DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on January 28, 2008, 04:12:26 PM
-
McCain Presidency Would Be a Disaster
Sunday, January 27, 2008 8:59 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
John McCain?s false charge that Mitt Romney favored a set timetable for withdrawing from Iraq underscores how disastrous a McCain presidency would be.
Any candidate can make a slight misstatement while talking extemporaneously. Hillary Clinton constantly rewrites her own record and has been caught fabricating, as when she made up the story that on 9/11, her daughter Chelsea was going to jog at Battery Park near the towers, where she heard and saw the catastrophe unfold.
But no candidate in this race has gone so far as to baldly fabricate what another candidate has said, as McCain did over the weekend. That same kind of recklessness is evident in McCain?s explosions of temper, which are meant to intimidate those who do not agree with him or do not support him.
Not naming him at first, McCain said in Fort Myers, Fla., ?Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster.?
Talking to reporters minutes later, the Arizona senator was more direct: ?'If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Gov. Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher.?
Asked about the comment, Romney said, ?That?s dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That?s simply wrong,? he said. ?That is not the case. We?ve never said that.?
Romney asked for an apology. Having moved on to Sun City, Fla., McCain said: ?The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform.?
A look at what Romney actually said in an interview on ABC?s Good Morning America on April 3, 2007 makes it clear that Romney said the opposite of what McCain claimed he said.
Robin Roberts said to Romney, ?You have also been very vocal in supporting the president and the troop surge. Yet, the American public has lost faith in this war. Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops??
?Well, there?s no question but that? the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about,? Romney replied. ?But those shouldn?t be for public pronouncement. You don?t want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you?re going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government.?
?So, private,? Robins said. ?You wouldn?t do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same??
?Well, of course,? Romney said. ?Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we?ll go home, or if we haven?t gotten this accomplished we?ll pull up and leave? You don?t publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course, you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don?t do that with the opposition.?
With the exception of Sean Hannity on Fox News, no news outlet fully quoted what Romney actually said on GMA. That?s no surprise. As the New York Times? recent endorsement of McCain suggests, the liberal media love him. As a former McCain aide told me, that?s because the senator gives reporters total access to him and because he is as liberal as a Democrat on many issues.
On almost ?every turn on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side,? former Sen. Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican, has said.
In a stunning example of the media?s slant, the AP?s Ron Fournier wrote after Romney won in Michigan, ?The former Massachusetts governor pandered to voters, distorted his opponents? record, and continued to show why he?s the most malleable?and least credible?major presidential candidate,? Fournier wrote. ?And it worked.?
As for McCain, ?The man who spoke hard truths to Michigan lost,? Fournier said. ?Of all the reasons John McCain deserved a better result Tuesday night, his gamble on the economy stands out?
Not to be outdone, the New York Times ran a story on Jan. 24 headlined, ?Romney Leads in Ill Will Among GOP Candidates.? The story said, ?In stark contrast to Mr. Romney, Mr. McCain seems to be universally liked and respected by the other Republican contenders, even if they disagree with him.?
The evidence to support that claim came entirely from quotes from present or former McCain aides.
While McCain clearly has formidable supporters, and his stand on the Iraq war was admirable, those who have dealt with him over the years have been appalled by his outbursts of temper, a character trait the media have largely ignored.
In endorsing Romney, Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who has known McCain for more than three decades, said his choice was prompted partly by his fear of how McCain might behave in the Oval Office.
?The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine,? Cochran said about McCain. ?He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me.?
?He [McCain] would disagree about something and then explode,? said former Sen. Bob Smith, a fellow Republican who served with McCain on various committees. ?[There were] incidents of irrational behavior. We?ve all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I?ve never seen anyone act like that.?
Defending his bill to give amnesty to illegal aliens, McCain unleashed a tirade on Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who had voiced concerns about the number of judicial appeals illegal immigrants could file under the proposed legislation.
?F*** you!? McCain said to his fellow senator. ?I know more about this than anybody else in the room!? McCain shouted.
?People who disagree with him get the f*** you,? said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House. ?I think he is mentally unstable and not fit to be president.?
Andrew H. ?Andy? Card Jr., President Bush?s former chief of staff, told me he has observed McCain?s outbursts.
?Sometimes he was pretty angry, but I felt as if he was putting on a show,? Card said. ?I don?t know if it was an emotional eruption or it was for effect," Card said.
Democrat Paul Johnson, the former mayor of Phoenix, saw McCain?s temper up close. ?His volatility borders in the area of being unstable,? Johnson has said. ?Before I let this guy put his finger on the button, I would have to give considerable pause.?
When I appeared on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show to discuss Newsmax?s disclosures about McCain?s temper, Carlson said on the air, ?We got a call earlier tonight from McCain?s Senate office suggesting that we not do this story. [They were] annoyed about it.?
That hint at intimidation is another reason why major media outlets may think twice about revealing what they know of McCain?s temper, which is widely whispered about in Washington. Yet along with track record, such clues to character are a compass to how a president will conduct his presidency.
Over and over, voters have ignored warning signs of poor character and have overlooked track records, only to regret it once a president enters the White House and becomes corrupted by the power of the office.
When he was a candidate for vice president, Richard Nixon became embroiled in an ethics issue when the New York Post revealed he had secretly accepted $18,000 from private contributors to defray his expenses. It should have come as no surprise that he would end up being driven from office by the scandal known as Watergate.
If we elect a candidate with McCain?s monumental character flaws, we can expect to suffer the consequences.
-
"Maverick" and "Conservative" Aren't Synonyms
By David Limbaugh
Friday, January 25, 2008
Many conservatives have said Sen. John McCain is not conservative enough to suit them. Some of McCain's defenders have not only disagreed but have impugned his critics, hypocritically blaming them for divisiveness.
But intramural bickering isn't the issue. What's important is that conservatives have an intellectually honest and open discussion about GOP presidential contenders.
It's disappointing to watch good conservatives demean themselves by trying to present McCain as something he's not. No matter how much they spin, they can't fool conservatives familiar with McCain's record. McCain's detractors are not the ones having to stretch and massage the facts in order to turn McCain -- overnight -- into a Reagan conservative.
McCain is not only not conservative enough; he has also has built a reputation as a maverick by stabbing his party in the back -- not in furtherance of conservative principles but by betraying them. McCain delights in sticking it to his colleagues while winning accolades from the mainstream liberal media.
Former senator Rick Santorum, whose conservative credentials are beyond question, said, "I don't agree with (McCain) on hardly any issues." Santorum told radio host Mark Levin, "I just have to tell you, as a leader, as someone who had to put these coalitions together, it was always hard and we very rarely on domestic policy had any help from the senator from Arizona." Santorum said McCain has been damaging to conservative causes and would be no friend to conservatives in the White House.
McCain's defenders -- in the McCainian spirit of chilling political speech -- forbid us from criticizing him because he is a war hero. That's irresponsible nonsense. Voters and analysts have an obligation to assess McCain's suitability for the presidency. To consider and verbalize the negatives is not to demean his service or sacrifice.
We can recognize and honor McCain's indescribably grueling POW experiences without taking the leap of arguing they automatically qualify him as an ideal commander in chief. His qualifications should be evaluated on the merits, not on sentimental appeals to his service.
Understandably, I suppose, pundits often glibly assert that one of McCain's many advantages is his character -- a character that was molded by the hardships he endured. McCain's captivity undeniably involved more character building than anything most of us will ever experience. But to say he is a rugged, battle-tested hero does not mean he is incapable of prevarication, opportunism, demagoguery or other mischief. Nor does it immunize him from scrutiny concerning the credible claim that he lacks the temperament to be president.
I respectfully reject that McCain's honorable and sacrificial character-building experiences or his self-description as a "straight talker" place his veracity above question. I remember him sidling up to the media by falsely claiming George Bush didn't level with the American people about how long the Iraq war could take. I remember him blaming dirty campaign tricks on Bush in South Carolina in 2000, when investigations revealed there was no evidence Bush was behind it. I remember him joining liberals in slandering the truth-telling Swift Boat veterans as "dishonest and dishonorable." I remember his disingenuous derision of the across-the-board Bush tax cuts as being only for the rich. I witnessed him changing his position on immigration to shore up support in South Carolina, then after that primary arrogantly denying to Sean Hannity that he'd flip-flopped. People can assess for themselves whether McCain is always straight, but hopefully they'll base their decision on the evidence and not his hero status.
I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:
- He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.
- He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.
- He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.
Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.
Article (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/01/25/maverick_and_conservative_arent_synonyms)
-
the only thing I know about him i know is awhile back thier was a pilot strike and he was slamming them for not doing overtime .
that`s when i decided he not that bright.
everything else don`t was not as notable to me.
doctors and pilot are the 2 profession who can`t can`t be playing with their sleeptime.
-
doctors and pilot are the 2 profession who can`t can`t be playing with their sleeptime.
And yet, doctors routinely work overtime and double shifts. Go figure.
-
The D. Limbaugh article on McCain was great. Would've made me a fan if the guy only had a sensible attitude on Iraq.
-
And yet, doctors routinely work overtime and double shifts. Go figure.
true
but do you think the doctor on the 2nd shift is just as good as the 1st shift.
just because they do doesn`t not mean exhaustion is a liberal myth.
-
>>but do you think the doctor on the 2nd shift is just as good as the 1st shift.<<
Why wouldn't he/she be?
-
but do you think the doctor on the 2nd shift is just as good as the 1st shift.
If they're trained to work those kinds of hours (and doctors are trained that way) then it shouldn't affect their performance.
-
Vote for McCain if you wish, but please don't insult conservatives by suggesting he's one of us.
======================================================================
Conservatives are basically dinosaurs. Mc Cain is barely spouting feathers, in evolutionary terms.
Conservatives are Stone Age, McCain has recently invented bronze.
Romney thought he invented a metal, but it was really just another piece of granite.
Huckabee is still fashioning weapons from mud.
Giulani is plotting revenge with a new stone weapon for 9-11 (what else?)
-
Communists are the real dinosaurs. Communists just kill those who disagree with them.
Conservatives are movement driven. They don't look at an issue and analyze how it will effect their electability. We see Conservatism as a movement that is best for all America. We see it in the founding principles of this country and believe in the power of individuals in a conservative government. Rush had a nice discussion on this subject today.
-
how does one train against exhaustion?
I`ve done doubleshifts and can do it at a drop of a hat but not a continual basis .
it`s not unreasonable to think capacity will diminish after awhile.
and also I don`t recall anything saying there is training involve in doing long hours
meaning i very much doubt any hospital actually address it.
I`m guessing doctor simply just tough it and hope they last.
which means possibly that some don`t maintain the same levels
note the high malpractice insurance cost.
and i don`t recall the medical community saying lack of sleep is not a problem.
but i do see from time to time article talking about doctors not getting enough sleep.
-
kimba,
Just because you work 3 to 11 doesn't make you exhausted. You get used to it. You get your eight hours just like 9 to 5'ers.
-
and also I don`t recall anything saying there is training involve in doing long hours
meaning i very much doubt any hospital actually address it.
I`m guessing doctor simply just tough it and hope they last.
While doctors are interning, they are assigned to work long shifts and are supervised by their attending physicians. Those that cannot handle working long shifts time and again are not passed and do not become doctors.
A friend of mine said that it not unusual for her to be assigned 80 hrs in 4 days, then a 3 day weekend, or 72 hr shifts sometimes.
You learn to do the job correctly no matter how tired you are.
-
Each has dredged up earlier quotes to criticize the other; Romney thumped McCain for admitting less familiarity with the economy than with foreign affairs, and McCain tried to lump Romney with congressional Democrats because he supported private timetables in the Iraq war.
In Jacksonville, McCain toured the grounds of Atlantic Marine, which builds Navy ships and commercial vessels, then held a forum with national security experts including former CIA director Jim Woolsey and former Veterans Affairs secretary Tony Principi.
Romney taped an interview to air on MSNBC Tuesday in which he said McCain's recent criticism over a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq reflected a rival "kind of desperate here at the end."
He also criticized McCain for suggesting there were more wars in the U.S.'s future.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&pid=0&sid=1333533&page=2
What is it about Florida?
Suddenly they are all going nuts and nasty.
-
kimba,
Just because you work 3 to 11 doesn't make you exhausted. You get used to it. You get your eight hours just like 9 to 5'ers.
I once asked my general practitioner about this issue in terms of interns in Med School. His comment was that he wouldn't want to be in the bed looking at an intern, even toward the end of Med School, who is looking at his chart when that intern has been on his feet, literally, for 36 hours.
I then asked him why they do it. He said that they do it so the interns can get the maximum exposure of the maximum number of patients and medical conditions in the limited time availalbe during Med School.
-
I`m not talking 8 hours
I`m talking 10 to 16 hours
and the doctors who make it does not mean they are immune to lack of sleep
I do hear at not too small of a percent of pill popping going on caused by these hours.
but I`ll admit it`s strange how a people here actually would defend the practice of doctor to work long hours and not think it`ll effect performance.
do you folks think the currents new about americans not sleeping enough a liberal myth?
-
I worked my way through college as an orderly. There's no doubt that doctors work long hard hours. However, they do sneak away when possible for 40 winks, or simply rest whenever they can.
-
Conservatives are movement driven. They don't look at an issue and analyze how it will effect their electability. We see Conservatism as a movement that is best for all America. We see it in the founding principles of this country and believe in the power of individuals in a conservative government. Rush had a nice discussion on this subject today.
===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true. Mostly, they believe that they are the only good thing about the country and everything they believe is absolutely true, just like the Stalinists.
The problem is that it isn't true. Nearly everything that Reagan 'knew' was true was actually false.
Rush is paid lots and lots of big bucks to spout his crap. But it wasn't true when he started, isn't true now, and will never be true. Conservatism is as obsolete as Herbert Hoover's celluloid collars. His clever solution was to get McArthur to clobber the hell out of the Veterans on the Bonus March, and deny them their WWI benefits into 1946. They could collect their checks of $400-$800 oly if they died.
-
Conservatives are movement driven. They don't look at an issue and analyze how it will effect their electability. We see Conservatism as a movement that is best for all America. We see it in the founding principles of this country and believe in the power of individuals in a conservative government. Rush had a nice discussion on this subject today.
===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true.
Actually, the FACTS make it true
-
>>Actually, the FACTS make it true.<<
Once again they prove to be stubborn things.
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement? A disastrous presidency by a self-professed Reagan Republican...
I wonder when strategic voting should come into place?
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?
Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
-
I seriously doubt McCain will win the GOP nomination, precisely because of his infidelity to conservative principles. Consider:
- He crusades against Guantanamo, favors constitutional rights for terrorists but opposes tough interrogation techniques, was the ringleader of the Gang of 14, which legitimized the filibustering of judicial nominees, and is the godfather of political speech-suppressing and Democrat-favoring campaign-finance reform legislation.
- He has displayed contempt for conservative evangelicals, opposed Bush's pro-growth tax cuts for reasons other than he says (spending), has engaged in other class-warfare rhetoric like demonizing oil and drug companies, co-sponsored the abominable McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant-forgiveness/open-borders/Social Security zapping bill, and even voted for the Specter amendment, which could have conferred consulting rights on Mexico concerning the erection of a southern border fence.
- He sold out on global warming, opportunistically opposed drilling in ANWR, favors re-importation of drugs from Canada, and promoted the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards patients bill of rights. Even his pro-life credentials are not as pristine as we're told: He opposes reversal of Roe vs. Wade and sided with anti-political speech zealots in filing an amicus brief against Wisconsin Right to Life.
McCain isn't my main choice, but he has more integrity than Romney. Part of McCain's appeal is that he *is* liberal on some issues, and can pull in SoDem voters who oppose Hildebeast ;D and Obama. The democrats, should McCain get the GOP nom, had better be careful.
I don't agree that he will "ruin the party". The opposite fairly stands to reason: McCain has reached across party barriers to champion campaign finance reform and immigration reform, and could only improve the party image, especially after the embarrassment of Bush&Co.
On the Cornyn/Immigration bill issue: I've not read the bill, and have only seen synopses of it on the internets. However, at a function recently a group of all-star Texas attorneys, and attorneys from neighbouring states, were discussing the bill and had essentially the same worries Cornyn had. Many people are sick of "legislating from the bench" especially as precedents set in Texas carry weight in nearly every other state; McCain *will* have to take that into consideration.
I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary. ;) Could fare very well, actually. They'd have my vote.
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?
Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.
So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.
I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?
Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view.
I think History provides a different perspective. But hey, if he isn't so far left, as you claim, and his presidencial policies were so economically devastating to this country, makes an actual leftest like Hillary or Obama, that much more frightening to this country. As would McCain's
-
. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
===========================================================================
So what would your solution do? Catch and repatriate 12,000,000 illegals, and then deal with the consequences of an impoverished Mexico and Central America whose populations would be in sympathy with those returned?
How, exactly do you return 12 million people, anyway? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
McCain had as practical solution to the illegal immigrant problem that I think anyone could come up with. Juniorbush's policy was about the only one of his initiatives that made much sense.
Allowing the rich to get richer as the poor get poorer is not going to lead the US to any shining utopia, either. The more the US resembles Venezuela in inequitable distribution of wealth, the sooner we will have our very own Hugo Chavez.
-
>>I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary.<<
Do you remember when there was specualtion that McCain might run as VP with a democrat in 2000? I seem to recall that, and I've heard others remind Conservatives of that. Despite a 82 percent conservative voting record conservatives don't limit free speech, they don't work with Ted Kennedy on education bills, they support their president on tax cuts, and they aren't part of the gang of 14. I won't vote for John McCain, and I supported him in 2000.
-
. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
===========================================================================
So what would your solution do? Catch and repatriate 12,000,000 illegals, and then deal with the consequences of an impoverished Mexico and Central America whose populations would be in sympathy with those returned?
Nope....at least not in the vain you're portraying. You ENFORCE the current laws...which includes prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That works to dry up the amount coming over. You also work on arresting and deporting about 100-200 a week, sending a clear message to the other 11,999,000 that they could be next. You finish building a fence along the border, OR put a portion of the military on the border, again giving the would be illegal 2nd thoughts.
AFTER all of that, THEN we see what we can do to streamline the current immigration process, so that it doesn't take years upon years, but perhaps 1 at the most, but more so a few months, allowing for much more orderly and organized transition into this country, so they can they reap the rewards of coming to America, and not have the stigma of taking away from those immigrants who did come here legally or Americans fed up with the mentality that we're here, tough, now where's mine?, attitude.
-
>>I'd love to see McCain run with Biden as the veep, given Biden's experience with the judiciary.<<
Do you remember when there was specualtion that McCain might run as VP with a democrat in 2000? I seem to recall that, and I've heard others remind Conservatives of that. Despite a 82 percent conservative voting record conservatives don't limit free speech, they don't work with Ted Kennedy on education bills, they support their president on tax cuts, and they aren't part of the gang of 14. I won't vote for John McCain, and I supported him in 2000.
Yeah I remeber that. Did Kerry ask him to be VP in '04? There was something on the news about that.
100% conservative or not, you have to consider who McCain would appoint. Also, he can draw votes away from Southern Dems-people seem to forget just how outrageously conservative they can be. Nunn is a "southern dem" but was also a warhawk, advocated prayer in school, opposed don't ask don't tell and generally gave Clinton one hell of a difficult time. :D
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?
Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.
So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.
I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.
It will takes eyars ot prove this, but I believe you will find that Ronald Reagan will be thought of as above average if not higher via historical perspective, JS. Even my father who is Left of most in this Forum agreed Reagan was a Leader, even if he did lead us in the wrong direction (according to my father anyway). The nation, at that time, needed a Leader. There is no way to know whether YOUR asessment of Ronald Reagan or mine will prove to be accurate, but I'd bet my mortgage on it, and five will get you ten, my mortgage is agreat deal larger than yours..
-
So, if I read this correctly, voting for McCain could be the death knell for the conservative movement?
Naaa, just set it back for about a decade or 2 before the pendulum swings back, and people grasp how disastrous leftist policies like Carter's were, to this country. But at least will more likely get some democractic stability in the middle east, with his Iraqi positions. I guess that's something, while America gets railroaded into a potential economic & immigration abyss
I'd hardly call Carter a leftist. Maybe in terms of a tiny piece of the American center from a very relative look at that narrow view. Carter introduced monetarist policy along with Volcker, that was pure Milton Friedman right there. He signifcantly reduced the public debt. He introduced zero-based budgeting, which is a nightmare, but for whatever reason the right-wing seems to like it. Carter fought Congress on the "hit list" of pork barrel spending. Carter deregulated the airlines, along with oil, finance, trucking, and railways. He initiated the funding and transfer of weapons to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, eventually leading to the collapse of the USSR. He also sent weapons, advisers, and aid to some of the absolute nastiest right-wing regimes in Central and South America as well as Africa.
So no, despite revisionism by the Reagnites, Carter was by no means a leftist President. He and Reagan fucked up the airline industry royally hence all of our wonderful bailouts since. Both supported some of the world's worst regimes ever known to mankind in terms of human rights abuses. Monetarist policy, as the UK and US discovered was a disaster. Many people wonder what the hell Friedman was thinking. Zero-based budgeting is, in a manner of speaking, simply a way of ignoring historical data and trends and starting from scratch every year. While it sounded good in Harvard theory, it was ultimately a massive waste of time and resources with very little savings. Carter fought pork barrel spending but was not able to outdo Tip O'Neil. To his credit, he fought much harder than Reagan and especially W, who seems to be in love with anything porcine.
I think Carter's post-presidency has led to a bit of historical revisionism. He wasn't a pie-in-the-sky liberal leftist as many claim. He was more fiscally conservative than his successor and certainly more so than the current POTUS. Personally, I think he was a terrible president, but mostly for the same reasons that Reagan was so awful.
I have always felt that Carter makes a better MAN than a President. I admire his personal integrity and character. He is a true Hero in that regard.
He is LEFT of me in theological terms, however, so there is one example of his Leftist "agenda".
And on a similar note, no one should seriously question Jhon McCain's character based upon his personal background. You may disagree with his politics but even Ted Kennedy and Co. (including your heroes the Clintons) do not question his personal integrity.
The Rebel/Maverick in me admires him greatly. Mavericks must support other Mavericks, you understand. There is simply too much sucking up in the world as it is! (spoken from a Maverick perspective)
-
the problem with all presidents is they live in reality
people keep portraying them in exaggerated terms
none are really evil despite what anybody says
I`ve said often bush is not evil and he has no bad intent.
but somehow I get truckload crap everytime I saying that
the only real issue is the president doing right for the country.
carter,reagan all did what they thought was best.
also we forget they are voted in.
the people of the united states is responsible for the actions of the president.
so tough
-
===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true.
Being true makes it true.
The productivity of the tax paying public is not a finite amount.
And most certainly is is not infinate.
Imagine raising taxes to an amount equal to all profit ,so that there was none left in the hands of the productive , this would quicky reduce tax income to the government for the same reason that a farmer that didn't allow his chickens to eat would notice a falloff in egg production.
If you have a large flock of starveing chickens , makeing a little more chicken feed availible to them can increase egg production enourmously , a farmer that doesn't understand this principal should not be in farming.
If Democrats actually cannot understand that there is such a thing as too much tax , perhaps they should not be in government.
-
but does increase spending translate to increase productivity?
-
but does increase spending translate to increase productivity?
Certainly not, and that is a good point.
Some spending is always waste. The government is not less likely to be wastefull tan the people who must earn their cash.
A businessman is interested in productivity and reduction of waste , most of them are desirous of growth.
The government also wants to grow , but is parasitic on the rest of society so that all government that the people do not need can be defined as waste.
The government should be on a diet so that its feed is available to the chickens that actually lay.
-
If the population of the US is growing, the government must grow to maintain services eventually.
If the economy grows, if there is any inflation at all, the government must grow.
It is not possible for any government to maintain growth and not have something like 2-4% inflation at a minimum. No government has ever managed to grow without some degree of inflation.
The government is NOT 'parasitic'. The government-any government- is a necessary and integral part of the economy and the society. It is not some sort of flea or tapeworm as conservatives spew. Without a government, there is no growth at all. Observe how well Somalia has been doing with no government. Somalis all speak the same language and most belong to the same religion: it is a much more coherent society than the US from a linguistic and ethnic point of view. And yet it is a doisaster, for it has no government.
I propose that those who are for a smaller government move to Somalia.
When Reagan was elected, I wrote him and proposed that his view of a smaller government was unlikely to work, as it did not go nearly far enough. I proposed that the US move its capital to Juneau, Alaska, which seems to lack enough territory between the mountains, the glaciers and the sea to be big enough for a state capital. But in Juneau, there would be no room for lobbyists, perhaps not enough room for staff aides, and the Congressmen would have to do their own work.
Reagan failed to heed my wise suggestion and kept the capital in Washington, where t grew and grew. The debt grew and grew as well. Reagan was a dismal failure at making government smaller or more efficient. Jimmy Carter and his zero-based budgeting did a lot better job than Reagan at this.
-
(including your heroes the Clintons) do not question his personal integrity.
The Rebel/Maverick in me admires him greatly. Mavericks must support other Mavericks, you understand. There is simply too much sucking up in the world as it is! (spoken from a Maverick perspective)
My heroes the Clintons?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks Prof, I was having a rough day.
-
<<The government also wants to grow , but is parasitic on the rest of society so that all government that the people do not need can be defined as waste.>>
You have things so screwed up that it is hard to keep a straight face when responding to some of your posts. This one is right over the top. "Parasitic" on the rest of society? Why? Because they defend you against foreign enemies? Because they monitor your health through the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes for Health? Or because they (when properly run by non-idiots) provide disaster relief?
I'll tell you what is "parasitic on society:"
1. The tobacco industry
2. The alcoholic beverages industry
3. The military-industrial complex
4. The automotive industry
5. Agribusiness and the food industry, loading you up on fats, sugars, trans-fats, preservatives etc.
6. The advertising industry
7. The pharmaceutical industry
8. The health insurance industry, reaping huge profits from plans that a single-payer system could administer much more equitably at a much lower cost
9. The chemical industry, poisoning the fucking environment
-
===============================
Conservatives may actually feel that the government will raise more money by lowering taxes, but this doesn't make it true.
Being true makes it true.
The productivity of the tax paying public is not a finite amount.
And most certainly is is not infinate.
Imagine raising taxes to an amount equal to all profit ,so that there was none left in the hands of the productive , this would quicky reduce tax income to the government for the same reason that a farmer that didn't allow his chickens to eat would notice a falloff in egg production.
If you have a large flock of starveing chickens , makeing a little more chicken feed availible to them can increase egg production enourmously , a farmer that doesn't understand this principal should not be in farming.
If Democrats actually cannot understand that there is such a thing as too much tax , perhaps they should not be in government.
Here are the problems with what is being said.
1. Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
2. The only times the theory of cutting taxes has led to increased government revenue in this country, the tax cuts where also met with massive increases in government spending and huge increases to the public debt. The United States has never attempted what economists term "shock therapy" which is a massive cut in taxes, large scale privatisation, and sharp and quick cut to actual government expenditures. Nations that have have experienced absolute economic disasters, which doesn't lead much credence to your theory.
3. Your examples have no relevance to the discussion.
4. I'm asking this sincerely. Why do people on the political right believe that they are all automatically endowed with an economics degree through political affiliation? I don't mean this as a personal insult to anyone, and Lord knows that economists disagree on nearly everything, but I find that many on the right (for example I listened to Glenn beck yesterday) don't understand basic economics - let alone something as complex as national level public economics.
-
It is one of the principal beliefs of the Reaganites that government is the CAUSE of most of the country's problems, and that government is incapable of solving any problem at all, other than national defense and a lack of weapons, which for some reason never specified, government does quite well with no tinge of incompetence or corruption (unless a Democrat is in office).
Naturally, this leads to the wacky belief that government, all government other than the military, is by nature parasitic. When UPS delivers a package, it is a noble achievement of free enterprise, but when the post office does the same thing, even to some trapper up the Fortymile River in Alaska where neither UPS nor FedEx would deign to go, well, that is parasitic and socialistic.
If Ken Burns does a documentary on the Civil War or baseball, with nary a commercial, that is parasitic, but when Directv runs 20 minutes of commercials featuring Beyonc? chomping on a gold bling reading 'UPGRADE' interrupting 40 minutes of dimwitted criminals getting caught by smartass cops on 'COPS'., again, that is an example of stirring Free Enterprise in practice.
It is an utter insult to the intelligence of the American public that PBS receive their 39? of tax money for a Burns documentary when so many more people would prefer seeing awful singers being insulted by Simon Cowell.
As JS states below, cutting taxes in order to supposedly boost revenues and stimulate the economy has NEVER resulted in anything other than massive deficits, which only have been mildly ameliorated by a following and more responsible Democratic administration. The country cannot afford more than 12 years of cost-cutting, borrow and squandering, warmongering Republican administrations. Even Olebush had to raise taxes to avoid utter disaster, because the Laffer Curve model does not work, It was better off as a cocktail napkin.
====================================
. The only times the theory of cutting taxes has led to increased government revenue in this country, the tax cuts where also met with massive increases in government spending and huge increases to the public debt. The United States has never attempted what economists term "shock therapy" which is a massive cut in taxes, large scale privatisation, and sharp and quick cut to actual government expenditures. Nations that have have experienced absolute economic disasters, which doesn't lead much credence to your theory.
------------------------------
Regarding Ronald Reagan, there are too things one must remember about him.
(1) He knew a lot.
(2)Virtually nothing he knew was actually true.
-
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2366/sthediffio4.jpg)
-
Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?
Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.
The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?
-
To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
Leaving aside your misapprention to the nature of finite, you do assert here that productivity is malleable and can be increased or decreased. So can you imagine a rate of taxation being so high that it causes a decrease in productivity?
-
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2366/sthediffio4.jpg)
Only appreciable difference is likely more stability in the Middle East under the "male". Otherwise, not a whole lot else
-
Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?
Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.
The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?
Funny thing about mathematics, you can't just MTSU ("make that shit up") anything you like. You call it a "tight box" of thinking. I call it math.
The simplest definition of a finite number is that it is not equal to +/- infinity. I'm not going to get bogged down in the semantics again and call on an Oxford theoretical methematician. If you can't comprehend what finite means and you find math to be too closed-minded, then I can see why economics is causing so much grief.
Now, try and follow-up on the other points, please.
-
2. The only times the theory of cutting taxes has led to increased government revenue in this country, the tax cuts where also met with massive increases in government spending and huge increases to the public debt. The United States has never attempted what economists term "shock therapy" which is a massive cut in taxes, large scale privatisation, and sharp and quick cut to actual government expenditures. Nations that have have experienced absolute economic disasters, which doesn't lead much credence to your theory.
Truely that sounds like a bad idea. Gram - Rudman was a good idea and so would a long term spending freeze be a good idea , gradual change is easyer for most people to cope with , we just have to ensure that the trends are gradually in a positive direction because gradual negative trends also can be coped with with little alarm ,untill breaking points are reached.
-
To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
Leaving aside your misapprention to the nature of finite, you do assert here that productivity is malleable and can be increased or decreased. So can you imagine a rate of taxation being so high that it causes a decrease in productivity?
I can assure you that the misapprehension is all yours.
Laffer was right about the two endpoints of 100% taxation and 0% taxation both leading to $0 in government revenue. The problem was that he had no idea what lay between. The right wing seems to think that getting closer to 0% produces infinite ( :P) revenue - but of course that isn't true.
-
Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?
Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.
The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?
Funny thing about mathematics, you can't just MTSU ("make that shit up") anything you like. You call it a "tight box" of thinking. I call it math.
The simplest definition of a finite number is that it is not equal to +/- infinity. I'm not going to get bogged down in the semantics again and call on an Oxford theoretical methematician. If you can't comprehend what finite means and you find math to be too closed-minded, then I can see why economics is causing so much grief.
Now, try and follow-up on the other points, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
I know how you feel , I have been wrong before , this time it is you.
Because the north pole is the opposite of the south pole everythinng is either north pole or it is south pole .
I presume that you do not live at the north pole ,therefore I must presume that you live at the south pole.
This is an example of false sillogism , as is your assertion that because the amount of value , or productivity extant is not infinite it must be finite.
A curve can be either finite or infinite and it can also be neither.
The amount of produtivity or the amount of value availible to the economy is most certainly not infinite , but it is a product of many functions , "adjustable" might be a good way to state the size of the value availible to the economy.It would be finite if it had a fixed value , which it does not.
-
I'll leave you with a point to consider.
Half of the economic output of Denmark goes through the government (compared to roughly 30% in the United States). Denmark has high taxes including a 63% top rate on the wealthiest, it is the largest welfare state in terms of percentage of GDP, it has a massive public sector. It has been this way for roughly fifteen years (and even before then it spent far more as a percentage than the US).
Yet, it has a lower unemployment rate than the United States. The economy has continued to grow, many years growing faster than the U.S. economy. Denmark spends 4% of her GDP on worker training and education programs, nearly 20 times more than the United States. The Danes are considered one of the top educated workforces in the world and the country is considered to have one of the best infrastructures of any nation on the planet.
By your economic theory and statements and others I've heard on this forum, Denmark should be broke, starving (that's one I hear a lot), massively unemployed, buildings crumbling, horrible hospitals with terrible conditions, and perhaps a few gulags thrown in for fun.
Yet, the opposite is true! It is a thriving economy, extremely low unemployment, national healthcare, mass transit, and great schools. Why? Why aren't your prognostications of gloom and doom proving true in Denmark? Sweden? Norway?
-
Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?
Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.
The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?
Funny thing about mathematics, you can't just MTSU ("make that shit up") anything you like. You call it a "tight box" of thinking. I call it math.
The simplest definition of a finite number is that it is not equal to +/- infinity. I'm not going to get bogged down in the semantics again and call on an Oxford theoretical methematician. If you can't comprehend what finite means and you find math to be too closed-minded, then I can see why economics is causing so much grief.
Now, try and follow-up on the other points, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
I know how you feel , I have been wrong before , this time it is you.
Because the north pole is the opposite of the south pole everythinng is either north pole or it is south pole .
I presume that you do not live at the north pole ,therefore I must presume that you live at the south pole.
This is an example of false sillogism , as is your assertion that because the amount of value , or productivity extant is not infinite it must be finite.
A curve can be either finite or infinite and it can also be neither.
The amount of produtivity or the amount of value availible to the economy is most certainly not infinite , but it is a product of many functions , "adjustable" might be a good way to state the size of the value availible to the economy.It would be finite if it had a fixed value , which it does not.
If I'm wrong I will freely admit it. In fact, it was either you or Prof that corrected me on our soldiers having NBC gear in the initial invasion of Iraq.
But I went to your link and all I see are definitions proving me correct.
Still, I see no sense in an argument on semantics.
-
To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
Leaving aside your misapprention to the nature of finite, you do assert here that productivity is malleable and can be increased or decreased. So can you imagine a rate of taxation being so high that it causes a decrease in productivity?
I can assure you that the misapprehension is all yours.
Laffer was right about the two endpoints of 100% taxation and 0% taxation both leading to $0 in government revenue. The problem was that he had no idea what lay between. The right wing seems to think that getting closer to 0% produces infinite ( :P) revenue - but of course that isn't true.
No one has ever, at any time, asserted that infinite productivity is avalible through any means.
To you we seem to think this , we do not think this.
The space between the endpoints of the laffer curve are probably an example of chaos , in which limits can be stated but a value cannot be firmly predicted , the circumstance that causes chaos is called "sensitivity to initial conditions" which is certainly applicable to the condition of a normal economy.
Near the end points the limits probably narrow down so that a load of 90% taxation very likely has the same result as a tax rate of 100%. But a tax rate of 10% (if that were too low) would not have the same ill effect as a high rate that crashed the economy it would just be a lighter load than the economy was capable of handleing and not the "optimum" skim .
So given that the consequences of a tax rate being too high are more serious than those of a tax rate being too low, error on the side of benefit to us all, would be to error on the low side.
Money in the productive part of the economy is like gas in the tank , it is better to have more than you need to make it to the next gas station than to try to guess exactly the amount that will allow one to coast in to the next stop on the last drop in the tank.
-
Productivity is most certainly finite. I have no idea where y'all get these notions that wealth and productivity are infinite. To my knowledge, human beings are not gods, therefore productivity cannot possibly be infinite. It can be increased and it can be decreased, but it is still finite.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We really need to get past this notion that everything is either finite or infinite , finite is the opposite of infinite the way that the nort pole is opposite the south pole , but does the north pole being truely the opposite of the south pole mean that everything is either Arctic or antarctic and nothing is on the globe but the polar opposites?
Your thinking is in a box so tight and a rut so deep that you can't see out of the rut , there are several things between the poles and several states of number that are neither finite nor infinite.
The economy could be viewed as an equation with many functions , so is a function infinate or is a function finite?
Funny thing about mathematics, you can't just MTSU ("make that shit up") anything you like. You call it a "tight box" of thinking. I call it math.
The simplest definition of a finite number is that it is not equal to +/- infinity. I'm not going to get bogged down in the semantics again and call on an Oxford theoretical methematician. If you can't comprehend what finite means and you find math to be too closed-minded, then I can see why economics is causing so much grief.
Now, try and follow-up on the other points, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
I know how you feel , I have been wrong before , this time it is you.
Because the north pole is the opposite of the south pole everythinng is either north pole or it is south pole .
I presume that you do not live at the north pole ,therefore I must presume that you live at the south pole.
This is an example of false sillogism , as is your assertion that because the amount of value , or productivity extant is not infinite it must be finite.
A curve can be either finite or infinite and it can also be neither.
The amount of produtivity or the amount of value availible to the economy is most certainly not infinite , but it is a product of many functions , "adjustable" might be a good way to state the size of the value availible to the economy.It would be finite if it had a fixed value , which it does not.
If I'm wrong I will freely admit it. In fact, it was either you or Prof that corrected me on our soldiers having NBC gear in the initial invasion of Iraq.
But I went to your link and all I see are definitions proving me correct.
Still, I see no sense in an argument on semantics.
It is semantics , it is also conceptual , and I am haveing fun with it .
You can quit and I will have no foil to expound the concept to.
Since you have read something on the Laffer curve already I have brought up the notion of Chaos , in which it is mathmaticly impossible to provide a value even if it is possible to posit limits. Thus a value in chaos has no "finite " nature but is not necessacerily infinite either.
IN the sense that finite means Having a finite size
there are many things that are neither finite nor infinite and the productivity of a nation is one example of this.
Haveing the idea that there is a finite size for value or productivity leads to the notion that the rules of a zero sum game apply , such that any gain to any player must be drawn from a loss by other players, and this is certainly not the case. Every manipulation of the value stream has an effect on the size of it so that sometimes every player looses or sometimes more players gain than loose.
Taxation can have negative effects ,and there is not necessacerily a gain somewhere elese that counterbalances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite
-
Looks like this will be your choice: Hillary or McCain.
This will be the result of your inability to unite more Christians for Less Government (other than yourself and the frog in your pocket, which allows you to claim the plural word 'Christians').
-
That's not a frog in your pocket BO, so stop playing with it.
:o
-
Nope....at least not in the vain you're portraying. You ENFORCE the current laws...which includes prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That works to dry up the amount coming over. You also work on arresting and deporting about 100-200 a week, sending a clear message to the other 11,999,000 that they could be next. You finish building a fence along the border, OR put a portion of the military on the border, again giving the would be illegal 2nd thoughts.
AFTER all of that, THEN we see what we can do to streamline the current immigration process, so that it doesn't take years upon years, but perhaps 1 at the most, but more so a few months, allowing for much more orderly and organized transition into this country, so they can they reap the rewards of coming to America, and not have the stigma of taking away from those immigrants who did come here legally or Americans fed up with the mentality that we're here, tough, now where's mine?, attitude.
==================================================================================================
The fact is that you cannot deport 12 million people, even if it is the best idea in the world. You cannot do it gradually, and you certainly cannot do it all at once. I am all for arresting employers who hire illegals, but most of the larger ones (the meat packing industry, the janitorial contractors who swamp out Wal*Marts, for example) either have teams of lawyers to explain how they were DECEIVED by the lying aliens, or will simply dissolve the company and open another with a different name in a couple of weeks. Mostly, these moves will end up screwing the aliens, but without forcing the companies that once hired them to offer living wages to legal American citizens.
There is hardly anything wrong with any American expecting that they have a right to a job that pays a living wage. This country should not have vast hungry armies of unemployed forever on the fringes, never given a chance.
-
That's not a frog in your pocket BO, so stop playing with it.
===============================================
How does this make sense in any way? Is it your idea of humor?
------------------------------------------------------------------
C4LG is the one who claims he is a plural entity, so I imagine that he might well have a frog (a Christian one, to be sure) in his pocket.
Perhaps he will lend you one so you, too can claim to be a plural entity. Or with two frogs, you could attain the status of a Trinity. Unholy, to be sure, but a Trinity nonetheless.
-
<chuckle>
Do you really teach?
-
Looks like this will be your choice: Hillary or McCain.
This will be the result of your inability to unite more Christians for Less Government (other than yourself and the frog in your pocket, which allows you to claim the plural word 'Christians').
I am still hoping Obama will get the nod.
-
Nope....at least not in the vain you're portraying. You ENFORCE the current laws...which includes prosecuting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. That works to dry up the amount coming over. You also work on arresting and deporting about 100-200 a week, sending a clear message to the other 11,999,000 that they could be next. You finish building a fence along the border, OR put a portion of the military on the border, again giving the would be illegal 2nd thoughts.
AFTER all of that, THEN we see what we can do to streamline the current immigration process, so that it doesn't take years upon years, but perhaps 1 at the most, but more so a few months, allowing for much more orderly and organized transition into this country, so they can they reap the rewards of coming to America, and not have the stigma of taking away from those immigrants who did come here legally or Americans fed up with the mentality that we're here, tough, now where's mine?, attitude.
==================================================================================================
The fact is that you cannot deport 12 million people, even if....
...even if I never said, or even implied such
-
Plane,
I'd rather discuss reality than theory. You've yet to explain to me how Denmark does so well. If you, Sirs, Rich, et al are so certain of your economic principles then a nation like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway should, in theory, not be able to exist - let alone thrive!
-
How can you enforce the laws that define who is illegal if you don't deport the illegal aliens?
Either you deport them, or you let them stay.
If you let them stay, with no chance of becoming legal, you allow at least some to become legal, or you deport them. Those are all the choices that are possible.
Or perhaps you have one up your sleeve?
-
Plane, I'd rather discuss reality than theory. You've yet to explain to me how Denmark does so well.
Speaking of reality,
A) they don't have the population we do
B) they don't have the massive immigration influx we do
C) they don't have the global military committments we do
D) our constitution is not Denmark's constitution
-
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i99/plwise/mccainkennedyqn8.gif)
-
How can you enforce the laws that define who is illegal if you don't deport the illegal aliens? Either you deport them, or you let them stay.
Or you do what I specifically said, take action to the toon of about 100-200/wk, and allow that message to permeate thru-out the illegal immigrant community. (Law enforcement does that all the time with law breaking speeders, since not every speeder is pulled over & cited) The combination of that and strict enforcement of those knowingly hiring illegals will create their own self deportation, as the job positions get taken up by those who came in legally.
As I said, try to avoid claiming something, I never said, or even implied. You won't look so transparent
-
Plane, I'd rather discuss reality than theory. You've yet to explain to me how Denmark does so well.
Speaking of reality,
A) they don't have the population we do
B) they don't have the massive immigration influx we do
C) they don't have the global military committments we do
D) our constitution is not Denmark's constitution
So conservative economic theory only works in the United States?
Here's the problem with your analysis Sirs.
A) they don't have the population we do
So if we break the United States up into small pieces the siz of Denmark, we can have very nice functioning societies that still have booming economies, yet also take care of the people? If population is the problem then that's an easy fix. I think that population is more likely an easy excuse.
B) they don't have the massive immigration influx we do
As a percentage of total population, the Scandinavian nations hold their own when it comes to migrants. As you indicated above if immigration is really the horrible economic drain that some say it is (yet to br shown in any reasonable study by a credible authority) then Denmark would be destroyed in one quick blast by a small influx of migrants given their small population. Yet, they have less strict borders than we do.
C) they don't have the global military committments we do
Didn't you just get out of an argument where you praised Bt for showing the "perspective" that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't that massive of expensditures when compared to overall GDP? You cannot have it both ways, Sirs. Are those "commitments" draining our economy or are they not?
D) our constitution is not Denmark's constitution
Yeah. So what? That is irrelevant to whether right wing economics works or not. That doesn't answer my original question. Why does Denmark work, if your all's theories hold that such a high burden of taxation should be killing them?
-
I'd rather discuss reality than theory. You've yet to explain to me how Denmark does so well. If you, Sirs, Rich, et al are so certain of your economic principles then a nation like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway should, in theory, not be able to exist - let alone thrive!
==============================================
The thing is that housing and many other necessities of modern life are subsidized in Denmark.
When people have a few extra bucks in the US, the price of real estate, drugs, and other things rises to sop up the extra bucks. In Denmark, much of the housing belong to the government, and tax laws do not force its sale every 20 years to gve the landlord a break. Drugs are price controlled, as are many other things.
-
I'll leave you with a point to consider.
Half of the economic output of Denmark goes through the government (compared to roughly 30% in the United States). Denmark has high taxes including a 63% top rate on the wealthiest, it is the largest welfare state in terms of percentage of GDP, it has a massive public sector. It has been this way for roughly fifteen years (and even before then it spent far more as a percentage than the US).
Yet, it has a lower unemployment rate than the United States. The economy has continued to grow, many years growing faster than the U.S. economy. Denmark spends 4% of her GDP on worker training and education programs, nearly 20 times more than the United States. The Danes are considered one of the top educated workforces in the world and the country is considered to have one of the best infrastructures of any nation on the planet.
By your economic theory and statements and others I've heard on this forum, Denmark should be broke, starving (that's one I hear a lot), massively unemployed, buildings crumbling, horrible hospitals with terrible conditions, and perhaps a few gulags thrown in for fun.
Yet, the opposite is true! It is a thriving economy, extremely low unemployment, national healthcare, mass transit, and great schools. Why? Why aren't your prognostications of gloom and doom proving true in Denmark? Sweden? Norway?
You have just doubbled my knoledge of Denmark, I shall assume your assertions are corect .
Simular tax and benefit purportions are current in Mexico a failing economic model , the success of Denmark and the failure of Mexico which are useing simular economic plans presents a quandry to me .
What makes the diffrence?
Knowing so few details , I hereby present supposition.
The economic size is not very diffrent , the level of socialism is not very diffrent , yet while Denmark is busy proveing that socialism can work, Mexico is busy proveing it can fail.
I notice that Denmark is a center of trade and a broker of trade , this took centuries to develop , centuries of capitolism. Mexico has been socialist far longer than Denmark but hasn't really made a success of Denmarks sort of it. Could it be that a legacy of Capitolism can allow a socialist program to coast for a long time ? Perhaps Denmark will not run out of steam for a generation or two , but why can Mexico get up no steam?
-
You definitely know few details if you think that Mexico and Denmark are similar governments. You'll have to show me how their programs are roughly the same Plane. Do you have evidence of such?
-
The economic size is not very diffrent , the level of socialism is not very diffrent , yet while Denmark is busy proveing that socialism can work, Mexico is busy proveing it can fail.
I notice that Denmark is a center of trade and a broker of trade , this took centuries to develop , centuries of capitolism. Mexico has been socialist far longer than Denmark but hasn't really made a success of Denmarks sort of it. Could it be that a legacy of Capitolism can allow a socialist program to coast for a long time ? Perhaps Denmark will not run out of steam for a generation or two , but why can Mexico get up no steam?
=====================================================================================================
Mexico is in NO WAY socialist. The government owns and operates the oil business, Pemex, and there are some government-operated stores, called Conasupo, that sell a market basket of basic foods, such as beans, tortilla flour and tomato sauce to poor Mexicans (or anyone else with money) while supplies last, mostly in the larger cities. Ferrocarriles Naciones, the national railroad network, is run, rather poorly by the government, and generally costs about the same in intracity fares as second class bus lines, which are privately owned. The government owns a portion of Mexicana, the national airline, which is about as good and as cheap as private airlines, unless one is an employee and gets a discount.There are price controls on pharmaceuticals, and government workers are covered by a national group of IMSS hospitals. That is the extent of Socialism in Mexico. Oh yes, poor people can sell lottery tickets in the street if they know someone in the Loteria that will vouch for them.
The Partido de Acci?n Nacional, PAN is a rightist Christian Democrat affiliated party, and has made no moves to increase the number of government services since it has been in power.
For most Mexicans, Mexico is far less Socialist than the US. All Americans, not just government workers, have a right to Social Security. Whoever told you Mexico is Socialist knows very, very little about Mexico.
Danes are quite intolerent of corruption, and there is very little of it in Denmark. Mexico is generally rated as among the world's most corrupt nations.