Okay, now they've gone too far.
Sure, they Republicans look stupid and divisive and hateful and ugly and as though they can only support corporations and rich people but now they've gone WAY too far.
They've thrown every roadblock up they could, to kill any health care reform because they want to support their fatcat buddies in the insurance industry but now they're even going against this President because--wait for it--he wants to help create JOBS!!
Good God, are you kidding me?
I guess it's real.
The Republicans are actually fighting this President because he wants to see more Americans employed.
I totally agree that we need to reduce spending but, frankly, not on jobs.
How about we cut defense spending in half? There's a good idea. And it's one we can afford--at least in my opinion. (And a lot of others, though, too, I will say).
Republicans prove, yet again, they are truly the "Party of No".
Posts
Audra McDonald Triumphs in “Gypsy” on Broadway
28 minutes ago
23 comments:
Government creating jobs is like taking water from the deep end of the pool to fill the shallow end--Under perfect conditions there is no change, under typical government conditions the bucket leaks, and you wind up with less in the pool than when you started.
We need to reduce spending, period.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/12/09/government-job-training/
One example: "(O)f the 1,142 jobs that were projected to be created by JDA activity, only 318 were actually created. And, of these jobs, 25 disadvantaged workers were hired"
The government can't create jobs without taking money from people who would spend it in ways that would create jobs.
I agree on needing to reduce spending, absolutely, but just not at the cost of going into a truly 2nd "Great Depression".
I'm not saying that's what we're dealing with here, now, but I do think there needs to be spending to keep us out of that kind of collapse.
I also think most of the spending cuts, beyond doubt, need to come from defense spending. What we spend on the military-industrial complex, to use President Eisenhower's term, is obscene in all ways.
John "Right Wing" Stossel? You're going to quote John Stossel?
And "Fox Business"?
Really?
You have to be kidding me, right?
You aren't really serious here?
In this particular case, I agree with Stossel, although I can't vouch for the examples he gave. Government spending money for jobs is at best a zero-sum, but more likely taking money from where it is productive to spend it elsewhere. Even with zero corruption in the process it isn't likely to create more jobs than it costs.
I haven't been following Stossel long, but what I've seen is more libertarian than conservative. It could be that he hasn't covered the areas where conservatives differ when I've been paying attention.
If you think John Stossel is right wing, you're knee-jerking that he is on Fox Business. He's been a self-described libertarian for many years, only now that he moved from ABC to Fox do some bastions of independence, such as the New York Times, feel it necessary to mention his political bias.
If you think John Stossel is right-wing, you're just knee-jerking at the sight of Fox Business. He's been a self-described libertarian for many years, but no one made much hay about that until he switched from ABC to Fox. Now known beacons of unbiased reporting, such as the New York Times, see it worthy of talking about his known bias but not mentioning that all reporters have some inherent bias.
Knee-jerking?
Yeah, right.
I don't think so.
Are you saying Libertarians aren't right wing? Please. They're further right wing, in their calls for dispensing of government.
I just didn't call them Republican.
Independents tend to be MORE annoying than Republicans, to me at least.
Did you know that President Obama has NEVER said anything positive about the U.S.? (According to some psycho at a tea "bag" party.)
Why don't you post some right-wing traits and I'll bet dollars to donuts they don't line up with Libertarian beliefs.
Yeah, I heard a woman say that on NPR two days ago.
Of course, I'm sure she doesn't miss any of the President's press conferences or speeches, too.
I agree on the Independents. Too many Americans don't know details of the important issues of the day, either.
Now it's bash on independents day? I can find plenty of dodgy commentary on left and right websites, crazy loons commenting on the paper, and uninformed voters of all parties voting for someone whose stances they don't know.
No, no, not "bash Independents Day", by any means, just the uninformed ones.
Besides, this conversation got started with me being referred to as "knee-jerking".
Hmm, so the uninformed discussion loops back to the inaccurate characterization of John Stossel as right-wing...
Also, looks like I must not have completed a previous comment, but I'm curious what beliefs you associate with right-wingery as I'll bet dollars to donuts they don't align with libertarianism.
I believe both being "conservative" and Libertarian revolve strongly around reduced government. For Conservatives, I think it's only less government while for Libertarians, I believe it's very little or no government.
Agree?
and, oh yeah, I do still see John Stossel as very Right-wing, sure, for what that's worth.
From Wikipedia, which I think fits. Don't assume now that I'm saying Wikipedia is absolutely correct on any issue. I just think this definition from them rings true:
"Libertarianism is a term adopted by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which advocate the maximization of individual liberty[2] and the minimization or even abolition of the state.[3][4] Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum, ranging from minarchist to openly anarchist.[1][5][6][7]
All schools of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, though some disagree on the subject, of private property.[8] The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism[8] by advocating a right to private property, including property in the means of production,[9] minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law.[10][11][12]"
So much of these points of view, from reduced government to rejection of the welfare state to
"maximization of individual liberty[2] and the minimization"..."of the state" and on, are very "Right wing".
It's not used here or by me as an insult. It's meant as factual description.
In the traditional political view, extreme left wing would be communist, extreme right wing fascist.
A more complete view looks at the amount of state control as well as what is being controlled. This is often shown by adding an up down axis of stateist vs libertarian/anarchist to the left vs.right line. Although this is usually shown as a square grid, a triangle is a better representation--as you move towards libertarian/anarchist, the left right differences mean less, because more and more falls outside the area of legitimate government concern.
There are areas where I strongly agree with at least some traditional conservatives--fiscal responsibility, reduced government regulation of both business, minimal welfare. I do not agree with their views on marriage inequality for gays, giving up civil liberties to support the wars on (some) drugs and terrorism, or involvement in unnecessary foreign wars. We need enough government to enforce contracts and prosecute crime that harms others, not so much that it is hard to avoid committing a crime. The right amount is the amount that maximizes liberty.
I would politely argue that most conservatives argue for smaller government, but are happy for bigger government when it suits their needs (witness the Dubya administration). There are some Libertarians who argue for no government, but I think anyone who thinks we can entirely get rid of taxes or government is in a worse pickle than Don Quixote.
Conservatives are also more about telling you how to live your life, especially socially, compared to libertarians. I'm not against gay marriage or for the promotion of religion by the government. If you want to smoke pot or do something harder, feel free to do so in the privacy of your home as long as you don't harm anyone or their property. Want to patronize a willing prostitute? Go for it.
The World's Smallest Political Quiz helps demonstrate who Libertarians differ from Republicans, conservatives, and their ilk. See the chart in the below PDF:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz-pdf.pdf
I can't disagree with that last description, certainly.
The problem is defining maximum liberty, and balancing my liberty with yours. Keeping your paycheck is a liberty. How much of it should you be forced to give up so that I have the liberty of food and shelter without working while I get the training to qualify for a better job?
While I agree on your proposition ("The problem is defining maximum liberty..."), it's my take that it's always the ones who emphasize "maximum liberty" who are the extremists. These are the ones who don't want to give anything--not a dime, not a penny--to any government, of any form, for any reason.
We are a group of people and we need roads, infrastructure, schools, etc.
While a "screaming, left-wing Liberal", I think the assumption about us is that we want to veritably "give away the store", in an effort to help the poor at all costs and that's just patently untrue, by all means. There just need to be safety nets for the least of us, that's all.
You are confusing anarchist with libertarian, in the same way that conservatives call liberals communist or socialist.
A simplified version of where I think the line should be, especailly with regard to the federal government: The fed should be concerned with America as a whole. If the program only benefits the recipients or their families, it probably isn't a good idea to spend other people's money on it.
That doesn't mean absolutely no welfare--it is possible that a well-run welfare system could benefit non-recipients by more than the cost by reducing crimes of desperation, or by allowing more risk-taking in employment decisions. I benefit from guardrails on roads even if I never actually crash into one.
In no way, now or in the past, have I confused anarchism with Libertarianism. There are some Libertarians who, by their description, call themselves anarchists. It's not my description or definition.
Listen, I get it--less government. I'm there. But there are other self-professed Libertarians who would flip out even at your description of some form of welfare.
Post a Comment