The Politics Thread

[Roman]

Well, let's see.

My problem with some of these remarks is that, I don't know many conservatives. I just know the ones I have seen or heard on television or the radio, and those I have read in print. I will try not paint a whole group of people by what a small group of those same people say and do. To myself, that is, arrogant presumption. As far as Buffet, one, do you know beyond a doubt that he doesn't make charitable contributions, Max? he has made these in private. Because he does not advertise these contributions does not mean he doesn't make them, yes? As far as MSNBC, there are two other CNNs who either have corporate owners or have international interests who have a big monetary stake in their companies (FOX NEWS). The same people who are railed against on the networks own a chunk of RM stock in News Corp.

I will always have deep difficulty in any political party that says one one hand, "we want small government" and on the other, creates legislation that will do nothing more than curtail the rights of many Americans. We have a CNM who helped intensify the war beat ten years ago, who then flipped and said it was wrong to invade Iraq without any culpability on their part.

That is where we as a people step in.

We are the bosses. We are the ones charged with keeping our government and the Forth Estate honest and above board. Maybe if we found out what and who these people truly represent, and stop with the broad paintbrush (of which I have used myself), we can truly fix many of the problems we ave.

[Max]

I'm sure Buffett has made charitable contributions, Roman. What I am not so sure about is if any of these charitable contributions were given to the government. Furthermore, on Berkshire Hathaway's corporate income tax returns (which are separate from Buffett's own personal income tax returns), I'm willing to bet almost anything that Buffett and his accountants took advantage of just about every possible legal tax deduction. Buffett may be personally liberal, but a major reason why he has become such a huge success is because he is skilled in reducing the costs of doing business.

However, for argument's sake, let's assume that Buffett did indeed give extra money to the government (from his personal wealth). I highly doubt the same can be said for every Hollywood celebrity who also adheres to the liberal philosophy that the wealthy pay too little in taxes.

With all due respect, I really don't see how this is a relevant counter-argument. That's because neither CNN nor Fox News markets themselves as the network for liberals, nor are they the news network of choice for most of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. (Yes, that's an assumption, but if you're intellectually honest with yourself, you know it's a damn good one to make.) MSNBC, on the other hand, features its talking heads praising this movement while--at the same time--is part of a company that gets much of its financing from Wall Street. To me, that is the height of hypocrisy.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

So, IYO, because MSNBC is marketed to 'liberals', they should be held to a different standard than the other two? And, once again, Max, you are painting everyone with a truly wide brush here. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have called themselves entertainers, not journalists, and yet, the ones you mentioned only come from Hollywood. If they are Americans, do they not have the same rights and privileges that we all have under our Constitution?

I'm trying to be fair here, but I'm starting to see a little bit of what Brian is talking about.

[Roman]

Oh, Max, I'll be the judge of what's intellectually honest and what are blatant lies. Don't mean to offend, but that statement did come off as rather arrogant to me. JMO.

[Max]

I'm not holding MSNBC to a different standard; I'm just pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. You've seen me criticize Fox News before, and I'll do it again by pointing out that their talking heads are hypocritical when they advocate for smaller government yet push for increases in defense spending, or for government regulation of morality.

I refuse to adhere to an ideology (knowning that both conservatism and liberalism are both badly flawed), and therefore expect to get attacked from both you and Brian. That's fine with me.

So, you mean to suggest that most of those Occupy Wall Street protesters prefer Fox News or CNN over MSNBC (and that I was lying when I indicated the opposite was true)? If that's the case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I apologize for being "arrogant," but failing to acknowledge the obvious is just downright insulting. I know that you like to lecture me (as you are entitled to do) about not painting people with a wide brush, but it would be equally as absurd to suggest that most of the Birthers weren't racists.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Max

[GoldenDogs]

Again, Max, you seem to be misrepresenting what has been said. I haven't asked you to adhere to a specific ideology, nor did Roman to be honest. I can't speak for Roman, but I'm simply asking that you be consistent... dude, you're all over the map. It seems as if you have no core beliefs now... I'm not particularly happy with either party these days. Most of the Republican candidates I see are pandering in the same way I perceive you to be doing, Max; they hide their core beliefs in an attempt to secure an otherwise out of reach section of the electorate. You seem to shift gears and attempt to mold your image and characterize yourself depending upon the person you are speaking with. I plainly see that you are trying to project yourself as a moderate... Maybe you have legitimately moved to the center - I can't read your mind. Whatever the case, you seem to be contradicting yourself now more than ever in this attempt to be moderate. There is a good reason why folks on both the left AND right are no fans of moderates...

Now, I wouldn't say that both conservatism and liberalism are both badly flawed - there are good and bad points to both political viewpoints. Remove politicians and the desire to seize more power from the equation and go grassroots and you'll find that regular people coming to the table representing both ideologies have more in common than not. Remove radicalism from any viewpoint and you're left with basically good people who want to figure out how to live in harmony and do the best for themselves and their loved ones.

I have no idea if all that I have just said makes any sense... I'm not spending a lot of time composing my thoughts - I think it works better for me to just articulate my ideas without worrying about how to compose them. In the past I think I've come off poorly to some trying to express my thoughts in a colorful way rather than just come out with it... Don't have time to be fancy in my words so I'm keeping it pretty bare bones. Hope it makes sense. If not... Oh well. :-) I didn't mean it in a bad way... LOL

[Max]

Brian, you certainly do not come across poorly in trying to express your thoughts. And if I have misrepresented your views (or that of Roman's), it wasn't intentional (and I apologize).

I do have core political beliefs, but I am willing to change them if new evidence comes to light that suggests such beliefs might be wrong. (For instance, I was long opposed to gay marriage, not because I was bigoted, but because opponents argued that if gay marriage was legalized then polygamy could be next. When this did not happen--in the states that legalized gay marriage--I changed my opinion on the issue.) We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter, but I think that being willing to change your mind on some issues doesn't make you weak, but rather makes you stronger and more open to reason. (In fact, Ronald Reagan himself did a major about face when he opposed Medicare and other forms of big government after spending decades championing the New Deal. Did he change his mind just so that he could pander to a certain crowd?)

You are certaintly entitled to believe that I'm just trying to be a moderate, but I personally know that this is not the case. At this point, however, I don't feel that there is anything I can say or do to convince you (or Roman) otherwise, but I am open to your suggestions.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

Be who you are. But also, when myself or Brian or anyone else makes a comment that you might not agree with, please, don't get so defensive. In your response to me, that is what it seemed like, but Brian reaffirmed they same thing that I was saying, and also he was consistent with what he said to you. We are all trying to have a civil, yet passionate discussion on the politics of the day. If this is going to regress into the shouting matches we had 3 years ago...that truly would be a shame.

[GoldenDogs]

Don't sweat it, Max... I was just pointing the inconsistency that I had noted having read your material for many years now, first at WoST and now here. I concede that people can change their minds about issues... I have, myself, about many things over the years. Some things I'm still conflicted about, others not so much. But my core beliefs - the notion that I am still rather conservative - don't change based on the stupid things certain conservatives may say. And while I acknowledge that sometimes it seems the values both liberals and conservatives often embrace sometimes seem to be a moving target, I insist there are still core beliefs that don't change. I'm not Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh... neither of those gentlemen represent in full what I stand for or may believe in - though there may be points I agree with every now and then, etc. I suspect Roman might agree that while he may lean left, not every view presented by a Democrat represents his personal views of each so-called "Liberal" issue. As I said previously, I doubt very seriously that Roman would suddenly declare himself a conservative because some Democrat said or did something foolish.

We've hashed this one out... no point in beating a dead horse. Let's move on, Max. I agree with Roman's last post... be yourself. Whoever that may be... LOL!

There have often been great discussions on issues here in the past and I look forward to more in the future. On some things, we'll all just have to agree to disagree. And, Roman, three years feels like forever ago... We've all lived some since then. I sent you a private message...

It's cool, Max... Let's move on to some fresh material...

[alphanguy74]

Brian, you mentioned that Entrepeneurism is what drives our economy and not governemt jobs... but I think BOTH do. Government includes local government as well... Police, Fire, Teachers, Department of Transportation workers, all paid for by taxpayers. Government contracts that are awarded to PRIVATE companies to perform work for the government as well. the fact remains that most people cannot just be an entrepenuer out of the blue without help. some people have nobody and nothing to draw from, so the government has helped them... this is not a bad thing. Could I own my own company if my parents and myself didn't have our homes and land GIVEN to us by my grandmother? Probably not, I'd be some working stiff kissing some boss' ass and hating my job every day and living in a trailer or some dingy apartment (Because my chosen career doesn't pay alot of money). Everyone gets help along the way. I see some people who have the attitude of "I won't give my children anything, they have to make their own way"... thank God our family believes that family is there to take care of each other. So yes, my grandmother gave me my inheritance 5 years before she died, and although it wasn't enough to build a house and pay cash for it, I built it anyway, and did all the finish work myself so I could still pay cash for my house, and my mother helped me do it... yes, me and my 60 year old mother shingled the roof of my house, picked up the rocks along the road and built the stone wall in my living room, and sanded and varnished the hardwood floors, as well as installing them. Our family believed that if you didn't have enough money for want you wanted, you MADE it for yourself. So I did just that, and it even included making my own dining room table out of the trunk of a fallen oak tree. But my grandmother also had our help and love whenver she needed it, and she needed alot of it when she had alzheimer's for the last 2 years of her life. But we did it, because that's what family is for. We didn't do it glady, because it was heartbreaking to see her not know who we were, then she would gain enough awareness to know what was happening to her, and she would start crying. So we took care of her until the very end, just like we took care of her 10, 20, 30 years ago whenever she needed our help with anything. So you see, my entire family is a very socialist family, I just don't believe my responsiblity, or anyone's responsibility stops at my doorstep. So, I guess I'm a stupid idealist, but I want the world to work like my family does.... but all we get is a bunch of morons who seem to be fighting over the same cookie. I heard Glenn Beck the other night outright say that no matter what you do, who you are, there is no such thing as having too much money. Isn't that the best definition of greed that one can think of?

Edited October 23, 2011 by alphanguy74

[alphanguy74]

So, to expound on government jobs spurring economic growth... I can think of the biggest example of all... the interstate highway system. First, you have all the jobs of the people who build and maintain it, then think fo all the myriad of businessess in towns along that highway system. Right there is a government project that spurred billions of businesses, and enables the entrepenuers and private sectors to ahve great success... to ship their goods cross country efficiently, all the jobs held by truck drivers, gas station personnell, restaurants, motels, the list goes on and on and on. do you think we'd have this kind of growth if we were all driving on two lane gravel roads? (which by the way, I live on)

Edited October 23, 2011 by alphanguy74

[GoldenDogs]

Hey Alpha! I agree that the government should be there to help people in need... It is an excellent use of taxpayer funds and it is what those funds have always been intended for. However, I believe that government employees should not make up the bulk of a free market system jobs. I believe our economy works best when driven by private business. Taxes derived from private business is what should pay for those government jobs you mentioned... An economic model where the government pays workers, then takes money from those workers to fund themselves? Ummm... It's not sustainable. Socialism doesn't really work... In many ways, I liken it to welfare-dependent folks - we all know some able-bodied folks that have milked the system - receiving government assistance at a fixed level, receiving just enough to get by but never enough to, for example, buy a new car or house. And some people are just fine with existing rather than achieving. That's what dependence does. And it's the old adage... if you've never had to work for it, then you likely won't appreciate it. I apologize for being simplistic or seemingly lacking compassion with all of this, but it's the only way I know to get the point across. Alpha, I support government assistance when people utilize appropriately to move ahead in life, not linger in a state of mediocrity because it's easier and free.

I don't take at issue at all with that... And I absolutely agree with you that it's what family should do. I remember you talking about this before, working with your mom on the house, etc. Alpha, you ARE an entrepreneur... and I would call you a successful businessman. You are running a business... Now, as you have said, your chosen career may not pay a lot of money but I'd call it a success because it EXISTS and you forge ahead. You're doing what so many other people either can't or won't do. I totally believe that it is on the backs of people like you, me, and other friends here who work each day and pay the taxes that fund our teachers, firefighters, police, etc., that keep this country going.

You and your family are far from socialists... I see you as the backbone of this country. I don't connect what families should do with what government should do... I believe it is two totally different things. I truly believe government's job is to provide the environment for you to achieve on your own without burdensome hurdles to overcome. And, in turn, it is our job to strive to build the best life, career, family, whatever in the environment that achivement-friendly environment the government provides.

As for the Glenn Beck comment... I actually agree with that. Because responsible, compassionate people who attain lots of money can do very good things with that money. With wealth, such a person (like, say, Warren Buffett - who was mentioned in this thread earlier, or maybe Steve Soros?) could establish or grow a business that requires employees who could get paid well to do good work - so that they could save money to eventually start their own business that would require employees, etc. I think maybe that it how it is suppose to work. Because unfettered creativity and innovation (Steve Jobs, anyone?) can result in untold positives in the world. Sure, with money comes greed... But you can't really throw the baby out with the bath water, right?

Besides, I trust the judgement of the average person with handling their own money moreso than the government. Speaking of greed... perhaps all of the money our government takes in to "do for us" has resulted in greed? As the overseer of all of our tax dollars, do you really trust the government to handle it appropriately? It isn't exactly working out well for us, is it? I think that's why socialism fails... The thing you pointed out, Alpha - greed!

[alphanguy74]

I think that it fails because people in our government that oversee distribution of our tax dollars can bought. Socialism works great if done right. Even outside your own family.... I come from a culture of farmers, where people swap produce with each other all the time. The problem comes in when you have both ends of the spectrum, greedy assholes and lazy deadbeats both using the system for their own advantage. Would you have such a problem with welfare if people were required to perform work to recieve it? and as far as trusting the average person more than the government to handle the money... to tell the truth, you can't trust either one. I have a friend who doens't get any government assistance, but he is my age... and he doesn't actively look for work. He just lives with his parents (age 42) and what little money he does get he spends on discretionary crap and cigarettes. So in the end, you need regulations to keep the riff raff out of the system, and you need a HYBRID of capatlism and socailism. Basically what we have now, except we need about 25% more spent on health care, and 25% LESS spent on Military. for the amount that was spent on the iraq war, we COULD provide universal health care. All because we feel the need to defend all that fuc*ing oil. BTW... where did my grandmother get all that money for me to build my house with? (which incidentally, was just 60,000$ I don't require glamorous surroundings) Her and my grandfather were just angus beef farmers... she made the bulk of that from being frugal and saving and getting a great return on her CD's during all the double digit interest rates during the Jimmy Carter years. So as much grief as people gave Jimmy Carter, for us, it was a wonderful thing. It just was bad for people who carried a bunch of debt.

Edited October 23, 2011 by alphanguy74

[GoldenDogs]

Unfortunately, that's why it will never work, Alpha. The "elite" remain the "elite" while the "peasants" do all the work and reap little more benefits than just surviving, all the while working to produce goods that keep the "elite" in their positions of power. What country today embraces socialism? Do those people enjoy the benefits of freedom the way we do?

But somebody somewhere along the line had to buy something to grow crops... equipment, tools, etc. It was cool back in the day when people paid their doctor with a chicken or eggs or a hearty meal. But, like or not, the economy runs on currency - or at least numbers representing currency. In the end, cash is still king and you can't obtain even basic necessities without it. What would help some with this is a simplification of the tax code. Just a thought...

I don't have a problem with welfare when it is being used as intended; it is supposed to be a safety net of temporary support for those in need until they get back on their feet. It was never intended to be a career. But now that you mention it... How about taking some of those tax dollars certain welfare recipients piss away in booze or cigarettes or Little Debbie cakes and making them earn it through work... Run them through a training program of some kind, then FORCE THEM out of the house when qualified to look for a job. Wait, they have half a dozen kids? Then use our tax money to fund child care for them. But wait, they want to have six MORE kids? Sorry, lady... identify the father(s) so that we may lean on HIM to refund the taxpayers. At some point, she'll become infertile... seriously... Then put her ass back to work if she refuses to play along. But wait, there are no JOBS available? There might be if we offer some tax incentives (or punishments?) to businesses currently employing illegals to send then packing and begin employing freshly trained welfare folks. Just think if Obama's stimulus money had been used for this rather than whatever it was used for... That's where money can REALLY do good, instead of paying off unions. It's a choice government and the people need to make in an investment in the US...

Again, government has no place in managing health care in the United States. Free market always works best... I don't want to rehash the whole health care issue so I won't go into detail on it, but socialized medicine is already practiced in this country (ie: Medicare) and it ain't great. Again, like welfare, you get just enough to survive but not enough to thrive. I agree to cutting military spending if we bring all troops home (except, of course, strategic bases used to defend allies), reassign them to secure our borders... And STOP giving our enemies money, PERIOD. Fund our allies, NOT our enemies, as we continue to do! Tax dollars saved this way could be used to develop alternative energy that actually WORKS - all the while we should be developing our vast oil reserves that sit untouched. Enough with this regulatory crap... We have the technology to drill without damaging fragile ecosystems... That's where PROPER and ENFORCABLE rules and regulations come in - do it right without being selectively punitive or unreasonable. Then we won't have a need to defend oil abroad.

Honestly, left-leaning policies have made it next to impossible for America to exist WITHOUT dependence on foreign oil. I know the strategy is to force American acceptance of alternative energy, but we're not to a point where alternative energy resources can be used on a grand scale in a cost-effective way. Let's move in the direction, but we STILL need to utilize our natural resources until we do. If we move too fast, our already fragile economy will collapse even further... then we have ZERO ability to put a dime toward exploring alternative energy solutions. We need to be smart about these things... and we're not.

Edited October 23, 2011 by GoldenDogs

[alphanguy74]

Brian... my point about healthcare is that I don't feel it should be RUN by the government... just FUNDED by the Government for those who can't afford it. My idea was to keep everything as it was for the most part, except pass the pre-existing condition clause... and I felt that there should be a non-profit government option that is ONLY available to people below a certain income level. And Medicaid to everyone less than 200% of the poverty level. So it would basically be on a sliding scale, and a single person who made 40,000$ a year or more would be on their own. Free enterprise with a safety net for all, and I mean ALL... is what I want. Like I said, a hybrid of socialism and capitalism. I agree with you about brining the military home. The military spending is just far too out of control, we do NOT need to be the police force for the whole world. Alternative energy is something that can be used effectively, and work. It just needs to have the same amount of dedication put into it that the internet and computer technology has had. If solar panels can be made to be more efficient, that would truly be the best... because you ahve big, flat roofs on every big box store and strip mall in this country, alll equipped with electrical service that can interconnect those solar panels with the grid. But coal campanies once again, have bought the politicians so the technology doesn't progress like it should. and although you don't see it on your little suburban street, this is what our depndence on coal does to some in this country:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoOIB3_7bzU&feature=related

Edited October 23, 2011 by alphanguy74