 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02-Nov-08 20:35, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:27:33 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost
>> destroys
>> democrat <-> people/voters
>> republican <-> nation
>> For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party
>> lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and
>> possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under
>> stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive.
>> Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist
>> democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to
>> reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war,
>> it helps a lot.
>
> An outside view does always bring a different perspective - and that's
> the thing I find interesting. I'd never thought about it that way myself.
> I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out - for
> example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative
I don't know what that means (i.e. not a term used here.) Does that mean
that you are against raising taxes? In favor of decreasing taxes for the
rich? Or simply keeping the system as it is?
Anyway, this outsider (yes I am, to the point that I do think the US is
international, a point unfortunately missed by Stephen :( ;) ) thinks
that the current US government has directly and indirectly borrowed so
much money from other countries that one day they'll have to pay back
one way or another. Even McCain will have to raise taxes if he doesn't
want to continue Bush's irresponsible politics. He knows that, and I am
frankly amazed that large parts of the US electorate let him get away
with attacking Obama because he is a 'socialist' and will therefor
surely increase taxes. But I am just an outsider.
> but not a social conservative.
Which means you wouldn't mind if neighbours moved? ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
regulate the economy in the first place.
> or in any way restrain them from
> loaning out more money than they had, in absurd amounts,
That's where the "fraud" part comes in, you see. Except the government
already passed laws (back in 1916 or so) saying they're allowed to.
> But, somehow, Ron Paul supporters, and other "Libertarians" still insist
Be aware that "libertarians" are like "pagans". There's maybe 3 points
of agreement between any two people in those groups, and the rest is
open to interpretation. :-)
> At this point, the very idea that "any" of them will be elected scares
> the hell out of me.
Also be aware that, GWB notwithstanding, the President doesn't make the
laws in the USA. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:490### [at] hotmailcom...
> I had a problem remembering who was who too. What helps for me is that
> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest that)
> while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
That's an interesting perspective, but there are many situations where the
two parties are the exact opposite of what you're saying here.
I find a more accurate description is their stance on regulation. Democrats
favor heavy regulation and Government involvement, Republicans want to be
left alone. Though this, too, is sometimes inaccurate.
Maybe if the parties made more sense, I'd be able to pick one and stick to
it. The way things are, though, I usually just pick the candidate that's
going to do the least amount of damage.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:490e1dc5$1@news.povray.org...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> against things like fraud, theft, violence, etc., wouldn't have done
>> anything to **stop** the current financial crisis, because nothing the
>> companies that caused it did falls into **any** of those categories.
>
> Except to the extent they are regulated banks and the government already
> took over banking and money, yeah. I mean, given that you let the
> government control printing of the money, confiscating gold, and
> eliminating risk for banks, no, there's nothing they did that fall into
> those categories. One of the things Ron Paul (as I understand it)
> advocates is getting the government out of the business of trying to
> regulate the economy in the first place.
It sounds nice in theory, especially when you've studied Adam Smith and
believe in the "invisible hand", but history has shown us that an unmanaged
economy can get, quite literally, stuck in a rut(1). In such situations,
massive economic intervention is the only way to achieve anything close to
normal(2) productivity.
(1) OK, I've only taken one semester of economics, but it was enough to
convince me that Keynes was right about the Great Depression. The economy
got to a point where 1/3 of the population was unemployed, and on its own it
would have probably stayed that way for decades.
(2) It varies, but most economists call full production a 5% unemployment
rate (or thereabouts).
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:18:28 +0100, andrel wrote:
>> I think most people are more complex than either ideology lays out -
>> for example, I consider myself a fiscal conservative
>
> I don't know what that means (i.e. not a term used here.) Does that mean
> that you are against raising taxes? In favor of decreasing taxes for the
> rich? Or simply keeping the system as it is?
I'm in favor of paying for what we "purchase" from the government. I
don't like the debt/deficit spending that the US is engaged in, and it
troubles me that the government doesn't have a balanced budget (but in
order to keep from being bankrupt, I have to).
> Anyway, this outsider (yes I am, to the point that I do think the US is
> international, a point unfortunately missed by Stephen :( ;) ) thinks
> that the current US government has directly and indirectly borrowed so
> much money from other countries that one day they'll have to pay back
> one way or another. Even McCain will have to raise taxes if he doesn't
> want to continue Bush's irresponsible politics. He knows that, and I am
> frankly amazed that large parts of the US electorate let him get away
> with attacking Obama because he is a 'socialist' and will therefor
> surely increase taxes. But I am just an outsider.
I think either candidate would ultimately look to cut spending and raise
taxes in some way. Who they raise taxes on and what they cut spending on
is the difference between the two, really.
I think that Obama will probably raise taxes on the "rich" (and where
that cutoff is will ultimately depend on a cost/benefit analysis that
he'll have to do once he's got *all* the numbers, which I don't think
either of the candidates really have - just a gut instinct on my part),
and i think he'll probably try to keep taxes down for those who aren't
"rich".
But even if my taxes do go up (and I'm well below the $250,000/$200,000
mark), I think it is important to pay for what we do, which means paying
the troops and giving them health care. That's a damned dangerous job
they do, and while I'm certainly not for the war in Iraq, those who have
chosen to serve have my respect and I would absolutely show my support
for them by paying their salaries and making sure their families don't
have to give up their homes because they're deployed in a dangerous part
of the world.
There are too many people over here who think that "support the troops"
means "support fighting in Iraq", but who don't think that paying a
little more in taxes in order to actually pay them is important.
I'll get off my soapbox before I go longer. :-)
>> but not a social conservative.
>
> Which means you wouldn't mind if neighbours moved? ;)
LOL - given that we've got a lousy garage band next door, no. ;-)
But what I mean by that was actually well summed up on Real Time with
Bill Maher by one of the panelists this week, something to the effect of
"fix yourself and help others. Not the other way around; you don't go
around trying to fix everybody else."
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:38:13 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Also be aware that, GWB notwithstanding, the President doesn't make the
> laws in the USA.
Executive orders have the force of law, though, and line-item veto is a
powerful tool that a president has to modify a law that's been approved
by congress through a vote.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ben Chambers wrote:
> (1) OK, I've only taken one semester of economics, but it was enough to
> convince me that Keynes was right about the Great Depression. The
> economy got to a point where 1/3 of the population was unemployed, and
> on its own it would have probably stayed that way for decades.
Funny how the Great Depression started just one decade after the
government took over control of the money and the banks, replacing all
the actual valuable money with IOUs from corporations, eh?
Show me someplace having a Great Depression that *isn't* using fiat
currency, and I'll believe you more.
> (2) It varies, but most economists call full production a 5%
> unemployment rate (or thereabouts).
I think it varies depending on the type of economy. In a rural economy,
I think you tend to get pretty much full employment whether you want it
or not. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Executive orders have the force of law, though,
Only because nobody can really stop him. :-) Certainly executive orders
aren't going to change the tax rates.
> and line-item veto is a powerful tool that a president has to modify a law
Did that actually pass? I thought Congress fought tooth and nail to
prevent line-item vetos.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:03:04 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Executive orders have the force of law, though,
>
> Only because nobody can really stop him. :-) Certainly executive orders
> aren't going to change the tax rates.
It would be interesting to see someone try that just to see what happens.
>> and line-item veto is a powerful tool that a president has to modify a
>> law
>
> Did that actually pass? I thought Congress fought tooth and nail to
> prevent line-item vetos.
Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
over the last 8 years.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Sorry, I was thinking about "signing statements", which Bush has used
> over the last 8 years.
Yeah. My understanding is that those aren't really law, but just
instructions to the executive branches which enforce the law.
In other words, it's like the police chief saying "We know it's legal to
have a peaceful protest, but I want you to go out and arrest protesters
anyway." He's not making laws. He's just enforcing his own will.
Not unlike the courts, except that's their *job*.
At least as I understand it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
