[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Seraphim To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, there is a middle ground which you have to find. And to be honest, it's all about personal agenda; electing political representatives whom will best look after your particular interests. Sounds selfish, I know. My politics now are different than they were 35 years ago. Civil liberties no longer top the list of my concerns as I look to mandatory retirement and wonder if I'm financially prepared. The last few years, the economy has been good to me in the form of lower interest rates for home equity loans to make college payments. The 2.25% interest rate I enjoy now is much better than the 7.5% of four years ago. My investments are such they are not affected by falling interest rates. It may not be PC to make that admission, when such a large percentage of the population is having trouble, but I want to point out there's a balance to things. Different people have different agendas, and politics will always be a seesaw approach to providing society what it wants. Each party is catering to a different segment of the population, in general terms, while trying to convince EVERYONE it's catering to them *grin*. I had hoped Obama would live up to the expectations he raised, while knowing it was an impossible task for anyone. Unfortunately for those with employment difficulties, he concentrated on other issues, while his stimulus packages were poorly aimed - the money did not get where it needed to be. His election reminded me of the Camelot feel of the first JFK elections. Camelot just never survives reality, though. Arthur is always too idealistic, it seems, but in this case he was too politically inexperienced, and had no Merlin as a guide. Just research the candidates and issues as best you can, and vote with your personal agenda in mind. That's about the best any voter can do.

Obama has been doing a lot better in 2010 than he had been doing in 2009. He knows the focus should be on jobs and hes focused on that. He has the right idea and most of his agenda is correct as he wants to fuel infrastructure. Unfortunately the only real solution is government spending and Republicans have been blocking him from doing that. The growth of government is the only thing government can do to create jobs during a recession such as this one, that is to directly hire as many people fresh out of college would be willing to take government jobs.

[Axion004]

Yes, there is a middle ground which you have to find. And to be honest, it's all about personal agenda; electing political representatives whom will best look after your particular interests. Sounds selfish, I know. My politics now are different than they were 35 years ago. Civil liberties no longer top the list of my concerns as I look to mandatory retirement and wonder if I'm financially prepared. The last few years, the economy has been good to me in the form of lower interest rates for home equity loans to make college payments. The 2.25% interest rate I enjoy now is much better than the 7.5% of four years ago. My investments are such they are not affected by falling interest rates. It may not be PC to make that admission, when such a large percentage of the population is having trouble, but I want to point out there's a balance to things. Different people have different agendas, and politics will always be a seesaw approach to providing society what it wants. Each party is catering to a different segment of the population, in general terms, while trying to convince EVERYONE it's catering to them *grin*.

All I am really thinking about right now is "After I graduate, how will I pay off my loans?" My original intent was to go into graduate school but this becomes a serious problem when I was directionless and confused(not by the schoolwork) throughout most of undergraduate study. I can see how when you type/talk you are much older than I am. This reminds me how in a different forum someone once posted how about every ten years everyone died and then a new person was born. In 35 years from now I probably won't be thinking about anything I regularly think about at the age of 23 unless I am still studying something I studied in school.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by Savagelight To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The growth of government is the only thing government can do to create jobs during a recession such as this one, that is to directly hire as many people fresh out of college would be willing to take government jobs.

So we should just borrow the money from China to prop up the government payrolls? That doesn't seem like a very good solution to me. How do you propose we get those people off the government payrolls?

[championade]

True but at least they have a little more accountability. If a bill passes in the house that their constituents disapprove of, their defense can no longer be that they were powerless in the matter- which proved to be a good campaign strategy this time around. This election was fueled by anger at Democrats' (perceived) shortcomings, and surely not by hope of any real change from Republicans. At least I hope people the memory of the American people is not so short that they fail to recall the GOP's awesome failures of the Bush years.
Many people were frustrated by what they were experiencing and decided to give the GOP a chance, simply as their only alternative.
Perhaps I'm being more optimistic than I should be but I think the Democrats would have been much worse off if the GOP could play the blame game for two more years as much as they did this year. If this had been the presidential election, Obama would have been in serious trouble, but at least now some voters may sympathize with the fact that he can't push whatever he wants through congress and everything bad that happens is in fact not the man's fault alone. I would refer to the '96 elections when the GOP resurgence of '94 actually backfired and Clinton was re-elected. But this time around Republicans crucially don't have the senate.. Perhaps the likes of Angle and O'Donnell getting their shot at the senate would have indeed been the absolute best outcome after all. Makes you wonder.

[thod]

I suspect that the problem is more fundamental than party politics. The big change is that Americans rarely speak to each other on any meaningful level. Certainly not to those who hold differing opinions to themselves. There is not the pub or cafe culture seen in Europe. Each man jumps in his car, does his days work and returns home to the TV set. He has no idea if or how the other guy is hurting. Prior to all the piped entertainment, people would mingle and talk because that was all there was to do. Each of these men thinks he understands the world. Except the world as he understands it is spoon fed to him by the news channels. Some will argue that a small talk chat at work is interaction. Yet these conversations are rarely in-depth enough to enlighten.

The result is that each man attempts to go it alone and pulls himself in living in his own little world. The right wing complains about collectivism being evil, yet sharing and caring have never been evil. There are no supermen out there. A group is always stronger than a set of individuals. This form of individualism is promoted by the rich worried that a crowd will take their wealth, the fear of all rich men. Yet America cannot continue like this because it is facing collectives from abroad. These are able to out compete America who cannot organise. A rabble against an organised army.

Americans feel entitled. They feel they have a right to good living standard just because they are American, a chosen people. Ask any of them to give up their time for a common project, or force them to do so through legislation, then they will complain about civil liberties. If they cannot cooperate, they will be conquered by outside powers. Such is as it has always been. Perhaps the answer is to remove American citizenship from them, if they do not want to cooperate, they can be outlaws.

[Angel1]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Americans feel entitled. They feel they have a right to good living standard just because they are American, a chosen people. Ask any of them to give up their time for a common project, or force them to do so through legislation, then they will complain about civil liberties. If they cannot cooperate, they will be conquered by outside powers. Such is as it has always been. Perhaps the answer is to remove American citizenship from them, if they do not want to cooperate, they can be outlaws.

See this analysis just doesn't stand when the facts are shown. American donate a lot of time to charity. A rather surprising fact is that Republicans are more likely to donate to charity and tend to donate more to charity than do Democrats. Back to American charity in general. Americans donate a lot of time, money, and other resources to charity. Food drives are big in in the US. River and Beach clean ups get large turnouts. I just don't see that your point here is valid or even true.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So we should just borrow the money from China to prop up the government payrolls? That doesn't seem like a very good solution to me. How do you propose we get those people off the government payrolls?

It's not an investment in bureaucrats; it's an investment in infrastructure and education. Temporarily it brings jobs; for the most part these will be contract workers, not payroll. And the hope is that it stabilizes the economy to the point where people and companies begin to see returns, then feel comfortable investing and eventually hiring again.

Business has already seen returns and invested them; the part that's yet to come, to some extent, is hiring. This is probably a permanent RIF of American labor, and a reflection of the fact that American labor is not particularly well-trained for the American economy. (Something that can only be glossed over with fake money generated by trading bad debt for a short time.) Which is where the investment in education comes in - and not just generic college scholarships, but specific technical and professional training better suited to workforce needs.

Under these conditions tax cuts are more likely to be saved, not spent; the "stimulus" of 2007 and 2008 should have proven that, not that we didn't already know it.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by championade To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would refer to the '96 elections when the GOP resurgence of '94 actually backfired and Clinton was re-elected. But this time around Republicans crucially don't have the senate.

I heard some commentator refer to Obama's options moving forward from here. One is the Clinton plan. Clinton re-calibrated his policies after the '94 election and ended up compromising with Republicans and benefiting from showing himself to be a reasonable and trustworthy leader.

The other strategy they referred to was the Truman plan. Truman had a wave of Republicans come in at the midterms. They picked up 55 seats, for a total of 246 in the House, and 12 in the Senate for 51 after the election. Over the next two years, he proposed and pushed for a lot of legislation that had no chance of going through. He also convinced voters that the economy would worsen under Republican control. Then he was able to lambaste the "do-nothing" Congress, and in 1948, the Democrats picked up 75 seats in the House (for 263 total) and 9 in the Senate (for 54 total). ...Not to mention Dewey famously "defeating" Truman.

I think either approach, or maybe something in between, could conceivably work for the Democrats in 2012. But they absolutely need to go on the offensive, and be proactive with whatever plan they decide to use. If they find themselves playing a reactive game, I guarantee that both houses of Congress and the White House will go to the Republicans.

[LaoTzu]

The most interesting comment I heard on the dial yesterday was that the coming legislative gridlock will do good for the economy.

What with the argument of the last 2 years being that "business is holding off because they don't know what the Gov't is going to do!".... now they will know exactly what the Government will do .... NOTHING! :D

Economic upside? Yes!


The rest of the commentary was pretty much "whatever...", and a lot of "cue the investigative teams!!" (what requires investigating I don't know...but they'll think of something)

[INTJRyan]

Originally Posted by Angel1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

See this analysis just doesn't stand when the facts are shown. American donate a lot of time to charity. A rather surprising fact is that Republicans are more likely to donate to charity and tend to donate more to charity than do Democrats. Back to American charity in general. Americans donate a lot of time, money, and other resources to charity. Food drives are big in in the US. River and Beach clean ups get large turnouts. I just don't see that your point here is valid or even true.

This is totally true. I mean, if there were no taxes, I'd give away a lot more of my income. The Charity Police Department would be awesome, charity based highway system, old people living on charity, charity health insurance, all would work better than the bureaucrats in charge now. The Federal government has never created a single job so we should drown it in a bathtub and let the captains of industry take charge. You know, like they did 2000-2006.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The most interesting comment I heard on the dial yesterday was that the coming legislative gridlock will do good for the economy.

That is interesting. If "nothing" actually does happen, and it actually benefits the business community by mitigating the risk factors, then the economy could improve to some extent within two years. If people's perception is that the economy is good, then they'll re-elect whoever is in power, like what has historically happened for the most part.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Charity Police Department would be awesome

It wouldn't have to be the Charity Police. It could be the "We won't help you unless you pay us" police. It'd be the best justice money could buy!

[darynthe]

I just wanted to mention that Palin endorsed about three dozen people who won seats in this election. I found this astounding as it seems that her resigning to her Governorship post was indeed very intelligent. Now she has made good money deals for herself, got a stage at Fox news and now she is got pwned the Republican party with all the new US elected owing her and in very friendly terms with her. She is got all the friends she needs in Washington.

I only see that she is in the best position for winning primaries. People voted mostsly for those she endorsed.

The point here is that if she runs for president with Obama she is bound to lose as most the rest of the country hates her and Obama will retain office even if he screws even more than so far. He is one lucky guy.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It wouldn't have to be the Charity Police. It could be the "We won't help you unless you pay us" police. It'd be the best justice money could buy!

Haha I always imagine a libertarian's home burning to the ground because his neighbor didn't bother to pay his monthly Fire Service Fee to FireBusters, Inc. on time.

[Mullanaphy]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Haha I always imagine a libertarian's home burning to the ground because his neighbor didn't bother to pay his monthly Fire Service Fee to FireBusters, Inc. on time.

Something like this happened recently, which is what I'm sure you're referring to. The fire station was there, to make sure the fire didn't spread to houses they were protecting.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Mullanaphy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Something like this happened recently, which is what I'm sure you're referring to. The fire station was there, to make sure the fire didn't spread to houses they were protecting.

That's what they're supposed to do.

[BlueBunnyIce]

	Originally Posted by themuzicman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Democrats are idealists. They ignore history and where ideas have been tried before and implement things because they sound good. Republicans are realists. They look at history to see what's worked before and work to preserver and implement those things, and look to see what's not worked before and stand in the way of those things.

On the contrary, I would say that both sides are idealistic. Republicans are no more realist than their Democrat counterparts. In political science ideology, Realism is the belief that national interest and security should rise above ideology and moral concerns. A prime example of Realism is Machiavelli's work "The Prince".

Republicans are not realists because if they were, Republicans would not be advocating for Democracy overseas in the Middle East seeing as how it has been nothing but detrimental to our nation's economy and overall well being.

If the Republicans had truly looked at history to see what has worked and what has not, then the tax policies under former President Bush would have never been enacted. The Keynesian theory of economics, developed due to the impact of the Great Depression, had several components that called for a creation of a stable, balanced economy. One of these underlining theories stated that, when in war or some international crisis, the country should increases taxes as to balance the budget and to fund military campaigns. During the Bush-era, taxes were cut while waging a lengthy and expensive war in Iraq, which proceeded to spill into neighboring countries. So while we were bleeding red in cash for the war, the government's revenue decreased.


Basically, both Democrats and Republicans are equally idealistic.

[Mullanaphy]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's what they're supposed to do.

Why would a libertarian fire station act differently then? They would protect their jurisdiction just as in the case that just happened recently.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Mullanaphy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why would a libertarian fire station act differently then? They would protect their jurisdiction just as in the case that just happened recently.

Because there is no incentive to pay if your neighbor will just foot the bill and you get the same protection free of charge. Which is exactly my point, and why private fire companies will never work.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because there is no incentive to pay if your neighbor will just foot the bill and you get the same protection free of charge. Which is exactly my point, and why private fire companies will never work.

I don't think you completely understand how libertarians think or their philosophy.

Assuming a community of libertarians existed, all or some of them could agree to fund a fire department. They could then establish the parameters the fire department was to operate under with the stipulation that all members of the community would be protected, or that only those who contributed financially would be protected.

In a nutshell, the libertarian point of view is about not using coercion to force someone to do something they don't want to do. The libertarian point of view is not........I'm going to take care of me and everyone else can get screwed.

[Mullanaphy]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because there is no incentive to pay if your neighbor will just foot the bill and you get the same protection free of charge. Which is exactly my point, and why private fire companies will never work.

That's not what happened in this case. The fire department let the house burn to the ground. They were there to make sure it didn't spread to the other houses that had paid.

And ditto to what hubcap said. As a libertarian I like the ability to fail if I so wish to.

[ElstonGunn]

	Originally Posted by Mullanaphy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As a libertarian I like the ability to fail if I so wish to.

That's fair. I'd even agree that you should be able to fail if you want to, or if you can't succeed, provided that you're not blatantly dragging anybody else down with you.

The part that concerns me, and I don't have an answer to this (i.e., I'm not going to argue about it) is the question of what does it cost me if you fail? I don't think we're so isolated that your success or failure has absolutely zero impact on my life.

Going back to the fire example, suppose we're neighbors. The houses are close, but not so close than there's any chance of the flames crossing from your house to mine. Your house is on fire, and maybe Firebusters, Inc. comes out, but you don't want to pay them for whatever reason. That's your choice, and it's fine. But now I've got a pile of ashes and rubble for a neighbor, which sucks for me because I was trying to sell my house, and buyers don't usually like the looks of ashes and rubble next door.

Not only that, but Firebusters has to deal with the cost of a lost sale now. It wasn't free for them to come over and watch your house burn down, so now the next time someone's house is on fire, maybe the company will figure that they should charge a little more, just to recoup their loss. I mean, anybody who's pay $1,000 to save his house would surely pay $1,500, right? Or however much they can milk his panic for.

That's my main reservation about libertarianism. I don't think people are so unconnected that they can say that their own failure (or success) affects no one other than themselves and whoever else was directly involved in the exchange.

Like I said, I don't have an answer for or against it, and I definitely am not saying this in an attempt to "disprove" libertarianism. Those kinds of arguments (Team A versus Team B, with "point deductions" for even reasonable concessions) are a waste of time.

[Arcanist]

Your fire example is ridiculous and vague. Even if we lowball the value of the home at $100k, who in their right mind would say "screw it, let it burn?" In your example we don't know how fees work or how the market is structured. Maybe in that world, home insurance companies give rate cuts to customers enrolled in fire coverage. That would make sense.

I also find it amusing that you're concerned about unintended consequences. As I recall in another thread, you place yourself on the hard left politically. Leftist policy has the potential to negatively impact scores of people who have no choice in the matter. But that's all right since those policies were implemented with gooooood intentions. Clearly, the thing to be concerned about is burnt rubble on your property.

[hubcap]

	Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's my main reservation about libertarianism. I don't think people are so unconnected that they can say that their own failure (or success) affects no one other than themselves and whoever else was directly involved in the exchange.

I would not disagree that to some point (probably impossible to quantify) the failure of an individual in some matters might have some effect on others. Perhaps that is just one of the consequences of living in society.

The larger question however, is does individual (a) have the right to place an obligation on individual (b), "just in case" (b) fails, and that failure might have an impact on (a) ?

I am not attempting to create a debate on the subject, just offering food for thought.

I think Thomas Jefferson sums it up quite well: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

The philosophy of libertarians is not perfect, but then again neither is the philosophy of modern conservatives or liberals.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by Mullanaphy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's not what happened in this case. The fire department let the house burn to the ground. They were there to make sure it didn't spread to the other houses that had paid. And ditto to what hubcap said. As a libertarian I like the ability to fail if I so wish to.

Ah. The ability to fail. What about the means to succeed? Like it or not, a lot of blood and treasure has been expended to allow you to sit behind your computer and wax nostalgic about Galt Gulch. Of course, libertarians want all that has been provided to them for free.

---------- Post added 11-04-2010 at 03:18 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think you completely understand how libertarians think or their philosophy. Assuming a community of libertarians existed, all or some of them could agree to fund a fire department.

Libertarians agreeing? They can't even come up with a comprehensible political platform, much less agree on nitty gritty details.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I can't take anyone seriously that actually espouses that we should do away with the Civil Rights Act, and that nothing will change if it is gone because the free market will take care of everything.

[Mullanaphy]

Originally Posted by ElstonGunn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

That's fair. I'd even agree that you should be able to fail if you want to, or if you can't succeed, provided that you're not blatantly dragging anybody else down with you. The part that concerns me, and I don't have an answer to this (i.e., I'm not going to argue about it) is the question of what does it cost me if you fail? I don't think we're so isolated that your success or failure has absolutely zero impact on my life. Going back to the fire example, suppose we're neighbors. The houses are close, but not so close than there's any chance of the flames crossing from your house to mine. Your house is on fire, and maybe Firebusters, Inc. comes out, but you don't want to pay them for whatever reason. That's your choice, and it's fine. But now I've got a pile of ashes and rubble for a neighbor, which sucks for me because I was trying to sell my house, and buyers don't usually like the looks of ashes and rubble next door. That's my main reservation about libertarianism. I don't think people are so unconnected that they can say that their own failure (or success) affects no one other than themselves and whoever else was directly involved in the exchange. Like I said, I don't have an answer for or against it, and I definitely am not saying this in an attempt to "disprove" libertarianism. Those kinds of arguments (Team A versus Team B, with "point deductions" for even reasonable concessions) are a waste of time.

Fair enough, however I'm on the other end. Being a libertarian doesn't mean that people isolated islands, it's ideals are for people to form contracts between them.

In your case you would probably want to live in a community that had a Home Owners Association, which would be an insurance against neighbors letting their houses deteriorate due to contractual obligations to those who wish to live in that community.

Not only that, but Firebusters has to deal with the cost of a lost sale now. It wasn't free for them to come over and watch your house burn down, so now the next time someone's house is on fire, maybe the company will figure that they should charge a little more, just to recoup their loss. I mean, anybody who's pay $1,000 to save his house would surely pay $1,500, right? Or however much they can milk his panic for.

The moment a company starts price gouging their clients, clients will begin to look elsewhere and opportunities for more competition exist.

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ah. The ability to fail. What about the means to succeed? Like it or not, a lot of blood and treasure has been expended to allow you to sit behind your computer and wax nostalgic about Galt Gulch. Of course, libertarians want all that has been provided to them for free.

The means to fail and succeed go hand in hand. To allow people to fail allows others to succeed, stopping them from failing will negatively affect others. And since when have libertarians ever wanted something for free? That is one of the most absurd claims I have heard in quite some time.