There is some truth to that - the story was in Fark this week and drew a lot of comments - one of the best bosses I ever had used to have staff meetings standing up as he thought it made everyone get to the point and then get back to work - as he put it 'we ain't making no dough for meeting'.  I myself have been known to tell people 'if you got time to lean, you got time to clean.'  The walking alarms are a bit much though, as is the whole 'save the world' part - if they went out of biz, the world would keep on spinning.

Quote from: tekla on June 03, 2009, 02:32:51 PM
Looking at that bar graph, it looks like Reagan started spending like a drunk sailor, Clinton attempted to reduce it (and had good economics on his side, its not the spending as much as the deficit spending that hurts) till Newt&Co started the Contract on America.

And you're missing the Golden Years of Bush II, when that stuff really went up, if the numbers are even right, and I doubt that they are, as the real dollar amounts are often not recorded correctly, like fighting the Iraq War off the books so to speak.

The most common mistake when arguing about the budget is that the most powerful institution re spending is the House of Representatives.

If they want to spend, they will. A president can't fight back if he wants to spend a lot of political capital, or, he can augment (as in Reagan's commitment to increase defense spending or Bush via the war) but an analysis that lays spending solely at the feet of the president is flawed.

I think that on the whole, the only time in recent decades we've seen actual fiscal restraint was the Gingrich Congress working with Clinton...and the GOP Congress forgot all that once Gingrich was pushed out.

Of course, it's a subjective judgment when "excess" spending is justified and when it isn't.

As far as the Original Question - I didn't vote. I'm a fiscal conservative, that part is easy (which contrary to the implications of some replies doesn't mean I'm one who rages against spending to aid those in need)

On social issues I was once a mostly social conservative (though troubled by some misplaced priorities) but I've evolved into a more libertarian view on social issues.

Except for his impractical (idealistic) views on foreign affairs, there was a lot I liked about Ron Paul's positions.

---

Post Merge: June 05, 2009, 01:58:23 PM

---

Quote from: michellesofl on June 03, 2009, 06:48:26 PM
Churchill kicked a## back in his day.

Heres an interesting link, Bernake on the current debt and spending.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide

---

Post Merge: June 03, 2009, 06:57:03 PM

---

Obama proposes a version of "single payer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul

Add a minimum of 1.5 trillion over 10 years.

It's good to keep in mind how VERY wrong previous estimates of what a new program would cost have been. Things always cost way more than the projections used to get them passed.

Oh no, I pretty much have open contempt for all of them.  True the House has - as they say - the 'power of the purse' but since the 1970s the power of Congress has been ever more limited as power drifted into the executive branch.  The Newt Gingrich House is light years away from the Sam Rayburn House in power, authority, and prestige much to all of our loss as a nation.

And, as it's the President who submits the budget and signs off on it - well, as they say, heavy lies the head that wears the crown and all.

and, of interest, this think piece on the Reagan years and how it began so much of the crap we're all waist (waste) deep in now.

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)


http://www.alternet.org/politics/140438/was_ronald_reagan_an_even_worse_president_than_george_w._bush/?page=entire

QuoteAn economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.   That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Can't be made much simpler than that

I have no problem trying to help the unfortunate step up,  but they have to want to try.  And Society should take care of the ones who can not take care of themselves.   BUT -- What should we as a society do with the ones that take advantage of the situation?

Quote
Quote from: lisagurl on June 03, 2009, 04:25:04 pm
    So you are saying one life is worth more than another? We each have a finite amount of time in this world. I do not think anyone else's is worth more than mine.

Value is a perception.  If the item under evaluation is mine -- it is definitely worth more to me. 

But I do not make the statement that one life is worth more than another, it is what we do with our lives that make it have more value.  A couple of examples:

1. Mother Teresa - I think she would be high on the list very near the top.
2. Bill Gates - Gives an awfully obscene amount for charity , but built Microsoft off the work of others -- maybe lower (note the sarcasm).
3. Someone who does nothing for their community (although they could) except receive welfare, etc. -- lower still.

4. Someone who does everything they can for their community while on welfare, etc. -- pretty high.

Daisy

You should enter the morals thread.

Money is not the measure of people's worth either are grades. Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

Values vary between cultures and individuals. Faith in the federal banking system will not produce more resources or make the value of people's lives greater. The balance between my value of my life and your value of my life is different and can not be measured in money or grades.  The greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

Hey, and I'm not even sure about Mother Theresa myself, she had great press, but she has many detractors who claim, among other things:

    * MT was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. In 1996, she worked to create a ban on divorce and remarriage as part of Ireland's state constitution (her side narrowly lost).

    * MT was a friend of poverty, not a friend of the poor. She considered suffering a gift from God, noting that "the suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." Hitchens notes that MT "spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

    * MT was a friend to "the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return), praising the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha and accepting funds from Charles Keating of Lincoln Savings and Loan fame."

    * MT did not use the millions she collected to make improvements to the rundown, primitive hospice in Calcutta that was "rudimentary, unscientific and miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do." This impoverished image of the facility was key to MT's fund-raising, but monies collected for this purpose were used instead to discourage birth control, abortion and sex education in undeveloped countries and to open 500 convents in 120 countries. However, when she got sick, MT preferred to be treated in modern clinics in California.
       
    * MT is used by the Religious Right and fundamentalist Protestants as a poster girl for the right-to-life wing in America. She was used as the example of Christian idealism and family values, of all things, by Ralph Reed - the front man of the Pat Robertson forces. That's a symptom of a wider problem Hitchens called "reverse ecumenicism," an opportunist alliance between extreme Catholics and extreme Protestants.
(compiled by Chris Hitchens - the underline is what bothers me the most about her)

Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

True that, but people who use it as some sort of an "I don't need a formal education" deal are well to remember that though he did drop out of college, he did get INTO Harvard, not easy to do.

social liberal/fiscal conservative

Quote from: lisagurl on June 08, 2009, 05:03:05 PM
You should enter the morals thread.

Money is not the measure of people's worth either are grades. Or a diploma for that matter.  Gates did not earn one.

Values vary between cultures and individuals. Faith in the federal banking system will not produce more resources or make the value of people's lives greater. The balance between my value of my life and your value of my life is different and can not be measured in money or grades.  The greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

Just responding to your quote... I can honestly say this last one has me baffled.   I am not sure where you got grades or money out of my last quote.    I stated clearly " it is what we do with our lives that make it have more value". 

So I ask you what do you do to live your life to have more value?   I do a multitude a things, but could I do more?  Certainly. 

Just curious as you seem to avoid answering the How much out of every dollar should go to taxes?

Daisy

Just curious as you seem to avoid answering the How much out of every dollar should go to taxes?

Given the current state of the US economy it would be unrealistic for anyone to give an accurate long term tax rate. Be it either flat or progressive in nature.

If you want to debate short-term tax rates in a recession that would probably be a more effective line of discussion.

QuoteSo I ask you what do you do to live your life to have more value?

The whole concept of "more" is unsustainable. We should not even have money, as for taxes they are immoral,  as the concept that leaders can direct your contributions to the human race requires a person to degrade themselves.  You need to live on your own terms even if life itself is not of the greatest value. Our modern society seems to put life as the highest value which is a religious belief. In the past other ideals were put above life.

QuoteThe greater the disparity of values the greater chance of unhappiness.

The assumption that one society is good for all is not a good way to live. Bigger is not better.  Happiness comes from diversity and different cultures and different ways of living which are in conflict with each other.  Find your tribe and you will find happiness.  With one tribe no one is happy.

I'm a social progressive who is fiscally responsible.  I don't believe that our government should spend money unless they actually have it.  If we go to war, we assess every household an equal share to pay the bill as we incur expenses.  If we have a natural disaster, we do the same. We scale back government to match the funds that we dole out.

I also believe in a progressive tax rate. The wealthy use the majority of our infrastructure that we all pay for (the courts, communications, power, roads, security, etc).  For the forty years between FDR and Reagan, those earning more than 3.2 million dollars per year payed a very high tax rate for income earned over that number.  For that forty years, our middle class had a growth spurt never before experienced. Additionally, the ups and downs in the market were leveled. We didn't see the sorts of recessions we see now every 5 years or so.

On the social side, I believe in equal rights for everyone.... including US.  I see no valid arguments for any other point of view.

I also believe that the rights of "life and the pursuit of happiness" should now include health care. Yes, it should be a right of every citizen.  I think I might write a separate article on this.

Additionally, every citizen should receive a college education should they wish to pursue it and can maintain their grades. Why is it that we need to import so many engineers?  It's because we can no longer produce them here.  Listen.... if a prisoner serving a life sentence can get a college education at our expense, then we should be able to provide one to anyone else.

So where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 09, 2009, 12:55:22 PM
I'm a social progressive who is fiscally responsible.  I don't believe that our government should spend money unless they actually have it.  If we go to war, we assess every household an equal share to pay the bill as we incur expenses.  If we have a natural disaster, we do the same. We scale back government to match the funds that we dole out.

I also believe in a progressive tax rate. The wealthy use the majority of our infrastructure that we all pay for (the courts, communications, power, roads, security, etc).  For the forty years between FDR and Reagan, those earning more than 3.2 million dollars per year payed a very high tax rate for income earned over that number.  For that forty years, our middle class had a growth spurt never before experienced. Additionally, the ups and downs in the market were leveled. We didn't see the sorts of recessions we see now every 5 years or so.

On the social side, I believe in equal rights for everyone.... including US.  I see no valid arguments for any other point of view.

I also believe that the rights of "life and the pursuit of happiness" should now include health care. Yes, it should be a right of every citizen.  I think I might write a separate article on this.

Additionally, every citizen should receive a college education should they wish to pursue it and can maintain their grades. Why is it that we need to import so many engineers?  It's because we can no longer produce them here.  Listen.... if a prisoner serving a life sentence can get a college education at our expense, then we should be able to provide one to anyone else.

So where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Well done, Cindy.

Ya know, I get the feeling that lots of folks have no idea what was made and what was furthered by the New Deal. And the most often ignored effect of it was that growth of the middle classes in US during the 40s, 50s and 60s.

And the most often ignored thing about that time was the 75% or so marginal tax rate for the very wealthy. And what was the result? Investment in people and the economy and a huge growth in allowing diverse folk to take part in America as equal citizens. I mean, it was the essence of what Reagan would call "trickle-down" as pretty much all boats were lifted by that tide and pretty much all boats sank under the Milton Friedman theory.


1980 was certainly a watershed and a very negative one for most Americans. Odd how so many of those who are cocnsistently comlaining that we have a "socialist" government do so during the past 30 or so years while they have as open a "free-market" free-for-all as the country's experienced since 1932.

Excellent post.

N~

Quote from: Cindi Jones on June 09, 2009, 12:55:22 PMSo where do we get the money for the social programs I support?  We go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. We start scaling back our military research. We start demanding some discipline and accountability in congressional spending.  The first step is to balance our budget and start paying down our national debt.  The interest alone we pay on our debt is in itself a crippling bill out of every year's budget. Let's pay it off.  Once these are done, and it is not an impossible task, we can provide important and critical social programs to our nation's health. We did it once in the 1940's...... we can do it again.

Cindi

Well, "we" did it in 1940 by making "our children" -- the Baby Boomers, to be precise, pay for it, at least the monetary part. So while I agree in general, and agree that running up huge debts isn't usually a great idea, balancing the budget isn't the first step; it's the last step. No country runs a balanced budget in wartime, and the U.S. certainly didn't in 1940-45, nor should it have, nor could it have, nor should we now in this time of serious economic crisis. Times like these are what all that fiscal discipline in flush years is for, which is why Reagan, Bush, and Bush, Jr. were such disastrous presidents (though 41 was a LOT better than 40 or 43). In two or three years, if the economic situation stablizes, then I'll definitely be on the same page.

Nichole, I have to say that, for me, 1980 was a watershed year as well, but in a good way, such a time of great changes in my life. Learning to speak and walk are skills that I have treasured ever since then.

I dare to ask how much over-spending in the future can be avoided by smart spending today? And it is also enterily possibble to think that part of the conservatives love big taxes. 

I think the government should spend more on infrastructure, including road and rail. They should also throw more money into scientific research. I think that a successful, hi-tech economy is the only kind of population control necessary because it appears to be highly effective. My sympathies regarding the drug laws are torn between my disgust toward them in principle and my disgust toward the kind of people who use drugs; frankly, I despise drug addicts. In the West, religious adherence seems to be an inverse bellwhether for social prosperity: the more rabidly any given religion is exercised, the worse off a country normally is. I think the American Revolution was a mistake, and I believe we should make a go at getting into the Commonwealth of Nations; however, I won't get my hopes up. I think the prolifers and the greenpeacers were born for each other, and I hold both factions responsible for a long list of Things That Annoy Me.

If you asked me whether my politics are "right" or "left," I would say, "shut up, and ask me something specific." Also, I have a bad habit of expressing views that are well-founded but highly unpolitic: I do this to annoy the kinds of people who either stick their heads in the ground or lash out when they are forced to think too much, for it is very pleasurable to watch a stupid, little person turn purple in the face.

Social liberal/fiscal conservative was my vote.

I think it's highly unlikely, maybe even impossible, to have an "ideal" system.

Liberal all way

Sigma Prime wrote:

<quote>My sympathies regarding the drug laws are torn between my disgust toward them in principle and my disgust toward the kind of people who use drugs; frankly, I despise drug addicts. </quote>

Let me first say that the following anecdote is no commentary on your post..... it simply reminds me of my personal experience with bars.  When I lived in Utah, part of my coming out involved my first steps into a local public bar.  Since I grew up Mormon, it was something new to me.  The bars in Utah are dirty disgusting places.  Why do you ask?  Because that's where the "lowlifes" go to get drunk.  In my business travels, I had been to places that served alcohol but never a real bar.  I was surprised to find that there are many very nice bars that are legal that are considered acceptable in other states.  I have a hunch that if we were to legalize some of these drugs, we'd see something different than "lowlifes" strung out on the street.  We could save a lot of money too by reducing the prison populations.... and even tax the stuff.

Cindi

QuoteI have a hunch that if we were to legalize some of these drugs, we'd see something different than "lowlifes" strung out on the street.

OK, where would this larger number of lowlifes be strung out at. Not to mention the increased crime due to getting the money to buy the drugs and pay the taxes.

The first assumption is that someone is a "lowlife".  People rise to your expectations.  If you throw them into a ->-bleeped-<- hole, they will indeed be covered in ->-bleeped-<-.  Sorry to be so blunt.

If drugs were legal, the price would come down.... significantly.  Right now, it makes sense that people are willing to die for a chance to  make a million dollars. Would they be so willing if they only made 20?

Right now, addicts must steal to keep their habit.  But it has been shown that people can live a responsible life on a managed level of many narcotics.  Granted, you wouldn't want them driving school buses or operating metal lathes.  But they could certainly push papers somewhere. Lower the price, get them to a doctor for managed care, and then they might find work so that they can pay their own way.  No more stealing.  Are they still lowlifes?

And what of the corporate yippie yups who ARE strung out on legal prescription drugs and still pulling down 6 figures in salary?   Are they lowlifes?  You will never know because you don't see them.

From my original example.... in Utah, when I was a straight laced Mormon, someone who went to a bar was a drunk.  Out on the lawn at the white house, these days, sitting down to share a bear is considered a "teaching moment". Who is the lowlife?  My answer might be the observer.

Cindi