# Are you Conservative or Libertarian?



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Phinn's post on the thread on the 'Republican Defuncti' raises a fascinating question: what is the current relationship between libertarians and the US republican party? From previous Interchange threads, many self-described libertarians seem to naturally support Bush, Cheney, and other Republicans during partisan debates, even though they would seem to have (in practise) very different ideologies. 

Is this one of those perceived 'lesser evil' scenarios, or is libertarianism just a cover to avoid having to take responsibility for the orgy of spending that Republicans engage in whenever in control of national government? This duality has long intrigued me, and I hope some of my conservative/libertarian friends here will be able to shed some light upon the subject.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)




----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

For an interesting and in depth look at this topic, pick up a copy of John Dean's new book "Conscience of a Conservative".

-spence


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Spence said:


> For an interesting and in depth look at this topic, pick up a copy of John Dean's new book "Conscience of a Conservative".
> 
> -spence


Thank-you. Does this relate to libertarians, or just conservatives? Which are you?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Kinda in between. Current frustration is with the RNC tendency to ignore the things that drive conservatives to distraction - increasing the size and scope of government and spending money like a drunken lottery winner.

Conservative first, Republican second - see my party and my President as in great need of improvement but considerably the lesser of two evils.

General opinion right now is that DC's transition from a malarial swamp to it's present state does not represent an improvement. I'm a bit disgusted and disillusioned with DC these days.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

I was a teenage reactionary, but that was long ago and I have since believed myself to be a member of the hard, non-Marxist Left. However, if this article is indicative of opinions held by many contemporary conservatives, I find that I might have traveled so far to the left of the spectrum that I've ended up on the Right. 



It's all very confusing.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

One of my heros:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Prior to reading at the age of 19, I had considered myself a conservative republican.

It should be worth noting that Friedrich Hayek is not a conservative.

He wrote a post script in The Constitution of Liberty, tellingly titled "Why I Am Not a Conservative."

In that postscript, Hayek observes that conservatism is only as good as what is conserves. In Europe, conservatism tends toward the conservation of the aristocratic order. In the United States, conservatism tends toward the conservation of institutions which happen to be fundamentally liberal institutions. (By "liberal," Hayek means oriented toward human liberty).

Hayek refered to himself as an "Old Whig" - and disdained being called a conservative and thought that "libertarian" sounded to cumbersome. Disreagard for a moment that "Old Whig" is a little nebulous in definition as well.

Hayek's work, he explains, is not about "conserving" anything, but about re-stating the principles of the philosophy of freedom to a generation which has nearly lost the very concept of freedom. Hayek observes in The Constitution of Liberty that the West was fighting a Cold War against Communism, but that most people living in the West had no idea what about the West was worth defending. Hayek, then, also disdains the label "conservative" because it does not imply that he is actively working for human freedom.

edit: My first Interchange post - w00t!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Thank-you. Does this relate to libertarians, or just conservatives? Which are you?


The book relates a bit to both...personally I'm closer to the later in life Goldwater sort of conservative. Assuming you can still consider that a viable conservative lable. Measured by many GOP pundits this would make me a pink panty wearing socialist.

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Spence said:


> For an interesting and in depth look at this topic, pick up a copy of John Dean's new book "Conscience of a Conservative".
> 
> -spence


It's actually "Conservatives Without Conscience". https://www.amazon.com/Conservative...2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0363962-9388674?ie=UTF8

"Conscience of a Conservative" was Goldwater's book back in the 1960's.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's actually "Conservatives Without Conscience". https://www.amazon.com/Conservative...2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0363962-9388674?ie=UTF8
> 
> "Conscience of a Conservative" was Goldwater's book back in the 1960's.


Thank for the correction! Brain fart...

-spence


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It's actually "Conservatives Without Conscience". https://www.amazon.com/Conservative...2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0363962-9388674?ie=UTF8
> 
> "Conscience of a Conservative" was Goldwater's book back in the 1960's.


The ur-text of The Movement. Rick Perlstein's _Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater And The Unmaking Of The American Consensus _is excellent on the early days of the rightward swing, and the role Goldwater and his slim volume played in that change. Highly recommended, as is Lisa McGirr's _Suburban Warriors: The Origins Of the New American Right_, which examines the grass-roots movements in early '60s Orange County, CA - the very belly of the beast - that Goldwater and Reagan were able to exploit on the national level.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Spence said:


> The book relates a bit to both...personally I'm closer to the later in life Goldwater sort of conservative. Assuming you can still consider that a viable conservative lable. Measured by many GOP pundits this would make me a pink panty wearing socialist.
> 
> -spence


Sorry, I don't know what Goldwater conservatism means...would you please elaborate?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Bob Loblaw said:


> One of my heros:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
> 
> edit: My first Interchange post - w00t!


Congratulations, and welcome!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Goldwater conservatism was a kind of libertarian conservatism, at least by today's standards.

The terms "conservative and "liberal" don't really mean very much any more, although I have tried to figure out what they are _supposed_ to mean.

"Conservative" supposedly refers to the idea of change coming slowly, if at all. This was developed largely as a way of distinguishing the idea of Progressivism, which was a late-19th and early-20th century movement that borrowed a lot of ideas from Marxism, which, prior to the horrors of Stalin and Mao, was promoted as being a rational, humane and scientific form of government.

In keeping with the idea of scientific advancement, Progressives were also strong advocates of the idea that government itself should be organized along scientific or technical lines, the idea being that experts should be given the power to make their expertise into reality. This is the idea behind the massive regulatory bureaucracy -- the idea that a technocrat can and should decide how many tons of wheat should be produced, how high the bumpers on car should be, etc. This idea reached its zenith in America with FDR's New Deal, and in Germany in the form of National Socialism.

The idea of "rational and scientific government" is also the reason that the original Progressives were also eugenicists -- they wanted the science of evolutionary biology applied to human reproduction. This aspect of Progressive agenda was not fully enacted in the US; the most successful part of social-Progressivist agenda was Prohibition. In Germany, the National Socialists obviously took the Progressive eugenics idea further than their American counterparts.

The term "liberal" was originally a 19th century economic term -- it referred to the idea that the government should "liberalize" the economy, i.e., incrementally reduce its role in economic matters. The liberals of this period were rebelling against the old Mercantilist system, where government openly favored certain businesses, routinely granted privileges like monopolies, controlled trade with protective tariffs, etc.

This early form of liberalism (which is now called "classical liberalism") was so economically successful, especially in England, that "liberal" became synonymous with "good." We know it today as the Industrial Revolution. But by the late 1800s, there were a lot of competing agendas using the term "liberal" that were certainly not in favor of reduced government interference. The entire union movement, for example.

Essentially, the Progressives co-opted the term "liberal" in the early 1900s, and that revised meaning is what continues to this day. As a result of the term "liberal" being changed to mean "Progressive," the anti-Progressives adopted the term "conservative." It is no accident that the younger left-wingers on the Internet today prefer the term "Progressive."

The Republican Party was certainly not founded as the party of classical liberalism and smaller, less-intrusive government. Quite the opposite, from Lincoln up until Herbert Hoover, it was the party of Big Government. Lincoln's career was devoted to protectionism and railroad subsidies. Hoover was the most interventionist president up to that point. He interfered in prices more than any other president in US history.

FDR engaged in one of the most successful acts of what we now call "triangulation" -- he out-Republicaned the Republicans. Until then, the Democrats were the home of the small-government free-market proponents. A generation earlier, the Democrat Grover Cleveland was a very strong free-market advocate in some ways. But FDR took Hooverism and injected it with steroids.

As a result, the free-market, small-government folks moved over to become Republicans. Ever since, there has been a strain within the conservative/republican movement that talks about free-market ideals, even if they never really take hold. This is where Goldwater fits in. His campaign was the last hurrah for anti-FDR, small-government free-market advocates within the Republican Party.

Ever since then, the American political landscape has been pretty much divided between the right-wing socialism of the Republicans and the left-wing socialism of the Democrats.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I would point out that during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush we've had the outspending of the Soviet Union to end the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and the War on Terrorism. It's clear that a lot of people don't think the latter is a wise use of resources, but I think we can all get together on the first two being reasonable. I'd like to see a chart showing the rate of growth of federal spending, or increasing debt, without military spending. If the slope were greater during the presidencies of Republicans I'd be incredibly surprised and disappointed.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I'd like to see a chart showing the rate of growth of federal spending, or increasing debt, without military spending. If the slope were greater during the presidencies of Republicans I'd be incredibly surprised and disappointed.


Here you go:

catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2006/04/26/defense-spending


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Deleted


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Fixed it. Sorry.

https://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spendingdefensepgdpnl1.gif

https://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spendingdefenserpcnd8.gif


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

The graphics don't work for me at that site either, but from the text I can figure it out, and it's disappointing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

The problem is that the Dems and the Repubs each have this bundle of positions one is supposed to endorse, just like religious dogma. Being a Repub seems to require belief in God, if not outright religious fervor. Being a Dem seems to involve accepting anyone making over 50k a year is suspect at best, demonic in all probability.

Being a Repub seems to mean you are for limited government intervention....unless you are talking about abortion, faith based initiatives, or drug policy. Being a Dem seems to mean you are for heavy government intervention.....unless you are talking about abortoin, faith based initiatives or guns (anyone remember the "bullet as pathogen" tripe from the 90s? Hello, Koch's Postulates!). Go figure.

Being a member of either party seems to be you accept high levels of hypocrisy. Republican sex scandals, hugh spending and payola, Democrate influence pedalling, sex is personal if your last name is Clinton, felons should not just vote but be Mayors of major cities like DC (which beats Arizona Repubs, they sure seem to make alot of felon gov's) and Mustangs crash themselves into guard rails, and really, I back public schools even though my kids go to schools were the tuition costs more than most people's cars.

I guess I am independent. I want things like free needle exchanges, low taxes, personal responsibility for all, and basically low levels of hypocrisy in my elected officials. I mean, any NEA supporter and opponent of vouchers needs to send their kids to inner city schools. Any person that thumps a bible needs to tithe 10%, not lie, not get divorced, keep their zipper up, and show some friggin' real compassion.

I think I am asking more than US politicians can deliver.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

_Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?

Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people's right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.

In a sense, Libertarians "borrow" from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle._

I worked on a newspaper whose opinion pages were Libertarian. Usually I like in theory what Libertarians have to say, but that's just it -- everything with them is _theory._ They are political outsiders and thus have little practical experience in how things really work once the pork barrel is being divided. It sounds nice to bang the drum for small government and minimal government spending, but when it comes down to what's best for the country vs. what's best for the politician's re-election chances, any politician regardless of party is going to fight for the pork that keeps his constituents happy. If Libertarians achieved any national power, they would soon become just as spend-happy as the Republicans and Democrats. They just don't know it yet.



Wayfarer said:


> low levels of hypocrisy in my elected officials.


Of all the things you mention, this is least likely to happen.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> This idea reached its zenith in America with FDR's New Deal, and in Germany in the form of National Socialism.


That's interesting. Linking technocracy and socialism to the Progressive movement in the US might have some truth but your parallel with the German NSDAP seems to me, from what I know of its platforms and policies, very misleading. Do you have further details on that parallel?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Phinn said:


> As a result, the free-market, small-government folks moved over to become Republicans. Ever since, there has been a strain within the conservative/republican movement that talks about free-market ideals, even if they never really take hold. This is where Goldwater fits in. His campaign was the last hurrah for anti-FDR, small-government free-market advocates within the Republican Party.


You've omitted the racism, xenophobia, paranoia, demented anti-communism (Ike as KGB operative), rancid religiosity, and other distinguishing characteristics of the New Right, which carried Goldwater, and later Reagan, to national prominence. Oh, and the self-righteous stupidity, as demonstrated by "small-government" Birchers railing against "federal handouts" in 1960s _*Orange County*_. Legions of Southern California housewives didn't organize Operation Q to qualify Goldwater for the November '64 California ballot because they thought repeal of the Corn Laws a great idea, even if Barry did make the virtues of "free-trade" (or "anarchy for billionaires," as it is known to connoisseurs) part of his platform. There was a huge untapped reservoir of middle- and working-class white resentment that both Goldwater and Wallace uncovered in 1964. As Lee Atwater revealed in an unguarded moment in 1981, the key to tapping this reservoir of resentment was to pitch the appeal to a higher level of abstraction than had Wallace, to encode it in vague policy statements about "free markets" and "states rights." Hence, the modern GOP was born. And it's not going anywhere, no matter what the doomsayers are predicting for November


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

crs said:


> _Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?
> 
> Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people's right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.
> 
> ...


Libertarians, like anarchists, don't seem to recognize the fatal contradiction at the heart of their ideology: the stateless society cannot be brought into being through the use of state power. (Libertarians may object that they don't believe in eliminating the state entirely; they only wish to shrink it to near invisibility. This doesn't really change anything, as the paradox remains: the minimal, "night-watchman," state cannot be brought into being through the use of state power.) State power can diminish through the disintegration of the state, but that leads to a stateless condition that no sane person would consider desirable: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Iraq are current examples of such a condition, and none of them bears much resemblance to the utopias of industrious, virtuous, self-empowering, self-regulating entrepreneurs and artists that Libertarians and anarchists envision.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Being a Repub seems to mean you are for limited government intervention....unless you are talking about abortion, faith based initiatives, or drug policy.


I'm going to have to take issue with your position, and the position of many, that being pro-life is anti-libertarian. It is no more anti-libertarian than supporting laws against murder, if you're coming from a position that a fetus is a living human being that deserves the same protections as any other human being.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I'm going to have to take issue with your position, and the position of many, that being pro-life is anti-libertarian. It is no more anti-libertarian than supporting laws against murder, if you're coming from a position that a fetus is a living human being that deserves the same protections as any other human being.


Whatever turns your crank. I blame the whole abortion debate on Aristotle so probably not going to get into a thread jack over it.

Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The Libertarians link to this quiz that will tell you what you are. The quiz thinks I am a Libertarian. I figured it's rigged, so I took it again with different answers, and it isn't rigged.

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Burkean with a strong Jeffersonian undercurrent.

The quiz says:


> ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
> 
> You fall exactly on the border
> of two political philosophies...
> ...


That's where I always land on those things.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

After reading stacks of political philosophy and doing a bit of it on my own, I came to the same conclusion as Hayek and Russell Kirk....[harump] _Old Whig_. I used to joke with a similar minded friend in college that we should resurrect the American Whig Party (would that count as a resume builder?).

Or perhaps a Pat Buchanan type paleoconservative.

Russell Kirk on conservative vs libertarian https://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

crs said:


> The Libertarians link to this quiz that will tell you what you are. The quiz thinks I am a Libertarian. I figured it's rigged, so I took it again with different answers, and it isn't rigged.


This silly test says that I am a 'statist', 


> who 'want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. [You] frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.


 Which is utter rubbish, of course. They have loaded questions which don't take into account the many grey areas in real-life:

On the question that there 'should be no laws regarding sex for consensual adults', I put Disagree because there indeed should be laws against adults copulating, say, in the middle of a public street. And I put Disagree for the bit about 'cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more', because that's just madness, especially without defining what the proposed cuts would be. If this makes me a statist, then so be it. And if this little pseudo-test really defines libertarianism, then it is much more simple-minded and dangerous than I had previously thought. I hope some libertarians here will argue that the test is not valid.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

crazyquik said:


> After reading stacks of political philosophy and doing a bit of it on my own, I came to the same conclusion as Hayek and Russell Kirk....[harump] _Old Whig_. I used to joke with a similar minded friend in college that we should resurrect the American Whig Party (would that count as a resume builder?).
> 
> Or perhaps a Pat Buchanan type paleoconservative.
> 
> Russell Kirk on conservative vs libertarian https://emp.byui.edu/DavisR/202/Libertarians.htm


If Russell Kirk said it then it's almost certainly true.

AlanC
Former Russell Kirk Assistant


----------



## tweedchap (Sep 13, 2005)

JLPWCXIII said:


> This silly test says that I am a 'statist',  Which is utter rubbish, of course. They have loaded questions which don't take into account the many grey areas in real-life:
> 
> On the question that there 'should be no laws regarding sex for consensual adults', I put Disagree because there indeed should be laws against adults copulating, say, in the middle of a public street. And I put Disagree for the bit about 'cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more', because that's just madness, especially without defining what the proposed cuts would be. If this makes me a statist, then so be it. And if this little pseudo-test really defines libertarianism, then it is much more simple-minded and dangerous than I had previously thought. I hope some libertarians here will argue that the test is not valid.


I think it's a useful little tool, perhaps, for helping people who haven't really thought much about these issues, or their implications for their own position, to see where they might be on the political map. But I agree that, of course, it's too simplistic; no real political position could actually be captured by a test like this.

My own view is closer to libertarianism than conservatism, although in my own life I suppose I'd be more on the conservative side (pipe-smoking, tweed-wearing, port- and whisky-drinking academic...!), and so strongly dislike many things that markets bring. Although I have published an academic book advocating markets in human kidneys!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

jstaylor said:


> I think it's a useful little tool, perhaps, for helping people who haven't really thought much about these issues, or their implications for their own position, to see where they might be on the political map. But I agree that, of course, it's too simplistic; no real political position could actually be captured by a test like this.
> 
> My own view is closer to libertarianism than conservatism, although in my own life I suppose I'd be more on the conservative side (pipe-smoking, tweed-wearing, port- and whisky-drinking academic...!), and so strongly dislike many things that markets bring. Although I have published an academic book advocating markets in human kidneys!


I too think that it should be legal to sell kidneys - so it can be regulated and done in proper medical facilities. I simultaneously wish that societies would enlighten themselves enough to support the least of their citizens, so that no one is compelled by financial crisis to sell an organ.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I too think that it should be legal to sell kidneys - so it can be regulated and done in proper medical facilities. I simultaneously wish that societies would enlighten themselves enough to support the least of their citizens, so that no one is compelled by financial crisis to sell an organ.


That certainly sounds like a _Modest Proposal_.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*No one I know is against spending on the war on terrorism, but........*



hopkins_student said:


> I would point out that during the presidencies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush we've had the outspending of the Soviet Union to end the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and the War on Terrorism. It's clear that a lot of people don't think the latter is a wise use of resources, but I think we can all get together on the first two being reasonable. I'd like to see a chart showing the rate of growth of federal spending, or increasing debt, without military spending. If the slope were greater during the presidencies of Republicans I'd be incredibly surprised and disappointed.


I don't think you will find many people, especially on a basically conservative venue as AAAC, against the spending of resources on the war on terrorism.

It is truly unfortunate that the war in Iraq has been incorporated into the war on terrorism. And spending has expanded exponentially. Now that a hotbed of breeding for terrorists has been created we have to consider Iraq a part of the war on terrorism.

What a waste of resources that could have served our great nation in other areas. I believe conservation of resources, and careful and less spending are basic conservative tenets.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> I don't think you will find many people, especially on a basically conservative venue as AAAC, against the spending of resources on the war on terrorism.
> 
> It is truly unfortunate that the war in Iraq has been incorporated into the war on terrorism. And spending has expanded exponentially. Now that a hotbed of breeding for terrorists has been created we have to consider Iraq a part of the war on terrorism.
> 
> What a waste of resources that could have served our great nation in other areas. I believe conservation of resources, and careful and less spending are basic conservative tenets.


I am against spending on the 'war on terror', because I haven't been able to figure out what it precisely is - aside from a means to enrich Halliburton and other usual suspects.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*We're overspending!*



JLPWCXIII said:


> I am against spending on the 'war on terror', because I haven't been able to figure out what it precisely is - aside from a means to enrich Halliburton and other usual suspects.


As much as I bash GWB and The Triumvirate(Cheney, Rummy, and assorted Neocons), I absolutely think there is a legitimate need to budget and spend money on the war on terrorism.

Unfortunately, through gross incompetence and perhaps some greed we have spent far too much on the war on terrorrism.

But don't worry, we haven't raised taxes.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I am against spending on the 'war on terror', because I haven't been able to figure out what it precisely is - *aside from a means to enrich Halliburton* and other usual suspects.


I've read your posts, I know you're smart enough to come up with something better than this. Please expend the energy necessary to do so.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

hopkins_student said:


> I've read your posts, I know you're smart enough to come up with something better than this. Please expend the energy necessary to do so.


https://www.ehow.com/how_2541_stop-dog-chasing.html


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*Separation of Church and State from Schroeder?*



Wayfarer said:


> The problem is that the Dems and the Repubs each have this bundle of positions one is supposed to endorse, just like religious dogma. Being a Repub seems to require belief in God, if not outright religious fervor. Being a Dem seems to involve accepting anyone making over 50k a year is suspect at best, demonic in all probability.


Gerhard Schroeder, you and I seem to agree with a salient part of the above. I was admonished for putting this on the Fashion Forum(rightfully so), but it belongs here:

I seem to remember something in the constitution about separation of Church and State! Schroeder seems more aware of it than some others do in our government!

Schroeder rightfully points out that this intermingling is perhaps the crux of the matter re: "Islamofascists" and their agenda. His analogy is very interesting!

I wonder how Gerhard Schroeder, Jaques Chirac, and Vladamir Putin, could have all been so much in agreement prior to the Iraq war. That is very rare indeed.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Being a Repub seems to require belief in God, if not outright religious fervor.


This is what the Liberal Media wants you to believe. I'm surprised you bit their hook, line, sinker, and even the float, perhapes the boat and fisherman, too.
------------------------------------------------------
Another thing about the wicked Liberal Media is they tell the news as though what the Religious Right wants never was before, when really that was largely the way of life for most Americans.

Wicked Liberal Media makes it sound like it's a new idea that gays can't get married, or that the 10 Commandments be hung in every public school class room and that it is the evil Religious Right making life horrible for us and brakeing the laws. When I was a child homosexuals were in the closet, and the word gay (except for the last 4 year of my childhood) had nothing to do with homosexual. Every public elementary school and middle school class room I was in had the 10 commandments hanging in them.

Does the Wicked Liberal Media ever tell the truth?

From a book 'A More Powerful Vocabulary' by Wilfred Funk and Norman Lewis. First printing 1942. Pages 58-59

9. Is it best that our government should follow the political faith, methods and tenets of our fathers and grandfathers, or shall we move rapidly ahead, change con*stantly, explore and experiment? Those who believe in liberalism follow the latter philosophy. They owe alle*giance to no party, are independent in thought and action and are always anathema to those who wish the govern*ment to pursue the well-trod paths. Liberals prefer a changing, dynamic, experimenting government. They vote for progress, sometimes in the sense that anything new and different and previously untried is progressive. The Romans gave us the word liber, meaning "free."

10. The conservative, on the other hand, is opposed to change. He believes that what is, is best. He prefers that his government follow the familiar, tried, tested, safe, and supposedly sane, policies. "We're content with what we have. Why take the risk of sailing into uncharted waters?" Here we can go back again to the Latin, this time to conservare meaning "to preserve."
Liberalism is dynamic. Conservatism is static. In poli*tics these two wings of the government are to the left and right, respectively. Extreme liberals, still further to the left, are called radicals. Extreme conservatives, who are far to the right, are called reactionaries. Conservatives want to keep things as they are. Reactionaries wish to turn the clock back to "the good old days." "Radical" is from the Latin radicalis meaning "pertaining to roots" or "thoroughgoing" and "reactionary" goes back to the Latin re (back) and agere (to lead).

Reagan was often called a reactionary.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

The entire "liberal media" notion is a silly straw man so people like Rush Limbaugh can make a buck...or a few million 

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA said:


> Wayfarer said:
> 
> 
> > Being a Repub seems to require belief in God, if not outright religious fervor.
> ...


Yes, because I am well known for the blind fashion in which I swallow all the main stream media has to tell me about Repubs. Gee, where would I get this idea from?



> Help educate the public about the President's and our Party's Faith and Values agenda. Write Letters to the Editor. Call Talk Radio. Write Your Representatives.


Now where did I get that quote? A left wing smear site? Hmmm, you decide:

https://www.gop.com/Issues/FaithAndValues/



> Immediately upon taking office in his first term, the President established the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which rests on a basic principle: when it sees social needs, the Federal Government will look to faith-based programs ....


I'll be darned! Exact same page off the official GOP website says that!

I am not damning people of faith by any means, I am merely relating to you my perceptions. To blame my perceptions on the "Wicked Liberal Media" is garbage.

Cheers


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

WA said:


> This is what the Liberal Media wants you to believe. I'm surprised you bit their hook, line, sinker, and even the float, perhapes the boat and fisherman, too.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing about the wicked Liberal Media is they tell the news as though what the Religious Right wants never was before, when really that was largely the way of life for most Americans.
> 
> ...


WA, do you believe that homosexuals _should_ be in the closet?

Being a centrist with just a twist of libertarianism I'm going to stand four square against both the religious right and the far left. I don't need anyone taking away either my social or my economic liberties.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer- I know the Christian religous organizations have been used for a couple of hundred years by the various governments within the US. One of the first Federal Taxs, not sure it went through, was to buy Bibles to give the the natives (amazing how you never learned that in your history classes, isn't it?). What Bush has pushed for is probably here today and gone, maybe tomorrow. And the Democrats are certainly going to find something good about what Bush has pushed for to draw some people to them and another way to tax. Reagan is hardly dead and Bush has already destroyed a number of things Reagan pushed for, so are the Reagan Republicans not Republicans anymore? The people who voted for Ford- some of them were for abortion rights as Ford himself was and still is, and Ford is still a Republican. When Bush Sr. ran against Reagan he was also for abortion rights. Just because something is popular at the moment does not make it a corner stone of the party. Just because the Republican party has gone out of it's way to bring some people in does not mean that is the heart of the party, either. And just because somebody made it to the Presidency and likes somethings and gets them doesn't mean that the party cares. How many atheist voted for Nixion and are still stanch Republicans? The liberal media is having a field day mocking both the Christian religous organizations and Republicans at the same time. History is important. That's all.

ps. Not all that 1.1billion went to Christian religous organizations, some went to other religions.



KenR- What the liberal media is doing today of the two subjects I mentioned they did with other subjects 7 years ago, and 7 years before that the same thing with some other subjects. In 7 years from now it will be some other subjects, and so on. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the liberal media is attacking people by lies, today it is the Christian Right, tomorrow it could be something else.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> your parallel with the German NSDAP seems to me, from what I know of its platforms and policies, very misleading. Do you have further details on that parallel?


The first parallel that comes to mind is the strong preference that America's socialists have had for "central planning," which has always been a euphemism for price-fixing. (This was especially common with regard to agricultural prices.) The German National Socialists were, of course, fanatics about central planning.

Like FDR, the National Socialists suspended the gold standard. If I recall correctly, the National Socialists did not even go as far as FDR, considering that he ordered privately held gold to be confiscted in Executive Order 6102.

The National Socialists, like American socialists, fell in love with enormous state-funded construction projects (compare FERA, CCFC, PWA and TVA to the German Autobahns).

They both protected industry from foreign competition.

They both artificially expanded credit.

They both instituted "unemployment insurance."

The rhetoric behind these policies differed, especially as to the chosen bogeymen, but it seems like it would be harder to find example of how the New Deal and the economic platform of the National Socialists were _not_ alike.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

WA, say what you will, you can not change two things:

a) It is not just the "Wicked Liberal Media" making the Repub party out to be one of religion. It is the Repubs themselves, as evidenced by my quotes from the GOP website.

b) While one can vote for a Repub and be athiest, take it from me, people that express a distinct lack of faith are not welcomed with open arms.

You can have the last word. Point A is undeniable and point B is my experience and opinion, so neither are really worth further bandwidth.

Cheers


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer, I think it is just some of the loudest voices in the Party that are from the far right. I accept you just the way you are.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> The German National Socialists were, of course, fanatics about central planning.


You might want to give a source about that, your "of course" seems rather contrary to everything I know about the subject. You seem to think that because Germany under the NSDAP rule was a "totalitarian regime" it shared the same economic characteristics as other totalitarian regimes, such as the Soviets. As far as I know, that's completely false.

Let me sum up what I know about the subject. The NSDAP was first called DAP, and was, you could say, a left-wing party. Soon, it formalized its nationalist ethos and became the NSDAP. The "NS" part (National-socialist) was supposed to reflect that dual heritage. Its economic program was therefore very much anti-business (nationalisation of the means of production and such). That program was actually radicalized in the 1928 program under the influence of the Strasser brothers.

But Hitler was in favour of an alliance with the conservative forces in Germany. He successfully fought the Strasser brothers and removed any mention against capitalism from the program.

When the NSDAP came into power, it did not apply any sort of central planification. The principle of its economic and social policy was some sort of corporatism and the application of the "Führerprinzip" in firms. Nothing could be further from central planification. In fact, it was actually very late in the war that the war production became centrally organized, much later than the US or the UK had done it.



> Like FDR, the National Socialists suspended the gold standard.


As did many countries, including most Western democracies, if I am not mistaken. If I recall correctly, only the UK kept the gold standard in its original form.



> They both protected industry from foreign competition.


The NSDAP did not protect its industry from foreign competition. It's the foreign competition that went away (under a regime of economic sanctions).



> The rhetoric behind these policies differed, especially as to the chosen bogeymen, but it seems like it would be harder to find example of how the New Deal and the economic platform of the National Socialists were _not_ alike.


I find many. The organization of labour in corporations, of firms and farms under the "Führerprinzip" was actually very different to anything a socialist or socialist-inspired movement ever did.

It seems to me the main characteristics of a socialist economic policy as understood in the 1930's were central planification and the common property of the means of production. The NSDAP never did any of those.

In fact, the only reason I see to make a parallel between the two would be that you thought that the NSDAP was in favour of central planification and that you substantiated that parallel with some points which appear to be details to me (such as the gold standard). The first point is false, as far as I know.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Interesting clarifications.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> Wayfarer....I accept you just the way you are.


I feel a hug coming on!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wayfarer- 5%-20% of the Republian party is the Christian Right. So they are going to put up pages for them. The 80% ot 95% of the Republian voters that are not of the Christian Right don't care about the Christian Rights veiw points. In fact there has been within the last year or two talk of the Republican party dumping the Christian Right. And the Christian Right dumping the Republican party.

There is the fact that American morals have changed to a completely morally different country then it was 40 years ago and the last 20 years prove it is not a fad. Many people have moved from the Democrtatic party to the Republicans, because the Democrats have dumped the old morals. A lot of these people are not the Christian Right, but they have a lot of the same morals values as the Christian Right and the liberal media tries to blend them in as the Christian Right to try to make the Christian Right seem much bigger than it is.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Which morals have been dumped? 

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> It seems to me the main characteristics of a socialist economic policy as understood in the 1930's were central planification and the common property of the means of production. The NSDAP never did any of those.


This statement is false. While the National Socialist government did not, other than projects like Volkswagen and the Autobahns, assume _de jure_ ownership of factories, businesses, and industrial assets, the National Socialist approach was to regulate the entrepreneurial functions so closely that the state ended up with most of the features of ownership, namely control over production and pricing.

Here's an article from 1946 by a defender of central planning who outlines the various mechanisms of planning and control that the National Socialists used. He characterized the period from 1936 to 1942 as "extensive partial planning" to distinguish it from the more vigorous war-economy planning that followed. The central planning in National Socialist Germany was directed by the _Reichswirtschaftsministerium_, under Hjalmar Schacht until he was replaced as head of planning by Goerring in 1936. Schacht started with the New Plan, focusing on imports and foreign exchange controls. Another article on Schact's methods of central planning is here.

FDR issued a joint statement with Schacht on May 12, 1933.



> Until the restoration of order in economic life has had its effect in relieving unemployment, all possible endeavors must be made to help the unemployed by sound *internal credit expansion and by a synchronized international program for the mobilization of public and private credit for productive purposes*.


The Nazi committment to central planning continued after Schacht. The primary purpose of Goering's appointment as the chief central planner in 1936 was so that he could implement his Four-Year Plan.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> This statement is false.


It is if you rely simply on declarations. Using the term "plan" or having a ministry in charge of economic development is something that you find under FDR, in most developed nations after WWII (for reconstruction) as well as in the Soviet Union. That does not mean that there was an effective planification all over the world as it existed in the USSR. It is not enough either to make a parallel and decide that two of thoses cases (US under FDR and Germany under NSDAP) are similar. If you want to assess how much the NSDAP had really applied socialist-inspired economic policies (planification and common property of the means of production) it would be more useful to rely on the studies of the Nazi Regime "polyarchy" by the likes of Ian Kershaw.

Let me sum up my points. You were originally stating that 


> This is the idea behind the massive regulatory bureaucracy -- the idea that a technocrat can and should decide how many tons of wheat should be produced, how high the bumpers on car should be, etc. This idea reached its zenith in America with FDR's New Deal, and in Germany in the form of National Socialism.


My first point is that the similarities between FDR and the Nazi policy are few and far between. In fact, the Nazi ideology is very far from having a reverence to technocracy. On the contrary, following the teachings of Schmitt, political will is considered to be the main factor, and trumps anything the "experts" have to say. The only real common point between FDR and NSDAP in economic policy is some formal planification.

My second point would then be that, in that respect, the NSDAP regime is very far from being a good example of planification. Among the countless examples of planification, the NSDAP is actually probably the furthest from socialism let's say as far from it as Japan under the MITI): no central planning, no common property of the means of production, few "enormous state-funded construction projects" (as you called them)... The policies of FDR are not classic socialism either, but they are much closer to it.

I understand that libertarians like to make that parallel between FDR and NSDAP in a attempt to shock. It's part of the handbook. It is indeed good propaganda, but there is preciously little to justify it in the facts.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Spence said:


> Which morals have been dumped?
> 
> -spence


As for me, as many as possible. :icon_smile:


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Using the term "plan" or having a ministry in charge of economic development is something that you find under FDR, in most developed nations after WWII (for reconstruction) as well as in the Soviet Union. That does not mean that there was an effective planification all over the world as it existed in the USSR.


Actually, you also find similar use of extensive price controls and state regulation of production and wages in fascist Italy under Mussolini, and syndicalist Spain under Franco and the Falange Party.

Are they equal in every detail? No. Particularly as to labor policy, there are differences. But I believe I referred to central planning, and price fixing in particular, along with cartelization, government-sponsored monopolies and large-scale state-run construction projects, which were common to the New Deal, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, and Hitler's Germany under the National Socialists.



> It is not enough either to make a parallel and decide that two of thoses cases (US under FDR and Germany under NSDAP) are similar.


Your saying this doesn't make it so. You should try relying on something other than simple declarations. :icon_smile_big:



> the NSDAP is actually probably the furthest from socialism ... no central planning, no common property of the means of production, few "enormous state-funded construction projects" (as you called them)


I've already given several examples and cites of central planning. Add to that a general price freeze imposed in 1936. But there was "no central planning." Uh-huh.

I've already described how the National Socialists left _de jure_ ownership in private hands while substituting state-regulation and control for outright ownership.

The National Socialist government accounted for over three-quarters of the country's building expenditures in 1938. (See Time Magazine's article on Hitler, the "Man of the Year", Jan. 2, 1939.) Do you believe that 70-80% of the nation's construction projects can be fairly described as "few" enormous state-run construction projects?


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Liberal democrats are communists. Democtats in general are communists. We need a second witch hunt around here to deal with these infiltrators of our style of life. We need to convict few dosend of them of treason and execute them in pblic, and the current trend for the liberal "political correctness hug the muslim" type of s**t will end. We are at war, and in this war only one side survives. We need to unite the wesrtern civilizations against the muslim plaque.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Your saying this doesn't make it so. You should try relying on something other than simple declarations. :icon_smile_big:


Indeed. For example, one of my arguments, which you conveniently forget to answer to, is that contrary to what you say, technocracy was not at all revered in Nazi Germany. Quite the contrary actually.

Again, if you look at more recent sources than the articles of the time (QJE 1946, Time 1039), you'll see that the control they had on the economy was far from effective.

I'm still interested in your answer to my last question. Why declare that among all the examples, Germany under the NSDAP is the closest to America under Roosevelt? Even granting, for the sake of argument, your point that they are close (which, I argue, is not the case), why choose NSDAP Germany and not socialist regimes, if not for propagandist purposes?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

oktagon said:


> We need a second witch hunt around here to deal with these infiltrators of our style of life.


Quite right. The only way to win against muslim fanatism is to become fanatics. Who needs democracy and freedom of speech when a good Christian dictatorship would prove far more effective to wage a war?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

oktagon said:


> We need to unite the wesrtern civilizations against the muslim plaque.


Indeed. I think if we all brush twice a day for two minutes, we can rid ourselves of the plaque.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Quite right. The only way to win against muslim fanatism is to become fanatics. Who needs democracy and freedom of speech when a good Christian dictatorship would prove far more effective to wage a war?


Thank you, but I am Jewish. Having said that, fanatical resistance is the only way to stop the muslim plaque coming on to the White Western civilization. 
I will take Evangelical dictatorship any day over the bloody muslim one.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Indeed. I think if we all brush twice a day for two minutes, we can rid ourselves of the plaque.


It depends on your definition of "brush" 
My prefered one only applies itself in the middle east and north africa and its effectiveness is measured in megatons.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

oktagon said:


> Liberal democrats are communists. Democtats in general are communists. We need a second witch hunt around here to deal with these infiltrators of our style of life. We need to convict few dosend of them of treason and execute them in pblic, and the current trend for the liberal "political correctness hug the muslim" type of s**t will end. We are at war, and in this war only one side survives. We need to unite the wesrtern civilizations against the muslim plaque.


At first I thought you were being facetious. What would be your reaction if liberals were calling for the execution of people who think as you do?

Of course liberals wouldn't suggest that. Instead they would demand better government funding for mental-health clinics so people like you can get the help they need.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> At first I thought you were being facetious. What would be your reaction if liberals were calling for the execution of people who think as you do?
> 
> Of course liberals wouldn't suggest that. Instead they would demand better government funding for mental-health clinics so people like you can get the help they need.


Actually, I find liberals to be pretty intolerant of intolerance, a cunumdrum if ever there was one. You are right about the punishments though, not death...probably something worse, like a taped reading by Hillary of her book _It Takes a Village_ or maybe Rosie doing a reading from _The Vagina Monologues_?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

oktagon said:


> Thank you, but I am Jewish. Having said that, fanatical resistance is the only way to stop the muslim plaque coming on to the White Western civilization.
> I will take Evangelical dictatorship any day over the bloody muslim one.


Really? This seems an unwise decision, what with the whole "Christkiller" bit that has a nasty tendency to resurface from time-to-time. After all, it wasn't too long ago that ostensible Christians were hunting down Jews as treasonous "infiltrators" and urging that many, many, many dozens of them be executed in public and private to preserve the purity of "White Western civilization." But a deep thinker such as yourself no doubt perceived the irony in your remarks even as you wrote them. Right?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Indeed. For example, one of my arguments, which you conveniently forget to answer to, is that contrary to what you say, technocracy was not at all revered in Nazi Germany. Quite the contrary actually.


That's ridiculous. The very premise of a planned economy, with its centralized price and wage controls, centralized road building (which gave us the technocratic term "traffic engineer"), as well as an extensive "social insurance" program (in place in Germany since the Second Reich under Bismarck's technocratic bureacracy), is founded on the idea that technical experts can allocate resources better than a free market. Technocracy is the pseudo-scientific side of central planning.



> Again, if you look at more recent sources than the articles of the time (QJE 1946, Time 1039), you'll see that the control they had on the economy was far from effective.


It was very effective, considering that black markets inevitably arise whenever a government imposes bureacratic price and import controls. The National Socialists dealt with the black market that was created by their policies by punishing its participants with consequences equal to the most serious felonies.



> I'm still interested in your answer to my last question. Why declare that among all the examples, Germany under the NSDAP is the closest to America under Roosevelt? Even granting, for the sake of argument, your point that they are close (which, I argue, is not the case), why choose NSDAP Germany and not socialist regimes, if not for propagandist purposes?


The National Socialists were socialists. Hence the name.

I chose them as an example precisely because of the fact that, in both the US and in Germany of the 1930s, the anti-free-market agendas were accomplished by allowing businesses to _nominally_ remain in the hands of private owners, but seizing most if not all of the functions of an owner through extensive control of prices, wages, production quantities, imports, etc., combined with heavy taxation and deficit spending to fund large-scale construciton projects.

The distinction many Leftists insist on making between the Marxist-Leninist variety of socialist regime with the National Socialist variety -- ownership of businesses and their assets -- is formal and economically trivial in light of the degree of control over prices, wages, production quantities, etc. that we find under the National Socialists and the fascists.

Do you still stand by the patently frivolous proposition that the National Socialists did not, in fact, engage in central planning (in the form of price, wage, rent, import and production controls, labor-based social insurance, and a nationalized monetary system) as well as large government construction projects?

'Cause if you are, I'd start to suspect that you are a Public Works denier.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Lushington said:


> But a deep thinker such as yourself no doubt perceived the irony in your remarks even as you wrote them. Right?


To be honest I thought his post was a joke, a troll 

-spence


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Spence said:


> To be honest I thought his post was a joke, a troll
> 
> -spence


Troll, yes; joke, no. A jokeless troll.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> Which morals have been dumped?
> 
> -spence


The flower children came up with Free Love, I think that is what is was. But, even then the hippies were against children outside of marriage as is happening today, where there is no intent of getting married.

Another type of immorality is the sue craziness. Back in the 70's you could buy a brand new small airplane for about $10,000 more than a Cad. And then these small airplane business started getting sued until they stopped making small airplanes for 10-15 years more or less.

Stealing. I remember small items in stores that sat on selfs with out any packaging. The hippies changed all of that.

My Uncle & Aunt didn't even have locks on there house doors until the 80's. Can you imagine what it would be like not to have locks on your house doors, because you can trust people? Imorality made a need for locks.

The list goes on and on.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I suspect the good old days were not actually as good as we remember them. Time has a way of clouding the bad memories. That being said, WA, I think you are talking more about a return to personal responsibility, which would be a nice thing.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

KenR said:


> I suspect the good old days were not actually as good as we remember them. Time has a way of clouding the bad memories. That being said, WA, I think you are talking more about a return to personal responsibility, which would be a nice thing.


It took thousands of years to acumulate 6 std's. It took 15-20 years to add 14 more in the name of free love, So, there is about 20, nowadays.

Before the 1970's there were world travelers for centries and it took them centries to acumulate 6. A jump of 14 in less than a quarter centry means a drastic change. Ever heard of Shacking-up? Today it is the norm and expected, but not that long ago few people did it and there were probably laws against it in most places around the US.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> Ever heard of Shacking-up? .


My dear fellow: I as much as invented the phrase . . .


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

And I was one of it's greatest (but generally unsuccessful) proponents.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

KenR said:


> And I was one of it's greatest (but generally unsuccessful) proponents.


It's the effort that counts . . .


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> That's ridiculous.


And yet it's true. Just read anything by Hitler or Rosenberg. By all means, don't take my word for it.

You are quite right to say that the "very premise of a planned economy" is the belief in technocracy. That's precisely why planning was so weak in NSDAP Germany. 


> The National Socialists were socialists. Hence the name.


Not really. The name was a heritage of the leftist beginnings of the DAP, later NSDAP. But as early as 1929, Hitler effectively purged the party of any socialist tendancies. The program was, under the influence of people like Schacht, made palatable to Hitler's big-business backers and to his conservative political allies -mainly Hugenberg's DNVP). Just compare the early manifestos of the DAP, or even the 1928 Manifesto of the NSDAP under the Strasser brothers to what Hitler enforced after 1929 (and when in power).



> Do you still stand by the patently frivolous proposition that the National Socialists did not, in fact, engage in central planning


Of course. No central planning before the war economy, no effective one anyway. The main reason is that this ran contrary to some of the core beliefs of their political theory.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> Of course. No central planning before the war economy, no effective one anyway. The main reason is that this ran contrary to some of the core beliefs of their political theory.


You are correct that it ran contrary to the stated policy and platform, but remember when the Nazis first came to power in 1932 they did not have a natural majority - they had a coalition government. It wasn't until Jan 1933 when Hitler came to power and Feb 1993 when the Nazis consolidated that power and set the constitution aside.

From 1933-1936 they practiced selective nationalization. They basically bought consensus and compliance (a brilliant political move) by returning some industries (like banking that had already been nationalized) to owners who agreed to excessive regulation and Nazi party intervention and nationalized the rest. Sort of a "cake or death?" version of "Deal or No Deal".

Once this was done, in 1936, Goring was put in charge of the 4 year plan, had total control of the economy, and had great effect -- real wages plummeted during full employment.

In American politics, 1933-1940 Germany is cited as the single best case for defending the existence of trade unions.

Although the plan officially expired, something happened in 1940 ... I can't remember what exactly ...

rappelez-vous? ;-)


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> My dear fellow: I as much as invented the phrase . .
> 
> KenR- And I was one of it's greatest (but generally unsuccessful) proponents..


So, you two are bragging about why my health insurance premiums went up!! To pay for you VD medications!

Anyway, it was nice to see autos that didn't have keys (just push a button to start them), or people who never took there keys out of the ignition less they loose them. My younger brother never locked the door when he left to go to school, except maybe two times, and all those years nothing was stolen. Besides, if you wanted in you could go to a hardware store and buy a premade key for the lock anyway for about 15 cents. Where can you do these things nowadays? If 25% of Americans could do that 30 years ago and the population was about 200,000,000- that is a lot of house holds that didn't have to worry about burglars and auto thieve!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> So, you two are bragging about why my health insurance premiums went up!! To pay for you VD medications!


I've managed to avoid the poxy tarts, thank god, but your point is well taken. I estimate - I *conservatively *estimate - that thanks to my loose living and general dissipation I am personally responsible for advancing the Decline Of Western Civilization by three or four years. If others had done their part we might have brought the whole thing down about our ears ages ago.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I've managed to avoid the poxy tarts, thank god, but your point is well taken. I estimate - I *conservatively *estimate - that thanks to my loose living and general dissipation I am personally responsible for advancing the Decline Of Western Civilization by three or four years. If others had done their part, we might have brought the whole thing down about our ears ages ago.


My hero!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> No central planning before the war economy, no effective one anyway.


Now you're back-pedalling.

In any event, despite many opportunities to do so, you have failed to provide any concrete facts, links or citations.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington- You concede so gracefully.

Me- I'm like the monster under a childs bed when the child decides it is time to pull the monsters teeth out so he can't bite.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I've managed to avoid the poxy tarts, thank god, but your point is well taken. I estimate - I *conservatively *estimate - that thanks to my loose living and general dissipation I am personally responsible for advancing the Decline Of Western Civilization by three or four years. If others had done their part, we might have brought the whole thing down about our ears ages ago.


I am confident that your other fine qualities completely mitigated the effects of your loose living.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> you have failed to provide any concrete facts, links or citations.


Wrong.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I consider myself a libertarian and very rarely vote Republican in national elections, though I often vote Republican in local elections. On a national level, I think the Republican party is a lot more intrusive into the lives of citizens than the Democratic party - especially on social issues.

My federal tax bill is huge too, so, I don't know where the idea that Republicans cut taxes and spend less comes from.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I am confident that your other fine qualities completely mitigated the effects of your loose living.


Trust me JLP, as soon as any of these fine qualities are identified they're going right into the scale. They'd better count for a _lot_, however.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

odoreater said:


> My federal tax bill is huge too, so, I don't know where the idea that Republicans cut taxes and spend less comes from.


Because they _used_ to spend less.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

odoreater said:


> My federal tax bill is huge too, so, I don't know where the idea that Republicans cut taxes and spend less comes from.


I think you're going to feel even worse about your taxes if the Democrats come into power and can get their way. I believe that N. Pelosi all but guaranteed that raising taxes (and eliminating tax cuts) would be on the top of the priority list if her party takes the House and/or the Senate.

Also, I wouldn't place much hope in her party reducing spending.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Yes, I have not heard anything from the Democrats about cutting taxes or at least holding the line on them. Or about cutting spending for that matter. I don't think people will be too pleased if they do inact any tax increases.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I think you're going to feel even worse about your taxes if the Democrats come into power and can get their way. I believe that N. Pelosi all but guaranteed that raising taxes (and eliminating tax cuts) would be on the top of the priority list if her party takes the House and/or the Senate.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't place much hope in her party reducing spending.


I read somewhere that the Democrats are considering raising the cap on Social Security taxes. It seems that as things are now, one is only taxed on the first 90 000 USD income, and so anyone making that much or less would be paying SS taxes on 100% per cent of their income, whereas a person making 180 000 USD per annum would only be paying SS taxes on 50% of their income.

Perhaps lifting or abolishing this cap is a fair way to keep the SS programme working? I'm sure many would object to fewer benefits or raising the benefits age.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I favor raising or eliminating the cap on the Social Security tax. I also support raising the retirement age to 70 or older. Also, most people won't notice it if we eliminate the Paris Hilton tax break.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

No doubt, raising the SS tax cap would increase revenue. However, the SS benefit is calculated on the SS-taxed income. Therefore, the system would then owe more in payouts, also. The sad fact that many never collect what they have paid in for their "retirement" means that this might well be positive to the bottom line, but would make a bad system even worse, in that sense.

Rather than couching the tax increase in rather thinly veiled technicalities, I'd prefer the government be up front and just announce a tax increase straight up.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I favor raising or eliminating the cap on the Social Security tax. I also support raising the retirement age to 70 or older.


That is just punative, which of course, is in the liberal talking points. Why do I feel it is just punative? Due to the fact so few people make over the cap, which is about 90k now, that it really can not affect the solvency of the program and let's face it, the type of people that make more than the cap on a regular basis are not the people SS is designed to benefit. They would just be further supporting another welfare program even further. Why force and extort thousands more from people like me for a program doomed to go broke? Additionally, I will be my last dollar that by the time I retire, SS will be means tested and I will get shafted that way too.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is just punative, which of course, is in the liberal talking points. Why do I feel it is just punative? Due to the fact so few people make over the cap, which is about 90k now, that it really can not affect the solvency of the program and let's face it, the type of people that make more than the cap on a regular basis are not the people SS is designed to benefit. They would just be further supporting another welfare program even further. Why force and extort thousands more from people like me for a program doomed to go broke? Additionally, I will be my last dollar that by the time I retire, SS will be means tested and I will get shafted that way too.


Imagine how African-American males must have felt since it was instituted. After decades of paying SS taxes on 100 per cent of their incomes (the vast majority, at least), it will be another 65 years before the *first *generation of black American males, on average, even have a life expectancy _equal_ to (much less greater than) the SS retirement age.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> Imagine how African-American males must have felt since it was instituted. After decades of paying SS taxes on 100 per cent of their incomes (the vast majority, at least), it will be another 65 years before the *first *generation of black American males, on average, even have a life expectancy _equal_ to (much less greater than) the SS retirement age.


That is how Social Security was supposed to work, people would pass on and not collect it for decades.

Edit: Also, your info is faulty, although granted, very troubling if one believed it. One can see groups of white people have distinctly lower life expectancy than many others and it should be noted that the life expectancy of black males is currently nearly 70 years.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is how Social Security was supposed to work, people would pass on and not collect it for decades.
> 
> Edit: Also, your info is faulty, although granted, very troubling if one believed it. One can see groups of white people have distinctly lower life expectancy than many others and it should be noted that the life expectancy of black males is currently nearly 70 years.


You must realise though that the life expectancy for 2006 applies to those *born* in 2006. If the rising life expectancy applied to everyone, hardly anyone would ever die - since every year they'd be given an additional year to live.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Relayer said:


> I believe that N. Pelosi all but guaranteed that raising taxes (and eliminating tax cuts) would be on the top of the priority list if her party takes the House and/or the Senate.
> 
> Also, I wouldn't place much hope in her party reducing spending.


That was Rangel. Pelosi has actually learned when to shut her mouth lately.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> You must realise though that the life expectancy for 2006 applies to those *born* in 2006. If the rising life expectancy applied to everyone, hardly anyone would ever die - since every year they'd be given an additional year to live.


My link was to demonstrate that life expectancies can be low for others than merely black males. I think you need to do a little more research on life expectancy of black males that are 65 today JLP. Lastly, this very provocative red herring is just that....a red herring.

Cheers


----------

