OT: Talk me out of my anti-partisian views.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]
The tax code is one of the main tools they have to exercise control. If we were ever able to convert to a simple flat tax that would be a great step in removing the power they wield.[/quote]

How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Radical positive change cannot happen. Revolution feels good but doesn’t work. You end up with retribution and a new elite that’s the same or worse than the old elite. It takes generations to form a competent governing elite so after a revolution you generally end up will well-meaning but ignorant people in power.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

Nope. The genius of the system is on display every day, even in these polarized, balkanized times.

There’s probably some form your folks will need to fill out for a refund. I’d check on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Radical positive change cannot happen. Revolution feels good but doesn’t work. You end up with retribution and a new elite that’s the same or worse than the old elite. It takes generations to form a competent governing elite so after a revolution you generally end up will well-meaning but ignorant people in power.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

Nope. The genius of the system is on display every day, even in these polarized, balkanized times.

There’s probably some form your folks will need to fill out for a refund. I’d check on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Radical positive change cannot happen. Revolution feels good but doesn’t work. You end up with retribution and a new elite that’s the same or worse than the old elite. It takes generations to form a competent governing elite so after a revolution you generally end up will well-meaning but ignorant people in power.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

Nope. The genius of the system is on display every day, even in these polarized, balkanized times.

There’s probably some form your folks will need to fill out for a refund. I’d check on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Radical positive change cannot happen. Revolution feels good but doesn’t work. You end up with retribution and a new elite that’s the same or worse than the old elite. It takes generations to form a competent governing elite so after a revolution you generally end up will well-meaning but ignorant people in power.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

Nope. The genius of the system is on display every day, even in these polarized, balkanized times.

There’s probably some form your folks will need to fill out for a refund. I’d check on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
Radical positive change cannot happen. Revolution feels good but doesn’t work. You end up with retribution and a new elite that’s the same or worse than the old elite. It takes generations to form a competent governing elite so after a revolution you generally end up will well-meaning but ignorant people in power.[/quote]

Brian: Dude, your parents need to call the university where you got your degree and demand their money back.

Revolutions do work, and we need look no further than the US and France to have that point unequivocally driven home.

As far as well-meaning but ignorant people in power: I’d have to say the Founding Fathers weren’t ignorant. To the contrary, you had some significant intellectual horsepower at work there, as evidenced by the success of this great republic.

In terms of the impossibility of radical political change: Well, first off, its hilarious to hear a so-called “Progressive” say that, and, second, this statement is also refuted by history, especially in the US. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement, the empowerment of groups as diverse as Native Americans, gay and lesbian, and even the obese (threw that one in for you, Brian. I know how you love the fatties), show how false that assertion is.

Nope. The genius of the system is on display every day, even in these polarized, balkanized times.

There’s probably some form your folks will need to fill out for a refund. I’d check on that.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=SK in CV]
While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Very true. Defense spending and wars have way more to do with growing the size of government than anything else. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh and Fox have done an excellent job of convincing people like Hobie that it’s welfare spending that is growing the size of government. They’ve tapped into that ‘us-versus-them’ (the them being the poor) emotion that those with lesser-developed critical thinking skills are susceptible to.

The Democrats don’t even try to counter the inaccurate ‘big government’ label pinned on them by those on the right. It would be easy to do, but I think Democrats tend to be more intellectual and thus don’t focus so much on messages designed to generate an emotional response.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=SK in CV]
While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Very true. Defense spending and wars have way more to do with growing the size of government than anything else. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh and Fox have done an excellent job of convincing people like Hobie that it’s welfare spending that is growing the size of government. They’ve tapped into that ‘us-versus-them’ (the them being the poor) emotion that those with lesser-developed critical thinking skills are susceptible to.

The Democrats don’t even try to counter the inaccurate ‘big government’ label pinned on them by those on the right. It would be easy to do, but I think Democrats tend to be more intellectual and thus don’t focus so much on messages designed to generate an emotional response.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=SK in CV]
While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Very true. Defense spending and wars have way more to do with growing the size of government than anything else. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh and Fox have done an excellent job of convincing people like Hobie that it’s welfare spending that is growing the size of government. They’ve tapped into that ‘us-versus-them’ (the them being the poor) emotion that those with lesser-developed critical thinking skills are susceptible to.

The Democrats don’t even try to counter the inaccurate ‘big government’ label pinned on them by those on the right. It would be easy to do, but I think Democrats tend to be more intellectual and thus don’t focus so much on messages designed to generate an emotional response.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=SK in CV]
While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Very true. Defense spending and wars have way more to do with growing the size of government than anything else. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh and Fox have done an excellent job of convincing people like Hobie that it’s welfare spending that is growing the size of government. They’ve tapped into that ‘us-versus-them’ (the them being the poor) emotion that those with lesser-developed critical thinking skills are susceptible to.

The Democrats don’t even try to counter the inaccurate ‘big government’ label pinned on them by those on the right. It would be easy to do, but I think Democrats tend to be more intellectual and thus don’t focus so much on messages designed to generate an emotional response.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=SK in CV]
While I’d hesitate to necessarily attribute it entirely to who was in the white house, what the chart you linked to shows is that during each of the previous 4 democratic administrations over the last 50 years, spending, as a percentage of GDP, actually dropped, with the exception of the very end of the Johnson administration, when the costs of Viet Nam really kicked in. That same measurement grew during each of the Republican administrations. Each dealt with their own special economic circumstances, and absent examining those circumstances, this data is inconclusive. But it does tend to disprove the “tax and spend” rhetoric.[/quote]

Very true. Defense spending and wars have way more to do with growing the size of government than anything else. Unfortunately, Rush Limbaugh and Fox have done an excellent job of convincing people like Hobie that it’s welfare spending that is growing the size of government. They’ve tapped into that ‘us-versus-them’ (the them being the poor) emotion that those with lesser-developed critical thinking skills are susceptible to.

The Democrats don’t even try to counter the inaccurate ‘big government’ label pinned on them by those on the right. It would be easy to do, but I think Democrats tend to be more intellectual and thus don’t focus so much on messages designed to generate an emotional response.

[jstoesz]

The cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)

“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

How much was the economic stimulus(s) again…

Lets put things in perspective.

[jstoesz]

The cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)

“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

How much was the economic stimulus(s) again…

Lets put things in perspective.

[jstoesz]

The cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)

“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

How much was the economic stimulus(s) again…

Lets put things in perspective.

[jstoesz]

The cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)

“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

How much was the economic stimulus(s) again…

Lets put things in perspective.

[Author]

Posts