Readers of this blog know I enjoy talking about the Constitution. Not as an attorney, I’m not one, nor in a scholastic manner. I like talking about it as a concept which I believe has set this country apart from any other country in terms of success for its citizens.
Last week President Obama made his now famous remark that successful people did not become successful because of their own actions, but because of the Government. It is a take-off on the “It takes a Village” concept from the sixties. I believe the President has a strong belief that people need help in order to be successful. His remarks come at a great time because we citizens are trying to decide who will lead us for the next four years. I would like to tie this to the discussion about the Constitution.
Our Founders were fearful of a large Federal Government. They spent time trying to limit any success the Government might have in assuming a large role in an individual citizen’s life. Over the last 200 years courts and politicians have moved away from this concept little by little. So, today we have a Federal Government that is large, intrusive, expensive and non-responsive to the individual. Because of this a divide has been created in this country. The political divide is between the big government people and the Capitalists.
The political divide has caused our political parties to place their own philosophies ahead of critical issues facing this country. Nothing is getting done because each side fears the other is dooming the country to failure. These issues are so varied that neither party is right 100% of the time. We the people have lost our common ground. The loser in each political disagreement is the people of this country.
So along comes President Obama and with clarity defines the problem so we can see the naked truth of what divides us.
Here is how I see it. President Obama and his supporters believe in the Government. They believe a large number of people have a limited chance of success and face starvation if not for the Government. They are people who truly want the best for everybody, but fear most people cannot make their way without help. They believe that the right leaders can save people. This is a very attractive thought process, were it not for history, a very defensible position.
People like me believe in people and their abilities. We believe in a small Government with limited powers. We believe in giving everybody an equal opportunity but cannot guarantee equal outcomes. We understand people have different abilities, work ethics and desires. We believe that some will fail; actually we understand that some people will fail a number of times. But we believe having a freedom to fail gives people the freedom to succeed.
So now we are presented a clear choice. History tells me we have faced similar decisions in the past and made good decisions. I believe the American people still understand we are special and this comes from having a great Constitution.
You're clearly an expert on healthy applications of market economics, so you understand that what GM was looking at would have had a significant ripple effect throughout the automotive manufacturing industry and beyond. It would not only have affected GM, but Ford and many others. Of course this whole situation is a win/win for you because had the government not saved GM you would be lamenting the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US. I don't share your unyielding belief in the invisible hand. Especially in light of the revelations of the past few years of market fixing & cheating, I think the invisible hand is at best a wishful dream. However, since you so believe in the Market, we certainly agree that all oil subsidies must be stopped immediately. See, we can agree.
then take a class in Rhetoric. Pay attention when they start talking about you losing the argument when all you have as a point is name calling and ad hominem arguments. Go ahead...I'll wait.
The very best thing government can do to stimulate market activity is to make sure products and services are safe and otherwise get the heck out of the way. This means some businesses will succeed and some will fail but all have an equal chance to succeed without government meddling. When we bailed out these businesses we gave them an unfair advantage in the marketplace. Those companies that did not need our assistance (because they were run properly) were, in effect, penalized for their success while those that received our assistance were artificially protected from the reasonable consequences of their failure. We can certainly agree that oils subsidies should be stopped...just as, I believe, all energy subsidies of any sort should be stopped. Just as farm subsidies should be stopped. Government's proper role in a free market economy is to assure that products and services are safe and otherwise butt not only out, but all the way out.
I think you give Webb too much credit. Members of the Tea Party routinely use the term Socialist and they mean Socialist. I don't think the statement that a political party has been hijacked by Socialists is reasonable. Especially when he clearly can't name anyone to prove the statement. Look at Tinytom's statement below with the use of "in complete control." Now look at the Republcans in The House of Representatives. We're not talking about governing. Governing means you compromise. The Republicans running the House have no intention of Governing. They want complete control. In fact, the stated Republican agenda for the last 40 years has been complete control of all branches of Government. We are talking about Totalitarianism here. The Democratic Party from its beginnings has always championed social programs, especially social programs for the less fortunate because the Democratic Party understood the playing field wasn't level. John and is ilk act like the field is level. So the party hasn't been hijacked. Public Schools were Jefferson's idea. He was a Democrat by the way. Talk about an entitlement. In the 1930 Humphrey proposed Socialized Medicine at the Democratic Convention. That idea was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt at a Republican Convention, along with a version of social security.
If I were in complete control I'd make sure you learn the differences between "you're" and "your' and "were" and "we're". Mainly because you'd have a much richer life if you weren't functionally illiterate.
I gave you your answer in my response to John. "Look at Tinytom's statement below with the use of "in complete control." Now look at the Republcans in The House of Representatives. We're not talking about governing. Governing means you compromise. The Republicans running the House have no intention of Governing. They want complete control. In fact, the stated Republican agenda for the last 40 years has been complete control of all branches of Government. We are talking about Totalitarianism here." I wouldn't allow myself to be put in "complete control." But it's very telling, and also scary, that you think in those terms.
Are you calling for an end to Corporate welfare? If so, I completely agree. Would you include the banks in that one as well? They were also bailed out. Keeping products safe means regulation. There are certain industries, like insurance companies, which are regulated at the state level and that makes them very expensive to run because they have to appease 50 different regulators. Surely simplifying that to one regulator would benefit the companies. That is an approach both Allstate and Aetna are on record as endorsing. Would you be in favor of that as well as ending corporate welfare?
You say "The very best thing government can do to stimulate market activity is to make sure products and services are safe and otherwise get the heck out of the way." That's great if the market is fair and honest, but it's not. The thing I find so strange is that in other discussions here right-wingers talk about man being inherently evil as one of the reasons they live in fear and need guns. But those same people somehow believe the market is inherently good and we don't need any protections. Is there any explanation for this beside the consistent hypocrisy of the right these days?
These are your words, verbatim. "without the unions bbq we will return to the days when my grandfather quit school in the 3rd grade to go to work in a lumber mill to help support his family. Make no mistake about that." Then you said: "bbq take a wild guess what year it would have been when my Grandfather was in the third grade. I'm 57...go ahead I'll wait. Then take a history class or two on this country. Start paying attention when they get around to child labor laws and the reasons they came into being. go ahead, I'll wait..." Did you, or did you not say: "we will return to the days when my grandfather...." Well? I ask for the third time - Who is quitting school in third grade now, or will in the future? Do you really think, that without unions, child labor will once again flourish in America? Yes, unions were needed in the early 19th century. Yes, unions created the labor laws we have today. Yes, unions morphed into corrupt entities and drove our corporations out of this country (with a big old head nod from the US government).
If enough of us truly want the federal government to be involved in, say, healthcare, then we should do the political heavy-lifting necessary to amend the Constitution to delegate that specific power and authority to it. I am in favor of the various States working cooperatively with one another on issues such as insurance portability. I do not think that has to take the form of a single federal regulator overseeing all of that activity. There may well be States that are not interested in cooperating and they should not have to. Silence: The market is only as unfair as the consumers allow it to be, just as government is only as corrupt as the voters allow it to be. Speaking only for myself, I do not own and enjoy firearms out of "need" or "fear", but out of a belief that I have an individual right to own them and to pursue that interest in a responsible and lawful manner. I do not believe the market is "inherently" anything. It assumes the qualities and character of the people who voluntarily participate in free and open commerce. I am not averse to some government regulation. Right now, though, I think we have too much of that.
"Like I said, they resort to personal attacks because they don't have the analytical skills to engage the points which are being made." "You haven't proven anything beyond doubt, clearly. In fact your argument is nonsensical." "I'm assuming you got your b.a. degree at a state school?" "Maybe your tactic of having me read your lips is so I wont look at your words?" "Perhaps my nuanced argument confuses you." "Here's where you come back in and play the simpleton who supposedly doesn't understand rhetoric and how it works on the level of simple discourse." "People like me have been silent since Vietnam, but we're starting to speak out now just to show others how stunningly stupid, mean, and greedy your ideas actually are." "If I were in complete control I'd make sure you learn the differences between "you're" and "your' and "were" and "we're". Mainly because you'd have a much richer life if you weren't functionally illiterate." "By the way, that level of carelessness also shows blatantly in your thinking." "You deserve whatever befalls you." "...then take a class in Rhetoric. Pay attention when they start talking about you losing the argument when all you have as a point is name calling and ad hominem arguments." Indeed, Dan, indeed!
I would agree that some aspects of governing require compromise, but I also think that there should be core principles upon which elected representatives should not compromise. Mind you, at the federal level, I see only minor differences between Reps and Dems. Dems seem hell bent on trying to tax and spend us out of our recession while Reps do little more than quibble about how much the *rate of spending increases* should be cut. Very few on the Hill seem to be interested in an actual net reduction of much of anything other than our personal freedoms and individual liberties. This deeply saddens me. The federal government was only and always intended to be the *least* powerful, intrusive, and costly level of government, not the greatest, and the most tightly controlled, not the least. Federal-level social programs have been an abject failure. President Johnson kicked that war off almost 50 years ago, yet today we have record levels of folks on some form of public assistance or another. If this were truly a war, we would have either changed our battle strategy long ago, or simply surrendered. Even social security, once believed to be a safety net, has become more like a safety sieve. It is rampant with fraud and abuse and, according to its own trustees, is expected to be insolvent by 2033. If we're going to win this "war" we better get some new generals! ...
I agree that the differences are minor and that we need new generals. That is only too clear. I think many social programs have been successful. Like student loans for example. I wouldn't have been able to pay for an education without them. I also wonder, given the deplorable state of our media, just how much we're actually told that is true about social programs, government regulations, the effectiveness of state versus federal government. I suspect not much truth to be honest.
Real wages in the United States have been lower every year since 1972; workers in the country are a lot poorer today than they were in 1972. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans is $32,000. The average income for the top 0.01% is $23 million. The top 10% of Americans control 2/3 of the wealth. Your assertion that unions drove the jobs overseas, in light of the above, is laughable. Continued
Gee no mention of labor unions at all and I'm pretty sure the Journal would have done so if they could have. They are after all extremely conservative.
So many are so locked into this idea that the federal government *should* be involved in all of these extra-constitutional activities just because it *is* involved in them. We need to disabuse ourselves of this notion quickly if we are going to survive as a nation. We cannot afford this sky-rocketing public debt. Right now, every single citizen's (including children) personal piece of our national debt + interest is about $181 thousand dollars (and climbing.) I don't know about you or anyone else but I don't have it and I know my kids don't and I know *their kids wont either. At some point the bill is going to come due and we're already borrowing money just to pay the *interest* on our current debt. Our current gross debt-to-GDP ratio is 104% I just do not understand how folks, regardless of party affiliation, can read numbers like that and not demand definitive federal fiscal policy action *yesterday.*
The rest reveal that I am, gasp, a human being who doesn't suffer fools well when they keep coming back and being, well, a fool. I would never, on the other hand, open my comment to someone the first time with "BS, Dan." Nor would I open a comment with "Cukoo, Cukoo! I ask again " If you look at my patterns, I open by refuting the person's point and then if they are an A-whatever, I get colorful. Mainly about the level of their ideas, but once in a while the human in me comes out. Haven't needed unions since the beginning of the 20th century. I'd love to see you prove that one. Especially since the unions had no power at all in the early part of the 20th century.
In response to your response at 9:46 pm on Saturday: *Nothing is taken out of context. I copied and pasted excerpts from your comments which show you attacking people. In my book, if you attack the person's ideas, you are attacking the person. (#2,7 and 9). *It's OK that we disagree. I do not believe in unions, you do. No problema! *Thank you for finally answering the "grandfather" question I asked you. OK, so we are clear - you think that children in the future of the USA will be quitting school in third grade to help support their families. I disagree. That would be against the law and I don't see the law changing. *You say that #3 was said by TinyTom. See below: "Dan Avery 2:22 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012 George Bush bailed out the banks and Wall Street. George Bush was a liberal? Seriously Tinytom? You haven't proven anything beyond doubt, clearly. In fact your argument is nonsensical. Mainly because you keep saying the same thing rather than engaging my points in a meaningful way. I'm assuming you got your b.a. degree at a state school?" *"Number 8 is actually a definition and not an ad hominem argument." Calling someone "functionally illiterate" is a definition? Pointing out their grammatical errors is a definition? Look, all I'm saying is that we are all human and make mistakes. I go on the attack as well when I am attacked. It's our nature. However, if we're going to dish it out, we'd better be able to take it, too. Agreed?
attacking someone's idea is called "argumentation." When you quote one sentencem a person you are taking it out context. This is taught in Universities all over the world. It's taught in high schools in many many countries. As far as your statement that you go on attack when you're attacked, isn't the whole truth because you made the following comment without me ever addressing you. I'm sure that is true. However your comment of 8:45 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012 "BS, Dan. Who do you know that has quit school in the third grade lately..." What I said "we will return..." but you had me saying "we had returned..." So either you don't comprehend what you read or you look for intellectual fights. Currently there are laws that protect kids in this country, which is why companies like Philip Morris, Hershey, Victoria's Secret, Forever 21, Aeropostale, Toys ‘R’ Us, Urban Outfitters, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Xbox and Nike took their production overseas. The fact that you don't think we could possibly return to those days tells me you don't understand why child labor exists, why the above named US Corporations exploit children, and why the above named Corporations have done nothing to stop it except for the lame ad Hershey ran before the Super Bowl.
It's also interesting that you're okay with government regulation when it comes to product/service safety. This seems a little schizophrenic. One the one hand you have faith in the market, but on the other you allow that the government needs to intervene. The market, left to it's own devices, is a disaster. Anti-regulation, unfettered free-marketers, and anti-gov't folks are completely unburdened by history and facts. We know that without government intervention child labor in the US would still be happening. We know what happened when Glass-Steagall was repealed. We know that some regulation is burdensome, but that does not make all regulation bad. What you personally choose to believe is irrelevant. History shows that without regulation, the market offers too much opportunity for bad behavior that negatively affects too many. "The market is only as unfair as the consumers allow it to be..." Really? Where exactly do consumers have the option to say no to the backdoor deals and cheating on Wall St? Consumers are at the mercy of fixed markets, but since we don't find out they're fixed until a disaster strikes, then what?