Everyone knows that our biggest political problem is money/corruption.
While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting?
What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in primary, mid-term/off-year, and local elections? The more active the electorate, the less politicians are beholden to the donor class.
Is compulsory voting a valid short-term workaround?No. More government control over our lives is not a solution to anything.
I have a right to vote
I also have a right not to vote
You seem to want to give my right not to vote to a politician who needs votes.
Here in the UK I may consider that there is no party or individual worth voting for, the non of the above option would just enforce the fact that I don't have a right not to vote.
Attack politicians for their policies and the obvious fact that they collude with non elected power grabbers rather than attack the electorate.
The biggest con any politician or political party have ever pulled off is the one that makes you believe you have the power to change anything by your vote.Actually, I was very clear. Carrot approach, not stick. How is this so complicated for some folks?
If you think that "none of the above" is tyranny, you are not worth my time.
The biggest con anyone ever pulled off is convincing the people that they have no say - so let's just acquiesce all of our rights to big corporations! Fascism! Woo-hoo!
Some of y'all are nuts.Please explain what the carrot would be.
To make it compulsory is not dangling the carrot its forcing someone to eat it.
The biggest con is the idea that your vote counts.
I'd like to see children brought up with the notion that voting is a civic duty. I know we are told that in school (at least I was), but it isn't emphasized as much as it should be. I'd like to see it become a "given" that voting is something people automatically do for the greater good, like not littering, or recycling. Maybe this could be accomplished with a government-funded promotional campaign that includes compulsory (that word again) and extensive civics education throughout all school levels.
By the way, I understand Justin's reaction to Janesix because it seems that some people (I'm not saying you are one of them, Jane) have a knee-jerk reaction against any new government initiative without even considering its merits. Also, I can understand Janesix's reaction because Justin did use the word "compulsory" even though his suggestions were incentives rather than requirements.
As for Kathryn, please get off your high horse. Sometimes people are too worried about surviving to pay attention to the details of politics and don't vote because getting to a polling place is the least of their worries when they don't have enough money to pay the rent or buy their kids new shoes. One could argue that people who spend their time debating on an internet forum are "worthless slugs" but then that would be arrogant and judgmental, wouldn't it?Isn't that the time when people pay the most attention to those who promise a hand out? Poverty in America is much more complex than the picture of privation often painted by those who continually vote for politicians who swell the ranks of the poor with crashing economies and an ever broader, inefficient, corrupt welfare state.
Most of those unconcerned with being educated on how Economics works and the need to keep government in check are usually worried about who to call-in vote for on American Idol or watching the NBA All-Star Game.
Better said over four hundred years ago - (listen to the liberal noses turn up at the notion that any idea before now is worthy of consideration)
"Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books. Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, 'Long live the King!' The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."
Etienne de La Boétie
Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
1548
It is contempt for the past and the creation of fantasy that nurtures the liberal, that is why CIVICS is dead. The woeful condition of education is a direct consequence of liberal's influence and involvement in education. What CIVICS will we teach our children, perhaps the Cuban government can ship its left over propaganda text books to the USFor those who missed it. Government has nothing that it doesn't first take from the people. At first we gave a tiny portion of our personal, natural, inalienable authority to government to secure the very large remainder. Now we beg the beast we created to let us eat its table scraps.
For those who missed it. Capitalism has nothing that it doesn't first take from the people. At first we gave a tiny portion of our personal, natural, inalienable authority to Capitalism to secure the very large remainder. Now we beg the beast we created to let us eat its table scraps
The people have nothing if not for gov't. Without gov't oversight our corporate overlords and those born into money rule the world. Gov't is the *only* means with which the people have an equal say.
One person, one vote - not one dollar, one vote.
And yet when I say the same thing I'm howled down and roundly insulted by the capitalist lackeys.
It is the "ruler" thing that lefties miss when attacking private property rights.
Monsanto (for example) take my private property and my health without any agreement from me.
Really? How is that done?
By gun point, in the dead of night, what? How do they do it without your agreement? (bear in mind that voluntarily buying their product constitutes agreement)By withholding pertinent information that consumers should have a right to know. By lobbying for tax subsidies to produce foods that kill us.
The key word there is "voluntarily" . How do you voluntarily buy Monsanto GM foods when there is no obligation to label such foods as being GM but there is legislation preventing food manufacturers from labelling food none GM?
Or if you are a farmer (none GM) and your crops are fertilised by your neighbours GM crop, you become liable to Monsanto for the GM seed your crops then produce-and all without your permission?Would you provide citations for some of what you have written here. I would like to know more. I find it specifically troubling that a farmer might be held liable for an "act of God" - pollen from a GMO fertilizing his crops because the wind carried the pollen.
Many of the worries I have read about GMOs sound like that, worries. "It is an act against God and Nature," kind of thing. Not the basis for a sound argument.http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ … ion-act-gm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds- … ng/5329947
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds- … ng/5329947
That's a small random selection of sites, hopefully they will give you some insight into Monsanto.
There are plenty more sites out there, I suggest that you look for a few yourself and find some from sources you have confidence in.
My main concern is not with GM crops in particular, it is with one corporation taking control of a whole industry with no regard for those working in the industry. It is with them using power to corrupt governments across the world.
I will explore the links you have provided, thank you. I am not one to dismiss a source, merely to intellectually filter it myself. The most slanted story still contains information.I notice that I repeated one site rather than provide another from a source that I detest
Here it is
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … crops.htmlIt is interesting when polar opposites cover the same story.
Yet do so with permission from? Anyone? Any guess Any clue?
The Rulers - ding, ding, ding!
So your big prize is this quote from "Caddy Shack"
"The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice."And who has bought the permission of the rulers---with your money?
It saddens me that British politicians and policy makers are so easily purchased, I am so sorry John.
Well actually British politicians are not as easily bought as US ones-they can still be bought but with a lot less effect.
One cannot be purchased without first accepting the price offered. I am not naive enough to believe that money doesn't buy influence but nor am I cynical enough to think that money is all powerful. It is a dance that the powerful in government do with those who wish to purchase influence, for rational purposes or suspect ones.
A government hostile to a business can damage or even destroy that business with a regulatory attack motivated by political concerns, as we saw with Gibson Guitar. If one can curry favor with the king for a few gold marks and there by protect his shop, who then is the corrupter and who the corrupt? It is a pas de deux, the moneyed protect their property by purchasing good will, the powerful acquire wealth by selling their good will.
Can such a thing occur without the willingness of the government to exploit its power and sell its favor? If government was unwilling to be capricious in the use of power, would business feel compelled to purchase protection? Doesn't the government act as the Mafia extorting protection money? Isn't the business complicit in the protection racket by offering increasingly larger sums for ever decreasing size of purchased favors.
Is it really that hard to see that the root cause of it all isn't that there is money to purchase the favor, but that there is a favor to be purchased in the first place. Wouldn't devolving power from the government eliminate the market for favors bought and sold, as well as the perceived pressure to buy off the regulator who may punish your business?
Are there only guilty parties in this whole affair? Isn't it conceivable that a business, for fear of undue pressure, might lobby for a more favorable disposition? Why would that be necessary at all if government wasn't over reaching? How could government be corrupted without its complicity, or more likely, partnership?What you say is fair enough but what, when a corporation uses its power, not to protect itself but to manipulate the market in its favour and against the interests of all others including other businesses and their very own consumers?
It is the very antithesis of what you believe in-the free market and without at least some pretence of government control they would even further abuse their monopoly position.Absolutely true, I find government using its power in favor of a specific company or individual or group of individuals objectionable. Government has no business favoring one over another, but rather, enforcing, as best as humanly possible, a system where merit, efficiency, productivity are the measures of success. All too frequently it is the favored group who benefit from silly and ham handed efforts to "level the playing field" or to mitigate some ancient slight.
Interesting thing about monopolies, some exist because they are the remaining survivor in a field drained by progress, i.e. manufacturers of electric typewriters or they are the most efficient producers of a new technology or they are favored by the government. Monopolies don't last long without help or without a niche in which few can make a profit.
"Isn't that the time when people pay the most attention to those who promise a hand out?" Doubtful. Voter turnout is consistently low among the impoverished and consistently higher for those at a higher socioeconomic level.
You're right. Poverty in America is a complex problem and cannot be solved by stereotyping and labeling.Good evening, Retief. It is good to see you again. Many thanks for sharing your views.
If I may submit, a substantial amount of data exist that seriously disagree with your perception of poverty in America. The idea that politicians are “crashing economies” to “swell the ranks of the poor” is more creative than it is accurate.
Professor G. William Domhoff points out that the wealth of the nation held by the top 1% of Americans has grown from 20% in 1976 to over 35% today. The next most fortunate 19% of Americans hold 54% of the wealth leaving only 11% of the nation’s wealth spread over the remaining 80% of the population.{1} A full 1/3 of all the wealth in the country is held by only 1% of the people! Furthermore, between 1971 and 2008, the average annual income in this country grew by $12,026 and all of this new wealth went into the pockets of the richest 10% of Americans while incomes for the bottom 90% declined!{2}
David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says the growing income inequality has increased the gap between income levels more than in the past. Someone born at the bottom and stays there is worse off then ever before. "The costs of immobility have risen, because the lifetime difference in earnings now between someone born at the bottom quartile versus top quartile is much, much greater than it used to be," Professor Autor says. {3}
Wealth in the US is so skewed, Retief, if the poorest Americans living among us could increase their financial wealth 100 times, they would still be among the lowest 20% of the population.{4} This is the negative incentive that is built into our economic system.
The Wall Street Journal thinks the “Gulf Between Haves and Have-Nots May Hurt [the] Economy.”{5} While this reality is making the U.S. less productive, there is growing concern Americans will have less incentive to participate in the economy if they should decide that the game is rigged against them.{6}
The current US economic model has been designed by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy. It forces all wealth to gravitate from the lowest levels of society upward into the pockets of those at the top. Therefore, the wealthiest Americans do not remain wealthy because they are positively motivated, work harder, or are better educated. They become wealthier merely because of their position on the economic ladder. Society will always have its poor but there would be less need for welfare if our economy circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages to the lowest levels of our society thus providing economic opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans trapped in poverty.
Again, Retief, it is nice to read your views.
{1} http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-o … 13-11?op=1
{2} http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … rs/262221/
{3} http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290 … ecades-ago
{4} Wolff, E. N. (2012). The Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of the Middle Class. New York: New York University.
{5} http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 3105265440
{6} http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-o … 13-11?op=1Thanks, Quill, I would tend to think that it is not so much that the 'right' does not see the basic truths that your provided here but is in denial as admission of this would undermine their dogged beliefs and capitalism as it is practiced here, itself. Your informative comments are always most appreciated.
Hmmm.. couldn't it just be a difference in perspective, instead of denial? My response to Quill contains much of what I would restate here, but in a nutshell - and setting aside a discussion of the obvious crooks that deserve government regulation or prosecution - isn't yours just another "life isn't fair" protest? Another "why you and not me" lament?
If I had a bigger paper route because my daddy was friends with the circulation guy - that wouldn't be fair. But what if I had a bigger paper route because I got up earlier and pedaled faster? Is that not fair too?
Is it the construct of publisher to consumer via delivery boy, (capitalism), that is wrong, or is it the influential daddy, (life isn't fair), that is wrong? Is the daddy's friendship with the circulation guy an illegal influence?
GAGA, there of plenty of information to support the trend that Quill is speaking about, doesn't it give you reason to pause? If 99 percent of the wealth was held by 1 percent of the people would you not be concerned? We just as well be living in a feudalistic society with figures like this.
I am not bashing capitalism, but I am saying that the trends over recent years have been disturbing. This is America, the idea that anybody with the combination of talent and hard work can achieve great things is becoming a thing of the past. That idea is the foundation of the American economic system allowing the have nots to accept the haves, when they always knew that they to could aspire to that. This is why social classes have been living in harmony when even the poorest knew that they had a stake in the current economic order. But with the increasing stagnation of social mobility that is as obvious to most of us as global warming and supported by the preponderance of evidence, who is to say how that class of 'restless rabble' will react in the future to the new reality. Am I being over dramatic when I think of Danton and Robespierre?
Does being 'purple' mean that you are oblivious to the trends and what they portend for the future of our economic system and American society in general? So, I would not so much say it is envy, but rather a concern that an accelerating trend of this nature does not bode well for most of us. We all know that a certain amount of inequality is incidental in a Capitalist system, which you seem to imply in your comment, and for which I agree. What is happening now and how it is accelerating is my problem. The solution as you say is ferreting out crooks and reducing their influence from illegally or unethically siphoning wealth from lower economic classes. Did you ever see the 60 minutes piece on the arrogance of managers of 401k funds and how they fought hard while in Washington to not allow the typical consumer to have full disclosure to the fees they charge in managing the funds. By simply using basic arithmetic, they steal millions. Check it out sometime, just one example of many.Perhaps the perception problem is more mine than yours. I generally identify myself more with the Right than the Left, so my antenna automatically quivers when I see statements describing the "Right" that I feel are in error.
I think that the majority of folks on the Right would agree completely with your response - regarding the troubling picture painted by the disparity of income growth, as I do. I think it is the Extreme Far Right that would better fit your description. I do not at all think it is a fallacy of Capitalism. I think the problem is the scoundrels involved. And they are not unique to just the opportunities provided by Capitalism - there are scoundrels in every human group and endeavor.
To lay the blame on Capitalism is just taking the easy way out. And yes, (to forestall the "Lefties" waiting to pounce), I do believe government has a role, and a responsibility in business regulation.
ps. It sure sounded like you were bashing Capitalism...
"... as admission of this would undermine their dogged beliefs and capitalism as it is practiced here ..." - Unless of course I attributed the wrong "dogged beliefs" to your statement.
pss. It was Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities," that caused me to first delve into the French Revolution, which further cemented many of my political views. So your Robespierre reference immediately brings the "Jacques" and their arbitrary brutality to mind.
GAGA, it seems mainstream GOP the idea that there is too much government regulation. I think that we both agree that government regulation is necessary providing some sort of referee against the excesses. You admitted that much of the disparity of wealth is a product of those that would take advantage. Why is the GOP assuming a posture that the solution is just the opposite that you and I agree upon as middle of the road? The last thing we need is less regulation in these areas of American life.
I also believe there is too much, and some just plain bad, government regulation - in too many areas, (mostly in non-financial type businesses (fingers crossed you won't ask for examples)) - I believe it is these types of regulations that most Mainstream conservatives are screaming about - but it is just an opinion.
I also believe there is too little government regulation in financial-type businesses. An area that I think is the most corrupted by influence peddling, and the area where the public trust needs the most protection.
So while do agree some government involvement is needed in the world of commerce, I am not quite on your side of the fence.
As for the GOP's posture... I think that would be more correctly put as the party's politician's posture, not necessarily mainstream conservatives. I believe Mainstream conservatives support regulation in workplace safety and public trust areas. It is the "how you MUST run your business" areas that I think the most opposition is directed at. But again, that is just an opinion.
It appears we are in agreement - generally, but there appears to be a gap between specifics.
Here's some gas for the fire... capital gains should be taxed the same as earned income - seriously. Ta Da!
GAI think that we are in fundamental agreement. There is a bias against the left that says liberals want to regulate everything, even a rainy day. that is not true of us all. You and I had spoken before about the difference between nanny government and necessary government oversight and regulation. In the area of financial markets, influence peddling and such things are far out of control. I resist conservatives using the broad brush concerning liberals and regulation to confuse the issue of the need of government to hone in on the most egregious abuses that undermine our economy while we still have time. I really don't disagree with anything that you have said here......
While, I don't claim any expertise in the tax code and tax law. I say, yes, tax them both in the same way. The system is skewed far too much to benefit of the wealthy, and while much of that is unavoidable, it should be resisted as much as possible.
So, GA, where are the 'moderate conservatives', I hope that you are not the only one? I confess to lean more left than right, but it seems that I have a better chance of finding a passenger pigeon than finding a moderate conservative. If those that carry the conservative banner in politics take an attitude of contempt concerning the things we talk about, how is that going to play with the electorate when the true nature of this 'far right' ideology and its objectives are more widely understood?
Oh boy, I know I am going to get shot for this one... but the answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to "...where are the moderate Muslims?"
The answer, too busy with everyday life demands, and too easily drowned out by the "sound-byte" crowd.
Consider... the news is covering a hot topic, one conservative interviewee screams about government regulation killing jobs, and another conservative interviewee talks realistically about the pros and cons... who do we see on TV?
GAYours and the voices of many like you are drowned out by the strident, ideologically driven radical right. I guess moderation does not sell newspapers. How is it possible that a handful of fanatics can prevail over reasonable people. Just another symptom of the American malaise which manifest itself as a part of the economic inequity problem.
I made it, (in agreement), all the way to your last few sentences before I stumbled to a stop.
It seemed you were validating the truism that life isn't fair. It is easier for rich people to make more money because they already have money. And conversely it is harder for poor people to make more money because they don't already have money. I don't think many folks would dispute that. Money equates to access. I can surely go along with that.
But the "forces wealth to gravitate..." caused a pause. It sounds like a negative thing. Trying to ascertain what this force is, I can only come up with the thought that it is consumerism. The poor are forced to be consumers to exist, (as we all are), ie. rent, food, utilities, etc.
Since it is wealthier people that are usually the for-profit vendors of these consumables, I am wondering if this is the force you allude to?
Then I hit the obvious stumbling block of "adequate" wages... and you made it even harder for me when you qualified that with, "... for the most highly motivated Americans..."
What are "adequate" wages? What is the bar that establishes "highly motivated?" When those two thoughts are combined, it sounds suspiciously like advocacy for a merit pay system - which I think is already in place in the majority of capitalistic businesses.
You won't need to quote sources for this one Quill, just a little expansion of your concluding statements would be most helpful.
GAHello, Gus. I thank you for your comment.
I gather you would like me to explain my use of the phrases “forces wealth to gravitate” and also “adequate wages.”
Now you have confused me. My final paragraph was not a thesis in economics. It was merely an observation (not meant to be charged as positive or negative) of how the system works and my opinion as to how it could change to better help the needy trapped in poverty. I did not say there was “a force,” you did when you said you were “trying to ascertain what this force is.”
I said, “It [the current US economic model] forces all wealth to gravitate from the lowest levels of society upward into the pockets of those at the top.” Perhaps you would have had less reason to pause if I had used the word ‘causes” rather than “forces.” However, I see nothing in our economic model, other than our labor markets, that makes wealth gravitate into the hands of the poor. You seem to agree with this reality but stumble with semantics. If there is a “force,” it may be each economic transaction that results in wealth changing owners. The greater the number, the larger the exchanges, and the faster the wealth passes from hand to hand, the more robust and energized the economy.
However, I see an economy that is always much less intense at the lower extremes. The numbers of exchanges of wealth are not as great, nor as large, or as rapid as they are at the higher end. The lower 40% of the population rely on selling their labor for wages. Therefore, if more of the economic exchanges generated by the economy were redirected to include members of the working class, the advantages for the entire society would be many.
Increase the wealth in the hands of the poor and they will put more of what the have directly back into the economy. In contrast, increase the wealth in the hands of those already well off and they will put more of what they have directly into their 401K.
Finally, “adequate wage” and “highly motivated” should not need to be qualified in the context of my statements. Again, you seem to be focusing on semantics. Replace the word “adequate” with “enough” and you will capture the gist of my meaning. Wages at the lowest levels of our society should be “enough” to provide opportunities and hope to those Americans who are now trapped in poverty, particularly, those with the desire and motivation to overcome the socioeconomic obstacles to upward mobility.
You wrote, “Then I hit the obvious stumbling block of 'adequate' wages... and you made it even harder for me when you qualified that with, '... for the most highly motivated Americans...'”
As a reaction to this statement that I wrote:
“ Society will always have its poor but there would be less need for welfare if our economy circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages to the lowest levels of our society thus providing economic opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans trapped in poverty.”
All I can say, Gus, is “opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans” follows “providing economic” and NOT “adequate wages.” Since I said nothing about “advocacy for a merit pay system,” I wonder why you even bring it up.
I hope that I addressed all of your concerns. I appreciate your comments about what I wrote. I have enough trouble determining what I want to say, so please do not fault me for things I did not say.
Be well, Gus, and be cool.
If I may interject with a bit of philosophy rather than hard facts. I have a real problem anytime anyone says jobs should offer that mythical "adequate" pay.
Because there is no "adequate". Do you refer to the needs of the couch potato on minimum wage with 5 kids? Or the college student that prefers to play rather than work his way through school?
We all have hope for a better future, but only if we are willing to do something about it. When the hope is dependent on someone else providing FOR us, we've failed ourselves.
Because at the bottom, there are indeed Americans trapped in poverty, but they are trapped there as a result of 1) their own actions (or inactions) and/or 2) because they have been taught that someone else will provide FOR them - there is no need to do it themselves. Very, very few are caught forever in poverty as a result of chance of circumstance. The handicapped, for instance, but even there most can make a life for themselves if they choose to.Perhaps it is just semantics. Perhaps I misread the intent of your phrase “...upward into the pockets of those at the top.” as a negative implication when it was not intended that way. The same as the negative connotation I inferred from the use of "...forces...". You might be right, "Causes" may have been a more neutral sounding choice.
In context, those were my take-aways. But I guess it could be just semantics. But if something is forced, (forces), doesn't the act of being forced imply a force of some kind doing the forcing?
"All I can say, Gus, is “opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans” follows “providing economic” and NOT “adequate wages.” Since I said nothing about “advocacy for a merit pay system,” I wonder why you even bring it up."
Now it feels like you are juggling the semantics. If the assumption that, generally speaking, wages are tied to production could be accepted - then the assumption that highly motivated Americans will probably have higher/better levels of production is probably also safe.
Is it too much of a stretch to consider an employer will pay a more productive/valuable employee higher wages? Isn't this the direction to adequate wages? You work better you get paid better - a merit pay system.
Your source references did illustrate a widening gap in income disparity, and they did point out a problematic trend, but your concluding comment seemed more than a summary of the sources. You say it was not intended as a critique or affirmation, so obviously my impression it was a condemnation of the system was in error. I suppose it could be that I overreacted to "...circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages..." as politi-speak for "minimum wage, living wage", or whatever semantic term fits.
Sometimes the depth of neutrality is hard to fathom, (and sometimes not), but I think in this case yours was a bit of a veneer that I tripped on as I apparently leaped to the wrong conclusions - maybe.
GA
Now days, teachers are told what to teach, when to teach it, and how to teach it. I'm not opposed to standardized teaching, but we're quite literally told that the only important subjects are the ones that are on that yearly test. We have less and less time to do anything but teach math and reading.
You would be appalled if you interviewed students about basic civics and history knowledge. Teachers are being forced to spend less and less time teaching history, civics, science, and arts. It's all about that test, reading and math.
Many of our children are graduating with less than a rudimentary understanding of how our government functions. These same graduates are woefully prepared to vote. It's a sad reality.But what's the answer? I had apprentice electricians coming to me, just out of high school, that could not read a ruler or tape measure. That didn't know how to add 1/4 and 1/2. Whose reading comprehension was so low they would never be able to pass the apprentice exams. A seven year veteran told me yesterday that he was trained to read a tape as "24 and a big and a little mark".
At the bottom then, which is more important - math and reading or civics and art? Do you want a pretty picture and a politician or a home to live in and a car to drive?We want a pretty picture, a politician, a home, and a car.
- but not in that order.
(for me, a pretty picture, a car, then a home, then a politician.
ridiculous, but true.)As rain and snow will destroy the pretty picture, and I can't go get it without a car, I would prioritize a little differently. And the politician - the politician comes after the Komodo in the living room.
Well if you vote for Cyrus Claghorn for Senate he will increase your voting credit 100% - no room for corruption or abuse there. We already have a system that rewards voters by permitting government officials to take the property of the man who earned it and award it to another who the politician favors and who owns a vote or can delivery many votes.
Corruption doesn't occur in a vacuum, there is the corruptible and the corrupting, they rotate roles, it is a pas de duex.How are corporations not people?
Can there be a corporation without people?
Have you ever worked for a corporation where there were no people?
Who are the officers, employees and investors in a corporation, except people?
A lack of flexible thinking on your part hardly justifies outlawing a figure of speech that corporations are people. A legal entity is not the same thing as a person. Lefties get all knotted and twisted over anyone they hate, like Mitt Romney, using the phrase, "corporations are people."
Money is speech, it is action. It is volunteering time to gather signatures or get out the vote. The objection by lefties is again based in hate. Lefties hate the businesses and individuals who have been successful can give their property to whom ever they choose. Lefties hate it when business does this but has no objection when labor unions strong arm their members into contributing to a lefty candidate. Obama raised a billion dollars from multiple sources, individuals, PACs, corporations, associations, etc..., the sole objection to Romney doing the same is one was a lefty, the other not.
So, let's see, you would contract liberty because you object to language and the use of private property when they favor those you oppose, certainly the basis for a better society.You're falling into the same trap as others here.
Not everything you dislike or disapprove of is the fault of lefties and neither is anybody you dislike or disapprove of necessarily a leftie.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Good discussions here, although sometimes the trail of logic was difficult to follow with respect to how some of the discussion related to the original question. But then this is English - the language of ambiguity most appropriately fitting for politicians.
I had to run to the dictionary when you used the word compulsory, then described a carrot approach. I’d equate carrot approaches with the word ‘incentives’. Compulsory means obligatory or required by law or rule. The elaboration that followed in the discussion made it clear that was not what you meant, so … I’m going to choose to respond the question I think you tried to ask. But even then, it was confusing.
After going through all the discussion, I came back and read the question again. It begins ‘While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting?’
There are a couple of premises here. One is ‘corporations are not people’. The other is ‘money is not speech’. My immediate reaction is ‘true’. Is someone somewhere teaching that ‘corporations are people’ or that ‘money can converse’? Oh wait, wait, I get it … its that old adage ‘money talks, bovine smoothie walks’, or something like that. While I agree with the literal statement that corporations are not people and money is not speech, it is unclear what would be gained by going through the effort of turning it into a Constitutional Amendment. So I disagree with the offered premise that this would be an ideal suitable for being expressed in our Constitution. Perhaps a utopian ideal offered by saints or charlatans would be more fitting.
So … What about compulsory voting? Simple answer is … concur with those who have implied more arbitrary regulation is the problem, not the solution. No amendment is required.
What about incentivized voting? I think we have that now. We’re living in the times of a paper standard based economy. The supply of money DOES grow as the trees grow. In economies past we were a gold standard. In economies future, it seems even paper will be old fashioned, and our standard will be purely ethereal and maintained in electronic form (I call it the dream standard). Our voting patterns already follow those who offer us the best dreams. We’d be moving backwards from the future if we tried to offer money or tax credits as incentives. So again, no amendment is required.
By the way, you should consider going into politics.
I suppose I could have added that we should have a "none of the above" option on the ballot.
That being said, how does voting count as "gov't control"? How do tax-credits qualify as "gov't control"? You might have some issues to work out if you see gov't control in everything the gov't does, btw...
Are fire departments, 9-1-1, public parks, and paved roads gov't control?"compulsory"
Do I need to explain myself further?That's an incredible degree of assumption about me, based on two sentences.
Not at all. If you see a tax-credit as "control" over you, then you have serious issues
.
Carrot approach, not stick - is there something you do not understand about this?
BTW, the drinking age is compulsory, seat belts are compulsory, insurance is compulsory, taxes are compulsory. Law-abiding behavior is compulsory, lest you be jailed.
Yes, you very much need to explain yourself further...List, what list? You mean the list of gov't things that benefit your unappreciative self?
Are saying that you didn't need schooling? Didn't need roads and public transportation? Didn't need gov't insured banking, gov't student loans, gov't backed business loans? You don't like public parks? Don't like patent protection. Don't like basically any right that the gov't gives you.
Let me guess, you want to drink polluted tap water, breathe polluted air, eat contaminated beef. You want marauders free to rob you and your business. You don't want 9-1-1 or the fire department, you don't want emergency rooms or ambulances.
You don't want medicare, medicaid, social security. You don't need a border, a military, a justice system.
You must be the only person in the entire country who "can get along" without ever taking advantage of any gov't program.Wow. That's amazing how you can read me like a book, based on the fact that I don't think I should be forced to vote.
Thank you, now I see the error of my ways.You seem to have comprehension issues. I was very clear from the very beginning. Carrot, not stick. Tax-credit, not punishment.
By your logic, we are all forced to be married and have kids since we get tax credits/incentives. Are we all forced to invest in the stock market or buy a house because our tax code incentivises us to do so? Are we all forced to own a jet plane or an oil company because our tax code incentivises us?
Are we all forced to take our wages in the form of stock options since our tax code incentivises us?
Again, your comprehension levels are severely lacking. Try again.You are freaking out over something that is practically a non issue.
I suggest a brisk walk or a few minutes of quiet meditation.Freaking out? I'm responding your... concerns. Btw, I didn't request that you keep claiming that voting and tax-credits are akin to tyranny.
Unfortunately, the only carrot government can offer is to use less stick. NOT to lock you up, NOT to take as much in taxes. That and, of course, NOT to give you possessions taken from someone else to garner your favor.
And when govt. has decided that too many people have "earned" the right to have fewer taxes taken, it finds it has no money. Whereupon the base tax rate is raised, with the net effect that is TAKING now instead of NOT taking, while still giving the "credit" and claiming it is not taking.
It's a shame that so many people do not realize that government has nothing to give - it it all belonged to someone else until forcibly taken away, and that it will take from you, too, every chance it gets.You are one confused individual. Let me get this straight - public schooling and public roads are a stick? 9-1-1, ambulances and the fire dept are sticks? The earned income credit is a stick? The mortgage interest credit is a stick?
I could go on, but you are obviously not worth any more of my time.Education is compulsory, for those who are able to choose an alternate to public education have their property i taken to fund a system in which they do not participate.
Roads are financed through taxes - stick.
as are all government functions - stick
It is not a fee for service arrangement, as in a market place.
Earned income credit is a reward for lack of ambition.
The mortgage credit is social engineering.
There is nothing that a lefty government does that isn't about the SHEEPLE.
Why encourage uninterested, uninformed, worthless slugs to vote? They might not vote wisely! We need an informed electorate: those who study, care and vote wisely. Not the ones who will vote just to get a carrot!
You seem to have a heart. Your response surprises me. Worthless slug? Does someone have to vote, of all things, to have value as a human being? What if the neurosurgeon who was about to operate on you wasn't interested in politics or voting? Is he a worthless slug? Or the woman who spends every Wednesday volunteering at the local food bank, is she one too?
Is that so, Kathryn, sounds like the rightwing mantra, who are you to say who should not have the right to vote? Your slip is showing as your arrogance is being revealed. Most every citizen over 18 has the right to vote and we should be encouraging more democracy, not less. But the rightwinger clings to elitism.
Are you for real here, or is this just sarcasm?I just like saying "worthless slugs" and have been doing so ever since Beth posted her post about people feeling like worthless slugs when comparing themselves to the olympians. What I mean to say is: if someone is not informed or inspired to vote they really should not. You and Janesix are right: they are not worthless slugs just because they choose not to vote. But when comparing them to those who do…
kinda like comparing yourself to an olympian.
JUST KIDDING.
Its just that those who vote go the extra mile to educate themselves… take relief2000 and wilderness, for example.My bad:)
I thought it had to be something like that, coming from you. I shouldn't have questioned it,and just gone with my gut instinct. I sometimes take people too literally. I apologize:)(No, you were right to call me out. No need to apologize.
But thanks for the consideration. Others would have me banned for it! LOL)
Kathryn, you miss the entire point of compulsory voting. Political science shows that if people are pressured to put their name down, they *will* put in the research effort. How much research is variable, but very few want to go on record as voting for a louse they know nothing about.
To satisfy constitutional concerns, I would have a "none of the above" option, and would not punish non-voters, but would incentivise folks to vote.
Political science shows that people will vote if their neighbors can tell whether or not they voted..."Political science shows that people will vote if their neighbors can tell whether or not they voted…" I choose to believe this statement.
Perhaps that 's why polling places give out stickers which help us proclaim proudly: "I voted."
So, you want more than stickers? Stickers are not enough, you're saying?
Perhaps term limits for senators and congress members would help to loosen their connections to the donor class.
Yes?No?
"Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the US Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally with redistricting, incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle."
At present, the incumbents, (career politicians,) have no limits and some, (the current Vice President, for instance,) have been there forever. A constitutional amendment has been introduced by Jim De Mint to limit senators to no more than two six year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two year terms.Justin: Many people who don't vote either don't understand the issues or are fed up with the choices presented them. This last Presidential election boiled down to a vote for the people or a vote for the corporations. Obama was able to get the people energized and motivated to vote against rather than for something. His prior four years yielded little but a broken healthcare debacle and a gay initiative for equal rights. Is this what everyone wanted? I think jobs and the economy was more on Americans minds. So based on the candidate and not the vote one can assume that the vote brought about little. We need to get the money out of the decision for the leadership of this country because that is what the focus is above all else! Making people vote for bad choices is a futile attempt at changing anything.
Publicly financed campaigns, lobby reform and term limits are the only way to effect real change.Sorry, the last election boiled down to a vote for the politicians or for the politicians.
The only "people" in the equation were a handful owning businesses and another handful wanting free handouts. The handout group won this time, meaning that the politicians feeding them gained in power and strength; this is apparent as the biggest handout in the history of the country has now begun.
Remember the woman declaring that Obama was going to give her a car? That's the "people" that carried that election.Reread your reply and you will see that we stated the same thing. Unfortunately you just dislike to agree with me.
I did not take your comment to mean a vote for the detestable uber rich capitalists but for the common man in the street. Nor did I think you intended it to mean for those unwilling to support themselves, and wishing the government to do it FOR them.
Most biased, so everybody that voted for Obama were seeking handouts? That attitude is preeminent among too many conservatives and certainly contributed to Romney's defeat. So according the wise sage of the right, the majority of the electorate voted for Obama because of handouts. Thats ridiculous! Doesn't sound much like a middle of the road position, but as hard right as anything that I have heard coming from their mouths.
And yet...Obama's greatest claim to fame is the biggest handout in the history of the world. But people didn't want that from him?
I think you put far too much faith in people wanting to support themselves.Well, Wilderness, you want to support yourself, don't you? I want to support myself. What makes you believe that the majority of people who voted for Obama, prominent over many demographic groups are any different? Where do you get this stuff from, yes there are moochers but to imply that half of American society is is a stretch? I was thinking that we could move beyond the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs. If what you say is true of Obama then it is true for every Democratic president since FDR and the New Deal.
We'll just ignore that "biggest handout in the history of the world" then?
You ignore it; it is the key to Obama (and liberals) as far as I'm concerned. While I very much like the liberties that liberals support and conservatives seem to hate, the liberty to own what we earn isn't one of them and I absolutely hate that. It is the biggest single reason I do not consider myself a liberal; because they all seem to be of the opinion that they have as much right to my pocketbook as I do.Are you refering to the health care program as the biggest handout in the world? You talk past the points I make to make accusations and generalizations about progressives or liberals, if you like. One of the problems I have with conservatives is their making arguments much like you are making now. So, I disagree with your concept of the 'key' and all of that. But, I can see why youre upset, right vs left, vive la difference
Of course. What else could possibly be as big a handout as "free" medical care for all Americans?
It isn't free, of course, and neither is it "affordable", but that is how it was presented, that is what people expect and what they demand. That it is the biggest lie ever made is irrelevant; the law does indeed give out health care paid for by someone besides the patient.
Your point seemed to be that people didn't vote for Obama for that (or other) handouts he promised. Was I wrong there? Because I think a great many people did indeed cast their vote for those handouts.So, what de we say about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid when they were introduced, I am sure that there were some Tyranosaurus Rex that were against it. I won't debate you about the merits or lack of for Obamacare, I am not well versed enough to do that.
Many people voted for Obama who did not like the GOP platform and there was a lot to not like that had nothing to do with economics. That is something that i do know a bit about. I did not like the coquette(male version) Romney and the GOP policies on everything else. Yes, you are wrong, I don't think that most people really understood the program for the longest time. Much like the argument that Black folks only voted for Obama because he was black, saying that people cast votes for the Democratic ticket for the reasons of handouts is basically the same. How do you know these things what is your source of information to substantiate your viewpoint?Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are a massive welfare system. Social Security is paying out more than it takes in and that will only get worse - regardless of any feather headed, bogus lefty fix. Medicare has the same problem and Obamacare will drain resources from it, while more doctors refuse Medicare patients because the reimbursement rates, regulations and paper work are absurd. Medicaid is fraught with fraud and experiencing many of the same issues as Medicare.
While Obamacare is worst of all. Destroying existing plans. Forcing people to buy insurance for issues that will never plaque them, such as pelvic exams for 54 year old man. Driving up cost while driving doctors out of networks.
Why, all because Obama thinks your 100 year old mom should be forced to take a pill for her heart pain and make plans to die rather than use her own insurance for a pace maker.
Why, because Obama believes doctors perform unnecessary surgeries for the profits.
Why, because you are too free.SS, when introduced, was a forced self supporting pension plan with the exception of a few old timers around when the plan was started. Others have paid their own way; that congress has seen fit to steal from the fund to pay for their pork doesn't mean the program can't be self sustaining.
Absolutely people voted against GOP rather than for the libs, and the other way as well. A good point as I personally think there were lots more votes cast "against" than there were "for". There were a few that voted by color as well, but I don't think that swayed the election although we will never know.
No, people didn't understand Obamacare. Those with insurance didn't realize they would be footing the bill and those without didn't realize the insurance they would be getting would be worthless. And of course the young and healthy picked up the biggest bill of all and I really do doubt that hardly any of them had any inkling that was coming!This has not been true for decades. Those who retired on SS were receiving the money of others, as the money they had paid in had already been paid out. SS last year paid out more than it brought in, the system is rapidly running out of money. It is a Ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff's crimes appear modest by comparison.
Sorry, but I've run the numbers myself. Had the "caretakers" of the money I put into the system myself, based on the reports from SS, been even a little bit honest I would be a multi-millionaire by now. Instead they took it for pork, leaving a worthless IOU in it's place, and then cut my benefits when (surprise!) the money is gone. Thanks, congress!
The only thing that makes SS a ponzi scheme is that there is no effort made to invest the money. Just spend it on something far removed from SS payments. At that point, yes, it becomes a ponzi as new "payers" must make the payments to "payees". The money the now "payees" put into the system went for new bridges, museums, parks and anything else that would buy votes.SS has never been an interest earning program. If it had been it would have created wealth. SS is a transfer payment and has been from the beginning. If it had been treated as a simple payroll savings plan paying out the savings bond rate, you are correct, you would have been set. It is not about you being set, it is a loyalty purchase program. It is not property, it cannot be added to your estate like an IRA or 401k. When you die your SS disappears.
Too true. The custodians of the money we put into the program have grossly failed in their duties; instead of growing our future they intentionally destroyed it. And the fight to keep it public rather than privatize it only serves to point out just how aware of that the politicians using it for personal gain really are.
Social Security is a vote buying scheme, why do you think it is called the "third rail?"
The SS act had good intentions but the "Slime on the Hill" turned it into their own slush fund to rape the treasury even more.
The road to hell. Its good intentions were to buy the Democrats political supremacy and it worked.
The American Public and the Supreme Court, Republicans at the time opposed Social Security.
Hi Retief. I enjoy your many contributions to this forum. I always learn a lot.
There is a comma in your post where there should be a period. At first I thought you were trying to say the American public and the Supreme Court were opposed to the SSA of 1935. Duh! You are saying they were in favor but the Republicans were opposed.
Some Republicans, clearly not enough to stop the bill, opposed the SSA in committee but when the legislation went to a vote it sailed through both Chambers of Congress with votes to spare.
House Republicans voted 81 ayes and 15 nays. Senate Republicans voted 16 in favor and 5 opposed. Of the 117 GOP members voting, it appears only 6% of the “Republicans at the time opposed Social Security.” The bill passed both the House and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support that included 94% of the Republicans voting in both chambers. {1}
{1} http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally.htmlBut they spend the money none the less. You can't point a finger at one source. They all are a part of the problem as we are.
Of course you can point the finger at one source. Social Security was a specific policy of the Democrats and had one goal, purchase loyal voters. It started corruptly and has continued thusly. If there had never been a Social Security Program it would have never corrupted those dependent upon it. That is the Democrats fault. Bipartisan, moderate, "middle of the roadness" is foolish when the fact is plain - FDR started this mess.
I guess you have not been following along. Your observation was debunked a few posts ago by Quillagrapher. What you believe is not necessarily the truth.
Hello again, Retief.
Your post is historically inaccurate when it claims buying voters was the only goal of the Social Security Act of 1935. With all due respect to your opinions and the methods you used to arrive at them, you are trying to rewrite 20th Century history to make it compatible with your 21st Century view of the world. The SSA of 1935 was the legislative culmination of a massive drive for social reform that began a half-century earlier in Germany. If you do not begin there, you can not pretend to know the goal of Social Security.
The US began a pension program after the Civil War to assist Union veterans and their families. This program grew to 37% of the Federal Budget by 1894. {1}
Two decades before the turn of the century, Germany began to create a system funded by worker’s contributions. The program provided benefits for maternity, illness, and old-age. Many observers at the time credited these social insurance programs to Germany’s robust industrialization leading up to 1900. {2}
The workforce in the US around 1880 was split pretty evenly between farm and non-farm workers. However, by 1930, non-farm workers grew to 79%. For the first time in US history, three-quarters of the country relied on economic prosperity and wages to survive. {3}
Incomes for non-farm workers were always erratic with unemployment climbing to 16.4% from 1905 to 1909 and, tragically, hitting 19.5% between 1920 and 1924. {4} As is usually the case, older workers suffered the most.
Retief, the recession of 2008 was a walk in the park compared to the miseries suffered by Americans during the Great Depression. This country was a fiscal and social disaster in the years leading up to 1935. Add to this a stubborn drought in the Midwest, low non-farm wages, more than half of all farm and non-farm males over 65 out of work in 1930, and unemployment soaring to 34% in 1932. The country was desperate for social reforms that would stabilize the uncertain labor market and protect the social fabric of the nation.
The assertion that the Social Security Act of 1935 was only about votes is totally absurd.
It is surprising how one tune in 1931 captured the helplessness, frustration and desperation of the times. Take three minutes more, Retief, and listen to the words of Al Jolson's version of "Brother can you spare a Dime?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4yT0KAMyo
{1} http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/percent.html.
{2} Schottland, Charles I. 1963. The Social Security Program in the United States. New York: Meredith Publishing.
{3} Census Bureau. 1956. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1956. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
{4} Schieber, Sylvester J., and John B. Shoven. 1999. The Real Deal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. P.19.This is a reminder that we do not want to rewrite history as we go. Who was it that said ‘those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them’?
Is our future really going to be about who can shout the loudest while pointing their fingers at others?Hello, Jim. I do not think I have had the pleasure of chatting with you before. It is nice to meet you in this thread.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ~ Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, known as George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
P.S.
He also said, “[O]nly the dead have seen the end of war."
There is more than adequate evidence that FDRs policies deepened and extended the recovery, much like Obama's policies have done. Except for the Great Depression, there has never been a recovery take so long.
Hi Retief. I hope you are doing well and able to follow your bliss.
Your post claims that there is “more than adequate evidence that FDRs policies deepened and extended the recovery.” However, you do not offer your readers a glimpse at your “adequate evidence” and they are expected to believe this claim has been fact checked. However, what you claim to be “adequate evidence” is not consistent with the opinions of a majority of economic historians.
Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, asked the members of the Economic History Association to agree, agree with a conditional stipulation, or disagree with the very same claim:
“Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.”
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the members employed in university history departments, joined by half (51%) of those in university economics departments totally disagreed with the claim in your post. Only 17% on average (6% & 27%) agreed fully with the claim while nearly equal ratios of respondents in each group (21% & 22%) only agreed with you under certain conditions. {1}
Once again, your opinion about Republican support for the Social Security Act, your distorted conclusion about its sole goal to attract votes, and your faulty impression about its effect on the post-Great Depression economy have all turned out to be false when tested in the real world.
It is beginning to appear like bashing Democrats, even dead Democrats, is more important then fact checking.
Thank you for your contributions to the thread, Retief. There is always something to be learned from your posts.
{1} Robert Whaples, "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions", Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 139–154http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD … -5409.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 6749137485
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch … g_americas
It is frequently argued that the ramp up to and the prosecution of WWII ended the Great Depression, this is incorrect. The economic "recovery" caused by WWII was for the duration of the war alone. The economy did not recover its overall, non-war values until 1949, that is 20 years after the stock market collapse. The interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt distorted the market resulting in greater unemployment and economic uncertainty. Federal experimentation., rather than permitting market prices to correct in relation to the LAW of supply and demand, did, as Obama has done, keep the economy roiling in it depressed state.
It is stability, reason, predictability and the natural adaptations and responses of the market that produces prosperity and growth, not lefty interventionist garbage. There is good reason to bash Democrats, they continually make the Republicans look less ridiculous. If the Democrats ever stopped being absurd the Republicans would immediately take the top spot as America's worst political party, but it appears the Democrats have had the lock on that one for over a hundred years.Hi again, Retief. I really appreciate your making the time to research and respond to my post. Thank you.
Your post begins with “It is frequently argued that the ramp up to and the prosecution of WWII ended the Great Depression, this is incorrect.” Your opening claim begs two questions. First, this claim is “frequently argued” by whom? Secondly, if your assertion is in fact “frequently argued” then you have clearly stipulated beyond a doubt that there is widespread and heated disagreement over the accuracy of your claim. Once again, you make a claim that implies authority when no authority has been provided. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should believe your claim has any merit.
I have read the three sources you included in your post. I thank you for providing them for our consideration.
I submitted the opinions of 178 randomly selected members of the Economic History Association regarding your verbatim claim that government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression.
Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the members employed in university history departments, joined by half (51%) of those in university economics departments, totally disagreed with your claim. {1} Now that does not mean it is wrong only that a majority of university employed economic history professionals believe that it is.
Let's look at your first link (FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate). I find a newsletter about an article in a profession journal authored by two prominent faculty members, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian with whom you and a minority subset of polled economists seem to agree. {2}
I find it interesting that their conclusion is based on their theoretical wage and price calculations and how the policies in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) might have affected the theory imbedded in their basic assumptions. It is not within my province to question their conclusions, but I noticed they ignore all of the other legislation enacted during the New Deal including the purpose of the Social Security Act which was grossly distorted in an earlier post.
The opinions of these two economists can be included with those members of the minority in the Economic History Association poll (assuming Messrs. Cole and Ohanian did not participate in the original survey). As reported earlier, only 17% on average (6% in university history departments & 27% in economics departments) agreed fully with this position while nearly equal ratios of respondents in each group (21% & 22%) only agreed with you under certain conditions. {3} The majority decisively disagreed with your claim so I hope you have other sound reasons for believing as you do.
The second link offered in support of this claim (How Government Prolonged the Depression) is a throw away when included with the first link. It is a subsequent article written by the same two economists. It does not represent other opinions or fresh viewpoints from other historical economists. It is a rewritten, recycled version of their former published theories.
The third link (Did Democrats prolong America's Great Depression?) is a blog piece in The Economist. It is pointless and does not even answer the question in the title. It does not support your position or any other position either. The author confesses in the last paragraph of the piece: “I have no personal opinion on whether FDR's interventions on net shortened or prolonged the Great Depression, largely because I haven't studied the matter.” Apparently, nothing in his article forged an opinion about FDR’s New Deal programs. Duh?
Thank you again, Retief, for sharing your viewpoints. I have enjoyed our exchanges and I hope you and those who follow this thread will take away something of value as I have.
{1} Robert Whaples, "Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians? The Results of a Survey on Forty Propositions", Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Mar., 1995), pp. 139–154
{2} http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD … -5409.aspx
{3}Whaples
No it was always a tax supported transfer payment. It has been lied about from the beginning calling it insurance. It has never been insurance.
Hi Wilderness.
A whole bunch of people believes President Obama was elected with votes cast by lazy moochers and welfare deadbeats. You are not alone even though there is no factual basis for that conclusion.
It is over a year since the 2012 presidential elections and the sore losers continue to repeat this silly, sorry, sad, and unsupportable claim to salve their wounded egos. If they did not believe the yarn about “votes for handouts” they would have to admit their candidate got his tail whipped because of his flip-flop stances on issues and his party’s elitist attitude toward those in need, minority citizens and foreigners.
Even the GOP does not buy into “the moochers did it” bologna. Here are some of the conclusions reached by the Republican Party’s own 2012 election post mortem analysis: {1}
“The federal wing [of the party], is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.”
“Republicans have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.”
“It has reached the point where in the past six presidential elections, four have gone to the Democratic nominee, at an average yield of 327 electoral votes to 211 for the Republican.”
“Public perception of the Party is at record lows. Young voters are increasingly rolling their eyes at what the Party represents, and many minorities wrongly think that Republicans do not like them or want them in the country.”
“At the federal level, much of what Republicans are doing is not working beyond the core constituencies that make up the Party”
“It is time to smartly change course, modernize the Party, and learn once again how to appeal to more people, including those who share some but not all of our conservative principles.”
“Our Party knows how to appeal to older voters, but we have lost our way with younger ones. We sound increasingly out of touch.”
“The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself.”
Hmmm. These are Republicans talking to Republicans now. There is nothing said about welfare freeloaders or a candidate’s race. There is a great deal said, however, about today’s political realities that too many rank and file finds hard to digest. Young people and minorities see what many Republicans fail to see.
Maybe the time has come for some folks to honestly look at what happened in the last two election cycles and to stop taking baseless, derogatory jabs at the poor.
{1} http://goproject.gop.com/ p.4Hi, Quill:
I don't know that I would go so far as to say that all voters for Obama were moochers and freeloaders, and I certainly did not say so here.
It DOES appear rather obvious that a good deal of the "wealth redistribution" part of popular socialism that is part of the basis of the liberal platform is what Obama had to offer and what was voted into office. The ACA shows that pretty plainly, as does the dismay as it falls apart and the promises aren't forthcoming.
None of which has anything to do with Republicans, except to point out that, for the nonce, the pendulum has swung towards socialism once more. Not surprising, with the pain of the recession and the relatively new refusal to take responsibility for oneself that is overtaking the country; the perpetual cry for more "free" stuff is only one small part of that.The USA is now practically a one party state with both the leader and any potential rivals well on the right of the political spectrum.
I've said it before and, taking the risk of being boring, I'll say it again, the fact that you either don't like something or disapprove of it does not make it socialism. All that you complain of here is a product of capitalism and the right, not a none existent socialism.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Dear Credence 2,
( I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. If so, why?)
You said," If those that carry the conservative banner in politics take an attitude of contempt concerning the things we talk about, how is that going to play with the electorate when the true nature of this 'far right' ideology and its objectives are more widely understood?"
Can you elucidate?Surely, in the conversation with GA, we both came to an conclusion that a major reason for the increasing inequity of wealth in our society are abuses built into the 'system' that needs to be corrected an example or two given in one of my comments. That would mean a greater role for government regulators and the fact that they have a place in leveling the playing field which in my opinion is essential. The GOP has this smoke and mirror approach of saying that the free market left unfettered would benefit more people. I have yet to see that play out. The GOP and the right are against the concept of government regulation in all of its ideological dogma. So, with that attitude how do we ever get to a major root of the problem highlighted above? When more people realize that the GOP philosophy will intrinsically gut the middle class and all its aspirations by allowing the fat cats a free hand without any restraint, perhaps the GOP will lose more votes and support from the vast middle.
No sarcasm intended, this is quite real!!Whoa Nellie... I don't recall agreeing that abuses are "built-in." I did concede that the system is being abused. That is a distinction to me. And I also do not agree government needs a "greater" role in business regulation - it does have a role, but I think it is a better role, not a greater one.
It does appear that we agree government regulation should be directed at the "level playing field" concept.
As for the rest of your comment - I hope I don't appear picky, or jousting with semantics, but our opinions are very different. I feel like my perspective reflects that of a mainstream conservative - not a self-proclaimed Mainstream conservative politician. (is my disdain showing?)
Gutting the middle class? Don't you think excessive taxation, (it is the middle class that is most hard hit by this), and government largess, (it does not generally go to the middle class), have something to do with that too?
ps. I hope I have been obvious in my discussions that I am speaking of Mainstream conservatives - not the vaunted GOP - I have long since decided the GOP no longer truly reflects Mainstream conservative values. I am hopeful that the downhill slide of the party's political fortunes will soon drive that point home.
GA'but I think it is a better role, not a greater one'.
A 'better role' means more rather than less, how is anything else possible?
Is it quality rather than quantity that you allude to? In the 60 minutes piece, the financial industries lobbied Congress for the right to continue to operate in the shadows regarding its customers. Which of the ideological poles took the side of these poor financial managers who said that they were being strangled by unnecessary government regulation. Yes, high taxes reflect much waste in Government and how resources are used, no one denies this. I guess the question remains, 'whose ox are we going to gore'? The solution is compromise with each interest group taking a hit and making some gains. You have to stand idly by while conservative principles get a black eye because of radical fanatics. Because the party is not a reflection of mainstream conservative values but has mutated into something else, you predict more trouble for it down the road, interesting...'How can greed be checked?
How about by suing? Who is actually accountable? Who could sue? State government? Why not state/states government/s?
Control/power/decision-making by the states has been usurped by the Fed.
This is how it USED to be: "The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." Federalist Papers. Paper 31.
(Obviously, we have a history of voting for the wrong people. Our representatives in the House have not been fighting for their rights or their power. For instance, which of them has a history of fighting for its rightful state authority? The ones who demanded a choice regarding government health care? who were they? Would an informed voter need to know all this info? Yes. Could a voter who is "getting paid" (through increased tax-credits) to vote, accidentally misspend his vote? Yes.)"....A 'better role' means more rather than less, how is anything else possible?"
I bet you would like that one back. Of course better does not have to mean more. Too often more is just more. - not better. Yes, it is quality vs. quantity I want.
GA
BTW
Buying votes is illegal on any level:
In one word:
Unconstitutional.PS
The safeguards are already in place and are set forth in the Constitution. Federal regulations of business and people are not allowed. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over taxation on imports, national defense and money. States are supposed to regulate their own affairs.
We must vote out the corrupt ones representing us. Know who they are. That should be motivating enough to vote. Thats where the hope and change are… in knowing who/what to vote for who/what not to vote for
and WHY.Why is inequity of wealth a problem all of the sudden? Hasn't there always been inequity of wealth since the beginning of capitalism? Why does the general government need to get involved? If freedom fosters capitalism and capitalism fosters inequity shall we get rid of the thing which fosters capitalism? Really? Whats wrong with capitalism again?
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago
0I disagree with this OP, the single greatest problem with our political reality in America -- is voter Apathy , which probably began or was created ironically by economic prosperity to start with ! The seventies , eighties and early nineties . The economic "poverty" of today is a result of that only , not caring enough to not only vote , but to learn enough about it to hold those responsible and accountable for our decline !
There is no single thing in this problem and the culprits hide behind all the others.
There you go again, actually daring to address the thread's original topic - and making sense to boot!
I think you are right - a well-informed voting public would quickly correct a lot of the political problems we are screaming about. Starting with term limits that so many think we need - because an informed and involved voting public will quickly vote the worst of the lot out on their butts! That is the real term limit we need.
GASadly, I have to disagree. An informed and involved voting public is likely to simply vote more scoundrels in, as long as they bring home the bacon. So few people today will look beyond their own backyard to what is good for the country instead of good for them personally. It's why congressional pork is so successful.
So, Wilderness, if an informed and involved voting public will not see the problems, will an ignorant and disengaged public do better? What is your solution, that all the informed and involved voters that vote left be eliminated from franchise? What you think is good for the country as to opposed to what I think are two different things but to imply that those not on your side of the ideological ledger are selfish is unsubstantiated.
Who does not look out for their own interests? We all know that this is not just a tack taken by the left. The trends that you have been talking about have been a long time coming and did not start with Obama. Clinton was working on Universal Health care back in the nineties and Romney advocated a similar program in Mass. So none of us should feign shock or surprise at this obvious reality.
You spoke about social security a while back, I believe that there is no reason why it would not have been successful if the politicians had not used it as a slush fund. The crime of raiding this is borne by both parties in Washington. Congressional pork predates Obama or even FDR, so what else is new? The solution is term limits to take some of the wind from the sails of these guys and remind them who they are working for. Get the big money and lobbying out of politics. And as Bufford Pusser once said, "any one caught taking a bribe gets his or her head knocked off"Credence, if you've followed my posts at all, you will find that nearly all right/left recognition is in response to someone with a post nearly rabid with one-sided rhetoric. I don't like either side!
Tell me - we have a massive problem with congressional pork - is any of it good for the county? I submit the answer is a resounding "NO!", but people keep voting for the scoundrels that are spending other peoples money to buy those votes. They (neither congressman nor voter) are not concerned with the country, just their own backyard.
And that is rampant. It's not just money, it's all the laws the control freaks put up to "manage" what others do and how they live. Gay marriage. Marijuana usage. "Victimless" crimes. And it is most definitely NOT one sided; it comes from both sides in nearly equal amounts, just with a different thrust. The right concentrates on their religious moral structure, the left on their liberal "share the wealth" moral structure. Neither recognize that people have either responsibility nor duty to themselves or others, and both set aside the concept that if they don't want others to do it to them they shouldn't be doing it themselves.
SS - absolutely both sides have ripped off the program. Just like the social end, the financial end is NOT limited to one party. In very general terms, the right spends for the country, the left for the individual and both say it is for the country but both are lying through their teeth. The right, for instance, wants a huge military to enforce their morality throughout the world; the left wants everyone to depend on the party for their support and maintenance. Both claim it is good for the US, both are flat out wrong in that assertion. And, IMHO, those at the top KNOW it is wrong, but it buys the votes to maintain their power base. The result is that the SS is broke, but Kansas City has a new museum and Podunk has a new sewer treatment plant paid for by the rest of the country instead of the people that will use and benefit from it.
Term limits - yes. Idaho voted them in for state legislature - the first thing the state congress did upon coming back from Xmas vacation was to cancel the vote of the people. To go back to indefinite terms, to maintain their job. The people, unfortunately, did not make a constitutional change, just a simple law about term limits; a law the congress could nullify at will. And they promptly did.Wilderness, sorry, if you have problems with both ends of the ideological pole, from an objective standpoint your attacks on the left and your advocacy of the conservative position are far more frequent than otherwise and I have been looking over your shoulder to see what it is you're posting and the topic. In general I would say that the right are interested in moneyed Special Interests and the left, the individual. What can be more ridiculous, spending money on military hardware to impose your point of view on the planet, instead of attending to the needs of citizens that live here and pay taxes.
So, an uneducated electorate is just less likely to far under the spell of slick, self interested politicians. What do we do as Americans to solve this problem? I can't change the way people vote, but we can legislate making influence peddling much more difficult that it is now. I surely know that the Koch brothers and their ilk are also in the business of buying votes and weilding unwarrented influence in the corridors of power. It is just coming from a different direction and source from the socialist trend that you warn us about. These legislators seem to be a power unto themselves, much like your Idaho example, beside the electorate (not so true anymore), who and what do they fear?
Hmmm... even being the cynical curmudgeon that I am, I still believe an informed voting populace.will do more good than harm, ie. kick out more scoundrels than they keep.
GA
Related Discussions
- 76
GOP=RIP how do you ever hope to win with an attitude like this?
by Credence2 3 years ago
A little backgroundhttps://news.yahoo.com/gop-warns-hr-1-c … 43930.htmlI find this more than a bit irritating about Republicans and conservatives generally.If you can't win the hearts and minds of the electorate with your ideas and policies, then your usefulness has come to an end."In...
- 39
KUCINICH'S OPINION ON IRAQ. FINALLY THE TRUTH.
by Deforest 9 years ago
As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after "Mission Accomplished," media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a "mistake." But the "mistake" rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s...
- 107
100% Democracy: Should We Require Voting?
by Faye V 2 years ago
As Americans we are required to pay taxes, serve on juries, get driver's licenses in order to operate our cars and sometimes even go to war for our country. So why not ask or require every American to vote?There are arguments that universal participation in our elections should be a...
- 53
Should a Congressman Only Stand For Moral and Sensible Actions...
by ga anderson 8 years ago
Should a Congressman Only Stand For Moral and Sensible Actions... that benefit all U.S. citizens?Or should they stand for the desired actions of their electors?I think it is the latter.If they cannot, in good conscience, represent their electorate's desires, should they resign?I say yes.Of...
- 26
Why don't enough people vote?
by Michele Travis 11 years ago
Why don't enough people vote?More than 130 million people turned out to vote Tuesday, the most ever to vote in a presidential election.In 2008 the Presidential electionwith ballots still being counted in some precincts into Wednesday morning, an estimated 64 percent of the electorate turned out,...
- 23
What are the main indicators that the average American is somewhat uninformed an
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
What are the main indicators that the average American is somewhat uninformed and gulliblein regards to electing political candidates to their respective offices whether local, state, and/or national?