Right-wing populism

[DavidJames]

How about ATM fees?

It's seems a lot of people get upset when the price of gas goes up or they have to pay $1.50 to use an ATM machine but the fact that the government can't account for billions of dollars and inarguably waste billions more which directly affects people's disposable income for some odd reason isn't a concern. Why is that?

I would guess because with your examples, people can directly see the $'s leave their checkbook, while the waste and "missing" $'s are abstract and not easily assimilated.

Does this surprise you? What's your point?

 

[Freakshow]

I would guess because with your examples, people can directly see the $'s leave their checkbook, while the waste and "missing" $'s are abstract and not easily assimilated.

Does this surprise you? What's your point?

I'm guessing that he is saying that people are selective about caring about how they part with their money, based on political ideology.

I'm guilty of it myself, but I'll admit it.

 

[RandFan]

I would guess because with your examples, people can directly see the $'s leave their checkbook, while the waste and "missing" $'s are abstract and not easily assimilated.

It does my heart good that someone gets it. Yes, we are such easy and compliant sheep. I'm curious, how much do you think government could take from us and throw down a rat hole before we revolted? 80%? 90%?

Does this surprise you?

Of course not. The vast majority of Americans accept the Democratic platform and believe in God (see above).

What's your point?

Not being bothered by taxes when the very real fact is that government wastes much of the money entrusted to it is naive at best and ignorant at worst. Though abstract it might be, esoteric it is not.

Oh, and FWIW, I'm not happy with Bush et al when it comes to fiscal issues. I long for the days of Clinton's fiscal responsibility.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Cain

That’s the mystery of the United States, circa 2004. Thanks to the rightward political shift of the past 30 years, wealth is today concentrated in fewer hands than it has been since the 1920s; workers have less power over the conditions under which they toil than ever before in our lifetimes; and the corporation has become the most powerful actor in our world. Yet that rightward shift - still going strong to this day - sells itself as a war against elites, a righteous uprising of the little guy against an obnoxious upper class.

This is a gross simplification. Yes, many of the Right’s positions, especially the economic ones, benefit the rich. But just because they benefit the rich does not mean that they are supported by the rich. Much of the Left, while claiming to represent the poor, is driven by the rich. Once you get rid of the economic issues, there’s a clear link between Liberalism and the rich. Also notice that the commercial talks about the cultural elite, while this article changes the subject to the economic elite. [BTW, I’m writing this in MS Word, which accepts “elite” as a word, but not “elites”.]

If you tell fellow Americans that less than 5% tax filers pays a rate higher than 28% in income taxes, they won't believe you.

It’s weird how they refuse to swallow such absurd lies. Oh, and it’s “pay”, not “pays”. If you’re going to post complete BS, at least do it in a grammatically correct manner.

The problem is this: the vast majority of Americans agree with the basic platform of the Democratic Party

No, they don’t.

Nearly no one agrees with the actual platform of far-right radicals.

So “basic platform” for Democrats, “far-right radicals” for Republicans? You’re comparing apples and oranges.

They lie without hesitation, because by the time a lie is tracked down, no one in this high-speed MTV world cares anymore.

Oh, puh-leeze. The Democrats don’t care about the truth. Se Cain's post above.

Unfortunately the typeface caused a bit of a storm in the past few years, with detractors going so far as to delete the font from computers they use, which is not only an unbelievably elitist, and selfish act of vandalism, but also re-inforces the stereotype that (visual) designers are a bunch of squabble-obsessed anal retentives who need to pull their thumbs out their arses (can we still say arses?), get over their personality defects and get in touch with the real world, which is sad really, because some of them are interesting to know and have useful ideas to offer.

Calling it “vandalism” is absolutely absurd, unless they’re deleting it from other people’s computers. I hardly think it’s “elitist” or “anal retentive” to not want to have to experience the visual equivalent of nail on chalkboards.

Who has ever actually, REALLY tried to take your guns away? No one, of course

How can you possibly claim that no one is trying to take guns away? San Francisco passed a law prohibiting gun ownership. And they’re hardly alone.

The main problem with saying the income tax is unconstitutional is the problem that it is specifically allowed for by a constitutional amendment

No, it isn’t. Not as currently implemented. As it stands, anyone engaging in pretty much any criminal enterprise is legally required to inform the federal government of that fact, in blatant violation of the fifth amendment. That’s how they got Al Capone. He was basically prosecuted for failing to properly disclose his criminal activities.

I like a lot of what you're saying, but I can't let this strawman go. I personally know of no democrat, elected official or just regular voter, who wants Equal Outcome. (He11, even watching Robin Hood growing up, I never got the idea that he was trying to make things equal

The whole justification for Affirmative Action is inequality in outcome. Liberals are constantly complaining about things like the rich getting better education, better housing, and better health care, as if any difference in outcome is an injustice.

(BTW...schools are not an outcome, but an opportunity, at least in the minds of anyone on the "left" that I know.)

They’re both.

2. Libertarianism is based upon a gross misconception of survival of the fittest

No, it’s not.

3. Libertarianism is based on a gross misconception that people can be completely autonomous and that human existence is not interdependent.

No, it’s based on the idea that the fact that we’re interdependent is not an excuse for slavery.

4. All Libertarians seem to be under the impression that they will prosper under a Libertarian government.

It’s about being free, not about being rich.

Like any set of ideas that attracts people there are a few grains of Libertarianism that I think would be good and beneficial to society but as a whole I find it to be a selfish and dangerous political philosophy based on self-righteous corruptions of Darwinism.

It’s selfish in the same sense that the slaves that ran away from their masters were “selfish”. Or the people who went to Canada to escape the draft were “selfish”. Demanding your rights is not “selfish”.

But Libertarianism seems to be designed to simply put the Libertarians in their place as the "top" of the socio-economic food chain, to make this a better world for them and not all of us.

Huh? Can you name one policy that is specifically helps libertarians at the expense of everyone else?

I would guess because with your examples, people can directly see the $'s leave their checkbook, while the waste and "missing" $'s are abstract and not easily assimilated.

That’s an odd use of the word “assimilated”.

RandFan

Oh, and FWIW, I'm not happy with Bush et al when it comes to fiscal issues. I long for the days of Clinton's fiscal responsibility.

Weird how seven years of budget deficits, despite a booming economy, followed by one year of "surplus" arrived at through convenient accounting is considered “fiscal responsibility”.

 

[DavidJames]

It does my heart good that someone gets it. Yes, we are such easy and compliant sheep. I'm curious, how much do you think government could take from us and throw down a rat hole before we revolted? 80%? 90%?

I confess I haven't, and should, read the links you provided. I work for a very large company and see huge amounts of waste. At least it's waste from my perspective. Doesn't mean it really is? I think waste and inefficiency is an unfortunate (buy not necessarily inevitable) by product of the size and age of any entity. Unfortunately, when waste in government is debated, the solutions usually don't involve making things run more efficiently, but eliminating things which the complainer doesn't like.

Not being bothered by taxes when the very real fact is that government wastes much of the money entrusted to it is naive at best and ignorant at worst. Though abstract it might be, esoteric it is not.

I guess it depends on what he meant with his quote. In the sense that I believe our taxes, in general, are being used in ways I am comfortable with, yes, I'm not bothered with taxes. The fact that there is waste is troubling and I am bothered by it.

Oh, and FWIW, I'm not happy with Bush et al when it comes to fiscal issues. I long for the days of Clinton's fiscal responsibility.

sigh, you, me, and right thinking people everywhere

 

[DavidJames]

That’s an odd use of the word “assimilated”.

See #2 below.
as·sim·i·late Pronunciation (-sm-lt)
v. as·sim·i·lat·ed, as·sim·i·lat·ing, as·sim·i·lates
v.tr.
1. Physiology
a. To consume and incorporate (nutrients) into the body after digestion.
b. To transform (food) into living tissue by the process of anabolism; metabolize constructively.
2. To incorporate and absorb into the mind: assimilate knowledge.
3. To make similar; cause to resemble.
4. Linguistics To alter (a sound) by assimilation.
5. To absorb (immigrants or a culturally distinct group) into the prevailing culture.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=assimilated

Note: I will continue to remain polite and keep quiet even though my sides are bursting with laughter at your pathetic attempts at rounding percentages.

 

[Snide]

The whole justification for Affirmative Action is inequality in outcome.

(Edited to completely rewrite my original response, which I posted in haste after not thinking it entirely through).

Affirmative action is but one issue and is not fully supported by all on the left, at least not to make things entirely equal. As stated before, the left wants better outcomes.

Liberals are constantly complaining about things like the rich getting better education, better housing, and better health care, as if any difference in outcome is an injustice.

Mainstream leftists, by and large, know that the wealthy will get better everything, and are fine with that, if "better" was all that was happening. What most leftists truly want is adequate (however that's defined) education, health care, etc. for those who cannot afford the better versions.

While it would be convenient if liberals by and large really did want the outcomes to be equal, it is simply not true. I can think of zero liberals (other than the extremists, whom I pay little attention to anyway), who want the results to be equal.

They’re both.

Yes, but the point is that equal opportunity is the primary goal among mainstream liberals. You claim it is equal outcome, or at least that's one of the goals. Do you realize what you are saying? How many democratic candidates in recent times can you name who wanted outcomes to be made equal, as opposed to opportunities for equal outcomes?

I would love to hear from even our most left liberals on this one. (Realize, for clarity's sake, that I am assuming the American continuum of definitions of right and left.)

 

[RandFan]

I guess it depends on what he meant with his quote. In the sense that I believe our taxes, in general, are being used in ways I am comfortable with, yes, I'm not bothered with taxes. The fact that there is waste is troubling and I am bothered by it.

Fair enough. I personally am not bothered by the concept of taxation. If this is the point then he (she?) and I are in agreement.

Thank you for the reasoned tone. Some day I hope to have the same.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Mainstream leftists, by and large, know that the wealthy will get better everything, and are fine with that, if "better" was all that was happening. What most leftists truly want is adequate (however that's defined) education, health care, etc. for those who cannot afford the better versions.

That's not what Orwell said:

I have nothing against rich people. In fact, I like many of their privileges so much (like being able to afford healthcare and a decent education) that I want everybody to be able to enjoy them!

Now, I think that everyone can open a private university in Canada if they want to (they'll need, of course, to get the appropriate papers filled etc.). And, by the way, anyone can open an hospital too, if the have the right authorisations and papers. What they are not free to do, however, is charge whatever they want. School fees are regulated.

If private universities are not free to charge premium tuitions, it follows that they will not be able to be to provide premium education. Which means that, at least when it comes to Orwell, liberals are opposed to allowing rich people to have better education than the poor, even if the poor are getting an adequate education. Anything the rich buy for themselves, they have to buy for the poor, too. This is the politics of envy, not of justice.

Yes, but the point is that equal opportunity is the primary goal among mainstream liberals.

No, it's not. If it were, they would oppose AA and other liberal entitlement systems.

Do you realize what you are saying? How many democratic candidates in recent times can you name who wanted outcomes to be made equal, as opposed to opportunities for equal outcomes?

I'm not claiming that all Democrats want outcomes to be exactly equal. I'm just saying that if policians are divided between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, the Democrats are more likely to be on the side of the latter. Look at the same-sex marriage debate. Equal opportunity means that everyone is made the same offer, such as "You may marry the person of the opposite sex of your choice". Liberals object to that because even though everyone is being given the same opportunity, homosexuals tend to have a different outcome (they don't have anyone of the opposite sex that they want to marry).

See #2 below.
2. To incorporate and absorb into the mind: assimilate knowledge.

I just think that the idea of absorbing dollars into your mind is a rather odd concept. It may very well be that it is I that has a conception of the word different from the accepted usage, but I don't think that "assimilate" means quite what you think it means.

Note: I will continue to remain polite and keep quiet even though my sides are bursting with laughter at your pathetic attempts at rounding percentages.

It seems to me that if you have anything of value to say, then you should say it, rather than posting rude comments, while at the same time claiming to be polite.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

Thanks for bumping the thread, I forgot to vote. Reading your post reminds me why I don't support Libertarians, you make stuff up, even more then those you love to mock.

Now the 48% who think Libertarians are wrong is a little bit higher.

Huh?

I don't have time to make things up. Bill O'Reilly interviewing Michael Moore, after Michael commented that taxes are too low, O'Reilly asked what level should we be at, and he asked incrementally, 70, 70, 90, 100%, each time with Moore responding a simple "yes".

 

[Snide]

That's not what Orwell said:


If private universities are not free to charge premium tuitions, it follows that they will not be able to be to provide premium education. Which means that, at least when it comes to Orwell, liberals are opposed to allowing rich people to have better education than the poor, even if the poor are getting an adequate education. Anything the rich buy for themselves, they have to buy for the poor, too. This is the politics of envy, not of justice.

No, it's not. If it were, they would oppose AA and other liberal entitlement systems.

I'm not claiming that all Democrats want outcomes to be exactly equal. I'm just saying that if policians are divided between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, the Democrats are more likely to be on the side of the latter. Look at the same-sex marriage debate. Equal opportunity means that everyone is made the same offer, such as "You may marry the person of the opposite sex of your choice". Liberals object to that because even though everyone is being given the same opportunity, homosexuals tend to have a different outcome (they don't have anyone of the opposite sex that they want to marry).

I understand your points and started a long, respectful response, but I fear we'd get into debates of semantics and such.

Let's just say that generally everyone wants what is "fair." But while it is "unfair" for the rich to pay for the poor's healthcare, for example, it is also "unfair" to be born in poverty, or into a lower skillset, intellectual capacity, etc.

This is not even considering the effects of what we do to be "fair" on society (e.g., does welfare "help one get on their own two feet" or does it "enable them to continue to be wastes on society?").

I don't need to elaborate on where the left and right land on these issues. My main observation, rather, is that the mainstream American left is not as left as you seem to think it is.

 

[Snide]

Huh?

I don't have time to make things up. Bill O'Reilly interviewing Michael Moore, after Michael commented that taxes are too low, O'Reilly asked what level should we be at, and he asked incrementally, 70, 70, 90, 100%, each time with Moore responding a simple "yes".

Really? Source? (I'll look too...)

 

[Rockin' Rick]

Really? Source? (I'll look too...)

It's been some time ago. I'm going on recollection of watching the program. If I can find a source I'd be happy to post it.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

This is not a reply to any previous post on this thread.

Several times I have tried to have dialogs with Libertarians in order to understand their political philosophy. I knew no Libertarians growing up so I was a blank slate on the subject as it were. Here is what I have found to be the case universally:

I'll be the first to admit that there are a variety of libertarians the same as there are a variety of all the others. I've had conversations with fellow libertarians that have at times made me furious.

1. Libertarians hold their views very strongly and are uncompromising about them. This limits any hope they have of being a successful political party.

We see this as quite the contrary. The lack of conviction and wavering of the republicrats I believe is detrimental to them. I admire the authoritorians for their conviction.

2. Libertarianism is based upon a gross misconception of survival of the fittest

Survival of the fittest is IT. Sport, corporate competition, keeping up with the Jones', making sure I can keep food on the table for my family, protecting my family, this IS survival of the fittest.

3. Libertarianism is based on a gross misconception that people can be completely autonomous and that human existence is not interdependent.

Simply not true. If you've gotten that impression I an sorry. Libertarians are against government and society trying to force us to mingle. If one chooses to be a hermit so be it.

4. All Libertarians seem to be under the impression that they will prosper under a Libertarian government. No Libertarians I have ever spoken with has been willing to consider that they would end up as one of the "weak", "stupid", "irresponsible" people that will end us sick, destitute, or dead in an otherwise utopian world of Libertarianism.

Not "they" will prosper, "all" will prosper. Because the course of history shows that government holds prosperity back.
They think they would not be one of the destitute because they believe they can help themselves. There is of course no guarantee. Here again you have the wrong impression. Libertarians do not want to be forced into providing for others, we want that left up to choice. It is not my fault if you fail to plan for your retirement, and vice-versa. Charity should be voluntary.

but as a whole I find it to be a selfish and dangerous political philosophy based on self-righteous corruptions of Darwinism.

That makes no sense. Darwin certainly wasn't dangerous. The idea that we all have had equal opportunity to evolve or that we should all have equal rights or we should each be left alone to live our lives as we see fit, how is that selfish?

Libertarians are justifiably angry at politicians and businesspersons who abuse and cheat their way to financial success. But Libertarianism seems to be designed to simply put the Libertarians in their place as the "top" of the socio-economic food chain, to make this a better world for them and not all of us.

Not true. The libertarians are angry at the politicians because they have set things up so that only those who are with them can join. They own the board, the pieces, wrote the rules, and decides who gets to play. And they are allowed to break their own rules. Corrupt businesspersons are just that, corrupt, and has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Some libertarians sound like anarchists, others right-wing nutjobs, and many are one-issue people, they're libertarian except for .... (insert issue here)
It makes it difficult. There are also a number of people calling themselves libertarians because they don't feel they are conservative or liberal and want to have a political home.

 

[Snide]

It's been some time ago. I'm going on recollection of watching the program. If I can find a source I'd be happy to post it.

Cool. All I keep finding is July 27, 2004 O'Reilly factor, which was about Iraq and no mention of taxes.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Let's just say that generally everyone wants what is "fair." But while it is "unfair" for the rich to pay for the poor's healthcare, for example, it is also "unfair" to be born in poverty, or into a lower skillset, intellectual capacity, etc.

Which I think is the difference between conservatives and liberals: conservatives want people to be fair, while liberals want the world to be fair. It's not fair that some people are poor, but that's due to the unfairness of the world, not the unfairness of the rich. Punishing the rich for the unfairness simply compounds the unfairness.

My main observation, rather, is that the mainstream American left is not as left as you seem to think it is.

Considering the Presidential and congressional elections, it seems obvious to me that the it is not true that the vast majority of Americans support the positions of the Democrats.

 

[DavidJames]

I just think that the idea of absorbing dollars into your mind is a rather odd concept.

I just reread my comment and it makes perfect sense using the bold definition. I wasn't referring to the $'s being assimilated, rather the concept.

It may very well be that it is I that has a conception of the word different from the accepted usage, but I don't think that "assimilate" means quite what you think it means.

I quoted The Free Dictionary Link???? I bolded the usage, sheesh, what are you talking about.

It seems to me that if you have anything of value to say, then you should say it, rather than posting rude comments, while at the same time claiming to be polite.

Ok, here you go...

You posted these gems when it was pointed out that Badnarik gained .33% of the vote which when rounded (to the nearest whole number is ZERO. Do you see the decimal point and the percent sign DO YOU? It was pointed out that Kerry received 48.27% of the vote. Do you see the percent sign??? Do you know what it means????

After all, Kerry’s share of the vote rounds to 0 as well. “Anti-woo-woo” indeed.

Kerry's share of the vote was .48, which rounds to 0.

Did you think no one would notice when you dishonestly changed 48% to .48 in order to justify your position.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I just reread my comment and it makes perfect sense using the bold definition. I wasn't referring to the $'s being assimilated, rather the concept.

But that's not what you said.

I quoted The Free Dictionary Link???? I bolded the usage, sheesh, what are you talking about.

I'm not disputing the definition. I'm disputing your interpretation of it. Sheesh indeed.

[duplicate post by DavidJames]

 

[Snide]

Which I think is the difference between conservatives and liberals: conservatives want people to be fair, while liberals want the world to be fair.

I disagree, and I realize I misspoke. My position is that the left do not want the world to be fair any more than do the right. They just want it to be more fair for the have nots than it presently is. And to help achieve this, they want to create opportunites, as I suggested; they do not want to create outcomes, as I took you to be suggesting. Now again, you can argue that handing over even a small, "this will pay for a bag of groceries" welfare check is an "outcome," but then you'd be missing the point.

It's not fair that some people are poor, but that's due to the unfairness of the world, not the unfairness of the rich. Punishing the rich for the unfairness simply compounds the unfairness.

So instead society rewards the rich, thereby punishing the poor further, which compounds the unfairness. [/devil's advocate]

Considering the Presidential and congressional elections, it seems obvious to me that the it is not true that the vast majority of Americans support the positions of the Democrats.

I never indicated otherwise.

edited for clarity

 

[RandFan]

I disagree, and I realize I misspoke. My position is that the left do not want the world to be fair any more than do the right. They just want it to be more fair for the have nots than it presently is.

I don't disagree.

And to help achieve this, they want to create opportunities, as I suggested; they do not want to create outcomes, as I took you to be suggesting. Now again, you can argue that handing over even a small, "this will pay for a bag of groceries" welfare check is an "outcome," but then you'd be missing the point.

Welfare is arguably not necessarily an opportunity. If the welfare is a means to get a person from one station in life to another then it is definitely an opportunity. Welfare has worked that way in my life. However, if welfare becomes a way of life and a means unto itself then it is the opposite of opportunity.