The Irony of Politics [Archive]

Fred

10-22-2008, 01:12 PM

Fortunately, there are only a couple of weeks to go and this election stuff will be in the history books. I'm a non-partisan. A conservative to be sure, but a non-partisan. I do get some entertainment from the nonsense the candidates of both political parties spew out.

Some of it is ironic. I'll give you an example. Yesterday, I was listening to Joe Biden give a stump speech. It was well delivered and effective, I think. But he kept harping on what he called the "Bush economic policy." I understand why he did that but it got me to thinking.

What is the "Bush economic policy?" From what I can tell, the only thing you can attribute to GW Bush in terms of economics is his willingness to see the government grow and overspend. He shares that with every President that came before him and, most likely, with every one that will come after him.

Yes he did a tax cut and I view that as a very good move. However, it is only a good move if the government spends less to compensate. It never does.

So the Bush economic policy as I see it was to spend like a drunken sailor. Obviously, you can't believe what a politician says but I think it is ironic that the candidate who promises a continuation of the "spend like a drunken sailor" approach to government is Joe Biden and his partner Barack Obama. It is actually the opponent who is promising less spending. Obama's economic policy is more in line with that of the "Bush economic policy" than McCain's is.

Oh, yes. There is the credit crisis. But Bush didn't have anything to do with that. He didn't see it coming and that's bad but he didn't start it. It was actually his predecessor Bill Clinton who started that by pressuring Fannie and Freddie to expand home ownership through relaxed credit practices. No doubt expanding home ownership was a noble idea but we can all see that doing it with relaxed credit policies wasn't the way to do it.

So the credit crisis doesn't really relate to anything Bush did but rather to what the former Democratic President did and, in fact, what Barack Obama did indirectly in supporting, training and representing Acorn which continues to pressure financial institutions to relax credit policies. So it is ironic to me that it is Obama's history and practices that relate more to the causes of the credit crisis than anything Bush did.

I don't know why I find these things entertaining but I do. What politicians say is to be ignored and disbelieved. What politicians do is more to the point. Very ironic that the Obama campaign works so hard at trying negatively to connect McCain to policies which fit them more than they fit McCain.

I'll try to find an ironic note going in the other direction next time I hear a speech from McCain or Palin. It shouldn't be hard. That campaign continues to harp on Obama's relationships with other people. They don't have dirt on him so they find dirt on people with whom he associates or associated. I don't think anybody on either side really cares about those with whom Obama associates. We'll see how it goes.

That's my political blog for today. Ironic isn't it?

MartinPiller

10-22-2008, 02:51 PM

It is ironic indeed. Politics have always been a synonym to irony, especially during campaigns.

Politicians run a program for let's say 4 to 8 years. The subjects they deal with are often much more long term things, like home ownership as you refer to. So, they are gone before the effects of their policy become visible. Irony is obvious.

B.T.W. The Bush economic policy? Was there any? Did I miss something?

Sullybob

10-22-2008, 06:01 PM

You bring up some good points Fred. I think the bottom line is that they are going to do or say whatever they think will get them elected, then they will do what ever they wanted to do in the first place.
The more I learn about our government the more amazed I am that it works at all.

Fred

10-22-2008, 07:42 PM

Just as ironic, I think, is that every presidential candidate says different things but they all tend to do the same things once they get into office. A good example are the two latest presidents. Bush has proven to be more liberal than Clinton was despite their politicaly parties. Apparently the office changes them and conforms them to something.

I was born during the Roosevelt administration and the country has moved along with its ups and downs through every president since. To me it doesn't make a whit of difference who is president. It never has mattered.

I don't know why the government functions but I'm as amazed about it as you are.

ksskss

10-22-2008, 11:17 PM

thombrogan

10-23-2008, 12:08 AM

Is a 4 billion dollar tax break to the oil companies not wealth redistribution?

No. Not at all. Not taking something is different than taking something. If I don't take your money (and I generally don't), I have not given you someone else's money.

I just see this as the final blows of a administration that has conducted war on the middle class, outsourcing our jobs, making our homes worthless and then saying that we were irresponsible for getting in our homes.

Franklin Raines, with the helpful perjury of Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, helped cause the boom and bust of the housing market. None of them are part of the Bush administration.

Well-meaning, but unpracticeable regulations and guidelines from OSHA, the EPA, FDA, FTC, and Labor Department have artificially increased the costs of doing business in the USA while reducing the available demand for USA-based labor. Those organizations, while wrongfully kept in existence by the Bush administration, are not generally associated with the Republican party. Maybe it would be fair to blame the reason for the flight and not Bush?

From "No Child Left Behind" to cutting taxes without cutting spending to having Rumsfeld divide his efforts between appeasing the world stahe and winning a war (versus the pragmatism of his successor), Bush has screwed up royally and often. Isn't it more fun to attack him for the faults that are actually his?

Blaming Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae and the subsequent housing and banking troubles on Bush after his efforts to have those government-sponsored entities regulated were tabled by fraud on the part of their supporters only hold water if you seriously expected Bush to storm into Congress and the House of Representatives and assault the legislators with a soldering iron until he got his way.

ksskss

10-23-2008, 03:53 AM

Thom, the subsequent points do have a degree of truth to it - both parties do share blame and we could discuss this at length, but I'll just take on the first point. I do consider the president as having a bully pulpit and not exercising it by putting pressure on the legislative branch is his fault and where I consider the buck stopping. As the saying goes "The fish rots from the head". Falsely comforting statements about the economy is sound is not my idea of exercising leadership. Again, I agree there's plenty of blame to go around.

If the oil companies are given (continue to have) this tax break, one of two things (or a combination) happens. Either someone else has to pay for what they would have paid or the debt increases. Same with ethanol subsidies. In either case the burden has been redistributed away from one entity (oil company, who now has more money for 'research' or whatever else they spend it on - PR, stockholder's earnings / dividends, exec salaries and bonuses, etc) and distributed elsewhere. If I don't have to pay taxes and the burden is shifted to someone else this is a redistribution. Whether it occurrs before or after I earn it or pay taxes on it, it is redistribution of wealth and the timing is more semantic than real. Taxation is a form of wealth redistribution.

While there is a long list of things that both you and I would agree on regarding Bush and possibly his Republican successor, I just tried to focus on some of the more ironic ones.

Now the irony of what we have spent on the military budget and not having caught/killed the one central figure that brought this war on terror to a point on 9/11, that is both irony and ineptitude.

I do have a staunch Republican friend and the two of us have had many a conversation over a cup of coffee or dinner and we still maintain an active friendship. I hope anyone reading this knows that I don't expect anyone to have my beliefs or vica versa, but we can respectfully disagree.

---
Ken

Fred

10-23-2008, 04:43 AM

I find it humorous and ironic that a women spends $150K on clothes and makeup to appeal to Joe six pack and Joe the (hoping to make >$250k/year) plumber. This next to Cindy McCain in her designer wardrobe, while calling Obama an elitest.

That's a good one. Couldn't agree more.

I find it ironic that a candidate complains that his opponent lacks experience and picks someone who can't, after at least four public attempts even correctly specify what the job description is, thinking she runs the senate.

True, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Palin is the VP candidate, not the presidential one.

The height of irony though is for a Republican to act like a third party candidate running against - the Republicans.

If you were being compared to an unpopular president for political reasons, wouldn't you run against him too? I think McCain failed to do that early enough and loud enough. As I said above, you have to ignore what politicians say. Judge them on what they do.

The idea that redistributing wealth going in a downward direction is socialism, while redistributing wealth in an upward direction is a bailout. Is a 4 billion dollar tax break to the oil companies not wealth redistribution?

Wealth redistribution is socialism. It is the very foundation of socialism. It is what the word means. That description is accurate. Bailout is a term used by the press, not the government. Was the bailout a good idea? Of course not. It ranks as the second most expensive mistake Bush made in his administration. The most expensive mistake was the Iraq war. We will get through this current credit crisis despite the bailout, not because of it.

I just see this as the final blows of a administration that has conducted war on the middle class, outsourcing our jobs, making our homes worthless and then saying that we were irresponsible for getting in our homes.

I'm lost here. I haven't seen any wars on the middle class. Perhaps you sense something I don't.

Outsourcing jobs is something you can blame on business and the cost of labor in the U.S. and the priority consumers put on low price, not the current administration. It is true that Bush pushed to give China most favored nation status and that was likely a mistake. But NAFTA, you will recall, was passed during the Clinton administration. There is plenty of secondary blame to go around.

What did the Bush administration do to make our homes worthless? We entered a recession about the time Bush came to office because of the bursting of the "internet bubble." You will recall that stock prices went to unheard of PE ratios because Wall Street believed we were in a new economy and business profits didn't matter. The Federal Reserve, trying to prevent the recession, reduced interest rates to historically low levels. This was the major impetus to the extraordinary rise in house prices. Presidents don't run the Federal Reserve. This was a bubble just like the internet bubble in the 1990's. It had to burst just like the last bubble did. We are feeling that one big time now. Bush had no part in it other than to fail to see the bubble burst coming. Every time government gets involved in running business, it does a worse job of it than the private sector does. Their best bet is to stick with what they do.

I also find it ironic that the 'tax and spend' liberals are rarely contrasted with the 'spend and spend' republicans, who consistently leave us with a bigger bill to clean up when they leave than when they got in, sticking the Democrats with the bill.

This happens all the time with administrations from both sides of the aisle. Every president in history has outspent the former ones. It is like a cancer. We have a basic flaw in our governmental system and that is that the congress has an incentive to spend in order to consolidate its power base. Since politicians are driven by personal good rather than the common good, it would make sense to me to adjust those incentives. We hear politicians talk about "taking back the government" all the time. Actually, the people need to take back the government. I have some ideas for that but I won't make this post any longer.

I am obviously biased on this topic, so please pardon the rant, but the burden of irony was just too great.

My purpose in posting was to get some discussion. Nothing to pardon.

Fred

10-23-2008, 04:52 AM

If the oil companies are given (continue to have) this tax break, one of two things (or a combination) happens.

Let's not get confused here. It is congress that creates and adjusts tax law, not the president. If oil companies get tax breaks you don't think they deserve, you should talk to your congressman and your senators, not blame it on the president.

thombrogan

10-23-2008, 10:20 AM

Ken,

If I may, there is a difference between redistributing wealth and redistributing a tax burden. Similarly, since the oil companies of the USA, UK, and the Netherlands have historically reinvested their profits (from Standard Oil onto today's Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil) into growing their businesses (which includes hiring people, paying benefits on top of wages, buying equipment from outside sources, investing in newer technologies whose creations have applications beyond refining and geological purposes), it would be more of a burden on the customers and other beneficiaries of these companies (many of the customers and non-customer beneficiaries as well as employees, investors, and outside vendors are US citizens) if these tax breaks didn't occur.

Back to our enjoyment of ironies: Most conservative* or partially-conservative Republicans did not and do not view John McCain as a Republican and consider him to be a Republican In Name Only (RINO) and that, too, is ironic considering that Abraham Lincoln's behavior as president (suspending the writ of habeas corpus, interfering with a free press, presiding over the creation of an income tax...) didn't match conservative ideals and mores.

Thomas Sowell said it best when he said "It took Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to make me even consider voting for John McCain."

* By "conservative," I'm using the modern, American English term to describe a person who prefers government to have a highly limited role in the service it provides and for a reasonably strict interpretation of the United States' Constitution. In European English, that description can apply to a "liberal."

Fred

10-23-2008, 10:55 AM

Back to our enjoyment of ironies: Most conservative* or partially-conservative Republicans did not and do not view John McCain as a Republican and consider him to be a Republican In Name Only (RINO) and that, too, is ironic considering that Abraham Lincoln's behavior as president (suspending the writ of habeas corpus, interfering with a free press, presiding over the creation of an income tax...) didn't match conservative ideals and mores.

Thomas Sowell said it best when he said "It took Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to make me even consider voting for John McCain."

* By "conservative," I'm using the modern, American English term to describe a person who prefers government to have a highly limited role in the service it provides and for a reasonably strict interpretation of the United States' Constitution. In European English, that description can apply to a "liberal."

By my definition - the American English one - I view Bush as having proved himself to be more liberal than Clinton was. Clinton made some noise about growing government but really didn't grow it much. Bush grew it beyond belief. Personally, I think McCain is probably more conservative in that single category than Bush is. It might be just talk, but I think he believes government is too large and too spendy like I do.

I'll go vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate like I always do when I don't see a suitable candidate from either major party. Then I will vote against every incumbent regardless of party like I usually do. It usually doesn't take me long to vote since Indiana is good enough to identify the incumbents for me on the ballot.

thombrogan

10-23-2008, 11:03 AM

By my definition - the American English one - I view Bush as having proved himself to be more liberal than Clinton was.

I readily agree. Bush is the most liberal president our nation has experienced and the bailout is one more article of evidence.

I like the Libertarian Party, but I'm casting my vote for the lesser of two evils this year and voting to re-elect the incumbent governor. He didn't do half of what he said he'd do the last two terms, but then, that's why I'm voting for him. :)

Fred

10-23-2008, 11:22 AM

You're lucky. Our liberal Republican governor sold our toll road and raised the sales tax during his term. They never get it. They have to balance the budget by law. They always want to do it by collecting more revenure rather than spending less. It is a cancer of the worst sort.

Also, when he finally got the state to accept daylight savings time, he had an opportunity to put the whole state in the same time zone and didn't do it. I can still drive 15 miles to the West and go from Eastern time to Central time without crossing a state border. So I will vote against him on purpose, knowing what I'm doing and why. The other incumbents lose my vote simply because I don't think there should be any incumbency in American politics. I believe all political office holders should be limited to a single term. I believe political office should be a term of service, not a career.

Sullybob

10-23-2008, 03:23 PM

Lots of good points.
Just a quick thought.
I thought that we (the US) had the 2nd highest tax on businesses in the world and that that is one of the major reasons why companies are leaving the US and going some where else. I don't think that companies really pay tax's anyway, (they do pay the government taxes) they pass that "operating cost" along to us, the consumers. The higher we raise their taxes the more they will charge us for their goods and services.

Their has been some really excellent posts. I would also add that rarely is a problem the result of any one single thing.

Fred you said "We will get through this current credit crisis despite the bailout, not because of it."
Why do you think that the bailout is not going to help us? Please tell me more. I don't know enough to have an educated opinion on weather the bail out is a good thing or a bad thing.

Fred

10-23-2008, 05:29 PM

Shawn, businesses pay taxes on net profit, not on revenue. A profit and loss statement starts with the income or revenue and then subtracts all the expense related to running the business to arrive at a net profit (or loss.) In the case of my business those expenses include everything from what I pay for the products I sell to payroll and shipping costs. Accounting rules and practices are standard and everybody plays by those same practices - or at least everybody is supposed to. So, yes, operating costs are part of what you pay whenever you buy a product. And, yes, part of what you pay is the taxes they pay. And businesses pay a ton of taxes contrary to your belief.

As to the second question, people need to get over the concept that the government can do anything positive for the economy. It can't. Both candidates promise they will fix the economy but neither one of them can fulfill the promise. The economy is cyclical. It has ups and downs. A lot of things contribute to those ups and downs but the government can only contribute negatively to it by overspending and causing inflation in the process. You can blame whoever you like for the credit crisis but the reality is that the only fix is to wait and let the economy recover from it naturally. No doubt that is painful but there isn't any other way. Meddling with it by the government only makes the ups and downs more severe and longer lasting. That is what history tells us.

So, in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of knowlegeable people, you can't fix the economy by throwing money at it. In fact you can't fix it at all. You have to wait until it fixes itself. The banks have already backed that statement up by explaining that they don't intend to open up credit even after getting the huge handout from the government. So giving them 700 billion dollars isn't going to produce the intended results. What will produce the intended results is waiting while the economy sorts itself out and fixes itself. Banks are in the business of lending. They will lend. They just won't lend now. And paying them to lend won't motivate them to do it either. They've said so.

Two large companies were recently nationalized by the federal government - AIG, a huge insurance company and Bear, Stearns, an investment banking company. These companies were badly managed and failed because of the stupid decisions of their managers. So the government has stepped in and decided to manage them itself. That is even more stupid. The government has proven time and again that it can't manage itself, let alone private businesses. When companies fail, we need to wave goodbye and watch as smarter companies that are better managed arrive to fill the void. And they arrive every time and very quickly. In other words, all the government did was to delay this process and do it in an unbelievably expensive way at our cost.

It all gets down to politics. When the economy starts down a rocky road, people want it to be like the good old days so they pester government to fix it for them. Government can't fix it but they do things to let the people know they trying. If the government were to say, "Be patient, we'll pull out of this in a year two," I don't need to tell you what the people do to the politicians. But the reality is we need to wait a year or two while this sorts out. It has always been this way and it alway will be as long as we continue to have a free market economy. I've been through 8 recessions personally, This one isn't going to be much different except that I expect it to be worse than the 1972 recession which was a whopper. Hope that helps give you some things to think about.

MusicMan

10-23-2008, 08:01 PM

Two large companies were recently nationalized by the federal government - AIG, a huge insurance company and Bear, Stearns, an investment banking company. These companies were badly managed and failed because of the stupid decisions of their managers. So the government has stepped in and decided to manage them itself. That is even more stupid. The government has proven time and again that it can't manage itself, let alone private businesses. When companies fail, we need to wave goodbye and watch as smarter companies that are better managed arrive to fill the void.

I agree, I am not even sure why the US government loaned AIG that 80 billion, as far as I can tell there is a lineup of other insurance companies ready to buy up pieces of it.

Sullybob

10-24-2008, 03:40 PM

I wrote that businesses do pay taxes. What didn't come through clearly is that I believe that they (the big businesses) pass some or a lot of those costs on to us. If we suddenly raise the taxes on the oil industry say, 10% I see the gas prices at the pump jumping 10% or more instantly.

I just read on Yahoo that it's suspected that the Federal Reserve will cut the interest rate to under 1%. In the same article several economics professors are interviewed and they all say that this isn't going to do anything. Here is a quote from the article "It's window dressing, only a psychological weapon," said Sung Won Sohn. The article also says that low interest rates lead to inflation. It seems like a catch 22 situation.

I totally agree that the failed company's should be allowed to die, don't save them it is rewarding bad business practices.

Fred

10-24-2008, 05:11 PM

Yes, ALL businesses pass ALL costs and then some on to their customers. If they didn't, they wouldn't make a profit and would fail. Nothing new there. That situation has existed as long as the private enterprise system has existed. I can't imagine why you are isolating big businesses from that. It is true of all businesses.

Yes, lowering the interest rate is downright silly since the problem is not the interest rate but the availability of credit. As I said before, these actions by the government are window dressing to make itself look good in the eyes of the public. They think they are making us believe they are doing something useful and positive. They obviously think we are stupid.

We don't want a centrally controlled and managed economy. That is communism. We want a private enterprise system. That is what has made the U.S. the richest country in the world. The government is trying to undo that but, if we aren't stupid, we won't let them get away with it.

MusicMan

10-24-2008, 06:00 PM

We don't want a centrally controlled and managed economy. That is communism. We want a private enterprise system.

The Economist had an article on that, the gist of which is the bailout is necessary but what should happen is the government get out of banking asap , preferably with a profit.

I suspect most governments will take that route, as much as it annoying that investment bankers made millions taking risk and are getting bailed out, government is the home of nepotism, the longer they stay in it the more chance that the financial sector will be closed to everyone but the friend and relatives of those in government, merit and competence need not be a requirement....communism as you say Fred.

Sullybob

10-24-2008, 06:57 PM

I understand that the costs are passed along to the consumer other wise their would be no profit and businesses would fail. Here is an example of what I mean.
One of the proposals is to have a tax for just the oil companies and to tax their profit at a much higher rate then other businesses are currently being taxed. I don't see how that will help the other taxpayers. Why have a new special tax on just the oil companies profits? I believe that if we single out the oil companies for a special tax on their profits that they will in turn raise the price of their products so that in effect the consumer is paying the new tax and the profits will stay the same or nearly the same. If the government singles out the oil companies, what companies are going to be next? Where is the incentive for some of the larger corporations to stay in the US when they can relocate to another country and not have pay the high tax rates. I understand that some companies can not relocate. Some can though, and why would they stay here if their is an incentive to relocate?

Fred

10-24-2008, 07:59 PM

Yes, what you say is correct. Taxes are part of the costs that are passed along to customers. Taxing one company harder than another is punitive, unfair and bad economic policy because it would motivate oil companies to move elsewhere. I'm not fan of oil companies but I prefer the oil companies to be American and not from some other country.

What we really need to do is to get rid of the income tax altogether. We should put a 40% tariff on imports like many other countries do. That could not only replace the income tax as the primary source of government revenue but it would also make taxes optional to degree. We could choose whether to buy imports or not. It would also go a long way toward slowing or stopping the exportation of jobs as we give our manufacturing up to the rest of the world. And if a 40% import tariff isn't enough, then the government should spend less to make it enough.

Being a net consumer society isn't a long term solution to anything. At some point we will have spent whatever we had with which to consume and won't be able to consume any longer. We need a balance of trade.

This isn't a very popular sentiment but I believe it passionately. You may be interested to know that our government started out making its revenue from import tariffs. There was no income tax in the 18th century in the U.S.

ksskss

10-25-2008, 01:50 AM

Fred, while I don't want to put the time into tis thread, your last post re income tax is a point of view that I like a lot.

Well, OK just one:
"It is congress that creates and adjusts tax law, not the president". It is the president who signs it into law isn't it? I seem to remember something about 'veto' power and checks and balances. While it isn't a line item veto, I give Both branches credit for something that gets made into a law. Then there's the selective enforcement of the law too. One example that comes to mind is 'illegal alien'. I'm not a 'purist' ultra left leaning wackjob liberal, so I do disagree with letting everyone into the country illegally and doing nothing about it. The least we could do is select who we want to come in. I'm not for H1B visas either when there are lots of Americans who could do the work, albiet for a living fair wage.

---
Ken

Fred

10-25-2008, 02:27 AM

Yes, of course. But let me ask you this. If the oil companies get some sort of unique tax break and the Congress wanted to make a law that eliminated it, do you think the President would veto it in this day and age with the current sentiments in society? No, he wouldn't. I'm not a political analyst but I would guess the reason they haven't passed such a law is so they wouldn't lose another brick they can use to throw at Bush. I think Bush has proven himself to be a poor president. There is no doubt he is an unpopular one. Most of them are poor performers. But I have to tell you I feel sorry for the way he has been treated. People are really cruel.

It is immigration that made this country great. For our entire existence we have attracted some of the best and brightest from other countries who were willing to take a risk to make a better life for themselves here. But illegal immigration, on the other hand, has a list of negatives so long I won't bother to list them since you see them yourself.

I couldn't agree more. It is disreputable that politicians haven't done anything at all about illegal immigration. As you know, it is purely political. They don't want to lose any votes. The fix, of course, is to have them lose votes because they don't do anything about it. So in the end, we can blame ourselves for being apathetic. Politicians are motivated by self interest. We are the ones who define their priorities and incentives. We need to look in the mirror.

Err

10-25-2008, 12:36 PM

How come liberal = big government in american political thought :confused:

VHo

10-25-2008, 12:43 PM

How come liberal = big government in american political thought :confused:

especially when this republican administration has given us the biggest government, and biggest deficit in history.

and had their heads in the sand allowing wall street to bend us over.

we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

thombrogan

10-25-2008, 01:34 PM

How come liberal = big government in american political thought :confused:

American English is just fun. It refers to a liberal use of government action to achieve one's aim.

especially when this republican administration has given us the biggest government, and biggest deficit in history.

GWB will likely go down in history as being the most liberal (American usage) president ever to hold the office. I hope that whomever takes over doesn't give him a run for his money in that regard. Anyone can be a "liberal," "conservative," or whatever other colorful label grabs their attention and still belong to any political party; especially the two larger political parties.

and had their heads in the sand allowing wall street to bend us over.

Au contraire, mon frere! When many on Wall Street have made massively dumb investments, our pals in Washington have lept up to bail them out and keep the illusion of security alive.

we have met the enemy, and the enemy is us.

But our enemy quotes Walt Kelly cartoons, so he can't be that bad. ;)

Fred

10-25-2008, 01:50 PM

especially when this republican administration has given us the biggest government, and biggest deficit in history.
.

You're confusing liberal/conservative with political parties. Bush is a classic liberal. Big government is definitely a liberal thing. It is the foundation of the debate between liberals and conservatives. Bill Clinton is a classic conservative. You need to judge politicians by what they do, not by what they say.

thombrogan

10-25-2008, 04:11 PM

I do have a staunch Republican friend and the two of us have had many a conversation over a cup of coffee or dinner and we still maintain an active friendship. I hope anyone reading this knows that I don't expect anyone to have my beliefs or vica versa, but we can respectfully disagree.

I apologize for not explicitly addressing this point earlier, Ken.

My opinion is that it's great we disagree on these issues. We have access to much of the same sources of information, but our perspectives and focal points give us such differing appraisals and that is very enjoyable to me. As you're my friend (even though I'm a Republican or something ;) ), I hope you'll disagree with me as often and as strongly as I may disagree with you; moreso if need be. We enjoy our agreements; let's enjoy our disagreements.

ksskss

10-25-2008, 07:00 PM

Well correct me if I wrong, but I believe Bush, SR started referring to 'carping liberals' (who knew there were liberal fish :) ) and ever since then it has been used as a pejorative term - by those who are 'conservative'.

Thom, and everyone else, I think this is one of the nicer political discussions I've seen in a while, so when agreeing to disagree and to express one's opinions no apologies are required, because nothing wrong has occurred.. These days, especially when there are fundamental disagreements regarding our wars, our money and our future, it would be hard for people not to disagree. I call it thinking, and I'm all for that. By and large if I just wanted a discussion where everybody agreed with me, I'd be talking to a mirror - except when I disagree with myself..

Quite often I find that when we brush aside the semantics and 'talking points' that there's often more core fundamental agreement than disagreement. One good example is GWB. While trying to label him a liberal (we don't want him either :) ), he seems to have a rather unique ability to upset both liberal and conservative elements of both parties. I doubt we'll see him on the straight talk express ...

---
Ken

thombrogan

10-25-2008, 07:24 PM

Thanks, Ken.

Fred

10-26-2008, 06:14 AM

Quite often I find that when we brush aside the semantics and 'talking points' that there's often more core fundamental agreement than disagreement. One good example is GWB. While trying to label him a liberal (we don't want him either :) ), he seems to have a rather unique ability to upset both liberal and conservative elements of both parties. I doubt we'll see him on the straight talk express ...

Ken, I think partisanship gets in the way of clear thinking not only among politicians but voters as well. There are all kinds of details involved but there is only one fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives in my book and that is the overall role of government. Conservatives like me was less government. We want people to be free to succeed or fail on our own without much interference from government. That's why I call Bush a classic liberal. He is obviously a proponent of bigger government. Bill Clinton was not. It is as simple as that. The rest of the details are, for me, not important even though they may be to others. I'm not a partisan. I don't care at all which party has political power. All I want is less government of whatever color or stripe. Parties have little to do with that sentiment. People do.

I think what happens is that partisanship makes the partisans reject whatever the other side suggests whether it is a good suggestion or not. Then they spend all of their effort with personal attacks and even lies to try to prevent the other side's concepts from gaining any credibility. That happens in both directions, obviously. The goal is not right or wrong or the common good. The goal is the achievement and maintenance of political power. That is the problem.

I believe politics is humanity at its worst. When I was involved in warfare, I used to think war was humanity at its worst. But warfare is very straightforward and honest. You always know what the opponent wants to do. He wants to kill you and break your stuff. With politics you never know.

VHo

10-26-2008, 02:42 PM

I believe politics is humanity at its worst. When I was involved in warfare, I used to think war was humanity at its worst. But warfare is very straightforward and honest. You always know what the opponent wants to do. He wants to kill you and break your stuff. With politics you never know.

amen.

ksskss

10-26-2008, 04:03 PM

Fred, here we probably agree in large measure on our wants but less on our definitions. I would consider liberalism a philosophy that favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.

What has happened is the reformulation of the meaning of words, much like the department of Justice was where injustices were performed in Orwell's '1984' novel. I am for individual liberties, but have no desire for large government. We've reached a point of obfuscation of the term liberal to the point where you could not have people with opposing points of view define their position accurately using labels like liberal or conservative. What part of 'conservative' is spending ourself into oblivion, whether it is for purposes of war or some other social programs? Money is money. Also are we all so monolithic in our views as to be labelled with one brush for all our views? This is the most disturbing, because it shows a degree of 'thought control'.

I find myself fiscally conservative, socially liberal (What part of conservative is it when Republicans want to invade bedrooms and get in the middle of our most personal decisions for instance) and believe that if Bush had followed BASIC principles listed in the ancient "Art of War" text and had killed more cheaply, that we wouldn't have been in this mess - hardly a 'liberal' value. Is rebuidling a whole economy of another country with our (borrowed) money international 'socialism' done by a 'conservative' administration?

We have become so concerned as a society with these broad labels that we sweep the topic under the rug of these fake terms. The devil is in the details. I've been told that when we label things we stop critically thinking about what we've labelled, no longer looking under the hood to see the details of reality. So perhaps the biggest irony is that we've so diluted the meanings of words that we start to disintegrate into a proverbial tower of Babel.

---
Ken

Fred

10-26-2008, 04:42 PM

I won't argue semantics with you. We can define terms in any way we like. I don't think the semantics are particularly important. I think I understand you and you understand me. I agree that we could probably arrive at more similarity than differences in our views.

Err

10-28-2008, 10:11 AM

Saying 'semantics' seems a tad dismissive Fred, unless i'm imagining the pejorative usage on your part. I know Ken is a big fan of clear use of clear terms, as am I. Is that semantics?

When terms lose their consensus meaning they make discussion more difficult, maybe impossible, which (I believe) leads to a more fractured and fractious society.

There's a great site i like called political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/ that i think helps to take us beyond left right which also have become meaningless. I'm bottom left quadrant, where are you guys?

thombrogan

10-28-2008, 10:50 AM

I'm bottom left quadrant, where are you guys?

I'm all alone. No one else seems to have answered the questions the way I have.

Err

10-28-2008, 02:17 PM

Go on thom, spill, top left is pretty rare territory, but doesn't seem to fit you. Bottom right maybe?

esvoboda

10-28-2008, 03:03 PM

My test results...

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1997/politicaltestop4.png

Seems consistent with my beliefs. On my office wall above my desk...

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4060/aynrandpy1.jpg

Our defacto two-party system leaves a lot of us unhappy. I'm a lifelong registered Republican due primarily to my small government beliefs but I can't relate at all to the social views of much of the party's current base.

Sullybob

10-28-2008, 03:37 PM

I am similar to Gandhi? But I said yes on capital punishment? Not really sure how that works.

Really I'm slightly left of center and just below the line. -1.5, -3 are the coordinates.

I'm not really sure how accurate of a political indicator this is, but it was fun. George W is listed as far right. Hmm...

Fred

10-28-2008, 04:06 PM

Saying 'semantics' seems a tad dismissive Fred, unless i'm imagining the pejorative usage on your part. I know Ken is a big fan of clear use of clear terms, as am I. Is that semantics?

Perjorative use of the term semantics? I don't know what you mean. I defined the difference between conservatism and liberalism. That's how I view it. If you view another way then any discussion revolves around semantics. No?

When terms lose their consensus meaning they make discussion more difficult, maybe impossible, which (I believe) leads to a more fractured and fractious society.

I can't imagine why. We always need to define terms in any discussion unless the discussers have already agreed to the definitions.

There's a great site i like called political compass http://www.politicalcompass.org/ that i think helps to take us beyond left right which also have become meaningless. I'm bottom left quadrant, where are you guys?

It was interesting. I'm a centrist, apparently. I sit right on the line between left and right and I'm barely below the line that separates authoritarian and libertarian on the libertarian side so I guess I'm a weak libertarian. As a non-partisan, I don't seem to agree totally with either side. The only truly passionate political belief I have is that government needs to be way, way, way, way smaller and less spendy. They didn't cover that very strongly, making the test not so valid for me. I'm not sure I was very impressed with the test, actually.