The Liberal Bind

[Acumen]

Jack,

You're being dishonest and you know it.  If spending was a serious issue with you, then you wouldn't be a liberal - bottom line.

[Faithfulee]

Jack

McCain is taking a mature stance and criticizing the spending of the enormous amount of additional revenue that the Bush tax cuts brought in.

No politician can help spending.

But we don’t need Obama and his promise to Tax, Tax, Tax.,  Tax.

Especially when we know that taxes reduce government income, but not before the Dems gear up to spend the money that doesn’t come in.

We DON’T need a Dem  president   

OBAMA FOR THE ACADAMY AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR

[jacknky]

"You're being dishonest and you know it.  If spending was a serious issue with you, then you wouldn't be a liberal - bottom line."

Thank you for your cogent, insightful and nuanced response. It's good to know that narrow stereotypical thinking is alive and well.

[jacknky]

"OBAMA FOR THE ACADAMY AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR"

I vote for all the Republican legislators. Increasing federal spending while still running on fiscal responsiblity takes more than acting it takes incredible hutzpa. This is truly an example of the old saw that if you yell something loud and often enough people will believe it.

[Faithfulee]

"OBAMA FOR THE ACADAMY AWARD FOR BEST ACTOR"

I vote for all the Republican legislators. Increasing federal spending while still running on fiscal responsiblity takes more than acting it takes incredible hutzpa. This is truly an example of the old saw that if you yell something loud and often enough people will believe it.

But none of them had the 200000 screaming Germans showing their adoration.  What a show.  What a talented speaker!  What Charisma!!

And as I write this Hollywood is gearing up for an even bigger adoring extravaganza for the "Messiah", prince Obama.  That is costing them m $millions (that could go to helping the poor by the way) and I am sure that all their theatrical skills will be in play as they welcome Obama and cheer him on.

The McCain political machine will make hay with this topic and make it more painful the helpful for Obama.

[jacknky]

"But none of them had the 200000 screaming Germans showing their adoration.  What a show.  What a talented speaker!  What Charisma!!"

Yes, being able to motivate people without having to use fear must be a real turn-off to Republicans.

Partisan rhetoric aside, We were chatting about Michael Moore and Rush on some board, maybe this one, but my favorite is John Stewart. You would have loved the show while Obama was overseas. They skewered Obama's popularity and the media fawning. One of my favorites was when Obama visited Israel. Stewart "reported" that Obama made a stop in Bethlehem "where he was born".

[SquirleyWurley]

The thing I like about both Stewart and Colbert is that they both take an ironical look at whatever is making news, and I think they do a good job of lampooning Democrats rather than just lampooning Republicans, they both really do seem happy to lampoon anything that can be lampooned in the media and the political arena.

Moore and Limbaugh are both particularly partisan (and/or ideological) in the way they do their lampooning, by contrast.  I don't think they attempt to correct for their bias, in other words, and I think their methods are entirely propagandic/doctrinaire rather than critical/self-critical.

[Faithfulee]

I like the “where he was born” line  Jack.

I also thin Obama is  toast as the issue of his “secret” note in the wailing wall gets more publicity.  The press doesn’t seem anxious to  spread the word about that note, wonder why.

Wurley – Limbaugh is a genius.  And no wonder that the Dems are trying to return the “fairness doctrine.”

If enacted it should contain a “fairness doctrine for the Press” so that  every newspaper is required to  devote “equal space” to  all sides of an issue.

The NYTimes refused an op ed by McCain in response to one by Obama on energy. 

On Oil the liberal bind is that the country wants to drill now, drill here and pay less for oil.
 

[Acumen]

"You're being dishonest and you know it.  If spending was a serious issue with you, then you wouldn't be a liberal - bottom line."

Thank you for your cogent, insightful and nuanced response. It's good to know that narrow stereotypical thinking is alive and well.

I don't know what you're looking for.  Hypocrisy is a simple thing.  Liberals like to spend money - that's why they to raise taxes and buck conservatives regarding tax cuts.  What I said is both cogent and insightful.

Are you trying to tell me that democrats are frugal with domestic spending?

[Acumen]

First, the passage you quoted above is an example of Christian brethren sharing their property with other Christian brethren.  This is not a recipe or a blueprint for socialism as you seem to suggest.  Second, the passage suggests the sharing of property on the basis of need.  This means that they didn't forfeit everything they had, but rather made available everything they had according to whatever need may so arise.  The two are different.

Thank you for taking the bait. 

Are you setting me up?

The current stand in the political right is to have corporate America as a general concept work out the best solutions for the country.

I think it's a more accurate statement to say that the religious right is interested in restoring what has been lost in American life due to the 20th century advent of welfare liberalism.

That plan has been in place for the last 8 years. Where has it helped? September 11 excluded, the economy has been shrinking despite the "indicators." The indicators that are used are meant to encourage the stock markets. The majority of this country's wealth in the last 20 years has been found in the stock market. The 90's was a prime example. The DotCom fiasco was a watershed moment in greed for America. This instilled a concept in the average person that as long as the markets maintain an upward slant from left to right, things are good. This allowed the corporate interests to make plays on rule changes that have had disasterous results.

I don't understand your point.

The housing market is suffering a contraction, something that hasn't occurred since the 1930s. Why? After the Great Depression, many controls were put into place to protect the economy and the taxpayer.

Like what?

This controls were pulled out in the last 10 years. The idea of a no income mortgage is ludicrous when you think about it. Sure, the argument can be made that people need to be responsible and take care of their finances. That's not an argument that I deny. But, the factor of intelligent understanding of the mortgage industry plays into the picture. When the broker or the loan officer is selling a product and they are getting paid only when they make a loan, the details will be lost in translation. Someone who isn't savvy with the ins and outs of a financial transaction are victims.

Again, what does this have to do with our conversation?

This is where the Xian has to say something. This is where the care for a brother or sister comes into play. If the mortgage industry is prohibited from predatory lending practices, the weaker among us are protected, the honest efforts of our brothers and sisters are considered important.

Why should the Christian have to say anything about it?

As for health care, there is a need. Jesus spent much of his ministry healing as he was preaching. Sure, a miracle worker got attention, but there wasn't a magic show. There was a physical manifestation of care and concern for a person, along with the spiritual. To deny a class of society access to health care because they cannot afford it only perpetuates the societal problems conservatives are complaining about. Get people off of wellfare. Good idea. But, one problem. When a person is leaving wellfare, they are often leaving their health care. The choice for some is easily understandable--stay on the doll and have food and health care, or work and loose one or the other. What kind of a choice is this? Is this a choice that really is in line with Xian values as Christ would teach. I doubt it.

The mistake you're making lies in the presupposition that Christian charity is the government's job.  Nowhere in the NT will you find that Jesus burdens the local, state, or federal governments to redistribute our incomes to help the poor, the widow, or the orphaned.  Rather, it is our Christian obligation to help out the needy on a voluntary basis.  And this brings us back to the point in our circular argument that liberals often interject Christian values into government philosophy when it suits their needs, but give a wholesale abandonment of Christian values when it doesn't jive with their other political views.  This is religious hypocrisy.

The concept of socialist government was tried and successfully used in Milwaukee in the early 20th century. The park system and the water and sewer systems are prime examples of how the best advantage for the people was reached. In the process, the concerns of public health were addressed. The environment was protected, as was the livelihood of fisheries along the lakefront. The advent of a water and sewer system allowed for a greater economic development.

What do we really know about "sewer socialism?"

Is socialism without problems? No. There is no such thing as a perfect system. But, when the concept of greatest good for the greatest numbers is considered, socialism generally serves the people the best. The ideals behind socialism are simple. Everyone needs water. Everyone needs fire protection. Everyone needs health care. Everyone needs help when a company closes up and income is gone. Everyone needs a school system that actually teaches children to succeed. Everyone needs to have the opportunity to care for immediate family when they fall ill. Everyone has the right to decent pay for honest work. Care for the elderly is a common interest. Healthy children only help society.

These are core concepts of socialism. They are also pretty much inline with Xian values.

Again, it's not the government's job to provide what people could provide for themselves.  As a firefighter, you know what welfare does to your clientèle.  It's astounding to me that you would suggest such a thing knowing that it breeds dependence and irresponsibility.   

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Liberals like to spend money - that's why they to raise taxes and buck conservatives regarding tax cuts.  What I said is both cogent and insightful.

Are you trying to tell me that democrats are frugal with domestic spending?"

Nice qualifier there. You know full well that democrats want to prioritize our resources into domestic spending so by excluding military spending you tilt the answer in your favor.

What I am trying to tell you is that Republicans TALK about frugality but when they have the power they spend just as much as the Dems do. I presume you're aware that spending has increased under this Republican administration and Congress (for six years)?

My mother always told me to listen to what people say but judge them by what they do.

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"Liberals like to spend money - that's why they to raise taxes and buck conservatives regarding tax cuts.  What I said is both cogent and insightful.

Are you trying to tell me that democrats are frugal with domestic spending?"

Nice qualifier there. You know full well that democrats want to prioritize our resources into domestic spending so by excluding military spending you tilt the answer in your favor.

Military aside, democrats are bigger spenders that republicans.  Again, this is supported by their history of raising taxes.

what I am trying to tell you is that Republicans TALK about frugality but when they have the power they spend just as much as the Dems do. I presume you're aware that spending has increased under this Republican administration and Congress (for six years)?

Yes, but it is not something I like, or support.  In Bush's first three years (if I remember correctly), he did not veto a single bill.  And in his last two years with a democratic congress, he allowed bills to pass that were heavy on spending that weren't pertinent to military issues.  In other words, he permitted too much.  I don't agree with him on that issue, but in general - liberals are the spenders historically speaking because they prefer larger governments, which requires greater taxation to support.  You cannot deny this fact.

Republicans, on the other hand, can only be accused of being big spenders during wartime due to their political philosophy that military defense ought to come first.  Take the republicans out of wartime, and democrats will out spend them hands down on every issue.

And this bring us back to the issue of hypocrisy.  If spending was a chief concern of yours', then you wouldn't be a liberal - instead probably an independent or a libertarian.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"Republicans, on the other hand, can only be accused of being big spenders during wartime due to their political philosophy that military defense ought to come first.  Take the republicans out of wartime, and democrats will out spend them hands down on every issue."

Aside from the wars in Iraq and Afganistan the military budget is about $500 billion per year. This is the budget whether we are in a war or not. It's my understanding that basically we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Now that's a pretty good chunk of change and I think it's worthy of scrutiny. Could we build one less billion dollar bomber and build a few bridges instead? Do we really need to match the whole rest of the world in military spending bearing the brunt of the cost in the effort against terrorism? I think those kinds of questions are fair.

"And this bring us back to the issue of hypocrisy.  If spending was a chief concern of yours', then you wouldn't be a liberal - instead probably an independent or a libertarian."

The hypocrisy is yours in thinking that only Republicans have the right to care about spending. perhaps you need to practice thinking outside your self-imposed box. What I am talking about are priorities for resources. Simply because I believe there is a role for government in doing what the profit motive doesn't do well doesn't mean I have no concern about spending. I could just as easily say that because you express no concern about the waste and corruption in this war indicates that you are the one who has no concern about wasteful spending.

And while you may not agree with the spending that has gone on during the Bush administration we can still see what happens when Republicans are in charge of all aspects of government. Spending goes up while they continue to blame the Democrats. If you want to talk about hipocrisy you have a big target in the Republican Party.

[Acumen]

Acumen,
"Republicans, on the other hand, can only be accused of being big spenders during wartime due to their political philosophy that military defense ought to come first.  Take the republicans out of wartime, and democrats will out spend them hands down on every issue."

Aside from the wars in Iraq and Afganistan the military budget is about $500 billion per year. This is the budget whether we are in a war or not. It's my understanding that basically we spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Now that's a pretty good chunk of change and I think it's worthy of scrutiny. Could we build one less billion dollar bomber and build a few bridges instead? Do we really need to match the whole rest of the world in military spending bearing the brunt of the cost in the effort against terrorism? I think those kinds of questions are fair.

Your questions are certainly fair - in fact, they are very good.  Conservatives believe the main thrust of government is for the raw military protection of its citizens.  In fact, there is a good deal of solid political philosophy that supports this conservative thinking via Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that priorities in government spending should be on the military to protect its citizenry and their interests abroad.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that you are right in that the U.S. spends more on military might than the world combined (which I think is impossible btw).  If this were true, I'm not sure why it would be used a type of biting criticism.  The U.S has global interests that are most effectively protected by the strategic planting of our military bases abroad.  By the visible presence of these bases, we are able to leverage other nations in getting what we want, which is a good thing for our citizenry.  This, of course, requires military spending.  If we were to cut military spending, for instance, and close down military bases abroad for isolationist purposes, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

Government spending is a requisite to getting things done, unfortunately.  Of course, domestic and foreign spending are unavoidable.  However, as an American citizen, I feel more secure knowing that future administrations will not shortchange our military developments for domestic issues when those military developments are designed to protect our domestic interests in the long haul anyway.  Regarding this issue, I think the neo-cons got it right - especially considering the problem we have with middle eastern terrorism.

[jacknky]

Acumen,
"However, as an American citizen, I feel more secure knowing that future administrations will not shortchange our military developments for domestic issues when those military developments are designed to protect our domestic interests in the long haul anyway.  Regarding this issue, I think the neo-cons got it right - especially considering the problem we have with middle eastern terrorism."

Thank you for your reasoned response. As to the military spending you might be interested in this link to "Global Security.org" which lists military spending according to country. According to these numbers the rest of the world is at about $500 Billion while the US is at $623 billion. China is next at $65 billion. So I think it is reasonable to ask if we indeed need to spend that kind of money to keep us safe or if the tail is beginning to wag the dog.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

As for the neo-cons getting it right, I remember reading more than one interview with terrorist experts who said our emphasis should not be on military engagement against an enemy that is small in number and geographically diverse. They indicated that while there is indeed a place for the military our emphasis should be on good policework and intelligence. I'm not an expert but it makes sense to me to use different tactics in fighting an amorphous enemy than we do to defeat a standing army.

[Faithfulee]

.
As for the neo-cons getting it right, I remember reading more than one interview with terrorist experts who said our emphasis should not be on military engagement against an enemy that is small in number and geographically diverse. They indicated that while there is indeed a place for the military our emphasis should be on good policework and intelligence. I'm not an expert but it makes sense to me to use different tactics in fighting an amorphous enemy than we do to defeat a standing army.

And we have been doing just that.  We defeated sad mans army in a hartbeat but the residual Isamic terrorists fought back. 

Recently the surge policy has worked to defeat alQaeda militarilly.  Our posture now is to help Iraq secure itself from Islamic terrorists.

The liberal bind today is that the policy has worked,  Alsadr abandonged his army and all over Iraq there is a movement toward peace.  So far the liberals have ignored this momentus good news.

[Acumen]

Faithfulee,

Don't you have Firefox yet?

[jacknky]

"We defeated sad mans army in a hartbeat but the residual Isamic terrorists fought back."

You're missing the point. The terrorism experts were talking about how to combat terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism that led to 9/11. There were essentially no Islamic terrorists in Iraq until after we invaded and de-stabalized the country.

The fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq when we invaded is a well known fact. I am amazed at the way war apologists still pretend there were. You do realize Bin Laden hated Saddam because his government was secular. We actually did Bin Laden (and Iran for that matter) a favor by eliminating Saddam.

[Faithfulee]

Acumen - I don't use foxfire,  why should I?

Jack -  Are you aware that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, active in Iraq and has been pretty much wiped out in Iraq.   Pretty good work in my opinion.

[Acumen]

"We defeated sad mans army in a hartbeat but the residual Isamic terrorists fought back."

You're missing the point. The terrorism experts were talking about how to combat terrorism. Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorism that led to 9/11. There were essentially no Islamic terrorists in Iraq until after we invaded and de-stabalized the country.

The fact that there were no terrorists in Iraq when we invaded is a well known fact. I am amazed at the way war apologists still pretend there were. You do realize Bin Laden hated Saddam because his government was secular. We actually did Bin Laden (and Iran for that matter) a favor by eliminating Saddam.

The terrorism experts are right in abstract terms, but what they didn't foresee was that a war in the middle east would draw in extremist elements like a large electromagnet.  A war that began to remove a regime became a war on terrorism quite clearly - something that terrorism experts should recognize.