I assume a global economic award will alongside the Nobel Peace Prize any day now!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, in anoher thread which you are hiding from, you mentioned that the GOP clearly isn't interested in the best interests of our country.

Jim, you first have to understand that you and Spence see the best interests of our country from different perspectives. You look at it from a "conservative" and somewhat to mostly constitutional point of view. He sees it from a so-called "centrist" mostly progressive position which believes that the Constitution has outlived its usefulness.

Progressives have faith in government to rule in a much more powerful way than the Constitution prescribes. They essentially believe that societal good derives through government, and that the concept of "individual sovereignty" is not only highly overrated, but a fiction that stands in the way of efficient government--that individual rights only come from the grant of government and the "best interests of our country" are therefor served by government.

So Spence, since Obama's only financial proposal calls for billions in tax hikes, no spending cuts, INCREASED spending in the form of another stimulus, and unilateral power to Obama to raise the debt ceiling

The cost of government largesse, both to individuals and to groups or communities, must not be viewed as businesses or as individuals view cost, but as what is necessary to maintain and expand that largesse. The appropriate cost is whatever it takes. And what is best for our country must be left to government, not individuals. As John Dewey, one of the founders of the progressive movement stated in his essay LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL ACTION:

"The only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled and used in the interest of the effective liberty and the cultural development of the individuals that constitute society. Such a social order cannot be established by an unplanned and external convergence of the actions of separate individuals each of whom is bent on personal private advantage . . . Organized social planning, put into effect for the creation of an order in which industry and finance are socially directed in behalf of institutions that provide the material basis for the cultural liberation and growth of individuals, is now the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims."

(who cares about checks and balances, anyway)...please Spence, enlighten me, tell me how Obama's proposal represents our best interests?

Good luck.

Progressives not only don't care about checks and balances, they absolutely see them as an impediment to good governance. As Woodrow Wilson said in his essay WHAT IS PROGRESS:

"The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of 'checks and balances.' The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing . . . It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live."

They have managed to create a more unitary, centralized, form of government over the years from Wilson, especially FDR, LBJ, and now Obama, with all the lesser progressives of both parties in between. Even the SCOTUS has been brought into the sphere of one centralized government. The FDR court in 1938 introduced the idea of different levels of scrutiny to apply to the cases brought before it: strict scrutiny; intermediate scrutiny; and rational basis test (minimal scrutiny). It was not intended, originally for the Court to have this latitude. This, as well as newer methodologies of "interpretation" were introduced over the years and encouraged by progressive law schools so that the Court has not only rubber stamped legislation that once would have been unconstitutional, but it has also become part of the legislative process acting in accord or supplementary to the Congress. You may have noticed the decision on Obamacare? The Constitution is mostly paid lip service, and the Federal Government, rather than three branches that check and balance one another, has become a more unitary system which really has no legal restraints.

Which is all to say that what Obama is doing, according to progressives, is in the best interests of the country, no matter what the costs and by phrasing the argument that the Repubs are for the rich hearkens back to another Wilsonian progressive idea that the wealthy have too much power by which they can control the levers of government. He said in WHAT IS PROGRESS:

"By tyranny, as we now fight it, we mean control of the law, of legislation and adjudication, by organizations which do not represent the people . . . we mean the alliance, for this purpose, of political machines with selfish business."

This message has been pounded into our consciousness over the years by the left so that it has become an obvious truth that individual wealth is a threat to the liberty of the people, and it must be checked, and its "excessive" properties must be redistributed to the rest of us. And the formula that leads to the repetition (if you repeat a lie often enough . . .) was outlined by Wilson in his STUDY OF ADMINISTRATION:

"Whoever would effect a change in modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want SOME change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then to see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way."

Obama has successfully done that. And however much it costs to transform society in the best interests which the people have been persuaded to want, that cost must somehow be provided, not diminished.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Progressives not only don't care about checks and balances, they absolutely see them as an impediment to good governance. As Woodrow Wilson said in his essay WHAT IS PROGRESS:

"The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of "checks and balances. The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing . . . It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs soffset against each other as checks and live. They have managed to create a more unitary, centralized, form of government over the years from Wilson, especially FDR, LBJ, and now Obama, with all the lesser progressives of both parties in between.

I also look at things through the lens of common sense. And as a result, one of my convictions is that you can't spend more than there is. Spence works in finance (I'm told), so he must also know this. Yet he pretends not to believe that when a Democrat endorses spending more than there is. And that's what I don't get.

Detbuch, this particular argument isn't about political ideology...it's about 5th grade arithmetic. If a kid's lemonade stand has to borrow 20 years' of revenue to make one years' worth of lemonade, then a child knows you don't open up the stand.

It's. That. Simple.

Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin of Illinois is the #2 ranking Democrat in the senate. This week, he said we don't need to address Social Security in these fiscal talks, since Social Security isn't adding to our deficit.

And my side loses to these people. Sen Durbin practically runs un-opposed. He says things this stupid, and he gets re-elected again and again.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I also look at things through the lens of common sense.

Progressives don't look through that lens. Common sense is too mundane and unschooled. It misses the intricacies that intellectuals, technocracts, and various "experts" create.

And as a result, one of my convictions is that you can't spend more than there is. Spence works in finance (I'm told), so he must also know this. Yet he pretends not to believe that when a Democrat endorses spending more than there is. And that's what I don't get.

Progressives have latched on to their version of Keynesianism in which government spending does create more than there is.

Detbuch, this particular argument isn't about political ideology...it's about 5th grade arithmetic. If a kid's lemonade stand has to borrow 20 years' of revenue to make one years' worth of lemonade, then a child knows you don't open up the stand.

It's. That. Simple.

Political ideology is at the heart of progressive government spending, and of looking at it beyond 5th grade arithmetic. Progressives either truly believe, or they want to believe, in the complexity of high government finance as separate from market finance. In their most innocuous beliefs, they see government regulation of the market and gvt. spending as beneficial to the market. As they progress to more mischievious behavior, they also see it, and taxation, etc., as a means to redistribute wealth. And the more the market can be controlled, even replaced by nationalization, which is the
direction of hard-line progressives, the better it is for society. How else can you explain the amassing of unsustainable debt? Spence has said several times that gvt. merely needs to be more responsible. Progressives ARE, in their minds, acting responsibly in their profligate spending. And any crises that may happen due to spending, or anything else, just give them more justification and power to "fix" them in their own, illimitable way.

Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin of Illinois is the #2 ranking Democrat in the senate. This week, he said we don't need to address Social Security in these fiscal talks, since Social Security isn't adding to our deficit.

And my side loses to these people. Sen Durbin practically runs un-opposed. He says things this stupid, and he gets re-elected again and again.

You have to understand the intricacies of their fiscal methods. Which really are not so much fiscal as they are ideological. See the rest of my post for further elucidation. You jumped in before I edited it with further comment.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I also look at things through the lens of common sense. And as a result, one of my convictions is that you can't spend more than there is. Spence works in finance (I'm told), so he must also know this. Yet he pretends not to believe that when a Democrat endorses spending more than there is. And that's what I don't get.

Detbuch, this particular argument isn't about political ideology...it's about 5th grade arithmetic.

it's exactly about ideaology, if it were about arithmetic there would be no argument....

Detbuch said ..."Progressives ARE, in their minds, acting responsibly "....so are suicide bombers, rational people will never understand them ....asking why, why, why?...and demanding an answer will never result in a sufficient answer....understanding the history that many Progressives themselves barely seem to know helps in understanding how this Progressive religion has evolved and why the thinking has you so exacerbated, most Progressives have only recently jumped on the bandwagon hypnotized by the rhetoric of their Philosopher Kings and drunk with the perceived power and unseen knowledge created by an adherence to this false logic and inclusion in the cult and have almost no understanding of the movement that they profess to represent...note that their slick talking leaders are in perpetual campaign mode(creating world record carbon footprints) building "faith"among the masses preaching what seems counterintuitive to Americans rooted in the principles and ideals that this country was founded on but to them, this religion is The Way and they smugly carry on day in and day out preaching to their supplicants, have you watched any of the mainstream media "journalism" ?...it's consists of little more than a mindless recitation of administration wish list propoganda on the relevant daily subjects...there is no thought involved.....this helps explain the reason that you get the most detailed and vociferous claims on some subjects, but on other very simple subjects...like math...you get crickets chirping(or even more clever, you are told that you aren't smart enough to understand their little secret )....reciting talking points is not thinking and asking someone who is skilled at reciting talking points but not so skilled at thinking or whose thinking is so clouded by a foreign ideaology or adherence to a religious cause that responses often turn logic on it's head is only an exercise in futility and a source of irritation.....for you ...............


'We have now an American political party and a European one. Not all Americans who vote for the European party want to become Europeans. But it doesn't matter because that's what they're voting for. They're voting for dependency, for lack of ambition, and for insolvency." -Harvey Mansfield