DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on April 22, 2010, 12:12:43 PM
-
While Obama assails the culture of greed and recklessness practiced by the men
of Goldman Sachs, his administration is infested with them!
Obama Presidential Campaign took $994,795 from Goldman Sachs, the
most money from any single employer except the University of California.
Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama's Commodity Futures Trading
Commission head.
Former Goldman executive Robert Hormats works in the Obama administration
as undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.
Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in the past was on a
Goldman Sachs $3,000 monthly retainer. Emanuel also received
nearly $80,000 in campaign contributions from Goldman during his four terms in Congress.
Former Goldman lobbyist Mark Patterson serves under Obama Treasury
Secretary Tim Geithner as his top deputy and overseer of TARP bailout --
$10 billion of which went to Goldman Sachs.
Obama's National Economic Council head Larry Summers collected $135,000 for a single
speech to Goldman in April 2008.
While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission
over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited
the White House at least four times.
Goldman's chief executive also met twice with Obama's top economic adviser, Larry Summers.
Recently as Goldman faces increasing scrutiny they hired former Obama White House
counsel Gregory Craig as a member of the Goldman legal team.
With every minute that passes....it gets stinkier and stinkier!
-
These facts and figures are practically meaningless without a basis of comparison. You'd need to know what Goldman Sachs alumni served in other Presidential administrations, and what they gave to other politicians in order to gain any idea of what special foothold they have in the Obama administration that they didn't have in other administrations.
This is all part and parcel of the "free enterprise" system. Goes with the territory. This is clean side of the coin. The dirty side is the under-the-table bribery and corruption that never comes to light. The briefcases stuffed with currency and left in the right places.
Why are you complaining? All this is the very essence of a capitalistic society.
-
Not even remotely. It's the very essence of how power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely
-
These facts and figures are practically meaningless without a basis of comparison.
You'd need to know what Goldman Sachs alumni served in other Presidential administrations
No no no Michael...remember we were getting "Change".
Things were supposed to be different!
LOL
The American People see what they are getting....and they don't like it.
This is all part and parcel of the "free enterprise" system.
Corruption is present in all systems....it's a part of humanity Michael.
And if you are going to have corruption in capitalism and communism
at least in capitalism the standard of living is higher than communism.
The dirty side is the under-the-table bribery and corruption that never comes to light.
"Never"?....Ummm...I wouldn't be so sure just yet.
This type of thing could lead to the impeachment of Obama.
Why are you complaining?
I am not "complaining", I am just stating facts.
All this is the very essence of a capitalistic society.
Corruption is a part of humanity and your attempts to single it out
to capitalism is rather weak.
-
Corruption is much more a feature of capitalism than communism, since people who are corrupt live better and always attract the attention of the authorities. Since nobody under communism is supposed to live better than anyone else, those who profit from corruption are much more likely to stand out. Since Capitalism recognizes wide gaps between rich and poor, those who live by corruption are much less detectable. Thus while corruption is common to both systems, it is much more prevalent in capitalism. Also, the penalties are much stricter in communist countries. When was the last time anyone in the U.S. was executed for corruption? Happens every year in China. That's because they are much more determined to stamp it out in China. In America, every legislator lives by it, so they will never make it a capital offence.
-
"Corruption is much more a feature of capitalism than communism, since people who are corrupt live better..."
It is true on some level that people that live in a modern society with many choices are possibly
more at chance to experience some form of corruption than someone that "lives in a cave with
almost no choices in life".
"Since nobody under communism is supposed to live better than anyone else"
So Fidel Castro lives in almost the exact same type house and gets the exact same
toilet paper ration as do other Cubans?
-
Fidel obviously lives better than the average Cuban worker, but the gap between Fidel and the poorest Cuban is a lot less than the gap between Obama and the poorest American, or Bush and the poorest American. Fidel is a true servant of the masses. When he was in better shape, he worked 18-hour days for the people. He put his life on the line for them. Nobody begrudges him one nail in any of his homes.
It's got nothing to do with living in caves, either. The Chinese people don't live in caves, and they shoot people for taking bribes. No politician in America could vote for that kind of legislation because they're either on the take themselves, or else their best friends are.
-
"he worked 18-hour days for the people"
LOL...big F-ing deal....you think Bill Gates didnt work 18 hour days when he started Microsoft
and Bill gates has certainly helped change millions of more lives for the better than Fidel Castro
could ever dream about....welcome to the real world.....most business owners and many people
with second jobs often work 18 hour days.....when I started my business i easily was working
16-18 hour days...I even considered carving out an apartment at work...so I could live at the
office....and I still want in my next office move to have a shower put in so I can take a shower
at work....when there isn't time to go home.
It's got nothing to do with living in caves, either. The Chinese people don't live in caves, and
Yes it does have everything to do with the analogy of caves.
When you have almost no freedom of course there is less chance of a Madoff happening.
But who the hell wants that pitiful choice?
Come on Michael be honest....you know China although making great strides
since opening up to business is still a very poor country. When you take its 1.3 billion people
into account it should be clear that China remains poor. Even at purchasing power parity....
taking into account America's higher price levels....The US has about eight times the income
per head of China. China is at about the same level as Angola & Egypt in relative income terms.
It is true that if China continues at its rapid growth rate it will probably overtake the developed
countries at or before mid-century. But it is still far from having reached that stage and, if China's
growth rate slows substantially, it may be a long way off or even never achieved.
Over the past 30 years China has moved from being dirt poor to simply being poor.
-
Just because China still has a long way to go does not mean that they haven't come a long way since the start of communism there, in 1948 or 1949. Sure they still have a great task ahead of them but look at how far they've come in just 60 years. Without communism, they wouldn't have had a hope in hell. They'll cover the last 100 miles, under communism, and with nobody to thank but communism for getting them there.
And sure, people put in 18-hour days in a capitalistic society, CU4, but they do it all for themselves. Fidel did it for the people. He also risked torture and death in the Revolution to bring socialism to the people. He's a real hero in Cuba. Whatever he has is the gift of the Cuban people, they love Fidel and they love the Revolution. Yes, there are always gusanos, worms, in Cuba, who hate socialism and the Revolution, because they are selfish, greedy and infantile people who live only for themselves. Fuck 'em. Fidel doesn't have them all shot, despite the bullshit capitalist propaganda that you guys are so brainwashed with, in fact reporters can and do always dig them out to spout their whiny gripes for the Western MSM, which will never say one single word about all the benefits of the Revolution, although it will quote every fucking word from every fucking gusano. It doesn't matter. I've been to Cuba and I've seen the Revolution and met the Cuban people. If you people don't know the truth because your government makes it hard for you to see it for yourselves, and brainwashes you with tons of propaganda bullshit, that is your problem. The facts are the facts, and if Uncle Sam doesn't like them, tough shit.
-
And sure, people put in 18-hour days in a capitalistic society, CU4, but they do it all for themselves.
Fidel did it for the people.
And Michael reality is pretty clear about which way provides higher standards of living.
societies that allow innovation and ambition for individual achievements far
outpace societies that prevent individual enrichment. See the United States,
Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy as the first examples of standards of living
where people are free to enrich themselves vs ? ....Gosh I cant think of ANY!
What society that prevents personal enrichment has anywhere near the standard of living?
-
<<And Michael reality is pretty clear about which way provides higher standards of living.>>
That's just not true, CU4. The standard of living for the average Russian went down like a rock after the fall of communism. After 4,000 years of capitalism, and centuries of submission to foreign capitalists, the living standards of all Chinese really took off after communism came in. Same in Cuba, the masses lived in shit and after the Revolution, Castro gave them education, health care and housing, for everyone. Russians were living in serfdom before the Revolution, their GDP grew faster than any other industrialized nation in the 1930s.
<<societies that allow innovation and ambition for individual achievements far
outpace societies that prevent individual enrichment. See the United States,
Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy as the first examples of standards of living
where people are free to enrich themselves vs ? ....>>
How do you really know what the standard of living is in the U.S.A.? If they've got two cell phones for every human being, but twenty per cent of them live below the poverty line, are they living better than a society with fewer cell phones and no one under the poverty line?
There's a lot of poverty and misery in the U.S.A. and the U.S. worker works harder and longer hours than his European counterparts, with a lot less paid holiday and vacation time, and IMHO a lot less to show for it in terms of lifestyle and quality of life.
If you want to talk about standard of living at the top, that's one thing. But I haven't seen ANY hard evidence that the overall life of an ordinary American worker is better than the life of the average Cuban or Swede. Or Frenchman or Italian.
I think part of the problem is the metrics. I don't know how you balance out "No. of colour TV sets per household" with "weeks of paid vacation" or "access to qualified health care" etc.
-
Michael.....here are the HDI rankings for 2007
Where are countries in the Top 25 that discourage individual achievement?
Where are the countries that discourage business and corporations?
Where are the countries that frown upon personal wealth accumulation?
They aren't there!
Be honest...how can this be any clearer?
Is it an accident that none in the Top 25 follow Marxism?
Sure Marxism could be better than being in a German Nazi Death Camp
But what sort of measure of success is that?
"Slightly better than miserable" is something to be proud of?
Marxism has failed miserably to reach the top.
The answer is pretty clear...to be the best...means encouragement of personal achievement.
2007 Rank Country HDI
1 Norway
2 Australia
3 Iceland
4 Canada
5 Ireland
6 Netherlands
7 Sweden
8 France
9 Switzerland
10 Japan
11 Luxembourg
12 Finland
13 United States
14 Austria
15 Spain
16 Denmark
17 Belgium
18 Italy
19 Liechtenstein
20 New Zealand
21 United Kingdom
22 Germany
23 Singapore
24 Hong Kong
25 Greece
The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life.
-
What would be really interesting, CU4, would be to apply an index of socialism measuring the degree of socialism attained by a country, with a country like Cuba near the top and a country like the U.S.A. near the bottom. Factors such as: Government ownership of the means of production, universal health care paid by the government, job security, unemployment benefits, social security as a percentage of pre-retirement earnings, etc.
Obviously, Canada, with a mixed economy (some major enterprises owned wholly or partially by the government, universal single-payer health care, etc.) would rank ahead of the U.S. in socialism (or to say the same thing, the U.S. would rank ahead of Canada in capitalism) while both are obviously "capitalist" countries.
Then I'd like to return to your HDI list and give each country on the list its "socialism number" - - where it ranks in the degree of socialist concepts incorporated into its economy. I bet you'd see a correlation between the degree of socialization and HDI rankings, and that the countries which, like the U.S.A., are the most hostile to socialism, do not rank as well in HDI as those that are more accommodating to it.
It is troubling, though, to see that NONE of the top 25 are full-scale Marxist "dictatorships of the proletariat." My wife and I were in East Berlin a few times in 1988, the year before The Wall came down, and it certainly didn't seem all that different from any other European metropolis. The people we spoke to seemed to be well-educated and well-traveled. Through workers' clubs, they had been able to holiday in Hungary, Yugoslavia and Cuba. We met a recreational sailor and a gliding enthusiast, each of whom had been able to enjoy their sports through workers' clubs, which were everywhere and organized in a networking structure allowing the smallest workers' sports clubs access to world-class facilities. Cultural events, such as the opera, were of equal quality to those in West Berlin (they were both superb!) but much more affordable in East Berlin, where there were a lot more working-class people attending.
I don't see socialism as a bar to being on the top 25 HDI list and I don't know if East Germany was ever on the list, which might depend on how long the list's been around.
Another number I'd like to see worked out would be the natural wealth of the country divided by the population. Because I'm wondering how much of the HDI ranking is due to economic system and how much to natural wealth, the luck of the geographic draw.
-
Where do we place the poverty line?
The advrage buyijng power of a Cuban would be lessor than the buying power of an American on the edge of poverty.
How long does an American work to earn a chicken , a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs?
How long for a Japaneese , Cuban , Venesualian , French ,etc....
It is a longstanding beleif in the US that a person can do better for himself than the government can do for him , this beleif begins back in the day that it was obviously ture.
-
<<Where do we place the poverty line?>>
I don't know. Here's a good starting point for a discussion of that issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold)
Of the various alternative definitions discussed, I like this one:
David Gordon's paper, "Indicators of Poverty & Hunger", for the United Nations, further defines absolute poverty as the absence of any two of the following eight basic needs:[4]
• Food: Body Mass Index must be above 16.
• Safe drinking water: Water must not come from solely rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (less than 15 minutes walk each way).
• Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
• Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
• Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of dirt, mud, or clay.
• Education: Everyone must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
• Information: Everyone must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
• Access to services: This item is undefined by Gordon, but normally is used to indicate the complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.
There's obviously a highly arbitrary element to all of the definitions. I think what's important is to establish one definition as the standard, and make sure that however it's composed, it describes a way of life and a measure of deprivation such that anyone who can envisage the life so described would say, "Whoaahh, I would be very unhappy living that life and I wouldn't want anyone's kids to have to live that way," and yet so constructed that with a few minimal improvements, it would become a life that could be described as "liveable, but only barely."
I think it more important that there BE a uniform standard than that the standard be one that everyone can agree on. If we are going to discuss standard of living, we need some kind of metrics that will permit comparisons of various alternative
<<The advrage buyijng power of a Cuban would be lessor than the buying power of an American on the edge of poverty.>>
plane, I think this would be a good time for you to start defining your terms. Exactly what do you mean by "buying power" and how does it apply to benefits and services that the average Cuban doesn't have to buy because they are provided to him free of charge by the state, such as medical care, education, and in some cases, and to some degree, housing.
Another thing I query about your statement is that it seems to presuppose that there is some inherent advantage to owning the things that "buying power" can get you and no value to cooperative use of cooperatively owned property as an alternative to private ownership. Suppose the "American on the edge of poverty" can scrape together the price of a 15-year-old clunker and "the average Cuban" can't. What is the BFD? For his $799 clunker, the "American on the edge of poverty gets some pollution-spewing, unsafe piece of shit that keeps draining his wallet for repairs, gas, parking, insurance, etc., whereas the average Cuban has cheap access to decent and adequate public transportation. So I don't think that "purchasing power" is an adequate metric for comparing living standards across two countries with different economic systems, one in which the state provides a lot of things to its citizens, the other in which the state provides relatively few things to its citizens. This is where the HDI referred to in one of CU4's earlier posts provides a much better yardstick for comparison purposes.
<<How long does an American work to earn a chicken , a loaf of bread and a dozen eggs?
<<How long for a Japaneese , Cuban , Venesualian , French ,etc....>>
I'm sure there are studies done that would answer your questions. The answers would be interesting, of course, but would need adjustment for (a) things that the non-American workers don't have to work for at all, because they are provided free of charge by the government rather than purchased privately and (b) the problem of unemployment, i.e., that there are Americans, Cubans, Japanese, etc. who can't earn a chicken or loaf of bread because they have no job. That's why, again, I think metrics like the HDI, referred to above, are the more relevant measure of comparison.
<<It is a longstanding beleif in the US that a person can do better for himself than the government can do for him , this beleif begins back in the day that it was obviously ture.>>
Sorry, but I don't think it was ever "obviously true" that people would do better through an every man for himself competitive frenzy than through an organized cooperative group effort. I think it was always true, and still is, that cooperative effort produces better results for most people than "rugged individualism." The "longstanding belief" that you are referring to is a myth.
-
<<It is a longstanding beleif in the US that a person can do better for himself than the government can do for him , this beleif begins back in the day that it was obviously ture.>>
Sorry, but I don't think it was ever "obviously true" that people would do better through an every man for himself competitive frenzy than through an organized cooperative group effort. I think it was always true, and still is, that cooperative effort produces better results for most people than "rugged individualism." The "longstanding belief" that you are referring to is a myth.
We had almost three centurys of fronteir settleing.
Going a few years without interaction with government agencys was common enough for frounteirsmen.
This didn't hinder cooperative effort in the least. The Government has never been involved in barn raisin , corn shuckin or quiltin bees.
-
<<We had almost three centurys of fronteir settleing.
<<Going a few years without interaction with government agencys was common enough for frounteirsmen.>>
Apparently not, since the Government took a relatively early hand in these things. << In 1836 Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, a Yale-educated attorney interested in improving agriculture, became Commissioner of Patents, a position within the Department of State. He soon began collecting and distributing new varieties of seeds and plants through members of the Congress and agricultural societies. >>
from a history of the USDA, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold)
<<This didn't hinder cooperative effort in the least. The Government has never been involved in barn raisin , corn shuckin or quiltin bees.>>
Good examples, good point. So at least you seem to recognize the superiority of collective effort over rugged individualism. Apparently, you only object to collective effort when it is government-organized?
-
Good examples, good point. So at least you seem to recognize the superiority of collective effort over rugged individualism. Apparently, you only object to collective effort when it is government-organized?
Reading comprehension has finally improved. We (conservatives) have been saying that for years.
-
Touche' 8)
-
<<This didn't hinder cooperative effort in the least. The Government has never been involved in barn raisin , corn shuckin or quiltin bees.>>
Good examples, good point. So at least you seem to recognize the superiority of collective effort over rugged individualism. Apparently, you only object to collective effort when it is government-organized?
In a word , Yes.
How did this bit of light get through your filter?
-
<<In a word , Yes. [plane favours cooperative effort just not with government involvement.]
<<How did this bit of light get through your filter?>>
How it got through is not so important. What's important is that I understand why, if you are not opposed to cooperation in principle, you are opposed to larger-scale cooperative effort orchestrated by your democratically elected government. You know,5 people acting together good, 100 people acting together better. Why not?
-
Power corrupts.....absolute power corrupts, absolutely. That's why. The power of your theoretical "100" just passed legislation that a vast majority of the population DID NOT WANT. So much for the notion of listening to one's constituents
-
<<In a word , Yes. [plane favours cooperative effort just not with government involvement.]
<<How did this bit of light get through your filter?>>
How it got through is not so important. What's important is that I understand why, if you are not opposed to cooperation in principle, you are opposed to larger-scale cooperative effort orchestrated by your democratically elected government. You know,5 people acting together good, 100 people acting together better. Why not?
An hundred people acting together is better sometimes and sometimes not.
For a Government bigger is always better and growth is irriversable.
Government is always more or less coercive , when it comes to coercion ,less is better.
-
<<An hundred people acting together is better sometimes and sometimes not.>>
OK, but your opposition to government-orchestrated collective solutions is not sometimes on and sometimes off; seems to me you are always 100% "off," i.e. always non-receptive to any government-orchestrated collective solution, which indicates a rigid and inflexible belief that any government is incapable of orchestrating any acceptable form of collective solution.
<<For a Government bigger is always better and growth is irriversable.>>
NO reason at all to believe that - - here in Ontario we had eight years of "belt-tightening" under a Conservative government which resulted in cut-backs and lay-offs in the public sector and a distinctly smaller Provincial government. (With results that were ultimately disastrous, but that's another story.) The previous "growth" of the Ontario government was far from "irreversible." The government is basically whatever size the democratically elected representatives of the people decide it should be.
<<Government is always more or less coercive , when it comes to coercion ,less is better.>>
Says the man who stops at every red light. Which came first, BTW, the automobile or the traffic signal? Every form of "coercion" that the government imposes comes in the wake of a need created by a lack of coercion. First the automobile without the regulation of the traffic signal, then the traffic signal because of the problems of the unregulated traffic. First the stock market fraud, then the "blue sky" legislation. First the tax evader, then the need for increased IRS enforcement.
What is this fear of "coercive" government but a flight from modernity and its complexities? REAL coercion, as in the "need" to keep "suspects" in infinite detention without trial, waterboarding of prisoners and the trials of people who advocate without acting, is NEVER the object of conservative objection. The growth of a police state, the assassination without trial of American citizens abroad and the spying of government agents upon them at home, THAT kind of coercion is always accepted. It seems that the only "coercion" that a conservative will oppose is anything which relates to the amelioration of the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans. Compulsory universal single-payer insurance, for example, or payment of taxes to finance social welfare projects.
-
I question the saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" It sounds nice, but I question its validity. It does not seem to be applicable to either Turkey under Ataturk, not any of the various governments of Singapore, or even Abu Dhabi , Dubai, or Qatar.
-
IIRC, Lord Acton's dictum was that power TENDS to corrupt, absolute power TENDS to corrupt absolutely. The dictum at least as I've heard it quoted (except of course by conservatives) was not as absolutist as they like to make it.
BTW, have you ever seen a conservative object to the absolute power of a Pinochet or a Somoza or any other CIA creation?
-
BTW, have you ever seen a conservative object to the absolute power of a Pinochet or a Somoza or any other CIA creation?
Yes.
-
Outstanding. Who?
-
Outstanding. Who?
Norm Coleman for one. Do your research.
-
Sometimes life is not the choice between good or bad.
Sometimes the choice is between bad and worse.
If you have to deal with skunks,
better to deal with a skunk that faces you
than deal with a skunk with his rear facing you.
Just like in Iran.
The Iranian people didn't like the Shah and they don't like the Mullahs either.
Sure the unelected Shah denied civil rights
But at least the Shah wasn't building nukes to point at Israel/Europe, & eventually the United States.
Now we have unelected Mullahs denying civil rights, that hate democracy, & build nuclear bombs.
"Perfect Angels" are hard to come by, so sometimes the US chooses between the lesser of two evils.
-
IIRC, Lord Acton's dictum was that power TENDS to corrupt, absolute power TENDS to corrupt absolutely. The dictum at least as I've heard it quoted was not as absolutist as they like to make it.
Nice how you skimmed right over the part of these "elected representatives" doing precisely the opposite of their constituents' bidding, with the latest incarnation of Obamacare
And I'm sure you can present that quote with Lord Acton's use of the term "tends"
-
Norm Coleman is the one "conservative" you were able to name who opposed the absolute powers of a Pinochet or a Spinoza? Do YOUR homework, that was laughable. A quick read of the Wikipedia bio of Coleman indicates that he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He is anything BUT your "typical conservative."
I'll stick to my original comment, thank you. When you find one REAL conservative who was opposed to the absolute power of right-wing Latin-American dictators and torturers, let me know. All of them together won't add up to more than a drop in the ocean anyway. The vast majority of conservatives support absolute power, provided only that it be exercised by right-wing criminals.
-
Norm Coleman is the one "conservative" you were able to name who opposed the absolute powers of a Pinochet or a Spinoza? Do YOUR homework, that was laughable. A quick read of the Wikipedia bio of Coleman indicates that he was one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He is anything BUT your "typical conservative."
From Wikipedia:
"He received a 14% progressive rating from Progressive Punch. And he scored a 73% conservative rating by the conservative group, SBE Council."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Coleman)
He is anti-abortion, pro Iraq war, pro-ANWR drilling, anti federal funding for stem cell research, anti-gay rights, anti-drug legalization, pro SSA privatization - I didn't realize that these were "most liberal" positions. Perhaps I'm a liberal and didn't realize it.
-
Norm Coleman's rating at "On The Issues":
(http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s020_070.gif)
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Norm_Coleman.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Norm_Coleman.htm)
There's quite a bit of detail on how they arrived at their rating, based on his voting record.
-
And yet the guy was rated one of the four or five most moderate Republicans in the Senate. Go figure. BTW, 73% conservative doesn't seem like any great hell to me. It's meaningless of course without knowing how many higher rankings there were.
-
Meaningless to you perhaps, but certainly debunks the notion that he was "one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate"
next
-
<< In 1836 Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, a Yale-educated attorney interested in improving agriculture, became Commissioner of Patents, a position within the Department of State. He soon began collecting and distributing new varieties of seeds and plants through members of the Congress and agricultural societies. >>
from a history of the USDA, found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold)
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/ (http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/)
Extention agents are very usefull and I have known them to bear a sence of mission , they promote the general welfare effeciently and use practicly no co-ercion , they are simply availible and usefull , it is a well run program.
I wonder how we got along without anything like it for seventy years.
The West was won much as the East was with the government just barely co-ordinateing a tide of humanity that rolled west blanketing all obsticles and ignoreing any rights that the aborigionals might have had. I think it could have been done better , but not by any government policy , where the government did make a few concessions to the rights of Indians the population uniformly ignored them.
In the time since, recognition of Native Americans as Human beings possed of inalienable rights has grown up in the population , the government is sluggishly ghangeing policys made eighty or an hundred fifty years ago to recognise this. The breau of Indian Affairs , which used to be the Governments idea of protecting the people on reservation has never been run well , has often been corrupt and coercive, haveing still a legacy of malmanagement that is comeing to light almost as slowly as it is being cleaned up.
The USDA's Extention service is an example of the government doing a job well that might be hard for a non government agency to do at all.
The interior department's BIA is an example of almost exactly the opposite.
If there is anything we in the USA lack as a people and government , it is a means to throttle the life out of looseing , corrupt , wastefull , idiotic agencys that seem immortal.
OK, but your opposition to government-orchestrated collective solutions is not sometimes on and sometimes off; seems to me you are always 100% "off," ....
This may seem like that to you because you are 100% "on" , but in actuality I am an employee of the USAF which is one of the premier military (guberment to youse) orginisations of the planet , nobody does it better.
Perhaps I don't praise the Government as often as you would , but I am also an American possessing a legacy of holding the government in a realistic suspicion , because of its potential for enforceing repression, even when it is not misbehaveing , it still has that potential.
-
Norm Coleman's rating at "On The Issues":
I would bet that the present Congress overall leaves that center square unpopulated.
-
You know, plane, I mentioned the USDA only because it seemed to me that you feel the West was "won" without government intervention by a tide of settlers, which frankly I think is a gigantic crock.
In addition to help from the USDA, the West was "won" with the help of railroads, the U.S. military, a whole flock of surveyors, land agents, county registrars, mining claims offices etc. because in reality very few people would be dumb enough to go out and start clearing and farming an unplotted lot with no idea whose land they were working on or whether they'd ever get title. They needed protection from Indian attacks, a system for registration of mining claims and a billion other things that only a government can provide with any assurance. The myth of the frontier is a crock a shit.
-
You know, plane, I mentioned the USDA only because it seemed to me that you feel the West was "won" without government intervention by a tide of settlers, which frankly I think is a gigantic crock.
In addition to help from the USDA, the West was "won" with the help of railroads, the U.S. military, a whole flock of surveyors, land agents, county registrars, mining claims offices etc. because in reality very few people would be dumb enough to go out and start clearing and farming an unplotted lot with no idea whose land they were working on or whether they'd ever get title. They needed protection from Indian attacks, a system for registration of mining claims and a billion other things that only a government can provide with any assurance. The myth of the frontier is a crock a shit.
All of the amenitues came after there was someone there to pay for them.
The Militias amounted to more than the regular army untill after the Civil war , during the Civil war was the transition.
Did you think that there was a lot of mineing claims registered in Califoria before 1849?
I think the Cavalary comeing to the rescue in every nick of time is the Hollywood version. Half the Indian Wars were coordinated and half of them were catch as catch can in a bad neighborhood. Of course haveing an Officer present would make it a lot more likely that the battle would be recorded , and that the Army would get glowing praise in the description of the battle.
A noteable exception to the usual battlefeild report is the record of Davy Crockett , If you ever have some time to kill you might want to read this precursor to "Catch 22". Davy Crockett understood that he had to fight , but thought of the Indians as persons anyway. Andrew Jackson wrote of the same battles , which you ought to read if you want to read something nice about Andrew Jackson.
Washington did try now and again to impose order on the westering people , The Supreme couort even found in favor of the Cherokee staying where they were in Ga. , but the Army in that case (as in several others) went along to stand between the Indians and the local Whites just to stop the fight. It might have been a lot more proper for the Army to defend the Indian right to his land as directed by the Supreme court , but this would have been asking one white man to shoot another White man for the property rights of a non white man. Andrew Jackson was President by this time and he didn't see much point in that.
The Government was involved in the westward migration of our people , but it is an exaggeration to say it was in controll of it.
-
(http://images0.cafepress.com/product/391840930v4_480x480_Front.jpg)
-
because in reality very few people would be dumb enough to go out and start clearing and farming an unplotted lot with no idea whose land they were working on or whether they'd ever get title.
As a matter of fact you are talking about Daniel Boone , who founded Boonesbourough and established a plantation for himself nearby , but lost his claim to latecomers who understood the system better.
Daniel then went to Texas to start over , where he was a successfull farmer till his death of natural causes in his eightys.
Something simular happened to Laura Engals family as recounted in "Little house on the Prairie".
The Govenrnment did manage claims registry , but I get the impression that it was not really good at it.
-
I was only guessing at how settlement proceeded, but I know from the way it went here in Ontario, the British came in first, their surveyors laid out all the roads on paper and created all the lots BEFORE the settlers were allowed in to settle on them. The roads made 200-acre lots and anyone could apply for a Crown grant giving 25 years of possession and then if the land was cleared, fenced and farmed by the end of the 25 years, the settler got the title to the whole 200 acres. I'm not sure if they got the mineral rights, I think it might have depended on where in the Province the land was.
Common sense tells me that nobody would clear land and farm it only to be kicked out as some kind of squatter after years of backbreaking labour. There'd have to be a registry and government surveys before anyone would settle on it. The kind of cases you describe are probably the exception, not the rule.
Some of your other points sound valid, for example that the U.S. Army would have been involved in a major way only after the end of the Civil War, but I'm sure that there was a lot more government involvement than you want to admit in the settlement of the West.
And thanks for your tips about Davy Crockett and Andrew Jackson, I put both of them on a list for reading up on after retirement. We did study Andrew Jackson in U.S. history class in Grade 9, and he got a pretty bad rep, as I understand it not only as an Indian fighter but even more for bringing the "spoils system" into the government. But he wasn't all bad, because he opened politics to "the common man" which meant taking it away from the elite of the Eastern seaboard. We also learned that the Battle of New Orleans was a DRAW, not the clear-cut victory later claimed in the Johnny Horton song.
-
We also learned that the Battle of New Orleans was a DRAW, not the clear-cut victory later claimed in the Johnny Horton song.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Of Course!
Your early years in School would have been while Canada was still British!
Probly more British than Britian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans
At the end of the day, the British had 2,042 casualties: 291 killed (including Generals Pakenham and Gibbs), 1,267 wounded (including General Keane) and 484 captured or missing.[2] The Americans had 71 casualties: 13 dead; 39 wounded and 19 missing.
I have some bad news for you about Crimea too.
-
Well, of course the British had more casualties. They started out with more than three times as many troops.
-
the British came in first, their surveyors laid out all the roads on paper and created all the lots BEFORE the settlers were allowed in to settle on them.
"BEFORE the settlers were allowed in "
Are you kidding?
The government encouraged Pioneering , the government tried to manage claims , but there was hardly any throttle on the process.
Especially in the earlyer periods , management was spotty and enforcement was undependable. Untill 1850 the word was that there was no law west of the Pecos.
The Settlers of Texas were exceptional , they were advertised for and invited by the Mexican government "allowed in" as you say , but a few years later the Mexican Government attempted to impose good government on the Texicans who refused to be disarmed , final result , Davy Crocket is dead, Santa Anna has killed his brother in law, and the Republic of Texas is formed.
The terrible rigidity of government we presently enjoy has developed gradually , origionally our government was small , nimble and cost less than 2% of GDP. If we could get that back perhaps we could grow as rapidly as we did in those days , kinda like China is .
Alas we are useing the government for many more things than just governing now and it is much more a burden. It seems like a ratchet , it never shrinks , even when we elect a president with a mandate to reduce or even when another one proclaims "the era of big government is over"
-
Well, of course the British had more casualties. They started out with more than three times as many troops.
Hahahahahaha!
They also started out with a reputation as one of the worlds most competant Navys and Armys.
Do you suppose the Treaty of Gent would have been honored if the city of New Orliens had fallen?
-
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/Louisiana/New_Orleans/_Texts/KENHNO/6 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/Louisiana/New_Orleans/_Texts/KENHNO/6)*.html
Fairly detailed account of the circumstances of the Battle of New Orliens.
-
<<At the end of the day, the British had 2,042 casualties: 291 killed (including Generals Pakenham and Gibbs), 1,267 wounded (including General Keane) and 484 captured or missing.[2] The Americans had 71 casualties: 13 dead; 39 wounded and 19 missing.>>
Nobody told us about the lopsided body count or about the two dead Generals. And yes, the schools were kind of British - - we sang "God Save the King" every morning (and then "God Save the Queen" after the death of King George VI) and I can still picture the large portrait of the King and Queen of England on the wall just outside the Principal's office in Junior High.
Your link to the Battle of New Orleans BTW was "Link Not Found."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans) may be the the same one. It worked. Looks like the British really fucked up. The Americans didn't win this one, the British lost it. Just one inexcusable mistake after another.
-
Your link to the Battle of New Orleans BTW was "Link Not Found."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/Louisiana/New_Orleans/_Texts/KENHNO/6*.html (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/America/United_States/Louisiana/New_Orleans/_Texts/KENHNO/6*.html)
Fixed it.
-
Thanks, that's a great page. I saved it for later reading.
-
Wow thanks Ami.
It is not uncommon for errors to be determine the outcome of battles.
But Americans can make errors as easily as anyone elese. The worst error I noticed was not blocking all of the ship and boat approaches to the fringes of the city.
The forces availible to the American side were not unified , not co-ordinated , not led , not loyal , not motivated and were wasteing a lot of time untill Jackson showed up. Jackson really was a remarkably competant leader.