The Liberal Empire strikes back

Cal Thomas's picture

The Left apparently has taken to heart the admonition of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

In the aftermath of the Tucson tragedy that killed six and wounded 14 others, the Left has attacked talk radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and anyone else it can smear. Never mind there is not a shred of evidence that the accused gunman, the mentally disturbed Jared Lee Loughner, ever watched Glenn Beck or listened to Rush Limbaugh (Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat, irresponsibly suggested Limbaugh incited Loughner).

Even if Loughner had watched and listened to conservative media, what does that prove? Millions do, but they don’t go on a shooting rampage. What do other murderers and terrorists watch on TV or listen to on the radio? Why isn’t the media they consume a matter of interest? Answer: Because it doesn’t further the Left’s agenda.

Since the Left lost its monopoly of the U.S. media, it has repeatedly tried to suppress speech it doesn’t like. Thus, we hear calls by Democratic Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina for the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine. Rep. Robert Brady, Pennsylvania Democrat, reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or that incites violence against a federal official or member of Congress. Who would police that and based on what standard?

In the 1980s when conservative groups tried to “clean up” the bad language, sexual references and violence on TV, the Left cried “censorship.” When conservatives campaigned against pornography and “music” that encouraged violence against women and racial epithets, they were told a healthy First Amendment required that even the most offensive speech be tolerated. It was the same argument used to allow the burning of the American flag at political protests.

But the Left is intolerant of speech it disagrees with and so wishes to censor what it cannot overcome with superior argument.

Eric Burns wrote a book titled “Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.”

Compared to 18th-century journalism in America, today’s media are tame. Burns writes of the Gazette of the United States (born on April 15, 1789, while the Constitution was being ratified) that its editor, John Fenno, was an ardent supporter of the federalism represented by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Fenno’s newspaper served as a counterweight to the Republican slant of the National Gazette.

Burns sums up Fenno’s journalistic philosophy: “He would cajole his readers, deceive them when necessary, rile them when advisable; he would praise public officials and other newspaper editors who agreed with his positions and drub those who did not, assailing their intelligence, their character, their patriotism; and he would publish the records of legislative proceedings that advanced the federalist agenda while either ignoring or deriding or sometimes even falsifying documents to the contrary.”

Such things were to be found on the “news” pages, not the opinion page. Entire newspapers were opinion pages. To have a page designated “opinion” would have been redundant.

The 1790s were, according to historian John Ferling, “one of America’s most passionate decades.” The nation’s journalism, notes Burns, could not help but reflect the heat.

One paper, named the Philadelphia Aurora, engaged in what Burns describes as “journalistic savagery ... not caring about accuracy or even the illusion of it.” The Aurora published a series of letters supposedly written by George Washington while he was encamped at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-1778. The letters “portrayed Washington as a lukewarm patriot at best, a loyal subject of George III at worst, and at least a skeptic concerning independence.”

It would have been a great story if true, but Washington wrote no such letters. That didn’t bother Benjamin Franklin Bache (Ben Franklin’s grandson and the owner of the Aurora), who was not about to retract something that served his anti-Washington political ends.

Journalism survived, even displaying responsibility on occasion. The public can sort out the good from the bad and ugly. They don’t need politicians doing it for them.

[Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist, appearing in more than 600 national newspapers. He is the author of more than 10 books and is a FOX News political contributor since 1997. Email Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.] ©2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Rahm Emanuel
Cal Thomas wrote:

The Left apparently has taken to heart the admonition of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”.

It seems that he got thumped by the court ruling yesterday. It will be interesting to see how his appeal will snake its way through the legal system.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Rahm Emanuel

First, I do not think anyone who is appointed to work in an administration in Washington should lose their right to run for office in their home town.
Many congressmen and congress women move to Washington to serve, but then run for office in their next election while there!

Second, why can't anyone run for Mayor of Chicago as long as the register to run and the registration is accepted?

People move into a state all of the time just for the purpose of running in that state (Robert Kennedy, for one, Hillary Clinton.)

All this situation does is tell the citizens of Chicago that they can't vote for who they might want to vote.

Den "here come de judge," again! One says yes, one then says no, then another says maybe, etc.

Is this caused primarily by a minority group in Chicago, including a former Congresswoman (Defeated), and by one judge who may agree with the group, the law be darned?

Frankly, I hope Emanuel loses the election--he needs to be in the business world with the rest of the crooks, but he should not be denied a chance to win if that is what the Chicago majority want!

Chances are there are a lot of a particular group in Chicago who will lose jobs if Emanuel should win!

Am I the only one on here who can see through these stupid games? Is democracy a game constantly showing preference to certain groups and not for the best people? Judges in Fayette for instance!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
roundabout
Quote:

Am I the only one on here who can see through these stupid games?

No. But I doubt if jobs will be lost - since those who hold those jobs are FOR Rahm. Chicago politics is game ridden - but very complicated. Sometimes when reading the local papers - I feel as if some politicians here took and passed Chicago Politics 101.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
DM

Isn't there in Chicago a lady there wanting the job named Braun?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
roundabout

I know that you're not assuming that all citizens of Chicago who look like Braun want her for mayor. I shared that Chicago politics are complicated - Rahm has his Braun looking supporters. Let's see what the Supreme Court says.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
DM

Now you know that I'm talking about who is pressing the courts to stop Emanuel, don't you? Not anyone's color.

See, you are doing the same fade around, float off, disappear, reword, fake, duck, avoid, as usual!

Is it impossible for you to speak of the specifics? The important factors?

Speaking of "masters" I heard Sharpton answer a direct important question this week about no Fathers much in black homes. It was truly masterful to say absolutely nothing.

Even worse than Washington commentators!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Roundabout

LOL. I don't think you have a clue about Chicago politics. I speak what I know-you play what you think are cute games. Anyway we'll see. He may have to be a write in candidate, if the decision isn't in soon. Interesting- when you and Oder are 'cornered' you go to your 'no specific' talking point.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
DM

What is "cornered?" You are stupid to even come up with that---the exact position you always occupy!

If you do speak of what you know, it has to be very little--except in platitudes, of which you are the master.

Why don't you address Carol M. Braun's actions in this matter? Specifically! Chicago is not Hymetown, as Jessee Jackson said of NY.

You aren't worth discussing such matters with since you refuse to address the pertinent points.

Did you see the black lady on TV who was taking her children to another district school---out of the bad neighborhood where they lived, using a false address--the whole family was in on it, and got caught and has been fined the amount she cheated that district out of taxes, some 30,000 dollars, I think. There were several of them doing it--most pleaded guilty and agreed to pay the fine, she didn't.
I noticed that Robin on the morning network news said the cheater was doing the right thing for her children.

We can't skirt the law on such things, but what we could do would be to test any child that wanted tested and if able to do the work at a better school let them go there---we do not need to level out everyone to the lowest denominator! Who pays---has to be in the law. I suggest three ways, family, and both districts, all pay 1/3 each. (Keep Washington out of it).

Personally I can't imagine such district cheating occurring without being reported as soon as it happens. Apparently all neighbors don't care (no snitches) and both district school systems don't care. A complaint has to be issued to the law!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Roundabout - LOL
Quote:

What is "cornered?" You are stupid to even come up with that---the exact position you always occupy!

LOL There are positions that you allude to that agree with some of mine – so you must be ‘stupid’ once in while yourself!!

Quote:

Why don't you address Carol M. Braun's actions in this matter? Specifically! Chicago is not Hymetown, as Jessee Jackson said of NY.

LOL again!! Carol Braun’s actions are Chicago politics at their finest. Are you surprised? We wonder at her astuteness going against a ‘favorite son’ and the ever-present Daley machine – which still exists.

Quote:

You aren't worth discussing such matters with since you refuse to address the pertinent points.

No one is twisting your arm – who ever you are.

Quote:

Did you see the black lady on TV who was taking her children to another district school---out of the bad neighborhood where they lived, using a false address--the whole family was in on it, and got caught and has been fined the amount she cheated that district out of taxes, some 30,000 dollars, I think. There were several of them doing it--most pleaded guilty and agreed to pay the fine, she didn't.
I noticed that Robin on the morning network news said the cheater was doing the right thing for her children.

All of our schools should provide the best education for all of our children. I support Dr. Rhee in her attempt to reform and improve public education in our country. Parents ‘breaking the law’ to get the best education for their child is not ‘race’ specific.

Quote:

We can't skirt the law on such things, but what we could do would be to test any child that wanted tested and if able to do the work at a better school let them go there---we do not need to level out everyone to the lowest denominator!

So only the ‘smart’ kids deserve to attend a ‘good’ school. Do you hear yourself? Good schools are schools where communities, parents, and students agree on high standards for behavior and high expectation for achievement. There are test-wise kids who do not belong in ‘good’ schools.
School districts have been aiming at mediocrity for some time now – that’s why US students are not among the top achievers in the world today. Our schools need to improve – and Race To The Top is heading in the right direction with federal funds rewarding innovative programs that increase achievement in reading, math and science. The countries that are ahead of the United States in achievement are countries where the teaching profession is respected and students attend school for more days and longer hours than US students.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Kawfi

I have no idea what you and KK are talking about. (Disparaging departed fathers?)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

It seems while Joe can talk about JeffC's father, he gets his knickers in a wad whenever someone mentions his, go figure.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Cals little blogger boy

Oh hutch, you're such the litte jagoff now, aren't you.
My point was regarding comments about the dearly departed. But hey, if that what makes sickos like yourself feel better, then knock yourself out.

I still stand by my assertion that Jimmy Carter was a panty-waist, terrorist appeasing bed-wetting liberal that brought this country to a new low. After 2012, at least he will no longer be known as America's worst president in history. Barry Obama will have that title.

Now put on your jammies, go sit in a corner and suck your thumb. You're out of your league here.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Joe

Well Joe, you've put little jagoff, boy, jammies, and suck all in the same post, I do believe you have some issues here, but I'll make you the same deal I made Bacon, I won't make any decisions about y'alls child molestation fantasies until you get caught and convicted. You and Bacon seem to be more alike then you know, in fact I think the only difference is your politics. You both will say anything on the boards, but not in person,of course I don't know how you are around little boys,but I bet you're real tough then.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Hutch, calling your opponents "child molesters"...

Let's be careful with your child molester accusations, Hutch.

Remember, RetdArmyMajor got banned for that sort of crap.

Fred Garvin
Fred Garvin's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/18/2010
Cal - a little help here

I have to agree with Chris P. on this one. Accusing someone of child molestation is just a tad over the top.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Bacon

I seem to remember someone else on this thread that got banned too, you want to comment on that Basmati?

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Those were the days....
hutch866 wrote:

I seem to remember someone else on this thread that got banned too, you want to comment on that Basmati?

Yeah, I remember that guy. He had his patriotism questioned by some guy named Hutch866, simply because Hutch866 didn't agree with his posts.

Classy guy, that Hutch866.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Hutch

Only a sick mind such of yours could pull that out of my last post.

Get some help Hutch soon. You and Kevin obviously need counseling.

You are now on the "ignored" list along with bacon, David's Mom, and roundabout.

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Hutch, well said

I have placed these commentators and blogists across the political spectrum as not really worth reading anymore: Kawfi, Roundabout/Bonkers, Bacon/Sniffles. They are so much alike and I find that I really do not desire to ever meet them socially. Although they bluster and are less offensive in person--at least Bacon anyway

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Child molester accusations "well said"?

Child molester accusations are "well said"? Really?

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
Bacon, you have spun and spun

more out of control and less centered. You have been the king of inferential attacks. You went off the deep end on talk radio and the Arizona shooter and it was baseless as more information came out. Then you decided to mock faith with the Herman Cain thing and that was really beyond the pale. I do not believe that you are a believer and yet you sounded like a Westboro Baptist person. It was ridiculous. Hutch skirted the line, but that line has been skirted by you too. And I have not seen any difference between you and kawfi on tactics. So well said to Hutch for connecting you two rhetorically.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
The trend continues!

Thanks for sharing.

I see Hutch has started a "true confessions" trend here at the Citizen.

Yesterday, Hutch was man enough to admit that he used two different standards (one for people he agreed with and one for himself and people who agreed with him) to pass judgment on posters.

Now, Wedge has continued that trend. Sure, he's qualified it with the usual "two wrongs make a right" illogic, but I appreciate that Wedge also admits to having two separate standards to judge folks.

Keep those confessions coming, wingnuts! Confession is good for the soul!

Can I get an AMEN!?!

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
pst Bacon a small secret

I don't get on this website everyday, nor do I post much. As such I really do not know the entire gist of what you are complaining about. If you are complaining about an inferential attack such as "are you still beating your wife?" then methinks the lady doth protest too much. I see it from you as well. I am not sure how a posting about needing to be a foster parent has even a bit to do with your contest between Hutch and you. No matter, you and Kawfi are alike and I certainly have not seen evidence to dispute that, which is what I feel is well said. And come now, this is a bit catty for a 50 something male.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Wedge: "across the political spectrum?"

Just have to guess on that one. No Independents, democrats, dissenters or liberals allowed!

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Yo, Joe Kawfi

You add so little to any discussion on ANYTHING that if this place had an "ignore" feature, you'd occupy the #1 spot and wouldn't have any other company besides the latest incarnation of mentally-defective Dollar$/Bonkers/Courthouserules/Roundabout/Whatever who has zero life besides posting here. Great company you keep.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"If this place had an 'ignore' feature"...

I asked Cal months ago to look into installing the Drupal Ignore User feature.

He wanted to know if it was available for this site's version of Drupal but I never heard any more from him.

Maybe if folks commented in that thread he'd see how much people would like to have such a feature.

crazy squirrel
crazy squirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2010
that feature would be so very welcome

i know what i'm asking santa for...

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
Hutch

Joe hasn't had my years of experience in ignoring childish insults.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
JeffC - two bits of wisdom that are apprapo

Old Farmer's Advice

"Don't judge folks by their relatives."

"Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer."

crazy squirrel
crazy squirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2010
gort

by saying workers would get to keep their whole paycheck, i meant no federal taxes would be deducted (income, Medicare, and social security taxes all abolished; state taxation is another matter) from their paychecks. i didn't mean to link this to creating jobs, although i do think it would provide added incentive to *pursue* employment, as well as to advance. for example, i can remember a time or two in my career where a pay raise was virtually negated by the fact that it bumped me into a higher tax bracket.

my comment regarding job creation was referring to my answer in my "why the fair tax" response, namely that abolishing corporate taxes would certainly make our country more appealing for corporations (welcome home, manufacturing jobs!), not to mention free up some much needed capital for additional human resources. as is often the case, this effect would be amplified in small business, where every penny counts.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
czy_sqrl, I can remember

czy_sqrl, I can remember those days when we had to do the tax calculation whenever we got a raise, (or even when asked to work overtime!) I can’t remember ever going backwards but sometimes the take home couldn’t buy the wife and me dinner and two tickets to a movie!

These days, I do most of my savings through payroll deduction and defer much of my taxes for another day. I’m slowly but surely reaching retirement age. The rate they are talking about for the “Fair Tax” is 30%. When I retire, I will no longer contribute to Social Security and Medicare and think I can get a better rate using the income tax.

As far as manufacturing goes, we will always have some but I never expect to see it employ the same number of people as it did in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s or now for that matter. Manufacturing and mining processes are so mechanized they only employ a fraction of the labor they once required. What can’t be mechanized will be brought in from cheaper labor markets. There is no stomach for public works these days so I don’t see anything improving until the housing market comes back but that won’t be soon.

Anyway, that is my take on the subjects. Thank you for your answer and explanation and feel free to ask me a question on the forum. I’ll do my best to answer.

LT 54
LT 54's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2011
Incident in Arizona

I'm new here so I will apologize for jumping in here so late. I have however enjoyed the exchange of thoughts and opinions of all. I have also noticed that responses to this incident appear to have become a "Left" or "Right" or a "Democrat" or "Republican" issue. Blame and responsibility for this incident has been focused on anyone and anything except, in this case Jared Loughner.

Representative Bob Brady wants to attempt to legislate "civility" by proposing a law that prohibits the use of words or images that look violent or threatening.
What next? Propose a law to prohibit what we think?
His efforts would be better served to enforce current laws related to this senseless act perpetrated by an apparent deranged individual, Jared Loughner. Accountability for his actions and those who were in positions to facilitate those actions should be foremost at this time. With an obvious history with law enforcement authorities, family and friends, there were countless opportunities to assess this individual’s mental state and to take appropriate action. To attempt to use even more rhetoric to further one’s own agenda only serves to question the mental state of that particular individual. Take away the words and the images that look violent or threatening and we are left only with our thoughts.
What were the thoughts of Jared Loughner on that day? What words or images were in his head that compelled him to commit this heinous act? Responsibility and accountability for our own actions and the consequences for those actions is the real issue here. Stop looking for someone or something to blame for our inability to rationalize his behavior. And if such a law is forthcoming will we look back someday and say “What were we thinking?”

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
LT54 welcome

and you can ignore roundabouts response. He's the local jester.

Your observations are correct on the shooting. Trying to blame someone else other then the perpetrator simply excuses their actions.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
LT54

I can demise from your essay that you are a fan of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, O'Reilly (the interrupter), and those who would hang crazy people at the first indication!

No body can or will ever "take appropriate action" when a weirdo is run across!
There is no place to put them anymore except jail. Godfather Reagan took all the money away from mental hospitals in the 80s, handed them a sackful of pills and said, hit the road.

How does a local court decide if someone is dangerous by him interrupting a class? Then jail him.
They also cannot be turned over to the police when you find one---they won't have them!

If families or friends could approach a nut-court and apply for treatment for such people, maybe that would help.
But then we don't want to pay for that, do we.

Welcome to the discussion where some of us talk about methods rather than platitudes.

skyspy
skyspy's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/08/2005
"demise" Really?

Demise = 1. Death

2. The transfer of an estate by lease or will

3.The transfer of a ruler's authority by death or abdication

ref: The American Heritage Dictionary

If you can't afford a dictionary, the local library will provide one for you.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundasnout
roundabout wrote:

I can demise from your essay that you are a fan of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, O'Reilly (the interrupter), and those who would hang crazy people at the first indication!

You can demise? I think you're going to have to prove that.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
hutch

No I don't!

Although it is obvious, at least in general.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
roundasnout

Try it for a day at least. What's obvious?

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
hutch

I know you want me to demise at least for a day, but demising is forever. Not interested.

I nearly demised reading the covered up messages of the new guy, since I despise trickery, or twisting in discussions.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, it’s true, you have

PTC_0, it’s true, you have told me, and I understand, your position about the purpose of government but that doesn’t mean I'm not interested in what you have to say. On the contrary, it makes me more interested. Besides, can’t we at least agree that we’re both frustrated with the results?

Your last statement is interesting:

Quote:

BTW, special interests rule us now.

How do you feel about the influence of special interests on the political process?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - A

A dialog without recriminations and one” upsmanship”, sounds unique to this board and it is welcomed by me at least.

Yes, I believe we are both frustrated with the outcome of governmental “results”.

“How do you feel about the influence of special interests on the political process?”

Well I feel it is nothing new for sure; it is getting worse as government continues to increase its power over us.

Look at it this way, if there was no money in the bank the thief wouldn’t try to rob it. The fact is that money creates corruption, especially when the money is “free”. Politicians are playing us as fools, and to a great extent we are fools. Fools to trust the government and the assumption that our “keepers” have some higher moral authority than free individuals. Special interests are merely an outgrowth of a scheme to keep and exploit power.

The growth of special interests gained momentum during and following the Civil War. I won’t get into a detailed list of examples but the growth of special interests in government is directly proportional to its growth. Democrat and Republican parties are equally corrupt in this regard.

I don’t have much hope that things will change anytime soon.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I can agree that

PTC_0, I can agree that special interests are nothing new. I also believe special interests aren’t all bad and not all good at the same time. My problem with special interest is, at this particular time in our history, they have too much power over the political process.

As far as corruption goes, one would think we would see more criminal cases of corruption in the headlines with the sums of money being tossed around in the political process. The fact that we don’t tells me, the power to corrupt has been legitimized.

I’m not sure if some politicians are treating us as fools, if they’re fooling themselves, or if they’re doing both at the same time. My conclusion is enough politicians have surrendered their powers, given to them by the electorate, to satisfy the desires of special interest. Any politician not willing to support the position of the special interest will likely face a hill of money funneled into pursuits to push them out of office.

Unfortunately this is also true of a politician that try’s to honestly consider the interest of both the electorate and the special interest. I say this is unfortunate because I believe one can’t get by without the other. A balance of the two interests has to be satisfied to maximize the strength of the nation.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Special Interests

I tend to agree with what you say here, the fact that we have special interests is not all bad if they voice their position to their elected representatives as a group. They after all are a group of citizens with specific concerns. The problem comes as you so aptly point out with large sums of money. A candidate trying to balance what he/she believes that may be in the best interests of constituents can find themselves in serious trouble, against the power of money. Money talks as they say, it can be a stick or a carrot.

You are also correct about the legitimizing of corruption in the political process. Prosecutors are not in the habit of throwing politicians in jail, mainly because they are politicians themselves. On the road to higher office, they don't want to make waves. Congress investigating itself is a joke as we have seen over and over again. It is much safer and easier to go after ‘capitalists” like Martha Stewart, with vaguely written administrative “laws” to build a political career, than go after say a Senator or Congressperson. After all, these prosecutors may want to be a Senator or Congressman one day.

Fact is as more money pours into the various governments the more corrupt they become. Besides the loss of individual freedom, this corruption is the biggest downside to increasing governmental power. The logical outcome is a dictatorship, voted on and passed by elected representatives to “protect” the state. I am sure you remember reading about Rome, we are in slow transition moving from a Republic, to Democracy, to Dictatorship. All it takes is a “crisis”, that shouldn’t go un-wasted to give us even more centralized power for protection of the state. It is the ultimate outcome of the socialists’ dream.

I don’t see it changing in my lifetime.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I’ve read many

PTC_0, I’ve read many arguments in “The Citizen” that say the purity of the Republic has been deluded by the increased use of democracy. I think the argument can be made that the increased use of democracy has been subverted by the money of the Special Interest. The Special Interest are the ruling class and we are truly a Republic. If you are a believer in a pure Republic, what we have now is as good as it gets! 8 - )

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Democracy's by their very nature become corrupt

Check this chart out:

http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com/2010/11/2010-most-corrupt-n...

The problem Gort is money. Now I know that is very simplistic, but boiled down that is all there is left. Although we have the power of the vote and supposedly we can choose our rulers, I mean leaders, they don't see themselves after awhile as being beholden to the people.

Lobbyist, special interest and political elitist (lifers) corrupt the system.

In a Republic, which we were supposed to be, the Government acknowledges the power of the people and individualism. It also acknowledges the power of the States and their sovereignty and bows to the wish of same.

In a Democracy fallen into corruption, the ruling elite cares not for the power of the people, because their really is none. The Government becomes the Sovereign entity and the Government becomes the sole arbitror of Rights and individualism is discouraged.

We are a failed Republic and a fallen democracy. Our ruling elite has ceased to listen to the people and elections hardly mean anything any more.

Can we recover? Certainly we can, but the people must engage the Government process and make sure the power is returned to the people and the States.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, considering how well

OofU, considering how well the Republican’s did on the midterm elections I’m a little surprised you’re so rough on democracy, lobbyist, special interest, and political elitist.

The fact that you did so well this last election cycle should demonstrate to you that democracy is working well. Is that not so?

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
It is but a small step forward

and one stumble away from the cliff Gort.

Just like I said in my last post:

"but the people must engage the Government process and make sure the power is returned to the people and the States."

In the last elections the people engaged and fought the established elite and special interest (Union) money, not all successfully by the way i.e. Reid, to try and stem the tide.

We were somewhat successful with the Teaparty, but not fully. Some of it was the growing pains of learning how and who should be backed but a lot of it was blocked by big money from Union organizations.

We have a serious problem in our Government. We saw it the last two years of how the "Government" can and will completely ignore the will of the people.

Nancy Pelosi:

"We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit."

Poll after Poll after Poll said America did NOT want the Government to mess with Healthcare BUT they did it anyway.

Poll after Poll after Poll said America did not want the Government to take over GM BUT they did it anyway.

Poll after Poll after Poll said America did not want the Government to Bail out Wall Street BUT they did it anyway.

Poll after Poll after Poll said America did not want the Government to Bail out the Banks BUT they did it anyway.

Gort I said this before:

"In a Republic, which we were supposed to be, the Government acknowledges the power of the people and individualism. It also acknowledges the power of the States and their sovereignty and bows to the wish of same.

In a Democracy fallen into corruption, the ruling elite cares not for the power of the people, because their really is none. The Government becomes the Sovereign entity and the Government becomes the sole arbitror of Rights and individualism is discouraged.

We are a failed Republic and a fallen democracy. Our ruling elite has ceased to listen to the people and elections hardly mean anything any more."

The Government MUST BE RETURNED to the people. Right now the Unions and the 60's radicals turned politicians must cease the abasement of the Constitution. The Government must be returned to the original 18 enumerated powers of Government and "We the People" must learn to be responsible for ourselves.

Will we willingly do this? Short answer is No. However events are unfolding that just may force us to do it.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, are you saying we

OofU, are you saying we should only pass legislation based on “Poll’ numbers?”

Wasn’t Healthcare passed into law by people elected to office? The Republican’s have a majority in the House now and have voted to repeal Healthcare. What are the Polls saying about that?

Likewise the bailout of Wall Street and the banks was not popular but can you imagine how much worst off we would be if the capital markets and banking system did collapse? Do you think you would be doing better or worst on Main Street if the collapse was allowed to take place?

GM was bailed out for the same reason. The damage it would have done to the overall economy would cost more that it cost to bail them out.

In my opinion, we all received an in-direct benefit from these bailouts. Instead of recovering from a 25% unemployment rate we were able to keep that rate less than half that.

Its funny how there was always just enough votes from the other side of the aisle to get all these things done.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well Gort

Polls are the only way besides elections to judge the will of the people. So No not based on Polls. But we are supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. We send our Representatives to DC to represent US not themselves.

The Democrats in Congress clearly ignored that and November was handed the worst defeat since the 30's.

The Will of the people should be paramount to Governing by their Government.

Just because you win a popularity contest this does not bestow upon you some enlightenment that somehow means you know what is best for those poor underlings that put you there.

Contrary to popular belief Government does not always know what they are doing. When Governments subvert the will of the people we get Democracy's.

btw- On your question.. Allowing the market to freely correct itself prevents artificial bubbles from forming and truly devastating the economy. i.e. Housing bubble.

So yes Gort we should be allowed to fail. So let me fire one question back at you.

Was life better after the Market Crash of 1929 once we recovered?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, when I look at the

OofU, when I look at the dollars spent on just television advertising, by the special interests, I think the Democrats in Congress represented us pretty well under the circumstances. I didn’t get everything I wanted but I didn’t have the expectation I was going to.

As far as the elections go, well you did about wipe out the so called “blue dogs” but that leaves you with a more liberal opposition still in office? Good luck with that, you wiped out most of the people that had overlapping positions with the Republican Party on many issues.

I know the argument, (theory,) behind markets freely correcting themselves. If this is true then why didn’t the market correct itself before the whole house of cards come tumbling down? It didn’t because it can’t.

Do you really think the country would be better off if we had an unemployment rate closer to 25%? Wouldn’t the road to recovery be just that much longer?

Quote:

Was life better after the Market Crash of 1929 once we recovered?

We never did “recover” after the 1929 crash. The arguments from the right are the same now as they were then.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort I disagree

I know, I know Surprise right?

Look at the industrial growth following the Crash of 29. Just like the mini-crash of 1920 we came back stronger and better "Roaring 20's".

However they failed to learn what caused the Crash and we had a wider and deeper crash.

Observerofu wrote:

Look up the 1920 Depression. Never heard of it? That was because it only lasted about 18 months and President Harding and later Coolage following Hardings paths made some courageous moves and stopped it before it became the Great Depression. Oh those moves.

Cut Government spending by half.

Lowered taxes across the board. Especially on business.

Now look to the "Great Depression" see the moves FDR made and look at today.

Big Government,"Shovel Ready"(infrastructure) spending, and big Taxes personal and business. The top rate was 77%.

See any comparasons to today.

The market if left ALONE can and will correct itself the 1920 crash proved the concept.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
OofU, its okay if we

OofU, its okay if we disagree. It doesn’t hurt my feeling. Just part of the fun of blogging, isn’t it?

You are correct, I never heard about the 1920 depression. I’m willing to bet you never did either until Thomas E. Woods, Jr. wrote a book to peddle on the speaking circuit and put his video on YouTube, eh? 8 - )

My opinion is the cause of the 1920 depression had more to do with WWI ending in November 1919 and manufacturing transitioning from producing weapons to commercial purposes.

Let’s just say, I’m not convinced cutting taxes and government spending was all that was needed to stimulate the economy. For instance, the US already had tariffs in place that discouraged foreign goods and this favored US manufacturing and many of the cuts in government spending were cuts in defense spending.

In 1929 we had another depression. This time the cause was reckless speculation in the capital market. The boom of the 20’s was built on a mountain of debt. (This sounds more like what we have today, don’t it.) Banks were collapsing in every town and city in the country. Life savings were wiped out after a lifetime of work. So what if industrial production was returning, that didn’t help everyone recover what was lost.

I know how you like to ‘pin the tail’ on the Roosevelt but I just have to remind you of this. The depression started in October 1929 and Roosevelt didn’t get sworn into office until March 1933. The invisible hand of the self correcting market had over two years to make the corrections. If they did, Hoover would have got his second term.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Gort and good soggy morning to ya

Clearly Market forces will make moves beyond what Government does. It is and has always self-corrected after a crash or slow down. Less Government intrusion has always allowed these corrections to take place quicker. Roosevelt problem was he took a minor market correction/crash which at the time was less then the 20's crash and made it a major long term crash/depression due to heavy Government involvement.

We see the same thing today. The recession will not lift until the Market deals with the Government intrusion.

We must be allowed to fail. GM would have been better off, as well as, the rest of the vendors and bond holders. Failure creates growth. Failure weeds out those products the public does not want or like.

Failure is a fact of life. To have the Government step in and stop failure only artificially circumvents the Market forces in play.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Interesting

This is an interesting twist on the definition of a republic, seems like the corrupt Republic of the United States, right?

Special interests are the ruling class indeed, but it doesn’t have to be this way. I have mentioned before that the power of the franchise should be limited to those that do not earn their income from the government. Once you take the incentive of purchasing votes using other people’s money out of the mix the use of money for this purpose becomes less powerful in the hands of politicians. They can’t build a special interest within the governmental class. For example, we now know that it is the intention of the TSA to unionize, do you really think this is in the best interest of taxpayers, or politicians? Under a restricted franchise scenario the politicians could direct their political largess to those that are not employed by the government, but it would be counterproductive. Those that pay for government would most likely not like the increased taxes caused by the redistribution.

In thinking about it, under the limited franchise approach, it makes some sense to allow government workers not to pay taxes. What's the purpose? Having government workers pay taxes is just moving money around. It doesn't really help the government raise revenues and it raises the cost on the productive class. Government doesn't produce anything; it merely consumes wealth and provides some low quality services in return. Those that pay taxes would likely want to reduce the number of government workers that pay no tax.

I also think it would be a good idea to get rid of withholding. People should pay their tax bill just like any other bill. Once people see the money removed from their bank account each month, they would understand better how much government is costing them. Withholding is a ruse that has been used by the government since FDR days. Invented by believe it or not Milton Friedman, he said that it was one of the biggest mistakes of his entire career.

Anyway, I don't think we need to worry about it; the country and the government are in a decaying orbit and nothing will change until it’s too late.

A friend told me recently that nothing will change until people begin to die, either from starvation, revolt or both. Sadly, he may be right.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC Observer
Quote:

A friend told me recently that nothing will change until people begin to die, either from starvation, revolt or both. Sadly, he may be right.

A person (not a friend) told me the same thing in the late '50's. A lot of us are still alive - and oh - how things have changed!!! Change has benefited some and terrified others. . . those who survived without starving, or violent revolt encourage discussion and compromise. Of course there are those who feel they will benefit from ‘violent revolt’. . . .but that is a destructive pathway to ‘desired progress’ IMO.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - I agree

Violent revolt is not the way, but when the collapse comes....and it will, there will be no stopping it.

Times have changed, you are right and it is all about the wealth of the nation.

In the end it will be socialist ideals that brought us down.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTC Observer
Quote:

In the end it will be socialist ideals that brought us down

That was predicted in my grandfather's day. So far - as long as we continue to participate in the democratic process, socialism will not 'bring us down. It will be our own non-participation.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM respectfully I disagree

Socialism everywhere it has been tried it has failed.

We are flirting with it now. Once it is decided to marry us we will fail as well.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Observerofu

Then let's make sure we don't MARRY! Since we have not seen a country that practiced socialism succeed - do you really think we will go down that road? We have the power of the vote - more than 40% of our citizens need to use it. Let's hope we don't go beyond the flirtation - which has been going on throughout the world for a long, long time.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Yes DM we already are riding in the car

with it.

The very definition of Socialism is Government control over business:

Socialism defined:
–noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Already we have Government controlling the ownership of Private Property, Businesses and Wealth.

They control the distribution of that wealth through entitlement programs.

We are so close to falling into the rabbit hole that I am not sure we can pull back quick enough.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Thanks Observerofu!!
Quote:

Already we have Government controlling the ownership of Private Property, Businesses and Wealth

Wow! I have the answer to getting out of this mess! Since the government controls the ownership of Warren Buffet's enterprises, Oprah's wealth, etc., etc., etc. - let's have them pay off our debts and let's get on with it!!! Thanks Observerofu - you and PTC must feel better now! NOT!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Too late DM

We could confiscate 100% of all the wealth from those making more than $250k and it would only add up to about 20% of our debt.

So although Oprah and Buffet has a lot it would only be a drop in what we have already spent and/or committed to.

Starting to see the enormity of it yet?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
A drop in the bucket

is better than nothing - since the government already controls their money - and there are other Americans of great wealth. At least it would be a start - since it isn't their private money - but belongs to the government. You see - we're not quite 'socialist' yet. . .right? But I understand you and Michelle Bachman really believe this 'idea' of government taking from the private sector. We just bailed out some of the private sector didn't we? we=taxpayers. Why was that necessary - since we already 'own' their private assets? I know you'll explain this to me. Thanks!

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
On this DM I wish to ask a question
Davids mom wrote:

is better than nothing - since the government already controls their money - and there are other Americans of great wealth. At least it would be a start - since it isn't their private money - but belongs to the government.

What did you mean "it isn't their private money - but belongs to the government"?

And a follow-up question... Do you ascribe to the confiscation of all wealth?
*

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obser

Sorry - but I thought that is what you and others are trying to convince me of the reality of our present government . (taking from the hard working rich and giving to the lazy poor). Please correct my misunderstanding. Excuse my sarcasm in suggesting that we solve our debt problem by . . .

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
DM thanks for the response

I had truly hoped you did not believe what you said. I suspected not but sometimes one never knows for sure.

There are many calls for the confiscation of the top 5-10% wage earners.

Politicians call for a Wealth Tax to pay for their expenditures.

Health Bill in House Relies on Wealth Tax
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124724606979424337.html

The State of Washington actually had a Wealth Tax on the ballet recently.

Washington voters reject income tax on wealthy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR201011...

So it is not beyond the realm of reality to see a possible move towards confiscation as more and more States fall towards Bankruptcy.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obser

Oops

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obser

Oops

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Socialism in America

I seem to remember a certain Congresswoman from LA who even said the "S" word during a congressional hearing with oil executives. Of course she really meant nationalizing. Vote Democrat and see what you get. ;-)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
LA?

Now I wonder who that was?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

And she even represents my hometown. I'm sooooo glad I escaped!!!!!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
I can beat that one!

I know a certain local congressman who thought that if we sent too many troops to Guam the added weight might cause the island to turn over! Where do we get these people! -GP

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
GP

That was for sure a real "blooper" moment.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Online
Joined: 10/30/2005
Maxine Waters

Represents your 'part' of LA? Interesting - I mistakenly though you were from the valley or 'west' LA. She is not one of my favorite persons - and she didn't represent my part of California. . .or metro LA. (As they say here in Georgia) As you correctly reported, she meant 'nationalizing' - and some journalists called it a slip of the tongue. Wonder how her 'hearing' regarding ethics violations will turn out?

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Davids mom

South bay area.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Cyclist did I see you were going to WW?

A friend of ours is going as well.

Saw him yesterday he has lost 45 lbs on WW and looks fit.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Observerofu

I have to. If got into my spandex they might arrest me. Anyways, I'm in Destin tonight across the street from the RV resort your friend stayed at this summer.

Observerofu
Observerofu's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/14/2010
Destin been awhile

he has a nice RV. Got to get me one... one of these days. He keeps telling me we would love it. Wife however not to keen on "roughing" it. If it doesn't have a salon and spa she feels like it's a Motel 6.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, you certainly took my

PTC_0, you certainly took my argument better than Crazy Squirrel did! 8 - )

If you’re a purist it may look like, “… the corrupt Republic of the United States,..” As a practical matter, I see it as, necessities creating its own laws.

In the beginning of the Republic, the voting franchise was restricted and the power was held by a small group of people. Let me ask you two questions.

First, from a historical point of view, why do you think this group of elites gave up that exclusive power by extending the voting franchise?

Second, from the present, who do you consider to be the “productive class?”

crazy squirrel
crazy squirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2010
hey, hey, wait a minute...

i was only stating that to think the state of affairs in the US as "as good as it gets" is, conservatively speaking, pretty damned depressing. i didn't have anything to add to the conversation that would rise to the bar you and PTC O have set. let's just say i know my limitations... refreshing, isn't it.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
crzy_sqrl, the rhetorical

crzy_sqrl, the rhetorical tear you shed was the point of my statement. Just so you know, I’m pedaling as fast as I can just to keep up on the forum. You better be willing to lower your standards if you’re going to read some of the stuff I write.

crazy squirrel
crazy squirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2010
spinning your wheels

i finally just decided that if i wait long enough, someone else will make my point for me... more eloquently and supported by more research. then i can just sit back and smugly laugh, all without lifting a finger. think i should run for some sort of office?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
crzy_sqrl, if you want to run

crzy_sqrl, if you want to run for office you're in luck. The mayor of PTC is struggling. Now's your chance!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - both questions

Here's my take,

Question #1 - They didn't give it up, it was taken by force. I think each incremental step toward democracy has come as a result of force. A republic is what it is, a restriction of the vote. I merely suggest that it not be restricted based on wealth, color, gender, religion or national origin but on where you derive your income.

Question #2 - The productive class are those that work in industries that create wealth and not trade in government largess. That is all people that work in industries that exist for profit or return on investment principles, with one exception, they cannot derive any revenue from government. For example, Lockheed or Home Depot or Office Max if they sell products or services to the government their employees would be unable to vote. I suppose that "non-profits" are really profit organizations but they are really tax shelters. They exist in order not to pay taxes. Under my concept people that work for these organizations would have the right to vote as long as they did not get contributions from the government. Want to vote? Then you simply have to find a company that doesn’t do business with the government. People who work for businesses that are once removed, that is businesses that do business with businesses that do business with the government, would not be able to vote. So on and so forth, any tinge of government money would disqualify you from voting.

Under this principle based on our current government driven economy, not many people would be able to vote. A Republic by definition and I might add simply a dream to me and a nightmare to special interests, government employees, unions, etc.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, in regard to question

PTC_0, in regard to question one, you said the power of the elite was taken by force. In the beginning of the Republic, what force did the non-elites have?

Your answer to question two introduces me to a brand new meaning of what it means to be “productive.” If I take your meaning literally it would mean that a homeless day laborer at a farmers market would be considered “productive” and have the right to vote.

At the same time someone that owns an engineering company with thousands of employees building bridges and highways for state and local governments would be considered non-productive. Neither the owner of the engineering company, nor any of his employees, would have the franchise to vote. (Do I understand this correctly?)

If I do understand you correctly than I would have to agree, under your principle not very many people would want be able to vote!

In the end, aren’t you just substituting “Special Interest” for “Productive Class?” What is to stop the “Productive Class” from becoming as corrupt as the “Special Interest?” What will stop the “Non-productive” class from coming after the “Productive Class” with “pitchforks?”

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - Answers

I didn't say in the beginning, what I meant to say is over time. With the biggest leap toward democracy in the last century. Now don't get me wrong, like I said I don't think the vote should be restricted by class and I support all of the franchise changes that were made but the franchise needs to be limited. I would rather have a small group of voters that pay attention than a large number that are "paid" to vote a certain way.

On the second answer you understand me correctly. It is true that a dirt farmer selling produce in a farmers market would have the right to vote. As to whether the others would want to vote would depend on their interest. If they were interested they would either become a dirt farmer or find a company that didn't do business with the government.

Yes, I am substituting special interest with the productive class, that's the whole point. The only way the productive class could be corrupted is to take handouts from the government, the moment they did they couldn't vote. Why would the governmental class come after the productive class? They are the paymaster. If they wanted to change things they would simply have to stop taking money from the government by seeking employment with a company that didn't take government money, or they could become homeless and sell apples on the corner. Either way they could vote.

Non-productive definition: Those that take money from the government. If they take money they are moving money around it's true, but they don't create true wealth.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, I have a different

PTC_0, I have a different opinion about extending the voting franchise. In the beginning of the Republic the franchise was extended because the ruling elite needed more of the general population’s participation. If the general population did not have the right to vote in their own country what claim did the elite, or the government, have on them? None, it was the same deal the colonies had with King George. They would have ignored the elites and the government they presided over. My opinion is the franchise was freely extended to a greater and greater portion of the general population. Later in the life of the Republic is when the friction began.

In your second answer, doesn’t your dirt farmer receive a direct benefit from the roads and bridges built by the owner of the engineering company and paid for by the government? Does having better access to markets allow him to create real wealth?

Now that your farmer realizes a benefit from a government program does he forfeit his franchise to vote or is freeloading okay for the "productive class?" 8 - )

Can you tell me what products or services the “productive class” would produce that couldn't be utilized by government?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - You

You could be right but the franchise in early America was restricted in many ways, most all wrongly. It was worse in England where only 1 in 8 could vote, all based on class (wealth).

I suppose that the dirt farmer under current conditions would receive a benefit but he would not receive income from the government. That is the key.

The productive class could produce anything they want but if they sold something to the government or received income from the government, they would be disinfranchised.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, actually the point I

PTC_0, actually the point I was trying to make was, the franchise was willingly extended by the elites because they couldn’t accomplish anything without the consent of a larger share of the population. I think the elite of your “producer class” would have the same problem.

Besides, it wouldn’t take your farmer more than two or three minutes to figure out all he had to do was create a shell company as an intermediary and his goods could be sold to the government and he could keep his right to vote too. The owner of the engineering company could do the same thing and this would happen over and over again until the “producer class” had no real meaning at all.

I also think it would be a detriment to the economy. The inefficiency of creating all those intermediate companies would add cost to everything the government and private industry bought, would it not?

In my opinion, it’s not the form of government that’s corrupt. It’s just the nature of man to act in his own best self interest that will corrupt any form of government.

crazy squirrel
crazy squirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2010
did you hear that?
Quote:

If you are a believer in a pure Republic, what we have now is as good as it gets! 8 - )

that's the sound of a tear rolling down my cheek

Recent Comments