|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think that means control of congress.
the expansion is in months per year with red being "up" monthes and green being "down" months -- it is crude (how much up?) but that is why they peg at 12 on the red dots. perhaps if you subtracted green from red and graphed it you would have a (very) rough trend line for each year. there is obviously something wrong with the data at the end, showing 12 months of expansion each year under shrub: it ain't so or the "criteria" is very loose and the whole thing suspect. taking the period from Eisenhower through Clinton I get
1952 +12 (Eisenhower) (+60/8 = 7.5 average months per year)
For what it is worth.1953 +12 1954 +00 1955 +04 1956 +12 1957 +12 1958 +02 1959 +06 1960 +12 (Kennedy/Johnson) (+82/8 = 10.25 average months per year) 1961 +12 1962 +10 1963 +12 1964 +12 1965 +12 1967 +12 1968 +12 (Nixon/Ford) (+66/8 = 8.25 average months per year) 1969 +12 1970 +10 1971 -08 1972 +12 1973 +12 1974 +08 1975 -12 1976 +08 (Carter) (+44/4 = 11.0 average months per year) 1977 +12 1978 +12 1979 +12 1980 +00 (Reagan/Bush) (+84/12 = 7.0 average months per year) 1981 +00 1982 -08 1983 +12 1984 +12 1985 +12 1986 +12 1987 +12 1988 +12 1989 +12 1990 +00 1991 +08 1992 +12 (Clinton) (+96/8 = +12 average months per year) 1993 +12 1994 +12 1995 +12 1996 +12 1997 +12 1998 +12 1999 +12 k? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Yea, not super clear. Not that I have a problem with evidence if its accurate, but the graph isn't clear on a few points. BTW, I am not affilitated with either party, and find myself with views that in some regards would be considered far left, some far right, and many inbetween. : )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
workers certainly do not enjoy a democratic work environment. work is possibly the last stronghold of petty kingdoms. the whole hostile takeover, the buy-outs (rape and pillage) seem more of a medeival metaphor than civilized.
BTW, what would you advocate as a potential solution to these problems? Isn't it obvious? Democratic control of the house and senate and Kerry as President I find if curious that some {?is it near a hundred years yet?} since unions first came on the business scene that they are not obsolete. They should be, if you think about it, not because they are "bad for business" but because the things that come from unions should be universal for all americans and not applied only to their petty kingdoms. universal health care should be one of those no-brainers going back to the basic precepts of the founding fathers, that all are created equal and have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and to make such changes in the government of the people by the people for the people necessary to do this, "laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Some things should not be about cost but decency. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You seemed to me to be sort of libertarian.
I tend to be socially radical, whenever I can get away with it ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Pretty dead on. Many of my views tend to be very libertarian, though there are some views of mine that wouldn't fall in that category.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I meant going through the bills and making recommendations on them to reduce the fat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Oh, I am sure there is plenty of fat to be found as well. Pork has long been a staple of the government. However, I consider the issues I listed above to be reason enough to consider our current government spending trends to be atrocious. If the government can't cover its expenses, so much so that we go TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, then there is a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5926 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
RAZD writes: universal health care should be one of those no-brainers ...(snip)...Some things should not be about cost but decency. If only it were so easy. Universal health care just for US citizens? Why not universal care for everyone in the world? MRI's and CAT scans for everyone. The best medicine and treatment. The best doctors. Where do you draw the line on adequate health care? It's tough to do artificially by government mandate. Responsible cost controls are reality. Let's look at minimum wage, for example. Noble cause. However, the people and small business (not megacorportations) are the most guilty for hiring illegal immigrants to get lower costs and bypass the minimum wage requirement. That also eliminates work for the unemployed (even though they probably don't WANT to do hard labor!). Now, the illegal immigrants get minor health problems and go to the emergency rooms where (by law) they must be treated. The hospital staffing, supplies, facilities costs go up and the taxpayers must fork over more money. In Houston's case, this is property taxes. So, folks see taxes increase so much (thousands of dollars) that some of them (such as fixed income elderly) can no longer afford to live in their paid-for houses. I think some sort of "health account" is needed that each of us can decide how to manage our life according to risk decisions that we make (not some government agency). The government can play a role in protecting that money account (from ourselves) from being spent on luxuries.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: I'll concede parasitic.
quote: In theory. In practice, that is prevented by border controls, passport regimes and immigration quotas. All of which once again put the cards in the hands of the rich, exploiting the poor.
quote: That is not what the term means, however: what it means is the practice of bandit-capitalism, the low wage economy, lax-to-homicidal safety standards in "free trade zones", weak or no-existant environmental protections and military and political support for unrepresentative regimes which oppress their populations and thus keep wages low. It is entirely possible to oppose all of those things without claiming a retreat to national borders or denying the possibility of the best companies succeeding. At the moment however those companies succeed on the back of human misery and suffering, they contribute nothing to the wellbeing of humanity, and are indeed inimical to life, liberty and happiness. "And the cycle of hungry children will keep on going round'Till we burn the multinationals to the ground."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: True; but that is also because "working poverty" - ie.e nearly Victorian conditions for the labour force - are no longer acceptable in Europe. It is said that European work to live, and Americans live to work. The fact that so many people in the American economy are in such low wage roles is not a model that Europe is remotely interested in following, except for the right-wing conservative elements. Most Europeans have an average months leave, Americans get only two weeks. We think we have a better way of life, and better living conditions, than would be the case if we followed the American model. We had it 100 years ago and it sucked.
quote: No those are just your dogmatic blinders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Of course - becuase ALL of capitalisms expenses are passed on to the workers. The workers pay for everything - including Lord Blacks $42,000 Happy Birthday Barbara party. If a firm makes profit, it has succesfully passed all its cost to its customers (99% of wehom are workers), and has furthermore extracted from them even more wealth than the service was worth. A large part of the stupidity in capitalist argumentation is the failure to deal with consumer and worker incarnated in the same person, but treating them instead as distinct abstract entities.
quote: Thats true. Where the income of a single adult was sufficient, by and large, to support a family 100 years ago, the same requires two adult incomes now. Capitalism thus gets twice the labour ouit of us, but contributes no more to our wellbing. Once again, workers do all the work, pay for everything, but the people who get to enjoy it are parasites living off our labour. What we get is table-scraps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes. In fact IIRC it appears in the UN human rights declaration.
quote: Emotively loaded terminology; a state is no more and no less artificial than a corporation. And both are human activities over which we humans have control. [qupte] Let's look at minimum wage, for example. Noble cause. However, the people and small business (not megacorportations) are the most guilty for hiring illegal immigrants to get lower costs and bypass the minimum wage requirement.[/quote] So your argument is that where a capitalist firm is so inefficient that it cannot provide a decent standard of living to the people actually doing the work and making the products and delivering the services that the company sells, those capitalists should be protected from thaier failure,a nd the workers should bear those costs. Why should we as workers accept that? If you can't pay a decent rate, out of business you go - is that not how its supposed to work in capitalist competition? Remember AdamSmith maintained the goal of a capitalist should be to keep their workers fat and content. Modern bandit capitalism is not much like the capitalism that Smith envisioned.
quote: Tax the rich. Tax them 'till the pips squeak. Its all our money anyway; we made it, they stole it.
quote: Thus the alleged fiscal liberal introduces the interventionist state to ensure that we are all morally responsible. Note this limitation is considered wholly wrong and immoral when applied to the wealthy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So you would agree that a president that uses debit spending is worse than one that proposes taxes for necessary spending and thus have the spending addressed with the issue?
what do you think of the worst debit spenders of all time: Ronny and Shrub? How can you fairly ask someone else to pay their bills? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: ...except, during the Clinton years, when there was no deficit, but a sizeable surplus. How can you ignore that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6422 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
If a firm makes profit, it has succesfully passed all its cost to its customers (99% of wehom are workers), and has furthermore extracted from them even more wealth than the service was worth. The service was worth what was paid for it by the consumers, otherwise they would have gone with a lower cost competitor, or done without. The profit is the difference between value added and the market cost of the inputs. Profit is what allows a company to invest in expansion of the business. True, it also allows for abuses, the executives can use the profit to throw lavish parties. But guess what? It's a bad business strategy, and competition and the marketplace tend to eliminate such firms. Are you suggesting a system in which all firms are operated on a break-even basis and run by workers? Two words for you. Soviet Union.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024