Btw; earlier in chat you posted a political spectrum that I disagreed with. I was unable to find a good representation for my understanding; but promised I would search for one.

This is my understanding of the political spectrum based on freedom for individuals.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/spectrumh.jpg/

explain what you mean by weakening the government? I know what I mean but what do you mean? When I refer to weakening the government I refer to it being more susceptible to bribery, corruption, and manipulation. Obviously I am not referring to weakening the inherent powers of the government (you would need dozens of amendments for this). Think about it, if you make jack shit worth of money in the government, what incentive do you have to keep the american people's interests at heart when you could just as easily OK deals with corporations and leave office for a cushy private sector job (that's what happens now).

you can strengthen the institutions of government by requiring its transparency and regulating the lobbying industry.

if you are referring to the bureaus of government (like the FDA or EPA) I would say the same is true. These institutions don't need to be weakened (so they can be more easily manipulated) they need to be strengthened and at the same time kept transparent. Anything else would, as President Roosevelt put it, disenfranchise the individual. Allowing the private sector to grow in comparative power until it overpowers regulatory institutions is tantamount to fascism, which is why I asked you, what would you prefer: socialism or fascism?


As far as your political spectrum is concerned, that's a pretty basic categorization of political parties (in reality none of those parties are in the exact middle of any of those categories). The one I showed you a while back and the one you showed me are pretty decent frames of reference for political affiliation. Generally most stuff today is pretty center compared to say fascism or socialism. Certainly there's a big difference between a christian democracy (what religious folk want) and a social democracy (what europe has).

By the way can you name a single other first world country that doesn't have universal health care and universal education? That shit is embarrassing.

I like Ron Paul, he's a texan so I know all about him. But here's why I don't drink his koolaid: libertarians are fine to allow the abuses of capitalism go unrestrained. They're okay with monopolies, with cartels, with syndicates, etc. That shit is fucked and it's the main difference between our fiscal regulation now and 120 years ago. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, got rid of that shit for good reason.

Finally I wasn't going to link this again... because well it'll be the 3rd time now but here goes:

"Prior to being elected as the President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."[7] It appears the earliest use of the term "starving the beast" to refer to the political-fiscal strategy was in a Wall Street Journal article in 1985 where the reporter quoted an unnamed Reagan staffer.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

just read the article, it was reagan's plan to cut revenue and run up the deficit so we could then cut spending (which is totally irresponsible but the dude was senile so oh well).

BO: "explain what you mean by weakening the government?"

I mean reducing the FEDERAL government to just basically just judicial system, police, and army. Obviously this cannot be done all at once; it would be a total shock to the system and it would cause chaos. However it should be reduced on a trend to eventually get to that point.

Also I think I think that there should be a strict separation of the federal government and the economy. The federal government shouldn't be able to meddle with the economy. So definitely end the fed; amongst other things.

BO: "By the way can you name a single other first world country that doesn't have universal health care and universal education? That shit is embarrassing."

It causes you embarrassment and it cause me pride; go figure. This is the difference between you and me. I expect to pay for my goods and services; not demand it at the point of a gun.

BO: "I like Ron Paul, he's a texan so I know all about him. But here's why I don't drink his koolaid: libertarians are fine to allow the abuses of capitalism go unrestrained. They're okay with monopolies, with cartels, with syndicates, etc. That shit is fucked and it's the main difference between our fiscal regulation now and 120 years ago. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, got rid of that shit for good reason."

Libertarians are for the rule of law; all corporations that are involved in crime or fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I think you are mistaken when referring to libertarian ideals. Libertarians are absolutely disgusted by the crony capitalism and corporatism that is currently taking place. You say that it is caused by deregulation; but I say it is caused by regulation. This is another difference between me and you.

BO: "Finally I wasn't going to link this again... because well it'll be the 3rd time now but here goes:"

Once again; one quote by Ronald Reagan doesn't define the whole republican party; no more then one quote by Howard Dean (Yaaarrgggg) or Robert Byrd (grand wizard of the KKK) defines the democrat party.

By the way; I've read the starve the beast article many times; I've even quoted it many times. There is nothing in it nor any where on the internet that shows it being the official policy of the GOP. This is your opinion alone.

Btw; Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive. So I understand why you like him.

Here is a quote from Teddy: "Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it. "

Doesn't sound like someone I would support at all.

sigh, here come the endless discussion about the tiny little things but oh well

"yah obama is simon. also simon pretty much said what I would've said if i actually took deadcode seriously.

but yah dead raises a good point about how we need to end the bush tax cuts and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. i also agree with what he said about democrats being more fiscally responsible than republicans."

you used both dead and deadcode in that post so you can't say you only use one

pretty convenient to start using yah (twice) and then saying "oh and I don't use ya". Not saying you don't use yah but I dunno. If you had only used one yah, it would have looked innocent but using it twice looks a bit fabricated.

There is no need to argue about all these tiny things, to me this post simply breathes "post that was supposed to be posted with the BO account". I can be wrong and I know this is not overwhelming evidence. I am not a woman so actually I shouldn't trust my gut feeling that much.

"I mean reducing the FEDERAL government to just basically just judicial system, police, and army. Obviously this cannot be done all at once; it would be a total shock to the system and it would cause chaos. However it should be reduced on a trend to eventually get to that point. "

What about the mail system, firedepartments, dmv, etc? What about the institutions that build and maintain our roads? Which public goods are you willing to forsake and which are you arbitrarily sanctioning (besides security, defense and public arbitration)?

Furthermore, what about regulatory agency like the FDA? There was a time when there was no FDA, you know what happened back then? People were getting fingers in their meatballs and had no fucking idea. As far as the state and the economy are concerned guess what we tried that too. We ended up with increasingly severe recessions that ultimately culminated in the Great Depression.

Here's a quick summary of the position it seems you're taking "hey I don't like this one cop because he's corrupt. I don't think there should be any policemen." Except the cop is all government institutions besides the police, military and judiciary. Let me know if that's an incorrect interpretation.

"It causes you embarrassment and it cause me pride; go figure. This is the difference between you and me. I expect to pay for my goods and services; not demand it at the point of a gun."

Guess what dead, you may pay less taxes than european counterparts but at the same time you get far inferior services for what you do pay. So let me posit you a question: would you prefer to get less bang for your buck or pay more and get more bang for your buck (like costco)? What's embarrassing is how inefficient our government is and how clear it is that it is being manipulated by individuals for their own profit. Transparency is the answer, not firing all the metaphorical policemen.

"Libertarians are for the rule of law; all corporations that are involved in crime or fraud should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I think you are mistaken when referring to libertarian ideals. Libertarians are absolutely disgusted by the crony capitalism and corporatism that is currently taking place. You say that it is caused by deregulation; but I say it is caused by regulation. This is another difference between me and you. "

You say that they should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, but didn't you just finish saying you don't even want congress to exist? How exactly would financial laws come into being anyway in your system, you just said you don't want the federal government meddling in economics? Furthermore how else is the government supposed to draft appropriate laws when its congressional members are not experts on the subjects at hand (this is the reason for institutions like the FDA and SEC)?

I didn't say starving the beast was on the official platform of the GOP, this time I rephrased it to be more to your liking but it seems like you didn't read my post:

"but dead cutting revenue and then running up the deficit is outlined as an american conservative fiscal policy so it's not like anybody didn't expect them [conservatives] to do exactly that. what you're suggesting is dramatically shrinking the government as you decrease taxes and no politician can spin that into a reelection. "

So there you have it, it's been demonstrated and accepted as an american conservative position, y'know like how pro-choice is a progressive position (not all progressive are pro-choice though). i'm sure you could look hard enough and find a conservative that wasn't okay with "starving the beast" but the last 3 conservative presidents we've had have been so I feel like there's more evidence to suggest this is a standard conservative policy than there is against this being the case.



Lastly to jurgen: I don't really care. I don't appreciate when someone else attributes my name to words that aren't mine. You can obviously check IPs - our IPs do not match (or as you put it you couldn't see his) and for me this is a nonissue. I have no vested interest in this, other than the fact that I perhaps liked having someone (simon on BHO) agree with me in the forums on a regular basis. I'd like to stay on topic so if you wish to discuss this further find me outside of this thread.

I just read an interresting way of looking at it, often deregulating is just a matter or moving the costs, when you do deregulate you move the hidden costs of production from the company to the taxpayer.


examle; company want to package food in a certain type of plastic that cannot be effeicently recycled, why? because it is cheaper. in a regulated system, they would not be alowed to do that; in a deregulated system they would be alowed, and the public has to pay the costs, some of it is enviromental damage, some of it is in the form of having to maybe build an extra recycling plant, and increase the prizes of recycling.

often, especially in financial tools, it is the public that has to pay the prize. speculation does not have any value in it self, but its profit comes from doing damage somewhere else.

I think one should regulate it so that companies actually have to pay the entire cost, but you know why they don't do that? because that would not be buisness friendly. the current system is socialism for the really rich, and harsh market truths for everyone else.

did you know that every single one of the top 100 on fortunes 500 list have gotten huge benefits from government, also by 1995 at least 20 of the top 100 had been bailed out at some point.

indeed, and the obvious solution would be to require more transparency in the government to stop all the crony capitalism as dead said.