Desipio Message Board

The "In God We Trust" debate from the Christian right always slays me.  As I recall, the Bible recounts a story where the Pharisees showed Jesus a coin with Caesar's picture on it, and asked something to the effect of "If you're so powerful, why isn't your picture on the coin," to which Jesus responds "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to the Lord what is the Lord's."

The Christian right: convinced that they are smarter than Christ.

I have always sort of thought they would just replace Wrigley piece by piece until there is very little old ballpark left.  The Bleacher renovation is a perfect microcosm for how the park should be treated: They kept the bricks, ivy, and scoreboard and gutted everything else for replacement.

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 11, 2008, 12:58:48 PM

Quote from: TJ on November 11, 2008, 12:06:46 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 11, 2008, 11:45:33 AM

Quote from: Bonk on November 11, 2008, 11:35:38 AM
Not the best worded sentence, granted, but if you take money out of the pockets of well-to-do people instead of letting them spend it, it affects everyone.

They have less money to spend at porn shops and strip bars, cut back grocery spending, go out to restaurants less and have less money to give their drug dealers, and all of those industries then make less money, thus it negatively impacts all of them.

I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

The problem is that rich people slow their spending after a certain point.

When well-to-do people get more money, it usually sits there on top of the pile.  If someone has $250 million in the bank, are they really going to go on a spending spree because they just grabbed another $2 million? 

But they're not putting $250MM in a savings account or into their mattresses.  Where do you think they're putting this $$?

In a bank in the Caribbean?

This is probably old economics, but didn't the Chicago School economists pretty much prove the validity of the Laffer Curve, and, by extension, prove that overtaxing the wealthly depressed the economy in the long term?

Quote from: TJ on November 10, 2008, 09:16:31 PM

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on November 10, 2008, 08:15:41 PM
One of the things that I've liked from the Obama transition team so far has been its admonition to the Defense Department that it has to do more with less soon.  I think it's long been time to ween the DoD off its cash high.

What a novel idea.  No one has ever thought of making the military more efficient.

I'm with you that the Pentagon has a long and distinguished history of wasting money, and that it should do more for less.  If Obama's Administration can do it, hats off to him.  However, he's hardly the first incoming president who said he'd trim the defense budget.

Be careful here.  Sure, the DoD has become well-fed in the aftermath of 9-11, but one must not be too knee jerk in bringing it back down to earth.  Remember, Carter's cuts in military and intelligence budget not only prolonged the Cold War, but also left the nation woefully unprepared to deal with the threat of Islamic-fascism.  Look at the nation's piss poor response to the Beirut Barracks, USS Cole, and Kenyan embassy attacks.  A smaller military and lack of intelligence really hurt the ability of the US to respond effectively. 

The issue with the military is over-deployment.  If they re-focus on defense and intelligence instead of Nation Building and the Bush Doctrine, they can operate within a reduced budget while successfully protecting the nation.  Large scale downsizing could be disastrous, though. 

Walk softly and carry a big stick.

Quote from: Zed on November 09, 2008, 03:48:10 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1

P.J. O'Rourke with an excellent, excellent post-mortem...

I remain unconvinced that the Right is dead for the foreseeable future.  My generation is unfamiliar with Reagan's America and even more unfamiliar with the role of socialism in the Twentieth century.  We have grown up in a Centrist America and never seen the results of empowering one side of the political spectrum.  You can bet that after four years, we will become familiar with the consequences of the Leftist paradigm shift.  Obama may well be an eight year president, as the basic fluctuations in the economy virtually assure that he will preside over an economic upturn.  But, don't expect the Left to be in power for ever.

Sooner or later, all the youth the voted for Obama will graduate from college, get jobs, and find themselves in the nations upper tax brackets.  Once they are the ones paying for it, the notion of a greater roll for government won't be nearly as popular.  Sooner or later, all those idealists will see that involving the feds in healthcare and social welfare will work about as well as involving them in education and energy has. 

This too shall pass.

Quote from: Simmer on November 07, 2008, 02:54:54 PM
The 3 sole reasons this thread is worth clicking on:

1 -- RV's great chart, good information that most people ignore.

2 -- Tonker referencing a thread closure, which I can only hope awaits this thread.

3 -- JD talking about how these threads just instigate multi-paragraph name calling with no substance at all, but you click anyway hoping there will be some sort of e-funny to be found.



I'm all for the politi-talk, but most of what is being said here is just mind numbing.  I discuss politics every day, but it doesn't degrade to most of what I see here.  I should be the last one to talk, because I know a thing or two about making long-winded multi-paragraph posts that beat any given issue like a dead horse. 

I think the advice I should follow is -- "let sleeping dogs lie".  Also, if I "can't take the heat", then I should "stay out of the kitchen".  The final and most important bit of advice I should follow is "DON'T BE A DICK!".  Sorry if I came off like a e-hating dick.

Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I'll tell you, I've gotta' plead ignorance on this one. If I had known that sort of thing was frowned upon...

</costanza>

Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 12:33:17 PM

Quote from: Thrillho on November 07, 2008, 12:29:08 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 07, 2008, 12:05:54 PM

Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

I'm guessing Zed is not going to join you on this note.

Call it a hunch.

It's just incomplete.  Fraud was part of the problem, but certainly not all of it.

I'm afraid the government, lenders, borrowers, and insurers all seem share blame.  Even in hindsight, prevention seems as though it would have been difficult.

Good to see the feds launched a WaMu investigation.  I bet they never secure any indictments, but at least they are showing up.

Quote from: Zed on November 07, 2008, 11:59:16 AM

Quote from: De Jesus on November 07, 2008, 11:13:21 AM

Quote from: IrishYeti on November 07, 2008, 12:00:29 AM
I make a dumbassed assumption that De Jesus is talking about me rather than IAN.  I still hate poor people.  I also talk some false shit about George Clooney, Michael Moore, and Alec Baldwin. But I gave a little to the United Way!

George Clooney?  He's on the board of your United Way.  He also raises and donates millions for a huge variety of charitable foundations each year.  Michael Moore is with Habitat for Humanity (aka Houses for Poor People) and Raising Malawi.  Alec Baldwin gives for PETA, some renewable energy research charities, Habitat for Humanity and a few other anti-homelessness charities, and a lot of charities based on cancer/AIDs research.  Which other liberals do you want to talk out your ass about?  I know everyone hates George Soros.  He's given away over 6 billion dollars over his life.  Warren Buffet was one of Obama's earliest supporters (and one of the most vocal).  He just gave away 30-odd billion.  Google is your friend.  Except it's not.  They're one of the most liberal businesses in the world.  You should still use them to find this shit before running your mouth, though.

Liberal celebrities ARE giving big money to charity.  The problem is that other than them, there's not a ton of people giving.  The fact that parts of America look like poor African cities is proof that not enough is being done. 

Again, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

I think Yeti may have been referring to this study: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

The rich do tend to give to charity regardless of political stripes.  This is true, and there's no sense in arguing it.

QuoteAgain, if you support the obstruction of state provided health care for poor people (obviously charity isn't getting it done), you're a poor-hating douchebag of a human being, no matter how you spin it.

Interesting choice of absolutes here.  Either you support this, or you hate the poor and you're a douchebag.  There may be some area in between, like "I feel terrible that the poor can't support themselves enough to get health care but I don't think the state should be providing it."  The health care question is very complex, which is why it hasn't been solved yet.

Or how about:  "I would love to give money to help the poor get health care, but I can't because the the government takes 1/3 of my pay, and my retirement is in the shitter because the government would rather throw money at thieves than file fraud prosecutions to ensure market transparency."

Quote from: De Jesus on November 06, 2008, 03:36:49 PM

Quote from: Thrillho on November 06, 2008, 03:34:44 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 06, 2008, 12:09:00 PM
Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government. 

The Dems are going to socialize parts of the government?

Heaven forfend!

How exactly would they go about this? Are they going to somehow super-nationalize Federal agencies?

Every four years, half the country yells "SOCIALISM!" without actually knowing what it means.

Socializing the government is obviously misspeaking.  Socializing matters in which the government ought not get involved is a better turn of phrase.

I have to disagree with crying wolf about socialism as a whole, though.  The higher minimum wage, capping energy prices, bailout bills, nationalizing privately held assets in the mortgage market, raising the difference in percentage between tax brackets, supporting antiquated notions about labor unions, subsidizing ethanol development, becoming involved in the auto industry, and planning to get the government involved in the medical/insurance industry are all textbook examples.  These are all steps targeted specifically at lowering the Gini Index and redistributing wealth.  This is not the work of the Democrats, as several of the economic stimulus packages, backed by republicans, have sought to achieve the same goals.

The government is getting bigger.  It is a road that ends in socialism or worse.  As the middle class dies in this country, the newly minted have-nots will scream for "social justice."

Perhaps it is this notion of "social justice" and "compassion" that are misunderstood, not the notion of socialism.

If every one of those people at Obama's rally had spent the night making sandwiches for the homeless, then perhaps they could have created demonstrable change.  But that's not what people want.  People want the government to do it for them.  They would rather make those awful, exploitative, unfairly-advantaged successful people foot the bill then actually do it themselves.

As for the unwashed masses voting Republican: this sword cuts both ways.  Perhaps the Republicans have used social issues to solicit votes from the uniformed, but the Dems have been pushing "It's their fault they have more than you" since the Depression.  That is probably a far more dastardly and dangerous lie then "Gays will ruin the nuclear family."

The thing to note isn't the victory or defeat of the individual parties.  These things ebb and flow.  This win for the dems was no more grand than the win of the reps in 94 or even 04 for that matter.  These things have a tendency to swing.

The thing to note, rather, is the directions of the party.  The republican direction is convoluted mix of people who want to reduce government and people who just hate gays and abortion clinics.  The party really left its roots with the patriot act, expanding the federal government's role and budget, etc.

Conversely, the democrats have grabbed the opportunity and moved further left.  Not since FDR have they has such control to begin socializing major portions of the government.  

Quote from: De Jesus on November 05, 2008, 01:51:10 PM

Quote from: BC on November 05, 2008, 01:46:56 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

If we were going to follow the original Constitution to the letter, then Barack Obama would be three-fifths of a President-Elect this afternoon.

The only Republican PRIMARY candidate with any chance of winning who combined small government philosophies with social conservatism was Fred Thompson, unfortunately he slept through the campaign. I really don't know who the 2012 GOP candidate should be. Palin was made to look like an idiot (She didn't help with the Gibson-Couric interviews) and her issue positions weren't fleshed out all that much. If Romney couldn't get nominated this time I doubt he ever could, while Huckabee is now hosting a show on Fox News. I liked the suggestion made elsewhere on Desipio of Daniels. This all being said, the Republican Party must now return to the small government principles Reagan and George W. Bush (2000 campaign version) ran on.

The same Ronnie Raygun that increased the size of our government (not to mention Bush 2000)?

Every time some Republican leader says that he wants a small government, what he really means is that he wants a bigger one than the Dems, but doesn't want to pay for it.

Reagan increased the size of the government and didn't cut enough social programs to pay for it.  At the time, supply-side economics was all the rage so no one really gave a damn about the national debt.

That being said, there hasn't be a major party candidate who was truly fiscally conservative since Goldwater.  A fiscally responsible president would have to be before FDR, I think.

Quote from: Bogs on November 05, 2008, 01:48:38 PM

Quote from: Eli on November 05, 2008, 01:34:17 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Just throwing it out there -- the Constitution is more than 220 years old and was written when the U.S. population was about 3.5 million people.  Also, our largest industry was agriculture or something.  I'm not sure a rigid, unflinching adherence to the Constitution is the best way to run a government.  I think some flexibility is important.

Sorry if that sounds way out-of-line.

Whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's the best way to run a government... the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  If you think it needs changing, then by all means get it changed.  There's a process for that, and there's a reason they made is difficult to change.  As the old saying goes, this is a nation of laws, not of men.

That is why it can be changed to reflect the times.  If you want to start a federal reserve bank, change the constitution to list this as a responsibility of the federal government.  If you want to enact the New Deal or the "Great" Society legislation, change the constitution so providing jobs and social welfare outside the realm of capitalism is within the realm of the federal government's control.  It is 220 years old, but it is an elastic document.  

As for who the Republicans can run, the party is in dire straights because they have left their roots as the party of small government and become the party of the Christian Right.  Instead of a platform based on fiscal responsibility, they now have a "socially conservative" platform based on legislating morality.  I'm sure will see Romney try again in 2012, but watch for someone new, a la Bobby Jindal.

Quote from: Andre Dawson's Creek on November 05, 2008, 01:27:55 PM

Quote from: GNM on November 05, 2008, 01:26:02 PM
Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter?  I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.

This is so typical of the American political climate.  The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.

The general election was quite similar.  Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?

Gunderson 2012!

Lisa:  A gay president in 2034?
Gay Republican:  We're realistic.

Isn't marriage, by definition, a personal matter?  I'm not sure the government should have anything to do with it either way.

This is so typical of the American political climate.  The voters are essentially choosing between allowing the government to continue to meddle in marriage of just men and women, or allowing the government to meddle in the marriage of homosexuals too.

The general election was quite similar.  Vote for one candidate who supported what amounts to nationalizing a trillion dollars worth of private assets, or another who supported the same, but wants to add significant wealth redistribution to the equation on top of it.

Why is no body running (or, rather, receiving any votes) on the basis of small, constitutionally-controlled government?