Experiment: Favorite National Level Politician sans Rules

[Al68]

NOW is not the time for radical cuts in spending.

The problem is in how we define "radical". Using the word radical to refer to $100 billion, or several times that, out of a $3600 billion budget is insane.

I don't know what's worse, Democrats opposing $60 billion in "cuts" (reduction in spending increases), or Republicans thinking that that's in the right ballpark. Or Harry Reid on the Senate floor lecturing about the importance of continuing funding for a "Cowboy Poetry Festival" in Nevada. Seriously.

Spending "cuts" an order of magnitude greater than what Democrats call "radical" would be very modest by any reasonable standard. Not to mention the only way to avert disaster.

And why is it that Democrats talk about federal spending as if they were completely oblivious to the fact that it's a net drain on the economy? Do they think wealth just magically appears so they can spend it?

 

[Al68]

I don't know that I HAVE a rational reason, but as I generally agree with some portion of attacking etitlements directly, that's not bad.

I think I originally formed my opinion when... one of them, Rand I think, wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.

This is an honest question: I also recall them going after entitlements, but not Defense... is that correct or am I mixing things up? I'm not a little tired... lord I hope I don't regret this post in the morning.

You probably will regret it, considering that you admitted not having a rational reason to consider the Rands nuts. But don't worry, you can retract it. Call it a typo or something.

As far as eliminating the DOE, I'm not sure specifically, but I'm pretty sure both Pauls (and I) want several federal departments eliminated. That obviously doesn't mean eliminating all of DOE's functions, it just means combining and streamlining federal departments. The overlapping and bloated bureaucracies we now have are nothing short of ridiculous. Pretty nutty, huh?

And I'm pretty sure both want serious entitlement reform, and to reduce defense spending. Defense should be the bulk of the federal budget, since that's the primary reason we have a federal government, but the bulk of the federal budget should be much smaller.

 

[Pythagorean]

I have no idea what any politicians are talking about. I have even less idea what people talking about politicians are talking about.

I'm slightly tempted to project my ignorance onto everyone else.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have no idea what any politicians are talking about. I have even less idea what people talking about politicians are talking about.

I'm slightly tempted to project my ignorance onto everyone else.

Why not? Sans Rules... go for it man.

@Al68: Probably, but the truth is the truth, I don't think my vague memories of conversations here rise to the level of a rational reason for them to be nuts.

I disagree with them for most of the reasons Ivan has listed, but to be fair, that just makes them scary, not nuts.

 

[Al68]

I disagree with them for most of the reasons Ivan has listed, but to be fair, that just makes them scary, not nuts.

Scary? The U.S. survived most of its history without the regulatory state and welfare state, and without an income tax. Without any of the things most opposed today by the Rands and others. Not only survived, but went from literally nothing to become the greatest economic power in history. Yep, scary stuff there.

 

[Gokul43201]

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

 

[nismaratwork]

Scary? The U.S. survived most of its history without the regulatory state and welfare state, and without an income tax. Without any of the things most opposed today by the Rands and others. Not only survived, but went from literally nothing to become the greatest economic power in history. Yep, scary stuff there.

The conditions for workers during that time were'nt exactly stellar, and the history of countries is one of passing through such a period and emerging with protections for its citizenry.

I wouldn't expect to recreat the progress of the last 100 years by turning the clock on politics back by a similar measure.


edit: Nooooo! Gokul beat me... this time.. *ta ta TUM!*

 

[Al68]

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

For the most part, yes. Although it would seem obvious that "policies" is an odd word to use, considering the fact that it is a lack of government policies that we're talking about. Government for the most part simply didn't make economic policy for free citizens; they made their own policies for themselves as free citizens.

 

[Al68]

The conditions for workers during that time were'nt exactly stellar, and the history of countries is one of passing through such a period and emerging with protections for its citizenry.

I wouldn't expect to recreat the progress of the last 100 years by turning the clock on politics back by a similar measure.

I said nothing about turning back the clock on the conditions for workers. I was referring to exactly what I said: there was no federal welfare state, regulatory state, or income tax, none of which is necessary for decent working conditions. The living conditions of working people greatly improved during during that time as a result of economic freedom.

Today, federal regulations and high taxes are stifling economic growth, inhibiting wealth creation and decent jobs. That's a bad thing, not a good thing, for working people. How could you possibly misinterpret my post to mean the polar opposite of it's actual meaning?

 

[Pythagorean]

Why not? Sans Rules... go for it man.

By project my ignorance, I meant to imply that I'm not sure if everyone else knows what they're talking about either when it comes to politics.

Though, strangely enough, after encountering this thread, I happened to stop on a CSPAN channel and some Dem named Keith Ellison was criticizing the right and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his criticism. So I dunno, maybe I'm a Dem, not an Indie, but definitely not a Fundie (anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti, anti, anti).

 

[nismaratwork]

By project my ignorance, I meant to imply that I'm not sure if everyone else knows what they're talking about either when it comes to politics.

Though, strangely enough, after encountering this thread, I happened to stop on a CSPAN channel and some Dem named Keith Ellison was criticizing the right and I found myself agreeing with a lot of his criticism. So I dunno, maybe I'm a Dem, not an Indie, but definitely not a Fundie (anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-abortion, anti, anti, anti).

Maybe you're Pythagorean?

 

[Pythagorean]

maybe you're pythagorean?

rational numbers don't exist, spiders are your gods!

(woah, anti-yell feature...)

 

[nismaratwork]

rational numbers don't exist, spiders are your gods!

(woah, anti-yell feature...)

Oh you have to pick the one living creature that completely spooks me... figures.

 

[Gokul43201]

For the most part, yes.

Like reverting to tariffs for revenues? (I think I know your answer to that one, but I'm not certain.) Like getting rid of the Fed, the FDA and CDC, the VA, the DOE, NSF and NASA, the National Park Service, ...?

Although it would seem obvious that "policies" is an odd word to use, considering the fact that it is a lack of government policies that we're talking about.

Sure, I meant "policies" to include "lack of policy" as well.

Government for the most part simply didn't make economic policy for free citizens; they made their own policies for themselves as free citizens.

Government didn't do a whole lot to "promote the general welfare" of the people either, and that's something it is charged with doing.

 

[Al68]

Like reverting to tariffs for revenues? (I think I know your answer to that one, but I'm not certain.) Like getting rid of the Fed, the FDA and CDC, the VA, the DOE, NSF and NASA, the National Park Service, ...?

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.

Government didn't do a whole lot to "promote the general welfare" of the people either, and that's something it is charged with doing.

Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is. The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

 

[nismaratwork]

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is. The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

May I ask you a somewhat blunt and personal question? Well, I'm about to, my point is that you don't have to asnwer:

Have you lived in a repressive regime before, a truly intrusive government? Even visiting for a time, you learn the difference between a strong central authority, and massive restrictions or moving a social agenda. Our government is powerful, but slow and beaurocratic by nature... it's too self-involved to be the force you describe.

 

[Al68]

May I ask you a somewhat blunt and personal question? Well, I'm about to, my point is that you don't have to asnwer:

Have you lived in a repressive regime before, a truly intrusive government? Even visiting for a time, you learn the difference between a strong central authority, and massive restrictions or moving a social agenda. Our government is powerful, but slow and beaurocratic by nature... it's too self-involved to be the force you describe.

Yes, I have visited many countries more intrusive than the U.S. (I'm a U.S. Navy veteran). I was comparing the current U.S. to the U.S. historically, not to those more intrusive governments. Was that not obvious? (and I was referring to economic freedom specifically).

But that makes my point even more valid: Those who prefer government intrusion to liberty have plenty of other places to go. Those of us who want liberty don't.

Clearly the U.S. ranks well in the liberty department today relative to other nations. But the fact that oppression exists elsewhere is not a justification for it. Would you say that it's fine to beat your wife because people beat their wives far worse elsewhere? That's just not a logically valid argument.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I have visited many countries more intrusive than the U.S. (I'm a U.S. Navy veteran). I was comparing the current U.S. to the U.S. historically, not to those more intrusive governments. Was that not obvious? (and I was referring to economic freedom specifically).

I understand that, I was truly wondering what your personal experience had been. You talk about the US government in a way that reminds me of someone in ye olde Romania, or Greece. I wondered if that was a result of not really understanding what a truly intrusive government can do, but I believe you, so that's a moot point.

But that makes my point even more valid: Those who prefer government intrusion to liberty have plenty of other places to go. Those of us who want liberty don't.

Clearly the U.S. ranks well in the liberty department today relative to other nations. But the fact that oppression exists elsewhere is not a justification for it. Would you say that it's fine to beat your wife because people beat their wives far worse elsewhere? That's just not a logically valid argument.

I don't believe that we're oppressed, just because the world, the population, and the government has grown with time. It's a matter I've addressed before... we have profoundly different perceptions of similar situations.

 

[Al68]

I don't believe that we're oppressed, just because the world, the population, and the government has grown with time. It's a matter I've addressed before... we have profoundly different perceptions of similar situations.

Obviously, I was using the word "oppressed" in a relative sense. We are economically oppressed more so today in the U.S. than historically, but far less than many other countries. As was pointed out before, the U.S. ranks 9th in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom" .

The fact that I oppose current infringements on liberty in the U.S. should not be taken as some indication that I am unaware that similar, and worse, infringements are common around the world.

 

[nismaratwork]

Obviously, I was using the word "oppressed" in a relative sense. We are economically oppressed more so today in the U.S. than historically, but far less than many other countries. As was pointed out before, the U.S. ranks 9th in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom" .

The fact that I oppose current infringements on liberty in the U.S. should not be taken as some indication that I am unaware that similar, and worse, infringements are common around the world.

Your vehemence seems to be in conflict with your actual beliefs... you recognize the freedom we have, so is it fear of the future that has you, or something I'm just not understanding?

To me, in this, "...best of all possible worlds..." we're lucky to be where we are. The notion that we can return to a simpler time replete with liberty from the government in return for social slavery, is largely illusory in my view.

The way you seem to want to proceed doesn't, in my view, yield positive resuls (for many reasons already stated in other threads, and here by Gokul).

 

[Gokul43201]

For revenues, yes tariffs, excise taxes, fees for services, etc. Yes, get rid of many federal agencies, consolidating legitimate functions, including some of the functions of those you listed, like veterans benefits, nuclear safety, etc. A more detailed response would belong in a different thread.Government certainly didn't do much compared to what it does today, but that's not exactly a reasonable standard, considering how intrusive and powerful today's government is.

But that's not exactly going back to the amount of government that we had in the 19th Century. That's calling for something in between: a lot less government than we have now, but more than we had back then. That's answering a slightly different question than the one I asked you. I too would prefer to see less government influence than there is today, and more than there was a hundred years ago. The question was whether or not having the same state of Fed Government influence as then would actually work today.

But I agree that this is fairly off-topic to the basic theme of this thread. I'm starting a new thread to discuss some of this <see here>.

The U.S. federal government was instituted to protect our nation and our liberty, not restrict it to control society or achieve a social agenda.

I think that anyone could (almost reasonably) choose to agree with the above statement, irrespective of whether they were Libertarian or Socialist or RWA. Also, I think that anyone could just as easily argue that your statement is not true, and that establishing justice and insuring tranquility are most definitely duties that require the government to exert some amount of control over society and promote some kind of agenda.

 

[mugaliens]

Why am I doing this?... I'm curious as to whether the presence of restrictions beyond the PF norm is conducive to a different kind of thread, for better or worse.

You are definitely one intriguing individual!

 

[nismaratwork]

You are definitely one intriguing individual!

I would have gone for "downright odd", but I'll take it!

 

[Al68]

But that's not exactly going back to the amount of government that we had in the 19th Century. That's calling for something in between: a lot less government than we have now, but more than we had back then. That's answering a slightly different question than the one I asked you. I too would prefer to see less government influence than there is today, and more than there was a hundred years ago. The question was whether or not having the same state of Fed Government influence as then would actually work today.

No, that wasn't your question, it was:

And you believe that all the policies that helped US growth in the 19th century will work as well today?

"Same state of Fed gov't influence" is very different from "policies that helped US growth". Obviously, I don't advocate all U.S. policies of the 19th century.

 

[Al68]

Your vehemence seems to be in conflict with your actual beliefs... you recognize the freedom we have, so is it fear of the future that has you, or something I'm just not understanding?

I must assume the latter.

To me, in this, "...best of all possible worlds..." we're lucky to be where we are. The notion that we can return to a simpler time replete with liberty from the government in return for social slavery, is largely illusory in my view.

What are you talking about? I said nothing about "liberty from the government" or "social slavery".

The way you seem to want to proceed doesn't, in my view, yield positive resuls (for many reasons already stated in other threads, and here by Gokul).

Apparently, the way it seems to you that I "want to proceed" is very different from what I actually advocate. And I have repeated what I advocate far too many times to keep repeating it.

 

[Gokul43201]

No, that wasn't your question, it was:"Same state of Fed gov't influence" is very different from "policies that helped US growth". Obviously, I don't advocate all U.S. policies of the 19th century.

You're right: it's not the exact same question. I guess I interpreted my own question in the only manner I thought it would be meaningful, in the sense that the state of government is a matter of historical record and indisputable, whereas, any list of policies that "helped" is likely to be very highly subjective.

 

[Al68]

You're right: it's not the exact same question. I guess I interpreted my own question in the only manner I thought it would be meaningful, in the sense that the state of government is a matter of historical record and indisputable, whereas, any list of policies that "helped" is likely to be very highly subjective.

Yes, and the reason I made an issue of it is that the federal government is better in many ways today, and we have better protection of liberty in many respects, most notably the abolition of slavery, and many social issues beyond the scope of this thread.

The federal government has changed dramatically since the 19th century, for the better in some respects, and for the worse in some respects. I advocate "turning back the clock" for those policies that infringe on liberty, not those that protect it better than before.

 

[nismaratwork]

I must assume the latter.What are you talking about? I said nothing about "liberty from the government" or "social slavery".Apparently, the way it seems to you that I "want to proceed" is very different from what I actually advocate. And I have repeated what I advocate far too many times to keep repeating it.

I truly don't understand you, or your positions. You have no idea how much I'd love you to lay them out in detail, policy by policy so that I could understand. You're highly active here, but I feel as though we're always talking past each other, you know what I mean?

 

[Al68]

I truly don't understand you, or your positions. You have no idea how much I'd love you to lay them out in detail, policy by policy so that I could understand.

LOL. I don't think PF would allow a post that long (hundreds of pages).

Try these:
http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian"
http://www.cato.org/"
http://mises.org/"

I may not agree with every single position of every libertarian organization, but the main principles are shared.

Libertarianism is not something that can be explained in detail in this format, but plenty of info is available online. I have provided the above links, and others at various times in this forum, and could probably find more. And of course I can answer specific questions.

 

[nismaratwork]

LOL. I don't think PF would allow a post that long (hundreds of pages).

Try these:
http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian"
http://www.cato.org/"
http://mises.org/"

I may not agree with every single position of every libertarian organization, but the main principles are shared.

Libertarianism is not something that can be explained in detail in this format, but plenty of info is available online. I have provided the above links, and others at various times in this forum, and could probably find more. And of course I can answer specific questions.

That's fair enough... I have some reading to do, and thanks AL... I hope we can at some point talk to and not past each other (on these issues), although we seem to often have functional debates away from pure politics.