Koch brothers back away from tea party

Letlovin

I agree, it’s about good governance

The problem for me is that a lot of right wing libertarian ideas seem to be ideologically driven rather than having a rational or reasonable basis and that is why even its supporters seem incapable of defending it from criticism.

That is why to me it should be opposed on principal as a bad even dangerous political viewpoint, just as I’d oppose other ideologies that I see as dangerous.

 

You don't say lol

Your view is well established Bal. Not sure why you feel the need to continuously repeat yourself

 

letlovin

Well of course not for you but didn’t you read that person the other day who was posting in the forum who didn’t know my views and said and I quote “I do not know who Balbus is and could not care less”...

I was so hurt…LOL

 

Lmao yea I saw that. Touché

 

Karen

I would say not just for economic reasons but also economically - social mobility the changing of ones class upward, something that has slowed down or stagnated.

The thing is that in many ways the US was ‘the land of opportunity’ right up to the middle of the 20th century, (for those that were free) it had risen on a wave of previously untapped resources but by the 1940's many of those resources had either been tapped, were becoming harder to extract or had been exhausted.

I mean the material and mineral wealth of the old world has been exploited and ‘owned’ for some 5000 years. From the Middle Ages there was no unsettle land to just occupy it was virtually all privately owned.
In the US large areas of land didn’t become exploited until the late 19th century.

To take a telling example in 1848 Europe was in turmoil as revolutions sprang up across the continent many based around resources and there distribution, while in the US you had the beginning of the California gold rush

The myth of the American Dream I think has some basis in that era (1700 – 1950) when it wasn’t such a myth, but with resources now largely ‘locked in’ and wealth distribution limited and social mobility falling …well I think the problem is that many America haven’t waken up to the new world after the economic boom of the 1950’s.

 

Both had a major impact on my family. My parents moved up socially by being the first in their families to get university degrees and office jobs that required university degrees. That allowed them to work primarily with well-educated individuals from the Northeast, imported due to a lack of suitable local applicants. The end result was that my parents became very different from their parents, more enlightened in every way.

Now, the South has lost both factors. In fact, some of those transplanted college graduates have moved back up north, and many middle-aged college graduates here have children who have jobs that only require a high school diploma, or no diploma at all.

And a significant percentage of the next generation of Southerners is growing up being homeschooled or sent to church schools, where most learn that cultural diversity is our greatest weakness as a nation. The younger ones don't know any liberals personally, but have been told by trusted adults that we're horrible people, trying to destroy everything that they know to be good.

Your timeline may be close to right for most of the Northeastern US and Midwest, but not for other areas. This country is too large physically for all of us to be synchronized.

Funny that you mentioned the California gold rush. It was the first example of an important natural resource running out in any part of the US. Before 1849, my home state (NC) had led the nation in gold production for decades, but all the high quality deposits had been mined out. Then all the experienced miners moved west, and no gold has been mined here since then.

NC's virgin forests were almost gone by 1950, but it had become cheap and easy to keep our furniture factories going by shipping lumber in by rail from other states. Our textile mills were already using cotton brought in on trains from SC and Georgia.

That was just the first trickle of a flood of natural resources arriving by train all over the Southeast from other regions, which fueled an economic explosion lasting from about 1969 to 1988, a little longer in some spots. Cheap rail freight eliminated the need for factories to be located close to natural resources, or to waterways. The Northeast and Midwest were net losers, due to higher labor rates. Sparsely populated Rocky Mountain states also benefited, as resource suppliers.

So, you're going to have a hard time convincing any native Southerner that anything important peaked before 1960. We just didn't see that. Between 1970 and 1990, many formerly sleepy and boring mid-sized Southern cities sprouted impressive collections of office towers, shopping malls, and upscale restaurants that were as good as anything you could find in a typical Northeastern city, or better. Atlanta is the ultimate example of our '70's and '80's success stories, rising from the ashes of the Civil War and resulting 100 years of grinding poverty to host the 1996 Olympic Games.

To find a comparable period of significant wealth anywhere in the Southeast, you have to go back all the way to the 1850's, in the state of Mississippi.

Now, we are shipping raw materials to China.

Don't overlook the social factors! From 1870 up through 1955 at least, all power (even at local levels) was held by affluent, middle aged, conservative, straight, Christian or Jewish white men. American society was very orderly and calm because no dissent was tolerated. Why wouldn't an affluent, middle aged, conservative, straight, Christian or Jewish white man want to go back to those times? They had everything they wanted. For everybody else, America sucked, to varying degrees.

The Koch brothers are just trying to follow in the footsteps of their male ancestors. They were born in the wrong era.

 

Firstly, what you're saying in support of regulations, isn't the reality of regulations. There are instances of middle class families being fined 100K per DAY, for buying a house, with the 'wrong tree' on the property. Is that really what Liberals call "Justice?"

The current system gives bailouts and government contracts to the 1%, none of you have refuted why Libertarianism would be worse than that. The idea that we help corporate America is a Liberal lie with vitually no evidence to back it up. Government playing God with the economy helps businesses; That's why all the Lobbyist support people like Obama and Bush, who perpetuate that system.

I agree that Pentagon and the whole Federal Government is filled with waste, but expanding the federal government like Liberals want to do, is not the answer.


The government picks winners and losers. Monsanto is a criminal organization, which controls all the studies and public information of GMO's. The government gave them immunity with the "Monsanto protection act" which protects them from lawsuits. Yet, liberals ignore all this.

We have so many stupid regulations, but none that protect people from oil spills, petcoke clouds, GMO's or government spying. Liberals need to put 2 and 2 together, and realize that government is a system of bribery.

They take our money, hire their buddies for contracts, pass out bailouts, create pointless programs and, waste our money generally. This is not helping the poor at all- But rather, extending the bank accounts of the top 1%.

The middle/working class could use 150-200$ more per paycheck, and that is about the amount we're paying toward a broken government, that works entirely for businesses.

The reason we're experiencing these problems, is because of government manipulation of the economy. (In Multiple instances.) However, Liberals have no fix for that, but, Libertarians do.

I want to know specifically why Liberals mock our fix, when they only have the band aid of banning corporate personhood. Yet, politicians took bribes before that.

 

And what is your fix?

 

25

OH Oh…I have sir I have…(balbus puts up his hand and waves it vigorously)

Now for a start - Free market = plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

Basically right wing libertarians seem to follow a neo-liberal/free market ideology – now policies based on that approach have already caused a great deal of harm and led to an increase in the power and influence of wealth in US society and politics.

So in the thirty odd years of free market/neoliberal ideas there has been a huge increase in the wealth of a few while the real term incomes of those below have either stagnated or fallen.

In other words the supposed ‘freeing’ of the market (and society) has brought about the need for bailouts and crony capitalism. Because as explained many times, in detail and at length there can never be and never could be a ‘free market’.

Now right wing libertarians seem to argue that the answer is to ‘free up’ things more but for the reason I and others have comment on it is most likely to make a bad situation worse.

*

Now 25 I’d debate this with you but you either run away or evade - why is that?

 

Karen

Yes that is the problem with generalizations it goes the other way to, not all of Europe has had the same experiences, but in general discussions we often have to look at over arching themes or we’d end up getting bogged down in detail.

Again I was looking in general terms at the US. For example -

1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Now that is a long term general problem in my opinion but the impact would not be the same across the regions of the US. Some would boom other bust – some cities might prosper but others like Detroit would return back to prairie.

I agree.

The systematic destruction of the US Socialist Party and left wing thought by the then establishment (Republican and Democrat), is to me, a good example of dissent not being tolerated (1).

But the ‘American Dream’ myth, social Darwinist theory and some religious beliefs also played their part in suppressing discontent, by passing blame onto the individual.

Social Darwinist theory (that was heavily funded by some of the ‘robber barons’) argued that the wealth and social position of an individuals was the result of evolutionary superiority, the disadvantaged the argument went were disadvantaged because they had inferior genes than the advantaged. Some religions’ pushed something similar people were where they were socially because god had ordained that and that those who did well were blessed by god and those that did not had gained his disproval.
It was a way of placing blame on the individual rather than on the system, and in the background was the American Dream myth – if you work hard you will do well (and if you don’t do well you must not have worked hard enough).

It’s interesting that all these ideas seem very strong amongst the Tea Party.

Oh and there is one other factor, the use of fear as a unifying force – for most of the last 60 years that has been the ‘communists’ but there has also been, the yellow peril, predatory blacks, papist Irish, Italian mobsters, the drug lords, the terrorists and of course the vicious and merciless criminal classes.

PS: I must say Karen how nice it is to have real debate for a change.


*
(1)“This suppression was stepped up after the war, and to give an indication of the mentality of those in charge of the ‘un-American’ purge this is a quote from Albert Canwell who was chair of the California state committee –

“If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

And when the House Committee for Un-American Activities dropped its investigation into the Klu Klux Klan in favour of going after the left wing the committee member John Rankin said that "After all, the KKK is an old American institution."”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=6248853&postcount=3

 

To be perfectly clear, these are not Libertarian ideas. As I said in my last post, these are leftist ideas tied in with crony capitalism. The government has expanded to insane proportions, and that is the opposite of the Libertarian ideology. We believe in a very small government, which minds it own business. If a program is not protecting life, liberty or, property, it should be shut down. In many cases, the EPA and other such agencies totally fail in their duties of keeping these businesses in check. (Like the oil company who had 'dozens' of unreported oil spills- There is no liability today, because, businesses run America.


People are afraid of losing the forceful arm of government, this is why you're afraid of Libertarianism. Think about it. Mc Donalds is a big corporation- have they ever held you at gunpoint, put you in cuffs and, force you to buy their food? No. Corporations can only offer/sell you a product, they don't force people to buy it. The Government, on the other hand, can force you to buy insurance, not ingest 'illegal' substances, and, arrest anyone who disobeys their arbitrary 'laws.'

Yet, Liberals want government, to protect them from businesses. It seems silly to me, when all we need to stop such actions, is consumer awareness.

For example, Koch Chemicals spilled PetCoke in Detroit, and was never punished.Under my system they'd be liable to local land owners for damages and risking lives, and, people should be made aware of this spill, so they can boycott Koch Chemicals.

No it doesn't. It makes room for a lot of small businesses and jobs to flourish, and would be absolutely beneficial to every American citizen.

First of all, understand that corporations use government to impose violence which suits their agenda, they don't impose violence on their own. If those politicians had no power, it would hurt the most evil corporations, who live off the taxpayers back.

Crony Capitalism and Government Manipulation of the economy is not working. That all has to do with "The biggest transfer of wealth, to the top 1%" that we've talked about; Crony Capitalism is the chief cause of that.

People who are suffering most though, are the working class and, the middle class. Libertarianism is good for them, and poverty as well.

Let me explain; Firstly, for the middle or working class individual living paycheck-to-paycheck, they actually get to keep the money they earned. Today, we live way above our means, we need to trim some government fat.

If I were in charge I would cut almost all Federal Programs,(DHS,TSA, FBI, CIA etc.) and allow states to take over on issues like foodstamps and financial help. I would also nearly abolish federal taxes; the Fair Tax will be enough to sustain basics like infrastructure and some police. Then, I would legalize all illicit drugs, and treat addiction like a disorder; Providing people with rehab, support and, legitimate help. Legalizing drugs would create a lot of small businesses, and a lot of jobs, it would also take the criminality out of drug use, and earn revenue. This would be something that may help people get out of poverty, and prevent racial profiling and harassment. I would abolish any unConstitutional acts or laws which are legally null and void according to the Supremacy Clause of (yes,) the Constitution! Our country is supposed to be the symbol of freedom- But, we've given it up due to the fear of "terrorism."

There are ways of keeping companies in check. But, the current system is not protecting citizens from damages, and that is the basics. The above mentioned are just some things we can do, there is much more I could think about that would help. Nothing proposed by other parties though. Some Liberals would end the drug war, but most would make guns illegal, which is counter-productive to what freedom truly means. More people die from falling than from guns in the US; Does that mean we should make it illegal to stand on high places? No. We need a populace educated about guns and violence, and mature enough to truly understand the issue.

Because those of you who are against guns, probably wont be when they're illegal, and criminals still get a hold of them. That means citizens would be defenseless from Government, Drug cartels and, lone gunman. Taking weapons away is a foolish move because government is known to take forever during "shots fired" calls and, emergencies. The last thing I want is to call 911, and hide for an hour cowering under a desk, waiting for government guns to come and "protect" me.

And anyway, a system which makes government more powerful than citizens, is totally against the American way. I know that means nothing to you, but to citizens it is the most important aspect of our country. "Freedom," "Liberty," and, the Constitution. If people actually knew we were going in the reverse direction, they'd probably pay attention. The problem is people are too complacent.

Your dislike for Libertarianism is a good example. You're scared because it's going to change the system. But you have a false fear that corporation will take over. In the meantime, the Corporations already run this country, and they don't like Libertarian views. They want bailouts, crony capitalism, specific regulations on competitors and, special government benefits. However, no other party goes after these.


And asking us to give up our essential freedom, in favor of an economic structure that milks citizens of every last dime, is not even a question to me. What is so great about todays society that I would surrender free speech, self defense, the Right to be secure in my home, the Right to a fair and speedy trial etc etc? Nothing. These are the things that make America good and fair. To take away the Constitution, takes away the meaning of America. None of us want to live in a country in which the government is the Omega "Big Brother," that we cannot THINK against. But, that is the direction we are going.

My ideas are close to Anarchy, but we need enough government to protect life, liberty and, property but, nothing else. That would save money, and abolish all the powers corporations have obtain through government.

 

In general, I would agree that the American South can be overlooked in broad economic discussions of the years between 1865 and 1975, but not after that. Our economy is currently sized appropriately for a land area and a population that is roughly one third of the US, larger than that of the typical European country.

I surely can't overlook it, because I know this region better than any other.

Not a positive trend for the long term, but only the Northeast and Midwest were feeling the pain at that time. The media likes to present those two regions and California as the "real" America, but about 50% of the population now lives eleswhere. The domestic economy of the US was (and is) large enough that the impact of the growing national trade deficit was not strongly felt on a large scale until the downturn of 2001-2002.

Detroit is a special case. I support the concept of labor unions, but things got out of hand in Detroit, and Tokyo (along with the American consumer) called them on it. Market forces determined that Detroit labor costs had become unreasonable.

Many industries have left the US, but I can't think of a single one that did so due to lack of raw materials. We still have plenty of most essential things, even though extraction is not as cheap or easy as it used to be, and there is some transportation cost involved. Detroit was never able to get all its steel from within the state of Michigan, and quickly outgrew ore production in Minnesota. Steel from Pittsburgh was brought in by freight trains.

And I can verify that this was equally extreme at the local level, if not worse.

James Hanes (textile CEO) was a regional leader in this movement.

:cheers2:

 

25

As I’ve said before you are just repeating assertions that already have outstanding criticisms leveled at them.

I could basically go through your whole post pointing to things already said – to take just one example –

To repeat tax cuts just help the already wealthy as they have over the last 30 odd years -

it mainly just increases the power and influence of wealth, people at the low end of the scale don’t receive back anything like those at the top. It gives disposable wealth to those who least need it and going by history would only use to further their own interests.

Let us say that there was a simple 10% tax and it was returned.

So someone earning 1000 gets back 100 dollars not much

10,000 = 1000 still not much

(Average wage in US is around 40,000 = 4000 dollars)

100,000 = 10,000 now that’s better

“According to the census bureau only, 21.8% of FAMILIES made over $100,000 a year” even fewer individuals)

1,000,000 = 100,000 now you’re getting serious money

10,000,000 = 1,000,000 that will buy a lot of influence

100,000,000 = 10,000,000 and that a whole lot more.

To me that’s bad enough but actually there is progressive taxation meaning the wealthy pay more and so would get vastly more back if taxes were reduced.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7708441&postcount=261

*

So virtually all you’ve said has been covered and you need to address the outstanding criticisms. Why not start with the ones in these threads -

Question About Operation of Small Government
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=3

I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=465568&page=4
[FONT=&quot]*[/FONT]

 

25

Now while I applaud that approach its not the view of all right wing libertarians.

Rightwing libertarians and drugs
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=368871

And a ‘free market’ approach (without regulation to stop it) would I believe result in big companies soon dominating the industry.

 

25

I’d say you were closer to being a Anarcho-capitalist –

“Anarcho-capitalists are against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. Their critique of the State ultimately rests on a liberal interpretation of liberty as the inviolable rights to and of private property. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak, powerless and ignorant. Their claim that all would benefit from a free exchange in the market is by no means certain; any unfettered market system would most likely sponsor a reversion to an unequal society with defence associations perpetuating exploitation and privilege. If anything, anarcho-capitalism is merely a free-for-all in which only the rich and cunning would benefit. It is tailor-made for 'rugged individualists' who do not care about the damage to others or to the environment which they leave in their wake. The forces of the market cannot provide genuine conditions for freedom any more than the powers of the State. The victims of both are equally enslaved, alienated and oppressed.”

‘Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=2266805&postcount=10

 

Okay Mr. "London"... How bout you go and grovel at your Queens feet... Let us big boys handle Politics.

 

Change Hands Before You Get Blisters.....



Cheers Glen.

 

Are you stocking me?

 

No, I'm Not Stocking You, But There Is A Very Real Chance I

May Be Stalking You....



Cheers Glen.

 

RIiiiiight. -_-

Hey, Buddy.... Do yourself a huge favor....and ease up on the Crystal Meth.