Tea Party Group Slams Rep. Waters Over 'Straight To Hell' Outburst | FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/rep-waters-tea-party-can-go-straight-to-hell/)

This is an influential Democratic congresswoman, who essentially runs unopposed every 2 years. This, from the party that claims to be open-minded and inclusive?

Look at the vitriol, the hate, that comes from the left. The vice president calls the tea partiers terrorists. They make a commercial showing Paul Ryan pushing old ladies off a cliff, because he's courageous enough to admit that Medicare needs to be fixed.

Conservatives want to talk about the merits of ideas. Liberals preach hate, because God knows they can't talk about the validity of their platform, which can be summarized thusly..."gimme, gimme, gimme!"

If a conservative thinks homosexuals will go to hell, they are labeled hate-mongers. When Maxine Waters wants tea partiers to go to hell, she gets a pass.

Look at the people of influence in this party...one hate-filled, repugnant degenerate after another. And their ideas are laughable to a 10 year-old.

And here in CT, we lose to these people. I don't get it...

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.


Senator Thurmond was a mentor and close friend to my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& who was an air force pilot during the early forties to the mid-seventies. My uncle previous to pressurized cockpits had blown a hole in his sinus cavity down through the roof of his mouth during a dive in a plane. While he was on the mend and thinking of not continuing in the air force he met Thurmond at the Univ. of Tennessee where my uncle was pursuing a (admiralty) law degree, which he did get.
Thurmond pursuaded uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& to stay in the service which he did. My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Actually what he said was "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

It was a pretty bad gaffe, although one I don't think he intended. Actually, I thought Trent Lott was a pretty good guy.

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

Anyway, Obama's only theme during the campaign was "change". If all he could promise was "change", then he doesn't get to defend himself by saying that's "politics as usual".

WHen a Republican said something offensive, Bush called him on it, in public, saying that stuff had no place in public service. When Democrats do the same thing, Obama is silent. That is, when he's not the one doing it, which he does often (the Cambridge police acted stupidly, Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, conservatives are holding the economy hostage, etc...).

I yearn for November 2012...

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

she's not alone

"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term president," Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said at a Miami town hall with constituents.

Rep. Frederica Wilson blamed "racism" for the high black unemployment rate on MSNBC yesterday.

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

While my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& was in law school in TN. during his hiatus from the air force while healing he started a flying school on campus there that #^&#^&#^&#^& said in 1995 still existed. I can't say my uncle believe in Thurmonds racist views. He never seemed bigoted to me. He was truly a very intelligent fellow.

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".
I don't think there's parity between the two comments, it has nothing to do with party.

-spence

Both/all extremes got to go now.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Who votes for these idiots anyways? I think they need a good talking to.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.



Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent and has way too much influence during the last year or so. Especially when one considers how delusional they are. Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country. The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent

THE?? minority? There's only one minority? Aren't all parties coalitions of minorities? There may be a "majority" of opinion on a given topic on which minorities can coalesce, but lockstep on all issues doesn't exist.

and has way too much influence during the last year or so.

Is "too much influence" that influence that disturbs yuor particular minority? How does a minority apply that influence--by convincing a majority to vote for its candidate or policy?

Especially when one considers how delusional they are.

Are "they" delusional because they disagree with you? Do explain this delusion, otherwise you're just name-calling.

Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country.

Ah . . . so THE majority is the middle of both parties. The middle of both parties agree with each other? On some particular policies, perhaps, but those middles are too expansive and various to see any massive agreement on what is "sane" or what is "destroying the country." "Idiots . . .sanity" more unsubstantiated name-calling.

The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?
It all depends...candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

[QUOTE=spence;884688]It all depends... this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends" candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration. See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence

Again, see your three gears.

it's apparently three gears but a one way street :uhuh:

The tea Party will costs the republicans the next election. Repbus are looking for a moderate. Dont see to have one. Milt has healthcare in Mass hanging over his head and Perry comes across as a christian fanatic. I would take Bill Clinton back in a second.

this hit my funny bone--insanity "all depends"
Doesn't it?

Nice shift away from Zimmy's unsubstantiated name-calling to what it actually depends on to verify voter insanity.
I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

I think what concerns "moderate" voters even more is the current hard to the left administration.
I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation. Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years. He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now :hihi:

See your above three gears as to how a Republican President from this group would be able to lead from the middle. If your so certain that candidates gear for the primary, shift into another gear to win the general election, and shift into the real gear to govern, why would you not be "so sure about" them governing from the middle?
That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

If this "majority" wants "to see more effective and responsible government" it might very well want a "disruptive and radical change in vector" away from the vector that has been gradually sliding away from our Constitutional foundation and is the vector that has created the unsustainable debt and constant deficit spending. And a change in vector toward our foundation would be the most "pragmatic action" to reduce spending and the deficit. And elimination of most of the unconstitutional regulatory agencies would be a factor in such reductions.
I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

-spence

yup...that and unemploment rate over 9%, a stagnant economy, record debt, a heaping pile of failed promises and bankrupt plans and an approval rating in the 30's.... Barry is really sitting pretty :uhuh: Republicans shouldn't really even bother this time around....

yup...that and unemploment rate over 9%, a stagnant economy, record debt, a heaping pile of failed promises and bankrupt plans and an approval rating in the 30's.... Barry is really sitting pretty :uhuh: Republicans shouldn't really even bother this time around....

Obama has a tough row to hoe, but then again so did Bush in 2004.

-spence

Repbus are looking for a moderate.

this is great...George Will today..."Questions for Repub. Candidates"

For Jon Huntsman: Your chief strategist, John Weaver, says the “simple reason” the GOP is “nowhere near being a national governing party” is that “no one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” Do you share your employee’s disdain for the party? Although you say the country is “crying out” for a “sensible middle ground,” you have campaigned for three months on what you say is that ground and, according to the most recent Gallup poll, your support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents is 1 percent. Are the other 99 percent cranks? Should the cranks be cranky when the Democratic National Committee distributes your attacks on Republicans under the headline “Don’t Take Our Word For It”?

this hit my funnybone--insanity "all depends"


[QUOTE=spence;884734]Doesn't it?

To a relativist everything depends on point of view. But if insanity is to be a meaningful, useful description to a diverse society, it must describe an agreed upon, verifiable condition.


I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.

I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation.

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be? What does hard to the left in immigration mean? Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left? Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left? Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left? Would spreading the wealth be hard left? Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?

Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.

He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals. Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now :hihi:

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are. We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that. A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

[QUOTE=detbuch] this hit my funnybone--insanity "all depends"



Posted by spence- That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.



Spence's view's make perfect sense as the views of someone from the "hard left".....big expansive central government, little regard for our Constitution, knows what's best for "the people" even if they resist....very troubling:uhuh:

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.
There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity :rotf2:

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be?
Pacifism.

What does hard to the left in immigration mean?
Amnesty.

Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left?
Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.
Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left?
You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left?
This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

Would spreading the wealth be hard left?
Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?
I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.
The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals.
Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above :grins:
Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.
I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?
I don't think there are that many "real liberals" out there. Certainly less than 20% of the population. Conservatives on the other hand get to enjoy much larger enrollment, which hides the reality that there are many sub-brands that at times really don't agree on much.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?
As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are.
Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals" :uhuh:

We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that.
I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.
I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;884734

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence[/QUOTE]

If "Most people" just want clean air and affordable health care, what is the risk and uncertainty of shifting the responsibility back to the States WHERE IT CONSTITUTIONALLY BELONGS? Don't "Most people" live in those states? Do you not trust those "Most people" to decide in ways that suit them rather than being dictated to by a far off clique ruled by a slight majority of representatives who have different interests? Do you really believe it is better to force a "one size fits all" approach to a population of supposedly free and diverse people?

And if most people "just want clean air", shouldn't they look to themselves to stop polluting, rather than looking to nanny to tell them to stop, and how to stop? Is nanny really that wise and all knowing? Shouldn't "Most people" know more about their problem and how to solve it than a distant nanny? If most people want legislation that prevents a recalcitrant few from polluting, shouldn't they have the power to locally decide rather than distant nanny telling them?

And if "Most people" want affordable health care, shouldn't they be doing those things that promote good health? I take little stock in someone who wants affordable health care then eats crap, wastes away before a TV, remains ignorant of anything beyond his nose, including his responsibility in a free society to provide the means to afford his "health care." To have nanny trash our rights and responsibilities to provide for such oafs is benevolent dictatorship, not Constitutional governance. And if there is a small minority that must be cared for, it should not distort the rights of the rest of us, and, again, should be left Constitutionally to the States and their localities, to decide, in their various self governing ways.

Let "Most people" come as close to self-government as the Constitution provides, rather than being governed by a small clique that distorts that Constitution to further their power. The true "center" of our country is the Constitution. It is our core, our foundation, through which we are governed, that gives us the ultimate power of self-governance, which prevents a despotic center from denying us that power. If "Most people" don't know that, and if they prefer Nanny to adulthood and self-realization, if they prefer being told and ordered to making self-governing local decisions, than the Republic is lost, and the full-fledged era of depending on the benevolence and whims of Central power is here.

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity :rotf2:

Yeah, I suppose we all suffer from that condition from time to time. Like when we elect "scary" progressives.

Pacifism.

Is pacisfism actually a foreign policy? It seems more a state of mind. Certainly, nations that we consider hard left
such as the Soviet Union, et al were not pacifist.

Amnesty.

If amnesty is a hard left policy on immigration, then your saying that all those Republicans that you keep referring to in order to justify Obama are hard left even though you say they are not lefties.

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.

It doesn't conflict with the Constitution. Various existing Federal laws do.

You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

"Even higher" tax rates than the already higher rates on the rich are defined as raising the existing rates the rich pay which are higher than the rates the non-rich pay. In the world of the possible, that is the "vector" as you put it in the direction of really high that "real lefties" want to go.

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

I asked about raising taxes, not lowering them. I certainly did not say there should be no revenue. You do, in spite of your moderate centrism, go to extremes.

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

If we are already spreading the wealth, if all tax systems spread the wealth, then it becomes a question of how much spreading is going on. When the spreading becomes a burden on wealth production, it is self-defeating. More often, individuals know how much of their wealth to spread and still remain productive, and to the degree of comfort that is desired, rather than government officials spreading other peoples wealth beyond the minimum of necessity to scary bounds in order to get votes. When it becomes government objective to spread the wealth of others, when that is seen as a role of government, rather than imposing taxes as necessary and proper to fulfill its Constitutional mandates, I think that is entering the domain of the hard left.

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Obama didn't use the exact word "lacking" but said as much when he lamented that the Constitutioin did not say what government could do for the people.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Models are not perfect. They can be a "vector" in the right direction. Most "conservatives" sorrow over Reagan's leftist misteps.

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above :grins:

It is a relative condition when it is used by relativists. Those conservatives you anonymously cite as being radical are actually espousing adherence to the Constitution. If the Constitution is our true center, our foundation as a nation, divergence from the Constitution is radical, not adherence to it. The relativists want to establish the current radical status quo as the center. They have turned our system of governance upside down--top down instead of bottom up.

I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

It wasn't the Constitutional taxes for national defense that contributed to the debt. It was the existing and then expanding unconstutional programs that required more debt. Can politicians spend too much on what they are Constitutionally allowed? Of course. That's one of the reasons for elections. But when programs and agencies are created for which the electorate has no say or recourse, the Constitution can "vector" towards moot.

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

It is not a cop out to revert to what works. The cop out is to say the Constitution is yada yada yada with respect to our current situation when it was disregard of the Constitution that got us in this current situation. And it is worse than copping out to pile on more of the same crap that got us here--as you say, it is irresponsible. But responsibililty lays at the foot of Constitutional governance. Otherwise it is governance at the whim of the moment, by untried theory. And yes, it will take time to revert to our center. But the longer we wait to change the "vector" in that direction, the longer will take, if ever.

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

Constitutional government is not ideological change. The ideological change has occured in distancing ourselves from the Constitution. Responsible government would be Constitutional governement. Government by whim of the moment is not responsible.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals" :uhuh:

Thomas Sowell's intellectuals would not subscribe to re-educating the ignorant on the fundamentals of the Constitution.

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

And how, other than following the Constitution, do you see the Federal Government acting responsibly.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

That you don't "buy it" is irrelevant. If you want to discourse on it, we might find some agreement.

Let "Most people" come as close to self-government as the Constitution provides, rather than being governed by a small clique that distorts that Constitution to further their power. The true "center" of our country is the Constitution. It is our core, our foundation, through which we are governed, that gives us the ultimate power of self-governance, which prevents a despotic center from denying us that power. If "Most people" don't know that, and if they prefer Nanny to adulthood and self-realization, if they prefer being told and ordered to making self-governing local decisions, than the Republic is lost, and the full-fledged era of depending on the benevolence and whims of Central power is here.

Well put.
I believe that "Most People" are not ninnies
wanting to be taken care of by nannies.
Except for the east and west coast elites.

Well put.
I believe that "Most People" are not ninnies
wanting to be taken care of by nannies.
Except for the east and west coast elites.

Most people are complacent and accept it as the status quo.

no dodge ball, no paper airplanes, etc..

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

How does the consolidation of wealth and the influence of industry on our governments behavior today limit how free individuals really could be? Wealth has always been "consolidated" and our government has always been influenced by "industry." So have all governments. Great wealth was consolidated in the hands of a few when the Constitution was written. The Revolution, to a great degree was financed by the manipulations and even by the personal fortune of one of the richest Americans at the time, Robert Morris. Many of the founders were quite wealthy. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the Constitution garanteed to individuals was not anti-wealth consolidation. Property and the right to it was one of, if not the most important, reason for the Revolution. The right to have it and dispose of it as wished. The Constitution and the form of government therein attempted to garantee individuals the freedom to pursue that which they were capable of, and even that which they weren't. But it didn't garantee the outcome. You have the right to fail. But there was no obligation on other individuals to rescue you from your failure. It is obvious that most do not have the ability, nor the desire to be filthy rich.

And material wealth does not simply exist. It has to be created. There have been extremely wealthy and powerful corporations in the past. What's considered the first major corporation, the British East India Company, was wealthier than the British Government and ruled India for 100 years. The so-called Robber Barrons in our history had great concentrated wealth and power. They also expanded American wealth and power. Some modern governments (i.e. Marxist) have attemped to create wealth in the form of jobs, income, economies, but haven't been good at it. Maybe it's in the genes. Maybe there is DNA for busines and DNA for politics. Wealth creators distribute wealth in ways that allow individuals in our Constitutional system to empower themselves. Government's redistribution of that wealth seems to nurture more dependence than independence. Our government is wealthier and more powerful than any corporation or industry. It has more influence on business than business does on it. Our system requires virtue as much as industriousness, and the lack of virtue in our politics is not fostered by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution and its form of government is weakened by lack of virtue. The freedom the Constitution garantees to individuals does not garantee equal outcomes, nor equal wealth, nor does it deny great wealth, nor does great wealth of a few deny others the right to pursue that of which they are capable. Most of us, in the "spectrum" of possibilites, do not have the "genes" to accomplish great things on the extremes of the spectrum. There are a few that can. They also are garanteed the right of that pursuit. If we are virtuous, we need not fear the rich . . . or the government. Without virtue, the latter is the most dangerous.

If the obstacle to the government of, by, and for the people is the consolidation of wealth and its influence, what is most curious, is the fear of the Tea Party. What consolidation of wealth does the Tea Party have? It's motivation is the restoration of that Constitutional government of, by, and for the people. And it strives against loss of individual freedom imposed not only by the power of money, but especially that imposed by the power of government.

Originally Posted by spence
the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be


"positive vision of freedom"...... individuals can only be really free if a nanny state government is providing their needs and directing their actions

I guess real freedom would be the "negative vision of freedom"...in lib speak

How does the consolidation of wealth and the influence of industry on our governments behavior today limit how free individuals really could be? Wealth has always been "consolidated" and our government has always been influenced by "industry." So have all governments. Great wealth was consolidated in the hands of a few when the Constitution was written. The Revolution, to a great degree was financed by the manipulations and even by the personal fortune of one of the richest Americans at the time, Robert Morris. Many of the founders were quite wealthy. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the Constitution garanteed to individuals was not anti-wealth consolidation. Property and the right to it was one of, if not the most important, reason for the Revolution. The right to have it and dispose of it as wished. The Constitution and the form of government therein attempted to garantee individuals the freedom to pursue that which they were capable of, and even that which they weren't. But it didn't garantee the outcome. You have the right to fail. But there was no obligation on other individuals to rescue you from your failure. It is obvious that most do not have the ability, nor the desire to be filthy rich.

And material wealth does not simply exist. It has to be created. There have been extremely wealthy and powerful corporations in the past. What's considered the first major corporation, the British East India Company, was wealthier than the British Government and ruled India for 100 years. The so-called Robber Barrons in our history had great concentrated wealth and power. They also expanded American wealth and power. Some modern governments (i.e. Marxist) have attemped to create wealth in the form of jobs, income, economies, but haven't been good at it. Maybe it's in the genes. Maybe there is DNA for busines and DNA for politics. Wealth creators distribute wealth in ways that allow individuals in our Constitutional system to empower themselves. Government's redistribution of that wealth seems to nurture more dependence than independence. Our government is wealthier and more powerful than any corporation or industry. It has more influence on business than business does on it. Our system requires virtue as much as industriousness, and the lack of virtue in our politics is not fostered by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution and its form of government is weakened by lack of virtue. The freedom the Constitution garantees to individuals does not garantee equal outcomes, nor equal wealth, nor does it deny great wealth, nor does great wealth of a few deny others the right to pursue that of which they are capable. Most of us, in the "spectrum" of possibilites, do not have the "genes" to accomplish great things on the extremes of the spectrum. There are a few that can. They also are garanteed the right of that pursuit. If we are virtuous, we need not fear the rich . . . or the government. Without virtue, the latter is the most dangerous.

If the obstacle to the government of, by, and for the people is the consolidation of wealth and its influence, what is most curious, is the fear of the Tea Party. What consolidation of wealth does the Tea Party have? It's motivation is the restoration of that Constitutional government of, by, and for the people. And it strives against loss of individual freedom imposed not only by the power of money, but especially that imposed by the power of government.

Sorry, I've been on the road a lot and focused on pithy responses.

Continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power. If the elected officials are overly influenced by the powerful rather than leading in the interests of their constituents - which is what we've seen by both parties - then the system will get out of whack...which it clearly is. Perhaps it's always been out of whack but it's not often you hear someone remark that if only it was left to the States we'd be rid of this issue. Same play...different venue.

Government may hold more net influence over business, but only as much as what influence government holds is largely a product of business in the first place. The relationship between regulators and lobbyists today is like that of matter and energy. It's just a succession of manipulators working to rig the game in their favor.

To this end I don't think the Tea Party influence on the Republican party is pushing reform, rather, they appear to be promoting destruction of historic institutions (SS: Perry=ponsi / Romney=institution) that are relied upon day to day (i.e. government is the problem). Absurdly rigid calls to minimize taxation (cutting taxes under a deficit is still spending mind you) and regulation during a time of large deficits and continued corporate abuse doesn't seem to be in line with what the people want...quite simply, I just think people want an effective and responsible Federal government...not the removal of government. People want an environment where business can grow, but not one where businesses are free to pollute and strong arm the consumer in the name of freedom.

We've entered a period where wealth isn't just being created (to be distributed)... increasingly it is being siphoned off and concentrated through an economy driven by speculation which favors the wealthy. The recent numbers on poverty right here at home are a stark reminder.

Wealth doesn't just trickle down (voodoo economics), those on the lower rungs of the ladder have to be able to reach for it. Do we rely on individual states alone to provide for education or infrastructure when the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed to compete in a global marketplace?

Perhaps it's precisely because the Federal Government has overstepped it's strict Constitutional mandate that has allowed us to become what we have. The most powerful nation in the world and one also with substantial problems.

So much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from or does everyone need to be "reeducated"? That sounds like progressive thinking to me...

-spence

Sorry, I've been on the road a lot and focused on pithy responses.

Continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power.

How much more power do the wealthy have now than in the past? Isn't there a point of diminishing returns of power when you reach a certain level of wealth?

If the elected officials are overly influenced by the powerful rather than leading in the interests of their constituents - which is what we've seen by both parties - then the system will get out of whack...which it clearly is. Perhaps it's always been out of whack but it's not often you hear someone remark that if only it was left to the States we'd be rid of this issue. Same play...different venue.

If elected officials are overly influenced it's because they are corrupt, it's not because the sytem is "out of whack." That the system is "out of whack" is not because of influence, but because it has been, to a great degree, abandoned. As I said above, our Constitutional system, as do most others, requires virtue. Not only do "officials" lack virtue when they are "overly influenced," but they are corrupt when they subvert the Constitution--the law by which they are granted authority. And the corruption of influence far more easily reaches ALL when it reaches us through an overly powerful Central Government rather than having to go through 50 sovereign States where it may well not be the same play.

Government may hold more net influence over business, but only as much as what influence government holds is largely a product of business in the first place.

Were that it were so. The Federal govt. has, through its false "interpretations" of the Constitution, garnered the power to dictate to business in ways never intended and ways that are not a product of business, but of ideology.

The relationship between regulators and lobbyists today is like that of
matter and energy. It's just a succession of manipulators working to rig the game in their favor.

Always was and will be. Virtue and Constitutional governance will not belay this process, nor will unconstitutional Centralized governance which, actually, makes this corruption more far reaching and effective.

To this end I don't think the Tea Party influence on the Republican party is pushing reform, rather, they appear to be promoting destruction of historic institutions (SS: Perry=ponsi / Romney=institution) that are relied upon day to day (i.e. government is the problem). Absurdly rigid calls to minimize taxation (cutting taxes under a deficit is still spending mind you) and regulation during a time of large deficits and continued corporate abuse doesn't seem to be in line with what the people want...quite simply, I just think people want an effective and responsible Federal government...not the removal of government. People want an environment where business can grow, but not one where businesses are free to pollute and strong arm the consumer in the name of freedom.


The Tea Party does want to reform our unconstitutional mode and devolve power back to the States and the people. I don't know of a Tea Party push to "destroy" Social Security. Reforming it is not destroying it. Those who have it now will have it. For the rest, if it is not reformed to a self-sustaining insurance program, it will self-destruct under its own impossible weight. Tea Partiers are not against effective and responsible Federal govt. They believe it is most effectively responsible when it acts within its granted powers, and that it is illegally irresponsible when it governs outside those powers. That is not destructive or radical, it is responsible and legal. All this blather about deficits and taxes to pay for them is giving power to illegal confiscation to pay for illegal debts. An excuse for the expansion of government thievery. And the notion that only the Federal govt. can stop pollution is absurd. It is the Federal govt. that is strong-arming the consumer with its illegal regulations and mandates (e.g. health care mandate).

We've entered a period where wealth isn't just being created (to be distributed)... increasingly it is being siphoned off and concentrated through an economy driven by speculation which favors the wealthy. The recent numbers on poverty right here at home are a stark reminder.


The Federal govt. has been an intrinsic part of this mix with its regulations and mandates. It certainly has fostered greater numbers on poverty with those regs and mandates.

Wealth doesn't just trickle down (voodoo economics), those on the lower rungs of the ladder have to be able to reach for it.

Reaching for it and creating it are not the same. It must be created before it can be reached for, you can't reach for something that doesn't exist. How you reach for it depends on you and your ability. Most are able to get a job within a wealth structure, which redistributes some of that wealth. Some can create collateral entities that tap into that wealth structure. These create needs for infrastructure, expansion of services--more gas stations, food marts, housing, etc. The lower rungs generally not only have the ability to "reach for it," but are a necessary adjunct to the process.

Do we rely on individual states alone to provide for education or infrastructure when the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed to compete in a global marketplace?

The individual States provide for 90 percent of the cost of education. The portion that the Federal govt. provides is not for education as much as it is for the opportunity to mandate and regulate. The States, without the Central interference, could create a more diverse array of systems that could influence each other. If the idea that "the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed" by a Central power is not frightening, it is certainly restrictive. The "marketplace" needs to be unleashed, for good or ill, to most effectively create and distribute wealth.


Perhaps it's precisely because the Federal Government has overstepped it's strict Constitutional mandate that has allowed us to become what we have. The most powerful nation in the world and one also with substantial problems.

We were well on the way to becoming the most powerful nation before the Constitution was corrupted. It is not "precisely" because of that corruption, but because the Constitution assured the individual freedom to create that power.


So much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from or does everyone need to be "reeducated"? That sounds like progressive thinking to me...

-spence

I thought that so much of how we live today was a system "out of whack" which is not the "fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatlsm is woven from." Education is not outside the thought of conservatism. Where did you get such an idea?

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the Constitution :confused:

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the Constitution :confused:

Maybe I have Constitution Tourrettes.

On the other hand, I have this stubborn idea that governments to be "official," to be recognized by its citizens, need a plan, a set of principles by which they will function. Government by osmosis or whim, by spur of the moment confection, on the run, or with the runs, may have appeal to some, but such forms just don't seem "fair" or right or even workable to me. In my backward view, I don't understand how giving a few men with agendas carte blanche to decide what is "responsible" will create legislation suitable to a diverse population of free individuals. What is the principle behind respecting one man's idea of responsible versus that of another. The Constitution does give a detailed definition of powers within the government and the ruling procedures work regardless of personal agendas. It limits the "governers" to certain duties and powers which protect us individuals from aspiring dictators or public moods and trends of the moment. It protects us from the tyranny of the majority. It is a system of limited government, not a codex of law, so is not dependant on the advancement of time and technology. That is, it is not subject to being dated--old, worn out, not relevant to "today." It is not living, breathing. If it were, it would be subject to the limit of time and death. No one has come up with a better, more relevant to today plan, or one that has worked as well or better,so I keep mentioning it.

Maybe I have Constitution Tourrettes.



maybe:)....seems that many today view the Constitution in much the same way that a criminal views the law(s)....

How much more power do the wealthy have now than in the past? Isn't there a point of diminishing returns of power when you reach a certain level of wealth?
I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

If elected officials are overly influenced it's because they are corrupt, it's not because the sytem is "out of whack." That the system is "out of whack" is not because of influence, but because it has been, to a great degree, abandoned. As I said above, our Constitutional system, as do most others, requires virtue. Not only do "officials" lack virtue when they are "overly influenced," but they are corrupt when they subvert the Constitution--the law by which they are granted authority. And the corruption of influence far more easily reaches ALL when it reaches us through an overly powerful Central Government rather than having to go through 50 sovereign States where it may well not be the same play.
I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Were that it were so. The Federal govt. has, through its false "interpretations" of the Constitution, garnered the power to dictate to business in ways never intended and ways that are not a product of business, but of ideology.
...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Always was and will be. Virtue and Constitutional governance will not belay this process, nor will unconstitutional Centralized governance which, actually, makes this corruption more far reaching and effective.
And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

The Tea Party does want to reform our unconstitutional mode and devolve power back to the States and the people. I don't know of a Tea Party push to "destroy" Social Security. Reforming it is not destroying it. Those who have it now will have it. For the rest, if it is not reformed to a self-sustaining insurance program, it will self-destruct under its own impossible weight. Tea Partiers are not against effective and responsible Federal govt. They believe it is most effectively responsible when it acts within its granted powers, and that it is illegally irresponsible when it governs outside those powers. That is not destructive or radical, it is responsible and legal. All this blather about deficits and taxes to pay for them is giving power to illegal confiscation to pay for illegal debts. An excuse for the expansion of government thievery. And the notion that only the Federal govt. can stop pollution is absurd. It is the Federal govt. that is strong-arming the consumer with its illegal regulations and mandates (e.g. health care mandate).
My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

The Federal govt. has been an intrinsic part of this mix with its regulations and mandates. It certainly has fostered greater numbers on poverty with those regs and mandates.
Certainly?

Reaching for it and creating it are not the same. It must be created before it can be reached for, you can't reach for something that doesn't exist. How you reach for it depends on you and your ability. Most are able to get a job within a wealth structure, which redistributes some of that wealth. Some can create collateral entities that tap into that wealth structure. These create needs for infrastructure, expansion of services--more gas stations, food marts, housing, etc. The lower rungs generally not only have the ability to "reach for it," but are a necessary adjunct to the process.
I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

The individual States provide for 90 percent of the cost of education. The portion that the Federal govt. provides is not for education as much as it is for the opportunity to mandate and regulate. The States, without the Central interference, could create a more diverse array of systems that could influence each other. If the idea that "the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed" by a Central power is not frightening, it is certainly restrictive. The "marketplace" needs to be unleashed, for good or ill, to most effectively create and distribute wealth.
Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better off.

We were well on the way to becoming the most powerful nation before the Constitution was corrupted. It is not "precisely" because of that corruption, but because the Constitution assured the individual freedom to create that power.
You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I thought that so much of how we live today was a system "out of whack" which is not the "fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatlsm is woven from." Education is not outside the thought of conservatism. Where did you get such an idea?
Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence

let's update liberalism and progressivism as well...how about Counter-American :uhuh:

I think you'd have to look at historical situations and not just one measurement. Today, I see the numbers showing dramatic wealth growth in the past three decades among only the top 4% and ask why and what's the impact?

What does this have to do with "the continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power"? What is the impact? Is there more "power" after a certain amount of wealth is achieved? Does limitless wealth achieve limitless power? Are the super wealthy responsible for the National debt and budget deficits? Are they bribing "officials" to go into debt? Don't super wealthy people and politicians get convicted and jailed on such counts of collusion? And how has the Federal Government's unconstitutional grab of power stopped this? Hasn't this dramatic wealth growth occurred during the Federal Government expansion?

I'm sure a lot of bad decisions are made with plenty of virtue. Is a Republican representative from Ohio who advocates spending for jet engines the military says they don't need lacking virtue? Perhaps they're just trying to create jobs for their constituents.

Yes, a lot of "bad decisions" were made because Congressmen and Presidents and Supreme Court Justices thought they were acting "responsibly." Or because they were looking out for the interests of their constituents. Yet, rather than being restricted by Constitutional limits, you prefer that the Congress and the Executive are allowed to do whatever they deem "responsible." If they act Constitutionally, they are limited in power to act and, for the most part, the electorate has the power to remove them. When the Central Government assumes powers Constitutionally delegated to the States and the People, it is not possible for States in the minority to avoid the illegal imposition cast on them by Representatives of States with the majority of electoral votes. Often the majority of States are ruled by a minority against rights granted to them by the Constitution. Even more egregious is the unconstitutional creation of regulatory agencies that have plenary power to create de facto legislation against which none of the people have the power to reject. All in the name of acting "responsibly."

While I'd agree that breaking up influence among the states has merit, I'd also think the influence of large multi-national corporations -- who's revenues exceed many state governments -- could potentially be worse at the state level.

Again, the equation of money and power. Actually, it is the States that are granted police power by the Constitution. That power and the power granted to individuals by the Constitution can combine to allow such corporations to operate beneficially to the State--far more so than the Federal Government dictating where and how they can operate.

...or observation. Many regulations are a response to abuses of the public trust.

Again, the States are closer to the public trust in their communities than the Federal Government. The powers reserved to the States by the Constitution better serve them in responding to their public trust than the Federal Government dictating to their local publlic from afar and with differing agendas and interests.

And why I usually advocate a balanced approach.

How does a nebulous, non-existing balanced approach make it harder for lobbyists to approach the Central government than it would be for them to approach all the individual States and their communities? It seems that it would be easier to bribe or influence a few than many.

My assertion is that an overly aggressive move to limit the Federal government (ideologically) given how our current Government operates will serve to further concentrate power and wealth resulting in less power for the people.

Again you refer to Constitutional governance as "ideological." You'll have to explain that concept. The unconstitutional way our current Government operates does serve to further concentrate power and wealth. Such power and wealth concentration furthering has occurred during expanded Federal power. And the concept that greater government power results in greater power for the people also needs to be explained.

Certainly?

Yes.

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

Yes, but most are not capable of or not interested in reaching for real wealth. Those that are create the wealth that others tap into. Come on Spence, India and China! We were blessed with a tradition of English law and a culture that fostered business. But we also were born as a country into individual freedom and responsibility and a culture of business and free enterprise. And we rejected Britain's protection and defunct government subsidized colonial companies. India and China have much culturally and pollitically to overcome in order for their people to produce individual wealth. And China is funding its economic growth on its hugely imbalanced trade with us and by inviting corporations to set up shop there under its conditions including a majority of Chinese managers to run the operations and the transfer of technology to those managers. If China grants the individual freedoms we originally had to its citizens, it might economically swamp us, especially if we continue to overregulate and control our population.

Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better of

Any change in attitude toward "their own poor" has mostly occurred as a result in overall societal change. Progress does occur. Federal politicians aren't more humane that State pols. The Feds did come from the States. See Scott's comment below for how better off Fed spending has made the poor.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.

I know it as well as you don't. Besides, being the strongest nation in the world is not the point of Constitutional Governance. At the time of the Revolution, Britain was the strongest nation in the world. We preferred our freedom and our Constitution to Britain's strength.

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated? I'd call it neo-conservatism but that name is taken.

-spence

Labels can be pointless. Your "so much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from" is mysterious if not pointless. Is neo-conservatism that mundane fabric? Didn't you say in another thread that conservatism meant to conserve? How does accepting a current norm become conserving? Don't norms change? I would think that a conservative, one who conserves, would conserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and its form of government.

[QUOTE=spence;888127
Most of the Federal spending towards education goes to the underprivileged...precisely because the states weren't taking care of their own poor...if we could have only let them fail we'd probably all be a lot better off.

-spence[/QUOTE]

no, I'm pretty sure it goes mostly to teachers and unions, those "underpriviledged" areas have some of the highest per student costs as well as the poorest results....they are failing...

but at least the feds have taken on the responsibility of feeding ALL students in these "underprivledged" districts...otherwise we might have massive student starvation on our hands

For Immediate Release
June 22, 2011

Illinois selected to Expand Access to Free School Meals for Children in Need
Community Eligibility Option provides free lunch and eliminates household eligibility applications in high poverty schools
SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois State Board of Education announced today that Illinois was one of the first three states, along with Kentucky and Tennessee, selected for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s launch of a universal free meal option that promises to expand access to free breakfast and lunch to all students in schools with high percentages of low-income children. Preliminary estimates show that more than 1,200 public schools in Illinois could be eligible to participate and provide free meals to more than 500,000 students across the state at the onset of the 2011-12 school year.

“This option eliminates some of the paperwork for schools with a high percentage of students from low income families and ensures that all students have access to the nutrition they need to concentrate and learn in the classroom,” said State Superintendent of Education Christopher A. Koch. “Parents will not have to fill out duplicative forms and children in need will have access to healthy school meals without being singled out for receiving a free lunch.”
..................

"It's great that President Obama cares so much about us and our children that he has taken on his shoulders our most daunting tasks as parents which include such difficult and tiresome responsibilities like filling out forms and feeding our children, God Bless Obama....Hope and Change is real, and it is happening!!!" Anonymous Obamoron

"4 More Years....4 More years!!!!!"

Perhaps conservatism needs to be updated?

-spence

No need to update as it always means the same, "keep what's good."

I'd argue it's the "action of reaching" that actually creates the real wealth. Recently India and China are perfect examples, although in both instances their governments provide heavy subsidies. The US certainly has had this spirit...

Choosing China as a perfect example of wealth creation may explain why you seem to prefer large centralized government to a federally dispersed republic in which government is by consent of the people and in which individual freedom is the source and object of power. China may be trying to mimic capitalistic free market methods to raise standards of living, but it is doing so in a very top down controlled way. If we in the US were "allowed" to "reach" for wealth via the Chinese government's method, it would not only quash consolidation of wealth, but severly limit the distribution of wealth to "the people." And if the "spirit" of America was government subsidy, we may well have never got to a point where the government was wealthy enough to distribute subsidization. And now that it is, I suppose you think it would be wise to mimic the Chinese method.

You really don't know that...what I do know is that the choices that have been made have worked out pretty well overall considering all the issues we do currently face.


-spence

Yes, I believe rather than know that individual freedom is the driving force of our power. I believe that power derived from government control creates strong governments, not strong people. Our Revolution broke from the history of government over people to government by the people. I believe that is what catapulted America to superior economic power. We could have comfortably remained within the monarchy, but we preferred freedom, and that changed the world. And the true strength of our system is not merely economic, but our greater control of our own lives, which makes us, of necessity, a stronger people. And as long as we are jealous of that freedom, we will willingly band together to protect it. But as we gradually give over our individual power to the collective power of government, we become individually weaker and the government becomes stronger over a weaker country. And the weaker we become as individuals, the greater becomes the siren call of that stronger government to "subsidize" us. Maybe we can become more like China.