieve the things we believe in. I think underlying the lack of willingness of the Republican Party to tolerate taxes is a deeper feeling of being against the many other Americans who would benefit. It's almost like a covertly conducted civil war, played out through economics.
Julie, it's tough figuring out candidates. I've sometimes likened it to The Turing Test.
Jane, thanks for the support.
And Gonzoid, thanks for the bit of levity.
Hi, Sheila. Thanks for visiting, and for your support, too!
Rodney, as you note, it's an odd alliance since morality is not a free market thing... it kind of clashes as a message. Freedom meets dogma and blends somehow. And anyway, as the Left is gradually learning to mention, there's a lot more to morality than just abortion. How we treat health care and the environment are also moral issues and the Right doesn't score well there at all.
Susan, you're right. Ever since I saw this poster about trickle down economics I can't get the image out of my head when I think about the matter.
You would have never made a loyal storm trooper anyway.. lol
This tells me even a staunch republican can be pushed too far when asked to swallow bigger and bigger bitter pills.
I do not like labels and prefer to make decisions on an issue by issue basis.
Bonnie, I think you're right. The only thing we need to know that we don't already know is how many zeros...
Lefty, I appreciate what you say. I have a feeling they will clean house. But what I meant was that even cleaned out, the problem is that I don't see the fundamental goal (a focus on government size) to be a good one. Weirdly, what I want of them is values... but not the values they're offering. Real values, about honesty, about love, about sacrifice and generosity, about stewardship of the environment, about paying back for what society has offered and not pretending you did it all on your own, etc. And I doubt they'll do that because it's incompatible with their various messages. So I'm not holding my breath.
Mishima, put another way, there's no real coherence to their message. It's spin artistry of the highest degree, but lacking any substance.
The term "fiscal conservative" has lived well beyond reality. It is used to describe thrift, but given the massive and pointless debt the conservatives raised, it's begging to be an official oxymoron.
Conservatives and libertarians lie about the Constitution, as it isn't as limiting as they would like. I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard them say Congress' power is limited to the "enumerated powers" in Art 1, sec 8. The Tea Party-types take them at their word, but the best evidence it's not true is Art 1, sec 8. It. doesn't. say. that.
I have long thought anyone enthusiastic about either party is not paying attention, or should seek professional help. Libertarians should simply seek professional help.
Our problem ahead is that the Constitution is exactly what 4 Federalist Society ideologues and one Kennedy say it is. That's how the destructive conservative/libertarians hope to perpetuate the policies that will continue to strip American sovereignty.
Speaking of hedonism, here's something I wrote last year about the destruction conservatism has served us-
**As economic reality has forced us to extract our hedonist heads from our hirsute heinies, we can now see that debt isn’t growth, credit isn’t wealth, and surrendering our government to private interests isn’t “taking personal responsibility.”**
Welcome to the ranks of the disaffected independents...
By the way, one place I part company with the modern Libertarian movement is their insistence that the government has no business in the areas of education and health care. I think it's critical that the government be in these areas not just to equalize opportunity (which it does) and maximize access (which it does) but to achieve various efficiencies of scale and to make sure we're making the very best of our human capital in a very competitive world. A lot of health care goes to form filling and checking to see who is allowed what and having companies employ people to explain your custom options at your particular workplace and to finding ways to exclude you from programs and ways to challenge exclusions. Getting rid of all of that would save money. I'm for single-payer, but I'm also for making insurance pooling illegal. And I'm for exploring radically different ways of handling education.
Tim, I can't run. I've lived. That's the problem with how we've taken the nation—we hold people to such a microscopic and invasive standard that largely only the liars can get through, or certainly would want to bother trying. (One of my favorite monologues is Chris Rock's on (quoting from memory) “I know Bill Clinton. I am Bill Clinton.” ... his point being that Clinton had real people's problems and you were sure in electing him that he wasn't going to spend his time making it illegal to just be a real person... Sometimes I wonder if that's not the intent of some Republicans—to make regular old personhood illegal, for at least some class of regular old people.)
o'steph, thanks for the kind words.
Roger, yeah, that was certainly a moment, that overstepping. Yep.
“Thanks for sharing,” devilgrrl. :)
And greed can be defined in non-economic terms. To me some of the most greedy people, selfish and close-minded, are democrats. To me that's real greed of the bad kind.
I define capitalism as simply having the freedom to do what you feel is the right thing for you to do. It has nothing to do with greed except that you are probably more greedy for your own happiness than I am greedy for YOUR happiness. You know better than I do what is needed for your happiness, in a free world, in a free market -- not someone who tries to define your happiness for you through legislation and taxation.
It's a free country, and I am as free to despise the selfish and greedy as they are to be so!
The wealthy and powerful who incidentally have never been notably altruistic as a class, find it much easier to purchase the services of a few hundred senators, congressman, and the like, than it would be to please a few hundred million citizens who like the cat herder noted aren't amenable to focus grouping.
And there's your everyday garden-variety republic. It never met an oligarch it didn't like.
So, excuse me if I feel under-represented by centrist government.
And therefore over-taxed, since my money is wasted filling the silver-spoon of some narcissistic tycoon and never any dreams of mine or anyone that I know.
Kent, Rated!
If you really believe that the Republican platform is based on the idea that "greed is good" then you haven't been paying serious attention. As you note, that statement was made by a fictional character in a movie... and the movie was made by Oliver Stone, a far left individual who would more likely be motivated to distort the views of people he disagrees with. I respectfully ask that you find anything in any official Republican platform that sets out a founding principle like that.
To critique a political philosophy based on a bad, ideological movie would be like comparing oil drilling to burglary... except, you did that a day or two ago. :-)
What is the Republican philosophy?
When the Neo-Con artists and religious nuts took over the party beginning in the Ray-gun years the lines were drawn. In the thirty years since, Republican policies have been exposed as failures and sound policies, Clinton's, have been proven successes Bush was an easy takeover for the Neo-Cons and they doubled down on the Reagan years. Now, one only needs to look at the results.
A world-wide near depression; crooked markets with plenty of scandals; billion dollar bonuses for those who produce nothing; lobbyists out the ying-yang; monopolies like Wal-Mart taking over entire towns and putting out family businesses; a million dead Iraqi civilians; a trillion dollars spent on killing; and now the cherry on the sundae--an oil spill- created by what had to have been a bunch of dimwits who masturbated to Atlas Shrugged and have now destroyed an entire region of the country and world.
Until very recently, I thought the Righties of this country were simply ill-informed, would respond to logic, loved democracy, and shared the same basic values. I was wrong on all counts. They relish being ill-informed and brainwashed as they like to see themselves as victims of sinister things like the "liberal media" (complete bull) or plots to not adhere to the Constitution (which they do not understand). They do not think at all for themselves; forget thinking logically. Many of the few left in the Republican party , think that the Rapture is just around the corner and they are all going to have window seats. They do not support the basics of democracy such as public education, reasonable government regulation of big business groups, health care for all, social security, or much of anything that makes society better. They are the ones who when they see others trip and fall, walk right by and yell at them to watch their step or think that they have fallen because their God, a particularly nasty being, has not blessed them.
The Republican party is mentally ill, racist and has beliefs that are based on dreams. There is no such thing as the "free market", the number of abortions decreased only in the CLINTON years, and they want to hunt down and lock up or deport 12 million people, which is impossible. I hate Republicans because the vulnerable people I work with daily, Native Americans and the mentally ill, suffer under their policies. They claim to love freedom but do not hesitate filling our prisons mostly for non-violent drug crimes. They want the government off their backs but support killing abortion doctors to save lives. They never talk about cutting military spending which is the largest piece of the spending pie. They are irrelevant and mean. Support the troops they say as they pound their chests until that support means helping veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress or end up on the streets as homeless ones. They are a collection of End of Timers, Ayn Rand followers, Neo-Cons and supporters of the military/industrial complex that the last good, solid, honorable Republican, IKE, warned us all about in his last speech to America. Republicans have the Midas touch in reverse.
The problem is that these days the vast majority of those who call themselves Conservatives are instead what I call Consumatives, and anyone who has ever promoted nonsense like "drill, baby, drill" falls in that category.
There is nothing conservative about recklessly drilling, mining and burning the last fossil fuel on the planet. There is nothing conservative about reducing taxes while ignoring crumbling education, infrastructure and healthcare. Those who think otherwise can protest all they wish, but to cite just one obvious example, turning the Gulf into a cesspool ought to be proof enough even for those who put greed before good.
And please don't bore me with blaming environmentalism for pushing "enlightened" oil companies into deep water. See Texaco and Ecuador for the all-too obvious and all-too reprehensible answer to that canard.
Robert Jackson was correct, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but it does quite rightly insist that every citizen has a responsibility not only to provide for the common defense, but to promote the general welfare as well. As I've said many times before, true Conservatives like Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith argued (successfully to my mind) that the only legitimate purpose for govt was the commonweal. But instead, our perversion of republican democracy and capitalism serves mostly to promote the interests of multi-national corporations.
The "greed is good, govt is bad" idiocy of Reaganomics has proven to be the greatest disaster to ever befall this country, and frankly, we will survive it only by a miracle -- and even with one, it will take the rest of this century to get to where we were in 1980.
I'm turning off the lights, so I can mourn the impending death of prosperity.
To turn this ship around, should we choose to do so, will take time. As you so eloquently pointed out.
"Should we choose to do so" is still up in the air. Because their are plenty of people willing to vote against their best interest.
I'm your boss and I tell you that you can have all the overtime you want. You think that's great! You can work a few extra hours and get a few extra things. If I tell you the government has just declared the tax rate on overtime to 0%, I'm sure you will work it and get your latest toy. Is your greed bad? It's greed that makes you want the toy and to get it you have to work overtime.
Now turn that around. The tax rate on overtime is now 95%. How much overtime are you going to work? That toy just isn't worth the effort to get it now. Are you greedy because you want to keep your personal time?
The number of people who have a zero tax liability is getting close to 50%. EIC has made it so the tax rate on working more, because as your income goes up your EIC goes down, makes working extra not worth it. So why should you work more?
So where is the limit to the socially liberal? If you grew your food so you could eat, and I started to feed you, how long would it be before you quit growing food? You don't need to anymore. I'm feeding you. So what happens when I decide to quit feeding you? You don't have crops in the fields or food stored.
Where do we quit? Unemployment benefits, while I think are a good thing for a short period of time, are going on for almost 2 years now. I have a job. Why should I work more? The more I work the more EIC, aka free money, I loose.
I could easily increase my business. Why would I want to? I'm surely not going to spend $60,000 on a used truck and hire a $50,000 driver to drive it so I can get $5,000 in tax credits for creating a job. It would mean I would have to work more. Taxes, from federal to state are going to go up next year, so I'll get less and less from the extra work. Since I can't be greedy and keep the extra money, I think I'll be greedy and keep my free time.
Where does being a social liberal stop?
I seem to be running out of my own Pollyanna juice lately because I don't see positives in politics. I hear voices screaming. I hear votes being cast not to build but to destroy, to tear down because what has been built does no good. At least it appears to do nothing good.
It appears only to have learned how to stand in its own way and create, allow, desire inertia.
Perhaps this is what Depression truly is. Fog, air that is hard to breathe, no maps available, go away, too bad, don't want you, can't help you, don't want to help you because I must meet my bottom line, and while I am at it, I need my bonus, now get out of my way.
This is America? What have we allowed to happen to us? Is this why great democracies expire, diminish, disappear? Because in their own thirst for self gain, they lose sight of what made them great? of what made them matter? Are we about to implode because greed won first prize?
If I stand still and look within my soul, I can find my peace. If I look up and out, I see walls and doors slamming shut. I hear anger, anger, anger. When people are afraid and see no way out, many turn to anger. This kind of anger does not help. It is too angry to help. It is too caught up in its own pain. It becomes the violent rage of earthquake and volcano and typhoon and tornado: man made.
How many looked the other way to ensure capital gain and paid no mind to potential natural disaster to find more oil and make more wealth? How many should now stand in the dock and accept liability? Who will stand up and pay and who in the world decides what honest recompense shall be? How do we repair natural loss? How do we repair the loss of work and love and happiness and joy? How do we restore a natural balance millions of years in the making and destroyed in minutes because no one cared for what could not pay?
I fooled myself into believing that one man could bring the change he promised. I did not anticipate that his passion would be implemented through calm, cool, measured steps. My head understands sadly the time important steps take to allow change. My heart feels abandoned.
I turned 10 the year Kennedy was inaugurated. I barely understood politics then except that it was all local for me because everyone was from Boston or New England: the President, the Cardinal, even the Poet. And he was a president of hope. He lifted us. He made us believe. He made us care about each other. At least that is the way it seemed to me. Perhaps part of me continues to look for that hope, that belief, that caring. They are my essence. I will always look for that. I thought America looked for that. At least my America.
When did my America become solely obsessed with greed? Unless we can free ourselves of our collective obsession, we will fall to nothing and we will not be missed. Is that what we really want?
Where are wisdom and justice and fairness and love? What political party claims these? Fights for these? Is willing to lose votes and seats and power for these. My thoughts race on but enough for now. Did your piece make me think, Kent? Well, yes.
But, of course, clowns like you want to be rid of the social safety net altogether. You think the halt and the lame and the elderly should just die -- and do it quickly -- so there's more stuff to stick in your wallets.
Aynal retentive apologists for jungle ethics claim they have the facts on their side, when the fact is they have nothing but a corrupt religion based on the false premise that self-interest ultimately serves the public interest. Total bullshit.
Let's look at the facts for just a moment rather than your strained hypothetical. The fact is the minimum wage was not raised in this country for a decade thanks to "compassionate" conservatives. In fact, thanks to those same conservatives while running this country refused to prosecute companies that hired illegals, the effective minimum wage declined during that period.
As a result of those wrong-headed policies and others, wages overall flatlined, while productivity increased by roughly 80% and profits soared. Were excess or windfall profits instituted to try to correct this injustice? Hell no, taxes were cut to and thru the bone, largely for the benefit of those who didn't need tax cuts and some, like Warren Buffet -- the capitalists' capitalist -- who protested that they didn't want them.
Meanwhile, the idiot you voted for started two wars, and the dick and donnie who manipulated the dullard shoveled most of the money to their friends at Halliburton. Problem is, those wars were not paid for, and now we all are and will continue to suffer the consequences.
Bottom line? Conservatives want the benefits of a civilized society without having to pay for them. 'Mo, tea, suh?
In short, don't come on with your defense of greed while they consequences of it are still so fresh in the minds of those who have one.
But, of course, clowns like you want to be rid of the social safety net altogether. You think the halt and the lame and the elderly should just die -- and do it quickly -- so there's more stuff to stick in your wallets.
Aynal retentive apologists for jungle ethics claim they have the facts on their side, when the fact is they have nothing but a corrupt religion based on the false premise that self-interest ultimately serves the public interest. Total bullshit.
Let's look at the facts for just a moment rather than your strained hypothetical. The fact is the minimum wage was not raised in this country for a decade thanks to "compassionate" conservatives. In fact, thanks to those same conservatives while running this country refused to prosecute companies that hired illegals, the effective minimum wage declined during that period.
As a result of those wrong-headed policies and others, wages overall flatlined, while productivity increased by roughly 80% and profits soared. Were excess or windfall profits instituted to try to correct this injustice? Hell no, taxes were cut to and thru the bone, largely for the benefit of those who didn't need tax cuts and some, like Warren Buffet -- the capitalists' capitalist -- who protested that they didn't want them.
Meanwhile, the idiot you voted for started two wars, and the dick and donnie who manipulated the dullard shoveled most of the money to their friends at Halliburton. Problem is, those wars were not paid for, and now we all are and will continue to suffer the consequences.
Bottom line? Conservatives want the benefits of a civilized society without having to pay for them. 'Mo, tea, suh?
In short, don't come on with your defense of greed while they consequences of it are still so fresh in the minds of those who have one.
Well not only is Catnlion correct, but do you see how simple and logical his argument is? Easy to follow and understand?
And then we have yours, which, if we manage to follow it, we must make accept all kinds of assumptions that you make that are in fact false and without basis. All Catnlion asks you to do is understand simple human nature, and how without incentive there is no motivation.
In short, the clear straw man argument is your own, because your straw man asks for tea and I guess doesn't want to pay a fair price for that tea. I'm not sure what alternate universe you are working in, but you might want to read some more about minimum wage. Here is your required reading:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder041699.asp
But, of course, clowns like you want to be rid of the social safety net altogether. You think the halt and the lame and the elderly should just die -- and do it quickly -- so there's more stuff to stick in your wallets.
Aynal retentive apologists for jungle ethics claim they have the facts on their side, when the fact is they have nothing but a corrupt religion based on the false premise that self-interest ultimately serves the public interest. Total bullshit.
Let's look at the facts for just a moment rather than your strained hypothetical. The fact is the minimum wage was not raised in this country for a decade thanks to "compassionate" conservatives. In fact, thanks to those same conservatives while running this country refused to prosecute companies that hired illegals, the effective minimum wage declined during that period.
As a result of those wrong-headed policies and others, wages overall flatlined, while productivity increased by roughly 80% and profits soared. Were excess or windfall profits instituted to try to correct this injustice? Hell no, taxes were cut to and thru the bone, largely for the benefit of those who didn't need tax cuts and some, like Warren Buffet -- the capitalists' capitalist -- who protested that they didn't want them.
Meanwhile, the idiot you voted for started two wars, and the dick and donnie who manipulated the dullard shoveled most of the money to their friends at Halliburton. Problem is, those wars were not paid for, and now we all are and will continue to suffer the consequences.
Bottom line? Conservatives want the benefits of a civilized society without having to pay for them. 'Mo, tea, suh?
In short, don't come on with your defense of greed while they consequences of it are still so fresh in the minds of those who have one.
And even if any of what the article you cited claims is true about the minimum wage, the fact remains real wages have stagnated under supply-slime economics -- while productivity and profits soared.
"In the first quarter of 2006, wages and salaries represented 45 percent of gross domestic product, down from almost 50 percent in the first quarter of 2001 and a record 53.6 percent in the first quarter of 1970, according to the Commerce Department. Each percentage point now equals about $132 billion."
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/08/real_wages_decline_under_bush.php
For more facts about how supply-slime economics has screwed the average American, go here:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/gdp-per-capita.html
The gist of the chart shown there is this:
"... the average American's income (median income) doubled between 1948 and 1973 - so within one generation. Then between 1973 and now, it went up by 1.25 times.
How many times do you see graphs for median income? When people want to illustrate how a country is doing economically, the first reach is for GDP numbers. And a graph of GDP growth shows America doing steadily better ever since WW2, at a consistently pace. But from 1978 or so onwards, the regular middle-class American all but stopped benefiting. While GDP kept growing, he was excluded from its fruits.
In fact, looking at this graph, you see that the median income did not increase at all between around 1978 and around 1993. Much like it's stagnated between 2000 and now. That increase by 1.25 times that did occur almost entirely took place in the mid- and late nineties.
Coincidence that it was the Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr administrations that was middle-class income stagnate even as GDP kept growing? Or the consequence of Reaganomics and its offspring?"
http://able2know.org/topic/124254-1
The fact is most of the profit from increased productivity went not to those who earned it, but to those who speculated with that wealth on wild-assed casino bets in the financial industry -- bets that are still being made with other people's money.
I'll try and respond later when I have more time and more research, but in the meantime I found this which I think address some of the issue:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder101107.php3
What the heck do you think happened to those profits? Did CEOs and the like get pay raises? Sure they did. Did they take all the increase in profits as a pay raise? Not even close.
If you are looking for those profits look at the stocks and bonds you own. Look into your 401k and your employer's match. Where do you think that match comes from? Profits. Same things with the dividends that companies pay out. They come from dividends. So if you want me to believe this line of stuff you will have to tell me that you own no stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401k etc. Something tells me you have a great nest egg for your retirement.
I also would like you to define a term that I hear thrown around that has no meaning. Please define for me "windfall profits". You're hell bent on taxing away these "windfall profits" so tell us what they are so I don't make any of them.
Almost forgot.
"Bottom line? Conservatives want the benefits of a civilized society without having to pay for them"
You can't be more wrong. I have no problem with a safety net for people when things happen. Should the government be doing it all? Nope. People took care of each other. If your barn burned down the town's people got together and had a barn raising. When somebody died, or moved in and was not unpacked yet, the neighbors brought over food dishes to help out. Now, people look to the government for handouts, and people quit doing it because the government will take care of them.
Let's look at unemployment for an example. Do I think there should be a relief method to help when something goes wrong? Yes I do. While I want a limited amount of help you seem to want it to go on and on and on. So where do we cut it off? One month? Six months? We are now at 99 months. Why don't we just say you can be on unemployment forever so we don't have to worry about the limit anymore and coming back to Congress to get another round of funds approved.
What will happen to peoples drive to go back to work? I heard somebody at the lunch counter the other day say that at his last job he made X amount and he will just stay on unemployment because he isn't going to take a job making less than that. If his unemployment ran out, he would take the lesser paying job.
Even in the animal world animals force their young to be on their own. At a certain point a mommy bird forced her chicks to leave the nest. You want everyone to be able to stay in the nest as long as they want. I say at some point they have to make the decision to fly on their own.
(Thanks as well to my wife for making the suggestion to do that.)
Bosh, thanks. I think you're right that storm trooper is not really my style.
Jay, I agree with you that labels are quite powerful and their effects should be considered carefully. I often cringe at the notion of having a party affiliation, and yet I do think some good comes of having two properly-functioning parties—see my The “Two Unprincipled Parties” System for notes on that.
Retablo, to the first of several remarks you wrote above, while there are meanings of greed that might extend into other realms, they aren't in play here. The greed referred to in the “greed is good” phrase is specifically economic. And it's not me asserting it, it's me responding to it.
That you don't think you know anyone who thinks this way is no proof there are not people who think it. But, more to the point, if you are wiling to say “I define capitalism as simply having the freedom to do what you feel is the right thing for you to do” then you're creating no barrier of a legal, economic, or even social form that will keep someone from being greedy. And while a great many people may not be overly greedy, I think it's just clear that some people are. The burden is not on me to show that people act as if they are greedy. If you want to claim they don't, you'll have to put up better evidence than merely suggesting innocently that you don't know what I could be talking about.
(And if you don't understand why the failure to create a prohibition is an issue, you might see the gray box in the right column of my article Whatever Should Be, Should Be.)
Obviously we're never going to agree, but I'll give you my parting shot -- I'm in no position to count my dividends, but for the record my wife's entire retirement account after 40 years of hard work went south with AIG.
Like I said, your side would be well-advised to lay off the supply-slime rhetoric until the wounds have healed. But, of course, you won't because evidence doesn't matter to the Aynal Retentive.
Fred, we obviously have a few differences of opinion on things, but I'm glad you're able to pick out some points of overlap, too.
Steve (McGarrett), I'm not critiquing the party based on a bad movie, nor building straw man arguments to debunk. I'm specifically following on a previous post of mine where I had waxed poetic about wishing the Republican Party would find a place for me and noting that I've given up on that hope.
Also, since you mention it, I didn't ask for the cover pick on this; frankly, I'd rather have had the cover for the first part of this than the second, since I thought that piece much stronger. But we take what we can get visibility-wise. I'm glad for once not to be buried when writing about a topic I think deserves some visibility. But if you have an issue with the OS editorial choices, this probably isn't the forum for it. And anyway, there are plenty of forums that have lots of space for people to speak out with a Republican point of view without letting anyone from other points of view in, if that's what you prefer. I agree with y ou this site has a decidedly leftward leaning, but what am I to do about that? It's part of the capitalist system. :) Nice of you to hang out and keep us honest. I can't get you onto the cover, but I'll try to deal fairly with you here.
Jay, can you elaborate on the impending death of prosperity? I want to make sure I understand what you're referring to before I can respond usefully .
Catnlion, you pose a number of slippery slope questions that are really not in play. On greed, you suggest some greed is good. Indeed, but I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was that the bald-faced statement “greed is good” is not true. It overgeneralizes. For example, people often talk about how we mustn't raise taxes on business because businesses need the money to hire people. But businesses are, in many cases, not hiring people even when they have money to do it. I would be perfectly susceptible to discussing whether we should raise taxes on businesses that are trying to hire people—maybe we shouldn't. But telling me I can't raise taxes on businesses generally just because there might somewhere be a business that I shouldn't raise taxes on? That's another question. I'm speaking by analogy, since you didn't raise that particular issue, but you did seem to be defending greed generally by citing some specific reasons where greed is not harmful. I'm just saying that's not a reason to say “stop thinking there are issues with greed.” And anyway, all I said was that greed is greed and good is good. Let's talk about good separately from greed so we don't cloud matters. Do you have a problem with that? I hope not.
You also ask where being a social liberal stops. That's not exactly what we were discussing, but certainly no one here (other than the detractors) has proposed that there is unlimited budget. In fact, I think most liberals these days understand that things are budget-limited, and so they are ok with that. Now, we're in a specific weird place where some investment ahead of revenues is critical to get us out of certain messes we're in (brought to us by a Republican administration, I might add).
And there are Republicans saying we should allow deficit-spending right now, too, and still more who have advocated it on other occasions. It's commonly done for wars, for example. If I'm just laid off, you might think I should spend nothing, but clearly I have to spend to buy a new suit to interview or books to study to interview for a new job or any of a number of other expenses that are not being paid for by my income even though there will be some additional expenses/debt piled up in so doing.
To simply stop spending is not always right. Sometimes one takes on additional debt before it all settles out. It's scary, yes. But sometimes necessary. Businesses know this, and many Republicans are businessmen, so the innocent “we'd never do that” statements made by so many Republicans lately don't ring true. For example, when times are tough you see “one-time expenses” ... sometimes a lot of them. The Administration is not spending money on an expansive government, but it is doing targeted spending and even some investment.
It would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to suggest we should close down our educational system, for example, just because we're short cash. If we're in economic trouble, money spent on educating people is going to pay dividends later. It's a good risk—a much better risk than the kinds of stupid stuff that got us into this mess.
These were just assertions by him. He was a thoughtful guy and he wrote much interesting stuff. But the last few decades have tended to show that quotes more like “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” may be the ones that are worth pondering. (See my article Rethinking Mega-Corporations if you want to see at least one discussion on how power corrupting might be remedied.)
Also, you write, “I don't see positives in politics.”
The only thing I can say is that there is no alternative to politics. Politics is merely a description of the power structure among people. There is always such a structure, whether it's a dictatorship, a democracy, a bullydom, or anarchy (which, ultimately, is probably a bullydom ... even dictatorships have times when no one is in contention and things are calm, but the question is really how power disputes are resolved when they come up and there is always a mechanism, whether effective/efficient/pleasant or not).
You ask, “Where are wisdom and justice and fairness and love?”
Strangely, I think Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians all want this. Their political opponents may disagree, but I think really people do want that. They differ in how the define the words, perhaps—what is happiness? justice? wisdom? They disagree in who and what they are willing to disregard as “bad data” or “acceptable casualties.” And none of them has ever been allowed to carry out a program of their own philosophy exclusively, without the meddling of the other, so they can only make hopeful claims that their system works. We have worked with compromises to one degree or another and we have partial data on how well things would go. I tend to think we have very good data but I know my Republican friends will disagree. That doesn't mean I'll cede their point. But it means I will stop short of saying they're after ill intent. There are probably some bad people out there, but there is an awful lot of disagreement on terminology and plenty of disagreement on actual goals and tactics once you normalize the terminology. Life is complicated. It's even more complicated if you want to succeed without killing of the right of others to disagree...
But on the issue of minimum wage specifically, rather than re-argue that whole issue here, see my article Tax Policy and the Dewey Decimal System.
Adam Smith recognized self-interest as a useful trait, but one that should not be allowed to override the nobler virtues."(1)
1. http://capital-flow-watch.net/2010/03/11/soviet-style-capitalism-on-wall-street-2/
there's nothing in your linked YouTube video on motivation that is inconsistent with Capitalism. That's specifically why I don't define Capitalism in terms of pure economics. If you do then I can see why you would think this video is some great revelation. "Doing what you think is the right thing for you to do," as I roughly defined it, has everything to do with "autonomy, mastery purpose."
So I guess this means you agree with me?
A government, if it is to work as a means of directing a society, must be based upon principles and ethics.
How the hell to make that happen is beyond my capacity to imagine at the moment, but I'll get back to you.
Rated.
I don't see any population of educated thinking Republicans who are actually attempting to formulate ideas which might be seen as rational policies ... by any standard, even a very generous one.
"Just say NO!" ... is not a rational prescription for national policy.
McGarrett50 disagrees with me a fair bit, and yet is still respectful, so he and I have some discussions I think are interesting and useful. You could learn a lot from him in terms of being civil.
Address me in a less pejorative way on another forum sometime and maybe I'll try again, but remarks like “If you do then I can see why you would think this video is some great revelation.” don't cut it with me. Even before getting to the condescending nature of the reply, it presupposes I said something I did not. I'll not delete your comments so far on the thread, even though I find them distasteful, and others can judge for themselves, but I'm done speaking to you here.
You might, of course, have not meant anything quite that literally. But I guess maybe that's the takeaway of my message. Leaving it to individuals is chancy. When we see religion encroaching through government, as in what the Republicans have been doing with the hardline Religious Right, you see what happens when people get principles mixed into politics.
See my article The “Two Unprincipled Parties” System if you want more on what I'm vaguely babbling about here. It's a subtle point, but ...