Blue Plate Special
Congressman Paul Ryan has had considerable success lately explaining the main problem with health care — and with “social democracy” — in general: it’s unsustainable. It’s an old message which has until recently taken a back seat to the idea that the welfare state was the wave of the future. OpenLeft argued that the hidden message of Star Trek was that in the future humanity would establish a socialist paradise. “The most familiar utopian socialist society would be that of the United Federation of Planets in the popular television series Star Trek – particularly that depicted in The Next Generation. There is no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; everyone works for the advancement of all humanity — as well as the rest of the Federation.”
And bizarre as it may seem, until recently many people would have agreed that socialism was the fate of mankind; that our capitalist world was but an unfortunate expedient, a necessary concession to knuckle draggers until in our enlightenment we could go out and prove our superiority to the Borg. Ryan’s great achievement was to start a hairline crack in that crystal vision; to point out that for utopia to exist we first have to afford it; and under socialism we can’t. Fortune calls Paul Ryan “Obama’s Adversary,” not just in the party politics sense, but memetically. He’s gently pointed out that Hope and Change might simply be a nightmare tricked out as a dream. But he’s made an even more radical assertion: that the world can have a future it doesn’t have to buy on credit.
Republicans aren’t the only ones suddenly taking notice of Ryan’s views on deficit reduction and government spending. During his now-famous appearance at the Republican congressional retreat in Baltimore earlier this year, the President singled out Ryan. …
Ryan got his chance to confront the President at the health-care summit Feb. 25. Seated across from Obama, Ryan addressed him directly with a six-minute, numbers-laden, wonkish analysis of the Senate bill that contradicted the administration’s pledge that the plan wouldn’t add to the mountainous deficit. … Obama steered the discussion away from Ryan’s numbers, and the White House hasn’t challenged his analysis.
The health care debate was the congressman’s great moment and the press is likely to pitch it as consequent to his own personal charisma, that fount from which all political success is believed to come. But it isn’t Ryan that bears watching so much as the sudden respectability of his message. Mario Continetti of the Weekly Standard describes him as a kind of anti-Obama in the sense that he yearns for a different heaven and fears a different hell. While “President Obama wants to reshape the American economy and welfare state so that it looks more like a Western European social democracy,” Ryan wants to build a future based on something people can actually afford, “and since fiscal policy is Ryan’s specialty, he’s become the GOP point man when it comes to entitlements and health care.” What the Congressman has on his side is arithmetic of money, which even Chris Matthews has to respect. Watch this exchange.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Matthews shrewdly asks Ryan why he thinks he can persuade voters that they can no longer have something for nothing when nobody else has before. And for a moment we catch a glimpse of a much more formidable Chris Matthews, a man who seems to have come to liberalism in part because he’s seen conservatism fail to sell. And the congressman’s riposte is simple: ‘Chris, it will sell now because the voters have no choice. The party’s over and sooner or later everyone who isn’t brain-dead has to see that.’ Entitlements have drained the treasury dry. An entire generation has blown its wad and doesn’t even have enough kids to borrow from. And as any who’s ever shaken his wallet and seen only old ATM receipts flutter out of it, the message is signally clear. Gotta get back to work.
The extraordinary impact of Ryan’s message really springs from the fact that it’s an idea whose time has come. Either that or the salesmen in political fantasy, though as good as ever, have finally sold their customers one thing too many, sent them running out into the street one last time under the spell of one of those late night shopping show pitches, intent on ordering the tenth combination potato peeler and bathroom scale only to find all their neighbors sleepwalking toward the center of the road looking open mouthed at the dawn coming up from of the dark edge of the city.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
“Matthews shrewdly asks Ryan why he thinks he can persuade voters that they can no longer have something for nothing when nobody else has before.”
I’ve said it many times on this forum, at some point a politician is going to say the unsayable – that the post WWII gravy train is over and people are going to have to stop telling themselves that they derserve x, y, and z simply because they are a certain number of years old, American, and above ground.
Maybe this is the hint of a beginning of that.
Everyone deserves a house because your grandpa who worked a semiskilled job in a factory 60 years ago could get one? Nope. Outcome egalitarianism is the “new Amricanism”? Nope. Screw yourself, Barney Frank and everyone who said that with regards to housing since the CRA was created.
Everyone deserves health insurance because most people have it through their work? Nope.
“The party’s over and sooner or later everyone who isn’t brain-dead has to see that. Entitlements have drained the treasury dry. An entire generation has blown its wad and doesn’t even have enough kids to borrow from. And as any who’s ever shaken his wallet and seen only old ATM receipts flutter out of it, the message is signally clear. Gotta get back to work.”
From your lips to God’s ears, Wretchard.
Paul Ryan is great and has the right answers……will anybody listen is the real question.
OTOH Matthews saying “…let me put a liberal hat on…” caused me to spit coffee all over my monitor, what has he been wearing all these years?
Certainly not the crown of conservatism.
The best Sci Fi depiction of a communist utopia are Iain M Banks Culture novels. He is a communist but he gives great space opera.
I’m no economist but looking globally it is very hard to find ANY country currently with a sustainable economic program in place.
The population of the US now realizes that the “bail outs”, TARP etc. were a bail out for Wall Street, not the average citizen. We have an unstable economy and unsustainable policies to deal with it.
We have an administration hostile to capitalism or at least our diaphanous model and are daily shredding what’s remaining.
Demographically no “major “country of old Europe has a fertility rate that will sustain its population past another 25-50 years, and the US falls into that category unless we factor in immigration which places us at the minimum number for cultural sustainability. Islam, however is blossoming like the darling buds of May.
It is very hard to see where an exogenous event, be it a trip wired war or global economic meltdown can be averted in the coming decade. We have placed all the factors for that event out in the open, just waiting for a hard rain to fall.
Related topic. This supports the value of the gridlock built into our constitution. In Europe the kind of wave that swept his Oness into power would have, and did, sweep in the agenda of the moment.
Even now we got too much of the wave, TARP and Stimulus etc…but we can recover and haven’t jumped over the health care cliff yet.
Liberals never take the long view…always the heat of the moment.
Sigh
Ryan’s a breath of fresh air.
Now the GOP needs to take the argument a step further — unless the elderly are willing to accept a decline in their lifestyles, only vigorous economic growth — generated by tax cuts, nuclear power, and a smaller government — can solve the problem. The pie has to grow or somebody gets less pie.
“For the betterment of self, mankind and the federation”, The men and women who have to clean the toilets on Star Trek don’t get paid and the job cannot be for the betterment of self.
Then again who has ever seen a toilet on Star Trek?
perhaps they just beam that shit outa there per bowel movement!
This is the stuff of socialist dreams where everyone has it all, cruises the universe in style and shit gets beamed somewhere else out of view.
“The party’s over and sooner or later everyone who isn’t brain-dead has to see that.”
When I graduated from college in 1974 that was the idea that was running through everyone’s head. The oil shock of 1973 proved that the easy days were over. The USSR was on the rise and the USA was on the decline. Them’s the facts, kid. Deal with it.
But some of us decided to just keep pluggin’ along, join the U.S. military, study engineering, save our money, take care of our families and our country.
And whadda know, it worked. Like the troops at Roarke’s Drift, all of a sudden when all is lost by any logical measure, all you have done adds up and you find you have won.
The party’s over all right – again – but it’s over for Them, not US this time.
The real underlying problem is this: “capitalism” is not an economic philosophy — it is the natural result of FREEDOM.
In order to “move beyond” capitalism, we must perforce move beyond freedom, an impetus amply demonstrated in the past year by an administration pathologically anxious prohibit anything it does not mandate.
Freedom is the fundamental God-given right, and to maintain it I am quite willing to tolerate the unequal distribution of wealth arising therefrom. We most certainly should “spread the wealth around,” and by far the best way to do that is to offer a product or service those with money are willing to pay for.
I’ve built a solid business on that basis. Simple concept, but simple doesn’t often mean “easy” in implementation. Way too many people wish for “easy” these days, which is what drives the desire to live off the fruits of someone else’s labor.
I overheard two customers in the parking lot back in spring of ’08, before things got challenging. One said to her friend: “You know, working in the private sector is just plain too difficult. I’m going to apply for a job with the county.”
That is the essence of the problem, and my fervent desire is that such attitudes will be swept away by emerging economic reality. If not, things will get quite ugly.
Re Tony #3
Ian M. Banks’”Culture” seems to be based on super-intelligent AI who keep humans around for entertainment, if not as pets. This could happen post-”singularity” if the AI decide to keep us.
We have painted the town red for quite a long time. We have come back into the house and painted that red as well.
And now, we have painted ourselves into a corner. We look at the ledger and all we can see is red.
We have gifted ourselves a Great “Gotsby” lifestyle, courtesy of our children and grandchildren. And the leftists smell the weakness. They sense the blood in the water.
Oh, they pushed the wheelchair down the staircase the past three years, no doubt about it. Anyone suggesting that the TARP program was an effort to bail out Wall Street has still not caught on to the end game.
By passing massive ADDITIONAL legislation that nobody was allowed to read or consider, in a fevered rush to give money that either has been paid back or not yet been spent in large part…
a)has not “stimulated” any real jobs growth, nor was it really intended to in the first place;
b)has not alleviated by even the slightest the foreclosure crisis;
c)has not improved consumer confidence;
d)has not delivered any “green shoots” to the economy
It HAS, however:
A)Given a permission slip to a leftist supermajority to seize the banking and finance industry
B)Given a permission slip to a leftist supermajority to seize the auto industry
C)Given a permission slip to a leftist supermajority to seize the insurance industry
D)Given a permsission slip to a leftist supermajority grab the health care industry, the energy industry, and coming to a TV and Radio station near you…the information industry. These latter three have not yet been successfully swallowed because of Scott Brown, East Anglia email hacker unknown and the Tea Party movement.
The grab for Economic Fascism or “corporatism” as il Duce would call it, is soft peddled under warm and fuzzy “populist, nirvana, utopia” code words.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/economic-fascism/blog-175771/
H/t Ed Driscoll
It appears that the line in the sand has been drawn. The “give unto seizures” mentality of the leftist supermajority is in full frontal attack mode. Jim Bunning fired a shot from the Alamo and the rest of the Republicans hitched up their skirts and headed for high ground.
The choice is clear. From July 4th, 1776 until February 19, 2009 we were a free market society that told its citizens every single American had an opportunity to be as rich and successful as everyone else. All you had to do was work hard and earn it.
From that latter date on, we have ceased being a free market society and we have become a land in transition to economic fascism, where we tell every citizen, if you have more than anyone else you are going to be slandered unless you give it up for “redistribution”. And every citizen has a right to be as poor as every other citizen, unless you work for the state and vote leftist.
And, if you won’t vote leftist, we will import people who will. Legally, illegally…doesn’t matter. Puerto Rico, Mexico, Timbuktu…unimportant.
By the way, you older generation, Robert Reich and the other moral Lilliputians are going to “allow you to die”. This will speed up the attrition rate of voters who have lived long enough to know what totalitarianism looks like, up close and personal.
The Greatest Generation serves no more purpose, make way for the Great Gotsby generation.
Salt Lick is correct. The only way out is to turn capitalism loose. Cancel all capital gains taxes, open the coastal waters to drilling, fast track regulatory approval of refineries, nuke and coal power plants. What would a $700 Billion dollar annual reinvestment in the US energy sector do for the economy?
2. anton:
For an hour, I forgot Matthews is a liberal!
Salt Lick,
While I accept that some social security recipients are probably living on the edge, there are very many who aren’t. These people and succeeding generations still employed really need to ask themselves whether a change in lifestyle to something more modest really means a decline. What is really need is thinking time to sort out the important things of life from the status-giving and boredom-evading things that many think they can’t live without. We all need to stop judging people by the labels on their clothes and the fad foods served at their dinner parties.
All Ryan is doing is trying to preserve the largest government possible without going bankrupt. He really is not trying to reduce the size of government.
In the early 1970s, I remember watching a wonderful feature-length cartoon with my kids. It was called “The Point.” It told the story of Oblio, a round-headed child born into a world of pointy-headed people. Like Paul Ryan, Oblio voiced basic truths that many in the pointy-headed world didn’t want to hear.
I seem to recall that one of the characters said, “People see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear.” I think that’s the challenge that Paul Ryan may not be able to overcome.
It’s pretty obvious that the current administration and congressional leadership see what they want to see, and hear what they want to hear. Worse there’s a significant percentage of the American public that does the same thing. We all “see” a wounded economy and rampant joblessness, but many people are encouraged to “see” rapacious corporations and “the rich” as the bad guys and big government programs as the savior. We all “hear” that entitlements are going to cripple the federal budget, but too many people refuse to hear the follow-on statement that painful changes must be made … now.
My point? I can only hope that we truly “hear” thoughtful voices like Paul Ryan’s. But I’m not holding my breath.
OpenLeft, via Wretchard: “The most familiar utopian socialist society would be that of the United Federation of Planets in the popular television series Star Trek – particularly that depicted in The Next Generation. There is no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance in human society; everyone works for the advancement of all humanity–as well as the rest of the Federation.”
Several years ago I read a comment by a Star Trek fan who was struck by the absurdity of this utopian premise. It went something like this: “In the 24th century, Earth is a paradise. There is no war, no poverty, no intolerance, no exploitation. So what do we do? We venture into space. And what do we find there? War, poverty, intolerance and exploitation.” In light of all this, it’s a wonder the humans of this era didn’t just pick up their dilithium marbles and go home. (Actually it’s not such a wonder – there’d be nothing to make TV series and feature films about if they did – but I digress.)
Meanwhile back in this century, Barack Obama intends to reinvent America along the lines of that same utopian premise. But he has also taken a look around the world and found countries like Iran, China and Russia that don’t share such lofty ideals. Not to mention a certain transnational religion with aggressive transnational political ambitions to match. BHO’s response to all this? Why, to pick up his foreign-policy marbles and go home. His propensity for appeasement and grand bargains on the world stage may be daft on its own merits, but it makes perfect sense to a president who sees foreign policy as little more than a distraction from his real purpose of creating a domestic utopia.
It’s Matthew Continetti, not Mario.
Matthews makes his stab by attacking the Defense community. Why did the Liberal pick that to focus on when as Ryan pointed out, and it was his one nonplussed moment that he could have responded to more forcefully, it is a tiny percentage of the GDP? The reason I think is that Matthews understands that Defense expenditures support a cultural opposition to the Euro-Socialist model. That has little to do with the operation of the military as an organization. Life in the military approximates the Socialist ideal. That also was part of the appeal of Star Trek where all of the virtues of Socialism were on display but none of the vices of bureaucratic abuse, except for a pig headed diplomat, or the effects of resource misallocation.
What the Left hates about the military, they fear and distrust it even when they come from it or command it as Chavez does, is that it builds people who are not only obedient to lawful authority but also capable of independent thought and creative problem solving. The traditional Right in Europe and most places, Latin America, Nationalist China, Korea and Africa, view the military as the “School of the Nation.” When done correctly it teaches not only discipline and practical skills, West Point was America’s National school of Civil Engineering in the 19th century, but also citizenship and democratic values. The current iteration of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning that the Left fears and hates, does try to teach officers from Latin America about Constitutionalism and Democracy. The wiki talk page on that topic is best handled with asbestos gloves.
When in power the Left builds alternative control and security structures to limit the threat that they perceive from the military. In the Soviet Union there were the zampolits and parallel military formations under the control of the Interior Ministry and State Security. Obama wants his Civilian Security Force.
The attack from the Left on the military, as evidenced by M*A*S*H, was that it constrained free spirits who wanted to “Speak Truth to Power.” That was a fraud because the free spirits championed by them were those who arrived as non-conformists with a sense of elite entitlement. To protect their privileges the Left will attack the military institutions that defend the liberties of the many and builds self reliance in individuals.
Unfortunately the Libertarian conservatives in America, and their theoretical allies the Liberals of Europe, are particularly ill equipped to confront the Left on this issue. They also see the institutions of the military, and Law Enforcement, as not only financially draining but as constraints on individual liberty that can be used by a tyrannical government.
The best response to Chris Matthews statement that he did want America to become more like a European Social Democracy would have been a vigorous defense of the Constitution and the system of interlocking but constrained units and levels of government established to minimize the impact of government on individual enterprise while maximizing the ability to respond vigorously to threats.
We can in fact create a path back to the system that worked. We need to constrain entitlements, probably by trimming them 5% a year for 30 years. We also should rebuild and expand our armed forces until they are again at least of the size, effectiveness and flexibility that they were 25 years ago.
I guess “catching on” that TARP and other wealth transfers from hoi polloi to the nouveau riche should have included a by now shop worn list of other transgressions such as “no stimulus, nor remedied the mortgage crisis or restored consumer confidence …. revelations all….. if you’ve been in Borneo for the last few years. To those who haven’t “caught on” yet make sure to tape this list of moldy oldies to the refrigerator and do not make reference to the shamwalla that sucked the money from Joe SixPack. And lest I err further allow me to point a big middle finger at Goldman Sachs and their alumni who are still in control of our financial system.
Oh yes, just forget about the demographics necessary to dig out from under the refrigerator list or the mention that the entire industrialized world is in economic chaos …. Just go buy a Greek Island to help ‘em out a bit.
cfbleachers: “We have painted the town red for quite a long time. ”
In the context of High Plains Drifter, yes we have. The homecoming is happening soon for all those progs, from the limp wrist parasites feeding in the education, government and mom’s basement troughs to the unwashed pawns who protested against my father and his fellow veterans. The interest they’ve been accumulating all these years is coming due.
RWE is spot on. We’re not going easy, or quietly. All we have to do is see it through and we’ll give this quaint notion of liberty and equality another 150 year respite to grow.
I don’t submit to any ideas that my generation is the unappreciative inheritor of Great Works built by The Generation of Titans. The Titans got weary you know, as all man does at some point… they endured the great depression and sacrificed in WW2 and then they finally rested as your generation came about, boomers. They were simply too tired to make you toe the line and beat back socialism that last time. And the majority of you were too young and naive to rise to help them, so it came to pass.
I’ve served this country, I’ve paid my taxes and been a wage slave, I’ve raised my four children while steering them through ever-increasing waves of progressive drivel, and I’ll be damned if I throw up my hands in despair and quit. I’m sure as hell not alone, either. Cronkite, Hollywood, laugh tracks, all those movies deriding “military intelligence”, the food pyramid versions one and two, the removal of corporal punishment and volleyball, heavy metal leads to suicide and devil worship. All that propaganda failed on us. Just like your generation, some succumbed, plenty of others resisted. What about all these Y gens in the sand right now, bearing arms against the barbarians, oh great judges? Are they not doing enough, too?
So whine, piss and moan if you need to about how it’s all doomed. Get it out of your system, but you better be making yourself useful while you’re at it. Learn, network, stockpile and prepare. That happy little temperate area between the full light and the deep shadow is going to get really narrow in times to come. Make sure you’re on the right side when it does, there won’t be any more lectures then.
Bart Hall #9:
Your comment about the private sector being too hard brings to mind the fact that in Wash, DC especially, and in a number of other major cities as well, working for the government is what a large percentage of people do. In Wash DC it is easily the majority of people who work for the government, and of course most of the rest depend on the government directly or indirectly for jobs. For people in that environment having the government hire most people does not seem to unreasonable at all. That is what they see around them. I suspect that even Kansas wheat farmers realize that the entire country cannot be employed growing wheat, but that is not the case in DC – what they see around them is what they think it is like everywhere.
Lifeofthemind #21
One thing politicians in general and Leftists in particular dislike about the military is that there is no negotiating with a bullet. Most, but not all, of the US military realize that the rubber really does have to hit the road (to use a Pentagon phrase). Eventually someone has to say, “That is not going to work, Senator, and it did not work the last time, either.”
If the Left and the politicians realized that in all of government only the US military has a majority of people who really believe in the Oath of Office, they would like us even less – and those smart enough would become very afraid.
Salt Lick nailed it.
The only way out is through genuine economic growth. But Salt’s list needs to include a wholesale dismantling of our regulatory system, and a replacement with a regulatory regime that respects the Constitution, particularly the ‘Takings clause” and the “Equal Protection Clause”, and is strictly reviewed on a impartial cost/benefit analysis. Without that reform we will not go back to a position of strength and prosperity where we actually make real products again.
Furthermore, that dismantling needs to include a reworking of the system so that the left’s non -productive predatory parasites of the bureaucracy, the legal world, investment banking, the welfare/Nanny State support system and the University system no longer have favored status where seemingly all the material goodies from our legal and regulatory system accrue to only them. These non-productive elements of our society now have tremendous power and will fight tooth and nail to protect their privileged status. They are the real problem that must be conquered.
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between “seeing” something coming and understanding the end game.
Goldman Sachs is not “Wall Street” and pointing a gun at Wall Street and saying “you guys” are the target, is missing the boat for the canoe.
It’s a dodge built by the blameshifters and swallowed whole by those willing to rant at anything that moves. Wall Street didn’t create this mess. They aren’t the ones exacerbating it. Losing sight of the end game here by falling for misdirection plays…falls right into the traps set for the unwary.
As for the Greatest Generation vs. the Woodstock Nation, our information stream changed in that handoff. Academia changed. Hollywood changed. We were bombarded with subtle and no so subtle messages. Some took.
There is no whining from this quarter. I have served and will continue to serve. However, we have never been closer to the edge than we are today. Ever.
Closing our eyes to that and patting ourselves on the back for being resilient won’t stop the constant barrage of “the message”.
Social democracy is not unsustainable. It’s unsustainable at the level of taxation and military spending we have now. I said a while back in a comment to the “Fourth American Republic” post that a way out for the US is to become like Western Europe, with much higher taxes and lower military spending. That’s a choice that we could make that would solve our deficit problem. But there’s more to it than just deficits.
The public needs to decide if they want their programs with higher taxation, or if they want the US to be a world power with a dynamic and growing economy.
Proponents of the VAT like to say that spending cuts are “politically impossible,” so we need to raise taxes dramatically. My response is that higher taxes are “politically impossible,” which is why we don’t see a Democratic super-majority raising them in an election year. Surely they could delay implementation until they thought the economy would be recovered. But they don’t, which means they think the electorate won’t go for it or that the recovery isn’t happening any time soon.
Either way, that tells us a lot about what the left half of our government thinks. If they think it’s impossible to raise taxes, I guess we’ll see what the right half thinks about seriously cutting spending.
The extraordinary impact of Ryan’s message really springs from the fact that it’s an idea whose time has come.
The extraordinary impact is he’s the first elected representative in years to have mastered simple arithmetic, and is not afraid to say so.
Hairy Reed is just today yapping that “only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which was really good!” That’s verbatim, folks, and with great earnestness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC211h9AY-4
May I say again – when there is nobody working, the job loss numbers get small – AND IT IS NOT GOOD NEWS. Groan. OK, a politician will purposely take the misinterpretation because it sounds well, but I’m pretty sure Hairy, nor Obama, actually understands the numeric situation, much less the human one.
Ryan seems reasonable, and earnest, and telegenic. I’m not sure he’s exactly a numbers wonk himself, though. He needs to recruit a staff that is. And a lot of party support for his numeracy.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18616-dark-dangerous-asteroids-found-lurking-near-earth.html
totally OT. dangerous asteroids, don’t reflect any light but can now be seen with new infrared space scopes. may be burned out comets, volatiles long gone. why do they immediately remind me of Obama?
I do like Paul Ryan, but every time I see him I’m reminded that Progressives have won the game.
A true conservative would challenge liberal orthodoxy, not argue we need to reign it in a bit and find a way to pay for it. I live on the north side of Chicago, a very liberal enclave, and have ended/enlivened many a conversation by positing this question: What is the moral justification for taking, by force, money from me and my family, giving yourself a cut of it and giving the rest of it to someone else? A true conservative would argue that there isn’t one, and that all transfer programs are immoral. Alas, it won’t happen because progressives have won the argument. And, as I’m constantly reminded, for the most part money isn’t really taken from people or paid to the government by them, it’s simply withheld. They never see it and don’t feel entitled to it until the benevolent government deems they are.
Was that really Chris Matthews? I don’t believe it. That was a reasonable person, conducting a worthwhile interview. Must be a mistake of some sort…
Speaking for myself, I have no faith whatsoever in the letters the Social Security Administration sends me periodically, listing promised numbers with dollar signs attached. I expect to remain working until I’m eighty or so. Out of principle, I have no debts to burden me. What I don’t have is any sort of food stockpile, and some of you folks here make me think I should.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
All Ryan is doing is trying to preserve the largest government possible without going bankrupt. He really is not trying to reduce the size of government.
He has to start somewhere.
31) Peter W
“Was that really Chris Matthews? I don’t believe it. That was a reasonable person, conducting a worthwhile interview. Must be a mistake of some sort”
Yes, that was like a flashback. He was good until about the second or third year of the first GWBush term. Unfortunately, he didn’t retire about 7-8 years ago.
For that part of the electorate that believed Obama would pay the mortgage and fill the tank with bio fuel, the notion of not being able to have your cake and eat it too is a very tough sell. The essence of Matthews message is that no one can be elected telling people they will have to change because that won’t sell.
I disagree with that assessment, as proof, I offer the contract with America, which did lead to real welfare reform and caused a shrinkage in government spending. It required people to accept not only the inevitability of change but allowed the message of beneficial long term goals to be heard over the din of short term discomfort.
Ryan’s message is not the same as President Reagan’s or either President Bush. pay me now or pay me later doesn’t affect that part of the electorate Mathews refers to. Matthews reference to a “Pay me now or there will be no later” doesn’t work either. But a message of hope for a design that works and allows for achievement and self respect is much better than a fuzzy “hope that others will change”, which is what elected the current resident of 1600.
i saw a reference today that over 1/3 of the Greeks with jobs work for government in some form. i wonder what the comparable figure is for the US and what the demographics of that group is.
the difficulty of Ryan’s message, otherwise known as the truth, is that too many people are forced to admit that they have made terrible mistakes with their life. like the guy mentioned above who tried to avoid reality by migrating from the private to the public sector, everyone finds out that reality eventually catches up.
John O,
money isn’t really taken from people … it’s simply withheld
Good point. Here is another proposed Constitutional Amendment to add to the list.
Amendment Regarding Taxation:
section 1. No funds shall be collected by the Congress under the authority granted by the 16th article of amendment to this Constitution in the form of a withholding tax on incomes but only through an assessment to be issued no more frequently than on a quarterly basis.
section 2. Congress shall have the power to collect information regarding all incomes from persons whether real, commercial or charitable.
section 3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
To be blogged under the title “Withholding.”
I know how much government we can actually afford:
$2.5 trillion’s worth per year/budget cycle. That’s how much revenue the government can collect in good times at the present value of the dollar and level of taxation. $2.5 trillion buys a lot of government. That is the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of what the budgets were in the later Clinton years, when we sorta/kinda wrestled the budget into a rough balance. As I recall, we had big government under Clinton. What we have now is collossal government.
I think that’s a good arithmetical rule-of-thumb to start with — $2.5 trillion. I think it’s also a stable, realistic base to work from, because raising taxes will only temporarily raise revenues above that level, before the inevitable settling in caused by the dynamics of taxation and economics. The revenue stream will settle back down to $2.5 trillion.
LOTM:
You probably know the details better than I do, but I recall reading that income tax witholding was a “temporary” measure during WWII. I have often wondered, and, regrettably failed to ask my now-deceased elders, what it was like to have to pay one’s income tax directly.
Don Rodrigo,
You probably know the details better than I do
Thanks for the compliment but I do not claim to know more than you do.
Just keep looking things up.
We can start a file of “Temporary Emergency Measures.”
1. Withholding (WW-II) along with the relaxed program of Wage & Price Controls.
2. Rent Control (WW-II) in New York City and elsewhere.
3. Agriculture Price Supports (WW-I) still active under the label “Parity.”
Eliminating withholding would benefit banks and help stimulate the economy.
#35 steeple How many people work for the government, in some form? There are direct government employees, including all teachers and school employees; since a very large part of medical spending is from the government as Medicare or Medicaid, all the health care industry effectively work for the government; and there are many people who are privately employed but whose work is complying with government regulations, such as HR people and lawyers, who are effectively government employees. I think close to an actual majority of people are dependent on the government for employment.
In the early 90′s the Presidents Council of Economic advisers (I think) commissioned a study about what was the right size of the government (it is available on the net). Their study came to 15%+/- of GDP. We are at about 27% currently with all govt. sectors combined about at 40% (Nat., state, local.
15% of GDP is the absolute maximum size that we should accept under any circumstances and much smaller would be better. Govt. at all levels shrinks or it is over. Even if it shrinks it still may be over.
Pray for the children!
“There is no money, no want, no poverty, no crime, no disease or ignorance…”
Doesn’t that describe the state of death? Clearly the easiest way to achieve that is to all commit suicide.
15% of GDP is the absolute maximum size that we should accept under any circumstances and much smaller would be better. Govt. at all levels shrinks or it is over. Even if it shrinks it still may be over.
That would come to about $2.1 trillion based on current GDP. That is somewhat less than the figure I used above. I understand that currently, the feds are only collecting around $2.2 trillion, still above the “ideal” you report.
If it were up to me, I would limit the take of government to a tithe (10%) for the feds, and less for the states.
We should definitely challenge liberal orthodoxy. What about the conservative one that says that the national security area of the budget is untouchable? It is over a trillion of that 2.5T this year. Now every county in America has a SWAT team. By letting this trend continue they will have more then enough guns to compel you to pay your ‘fair share.’
We need to defend the borders + reliable nuclear arsenal + ? How much do the top 10 threats to us spend? How much money have we spent on ‘The War on X?’ Meanwhile the general population seems completely oblivious to the deteriorating condition in Mexico. Of course our insistence that Calderon fight the drug cartels (fight the them over there so we don’t have to fight them here!) may ultimately end up in a flood of refugees.
If Americans are really serious about not bankrupting future generations then they will spend the money that they do borrow wisely.
Thras #40:
Back around 1993 a study came out that had been conducted by 3 Senators. I do not recall who all of them were but I am sure one of them was Sen Rudman.
The study showed that for every $1.00 collected in Federal taxes, the private sector spent another 40 cents to comply with IRS regulations. That sounds horrible but I find it believable, especially if you include costs and lost opportunities associated with tax avoidance.
Now that 40 cents does not count the cost of other regulations that are not associated with taxes directly. Consider what has happened in the area of light aircraft. After steadily increasing the requirements for private pilot licensing for decades, the FAA came out with a Sport Pilot license, which offers reduced privileges in return for an easier licensing process. The result was an explosion of new production light aircraft in what had been an almost moribund industry. BUT – most of those are being built in Europe, which has terrible limitations on private flying.
The problem is the rich pay no taxes and yet the entire government apparatus exits to cater to their whims. We could have the rights to health care, food, housing and jobs made available to all merely by disrespecting the greedy. If we seize the assets the top 1% of Americans, we could easily afford all of those programs and pay down the entire national debt. In addition, we could slash the budget by refusing to use the military as an instrument of corporate greed. If Texaco wants the oil fields in Iraq, why can’t they hire a private security force to take them?
Interesting that the Toque fails with the same error message as yesterday
just as the script kiddie troll shows up.
I have to note here that this forum provides real reassurance that there are thinkers of great clarity, who are able after all to express judgments and propose solutions with eloquence and passion. I feel a great debt to Richard for his daily maintenance of the site, as well as the regular contributions. He shines a lantern on subjects that the traitors and thugs would prefer to leave unconsidered, and provokes research, investigations, conversations, and protests among readers in all walks of life, living in remote parts of the world. This forum by its nature is a threat to those who want to betray and master their fellows, and is vulnerable. But it is part of a grand tradition stretching through the meander of civilization’s struggle toward maturity and wholeness.
Savor it.
Ryan’s been on radar for some of us since before his ass-kicking at the “summit”.
We got to the edge of the cliff through a long history of abuses and usurpations. BHO and his like-minded idolaters believe it’s time to go all in on that abuse, so as to secure for all time the prize of being the very first to make collectivism actually work. Given the opportunity to pursue this socially suicidal plan, they will not only fail, as history demands, but they will take the Republic down with them. Thanks, no.
Some folks criticize Ryan because his Roadmap doesn’t go far enough, fast enough; as such, they would have him err with the same magnitude as BHO… the only difference being direction. Again… thanks, no.
Ryan is the first bona fide politician I’ve heard speak unremitting common sense about where things stand and what our options are. The U.S.A. could do a lot worse than an Army of Ryans in Congress, starting in November, and Sarah Palin should be studying federal economics under this guy.
Meanwhile, we need to start honing responses to the “but he wants to slash Medicare!” whine. Medicare is already insolvent – it currently survives only through outright, federally sanctioned theft, extortion and – soon – through what will be explosive deficit spending. Retirees and, especially, prospective retirees must be made to understand this. That, ultimately, is the answer to Chrissy’s question.
Ryan’s Roadmap, or something like it, will lead away from the inescapable economic and cultural bankruptcy guaranteed by collectivism. He could use some support.
23 LFMayor
“RWE is spot on. We’re not going easy, or quietly. All we have to do is see it through and we’ll give this quaint notion of liberty and equality another 150 year respite to grow.”
And the rest of your comment is equally excellent and refreshing to my ol’ soul.
We ain’t done yet.
While the rest of you can elaborate on the big picture and the cause and effect of our terrible situation, I would like to give you a brief snapshot of how all of this has effected the generation born from 1940 to 1950, or at least in my little world here in Texas.
If your short of time or patience, stop reading here!
What I describe below also applies to almost all of my friends. Some even worse to some a little better. A small picture of a small group of Americans.
My working life started when I was about 13 years old. Part time jobs after school, when there were not any, I went door to door asking to do chores for either money or whatever they wanted to barter. After my military service, I got a couple of jobs, quit both and was accidentally hired by Big Blue for a clerical job that I didn’t want but took anyway. It was full time and I saw that their techs made good money and I wanted more money. My electronics background was sparse but my mechanical ability and experience was formidable even if it was just on cars, trucks and other such stuff. I took night classes on the electronics until I could pass all the tests.
To make a long, long story shorter, I worked as a tech (Customer Service Engineer) for almost 40 years before being forced to take early retirement in 94. I then worked part time jobs fixing what ever some of my old customers had broke because they didn’t want to pay Big Blue’s high labor charges if they had went off Maintenance agreement or had bought instead of leased. I ordered genuine parts from the Corporation that had dumped me and thumbed my nose at them every chance I got. My knees and back gave out in 2000. So no more fixing stuff especially as my fingers started not doing what needed to be done.
Fast forward to 2008-09 when I lost my butt or I should say lost almost all of my investments. I still had my savings and was too stove up to work anymore and lived on that, my small pension and SS.
I lived on that and in 2001 started raising a super sweet grand daughter that my worthless daughter couldn’t and wouldn’t take care of. My savings dwindled, my credit cards balance climbed. Paying minimum payments I knew I was going down the drain, but there was no way out, raising kids is expensive and in 07, my worthless daughter presented me with another sweetie, headstrong grand daughter to raise.
I started paying peter to pay paul and peter was very expensive, so I got another credit card knowing full well that I would never pay any of them off. But what the hell…I probably wouldn’t live long enough to worry about much, as long as I could manipulate cards and make the minimum payments.
Well that lasted until December of last year when I couldn’t make it work anymore. So I just stopped paying all of the credit card companies and when they called told them flat out that I would never pay them another nickle. Now I don’t answer the phone anymore and have reams of bills to throw in the trash every day.
So be it. I’m done, but my meager SS and pension is keeping us afloat now since I got on the welfare train last year. Obama gives me and my two girls and daughter almost enough for groceries and gives them Medicare and Texas gives us milk, cheese, beans and cream of wheat. We are not going to starve. Plus of course I’m the king of barter and trade and am still selling off my toys, trading them and such. Toys I have accumulated for the last forty or so years.
At one point I had a three acre plot with a storage building that was 150′x 75′ and two smaller 14′x 25′ storage buildings. I also had various toys parked around them and a 25′x 40′ shop that would make any guy have fits over, that had almost every tool known to man and a few that I had designed and built myself.
The moral of this story is that like the good ol’ USA, I bought and spent myself into oblivion and have what I deserve now.
Those credit card people are screwed because I have nothing that they can take away from me (nothing at least they can find) in the state of Texas.
Nothing except two sweet, smart growing grand daughters and three fine grand sons, two in the Military and one soon to go to the Marines.
You think China will be as easy to get out from under?
I doubt it. But they are going to have to come through all of us to get our assets, and they will never get Texas.
They can have California and Florida.
The Islamic hordes and the rest of Mexico and South America will just have to get in line.
Obama and his crew come in a distant last, and we better make sure that is where they stay. We can’t afford to let this continue or happen again.
Prepare for the worse and protect your family, and don’t give up the fight.
Buy more Ammo.
Papa Ray
#48 – I just got the same thing…
And now it’s telling me I can edit yours.
Great.
I really have completely had it with the comment nonsense at this site – especially on the Blogs. Comments seem to work just fine on almost every site I visit except this one.
Paul Ryan is cryin’
That Marxism’s dyin’
That social democracy’s dead
The party is over
We’re out of the clover
We’re all gonna work more instead
Entitlements finished
And welfare diminished
We’ll soon put the country on track
No longer will shirkers
Outnumber the workers
With Ryan our liberty’s back
More Ryan at the WSJ:
Paul Ryan v. the President
A good quote:
Preposterous? NO…Criminal!
Papa Ray
#46 RWE
The cost of the regulatory state is truly staggering The IRS regulations are bad enough but then there are the regulations of the other Federal agencies. I read somewhere that the cost to the private sector of complying with these regulations is about a trillion (not billion) dollars a year.
And much of the problem is due to a dark fractured phenomenon I call “emergent insanity.” Consider if you will a situation I heard about some years back in regard to slaughter houses. OSHA had regulations that mandated that the floors be grooved so as to decrease the possibility that the workers would slip on any bloody floors and injure themselves. On the other hand, the FDA (I think) had regulations that stated that the floors in such places had to be smooth, the idea being that the bloody residue might collect in grooves and foster the growth of bacteria that could contaminate the meat.
In isolation, both regulations made sense. Together, they made insanity that only Franz Kafka or Rod Serling could possibly make up. You got your choice of who you wanted to be fined by. There was simply no way to comply with both regulations.
And how many other catch-22′s are out there? I don’t really want to know. I probably can’t count that high.
A common-sense, knowledgeable, articulate politician…who’d a thunk it? Paul Ryan 2012!!!!!!!
Taxing something by definition places a burden on it. Anyone remember the Laffer curve and how RWR used it to lower taxes and raise revenue? Of course Bill C. was in the WH when the big benefit of RWR’s economic plan kicked in but the point is it worked.
But once again demographics will rule in the end. People may be unhappy with obama but they also, when polled, want BIG GOVERNMENT.
Yeah, this time it’s different.
47. Apostle of Love:
The problem is the rich pay no taxes and yet the entire government apparatus exits to cater to their whims. We could have the rights to health care, food, housing and jobs made available to all merely by disrespecting the greedy.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Perhaps you forgot your sarc tag. If not, Ignorance – thy name is apostle of love!
Strange, I just mentioned this Star Trek idea in a post yesterday, and I think it bears mentioning again–I think Gene Roddenberry may have been the only american who really understood marx or at least understood what a utopian socialism might require, and that is a technology that can simply create physical objects–in star trek its the thing that Picard used to make his tea. It literally made matter.
Now, short of this sort of deus ex machina, I think all you get is at best, the giant economic wet blanket of Bismark Euro Socialism (and all its attendant social pathologies) or the more repressive varieties of mao and stalin.
Right now, what we have as an engine of material progress is capitalism, and it has created greater wealth and prosperity than socialism, so on that basis, it beats socialism on it’s own terms!
The question is, are we going to shackle the productive forces of capitalism with the dead weight of socialism?
I, like others, have had my eye on Ryan for about two years now. He has formidable analytic ability and evicerated the President’s “savings” assertions at the summit. What the Dem/progressives are selling as savings and cost containment simply does not add up.
The two Dem bills actually passed by the seperate houses of Congress each will lead to the end of private health insurance while providing less choice and poorer service and will accelerate the bankruptcy of the Treasury.
Ryan understands what I understand and puts words to it well; we are going broke and can’t sustain this growth trajectory, even in the relative short term of the next decade.
There are about to be some very difficult choices presented and if you think we are in economic pain now, wait a couple of years. Entitlement spending will have to be drastically reduced or our country will cease to function. The great socialist experiment that has gone on since 1932 and was accelerated in the 1960′s is about to end in failure. We will be able to put a fork in the Marxists when it happens, it was their grand idea.
Wretchard said:
“And bizarre as it may seem, until recently many people would have agreed that socialism was the fate of mankind; that our capitalist world was but an unfortunate expedient, a necessary concession to knuckle draggers until in our enlightenment we could go out and prove our superiority to the Borg. Ryan’s great achievement was to start a hairline crack in that crystal vision; to point out that for utopia to exist we first have to afford it; and under socialism we can’t.”
Prior to World War II, it was almost universally accepted by the Western intelligentsia that the future belonged to either socialism or full-blown communism. Back then, it was argued that as modern science and technology lifted our economy and standard of living out of the 19th century, so to would socialism (as the counterpart to modern science) have a similar effect upon society and the political process. To emphasize this point, many early 20th century socialists referred to communism as “scientific socialism”. This code word for communism continued to be used until the late 20th century. The general acceptance that the future was with communism/socialism only began to breakdown after the horrors of Stalinism became common knowledge. The breaking point for many of the leftist faithful was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Hitler and Stalin followed by Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin when Operation Barbarossa was launched. In this context it is very interesting to read the biographies of George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) and Arthur Koestler. Both men had been fully seduced by communism/socialism but after the scales feel away from their eyes, they became fierce opponents of communism. To some extent Orwell and Koestler have served as the prototypes for modern leftists who likewise achieved political awakening, e.g. Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz.
In my opinion there has been distinct phases in the rise, decline and fall of socialism. First there was the original “Eugene Debs phase” that I earlier described from Karl Marx to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact were the beneficial efficacy of socialism was generally accepted. Then there was the “awakening” after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact where the more thoughtful members of the Left abandoned socialism. This was followed by the Cold War where Soviet funded Gramscian agit-prop seduced a whole new generation of leftists into being “useful idiots”. Finally after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been this period of continuous decay where one-by-one the Gramscian “wind-up robots” have been running out of steam. “Ryan’s message” is really only the “stake through the heart” of a political process that was already in its death throes.
Now having said all of this, it is interesting that our illustrious President along with a significant fraction of the MSM still believe in socialism. There are still lots of wind-up robots out there wandering around aimlessly.
Baal #59:
I think that Roddenberry’s “vision” of the economics of Star Trek reflects his disinterest of the subject. He did not go into it any more than he did how the latrines on the Enterprise work. It is not interesting. How much did Tora Tora Tora or The Longest Day or Patton or Combat or Gilligan’s Island or the orginal Battlestar Galactica go into economics? The new Bstar actually went into it a little bit.
Subsequent elaborations on the subject, minimal though they be, reflect Hollywood in the same way as does the popularity of Che T-shirts. In other words, they don’t have to depend on Communist economies to make the damn shirts and they give the fact and the related inconsistency no thought at all. It’s not only uninteresting to them, it is to be avoided in the same way that fixing a broken toilet is – messy, nasty, and they could not do it anyway.
Eggplant #61:
Read P.J. O’Rourke’s book “Eat the Rich” He concludes early in it that College study of economics is all but worthless because they still talk about Marx as being anything but utterly discredited.
Eggplant,
You capture how reactionary Obama is. Everything about him has the unreal quality of a newsreel from 60 to 75 tears ago. One caveat, Eric Blair/George Orwell always claimed to be a man of the Left, even after his break with the orthodox Communists. In Spain he sided with the Trotskyist Party.
“OpenLeft argued that the hidden message of Star Trek was that in the future humanity would establish a socialist paradise.”
Funny isn’t it how Socialist Paradise keeps looking like Hell on Earth for everyone except those at the top of the Socialist heap – you know – the not-to-be-equalized equalizers – our Marxist “Philosopher Kings” who are always more equal than others.
“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” (Communist Manifesto)… meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it (The Socialist Party of Oceania) was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc (Socialist Principles of Oceania), which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984
“OpenLeft argued that the hidden message of Star Trek was that in the future humanity would establish a socialist paradise.”
Don’t you think it might be wise to listen to the Soviet dissidents of Socialist Paradise?
“The usual understanding of “equality,” when applied to people, entails equality of rights and sometimes equality of opportunity. But what is meant in all these (Socialist) cases is the equalization of external conditions which do not touch the individuality of man. In socialist ideology, however, the understanding of equality is akin to that used in mathematics, i.e., this is in fact identity, the abolition of differences in behavior as well as in the inner world of the individuals constituting society. From this point of view, a puzzling and at first sight contradictory property of socialist doctrines becomes apparent. They proclaim the greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and at the same time a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.” Igor Shafarevich
“We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism’s peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove that man exists only as a manifestation of non-individual features, such as production or class interest… There is, first of all, the profound experience of Russia, the significance of which we are only now beginning to understand. The question therefore arises: will this experience be sufficient? Is it sufficient for the entire world and especially for the West? Indeed, is it sufficient for Russia? Shall we be able to comprehend its meaning? Or is mankind destined to pass through this experience on an immeasurably larger scale? There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized universally, mankind, even in the barracks of the universal City of the Sun, shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God’s image and likeness–human individuality–once it has glanced into the yawning abyss. But will even that experience be sufficient? For it seems just as certain that the freedom of will granted to man and to mankind is absolute, that it includes the freedom to make the ultimate choice–between life and death.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Listen to the Soviet dissidents – they knew the smell of a corpse.
“World socialism as a whole, and all the figures associated with it, are shrouded in legend; its contradictions are forgotten or concealed; it does not respond to arguments but continually ignores them–all this stems from the mist of irrationality that surrounds socialism and from its instinctive aversion to scientific analysis…. The doctrines of socialism seethe with contradictions, its theories are at constant odds with its practice, yet due to a powerful instinct–also laid bare by Shafarevich–these contradictions do not in the least hinder the unending propaganda of socialism. Indeed, no precise, distinct socialism even exists; instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something noble and good, of equality, communal ownership, and justice: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach…. The author also convincingly demonstrates the diametrical opposition between the concepts of man held by religion and by socialism. Socialism seeks to reduce human personality to its most primitive levels and to extinguish the highest, most complex, and “God-like” aspects of human individuality. And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality qua identity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Laffer Curve Primer
Some of you may share the mistaken belief that the Laffer Curve, named for Dr. Arthur Laffer, was tested and found wanting during the Reagan Administration. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
There are two possible causes for your error. The first is that you may simply not know what the Laffer Curve is. This, combined with a natural tendency to agree with the “conventional wisdom,” may lead you to just mindlessly nod your head in agreement every time you hear some T.V. network reporter blithely dismiss the “discredited Laffer Curve.”
The second possible cause for your error may be that you do not understand what results the Laffer Curve promises. This is really a part of the greater problem mentioned above, so let us begin there.
For us to gain a rudimentary understanding of the ideas incorporated into the Laffer Curve, we must understand a tiny bit about economics. Economics is really just basic human psychology as applied to money and business affairs. We assume that people will react to the realities of the world of money and business more or less like they react to any other set of stimuli. They tend to act in their own and their family and friends’ best interests, as they see them. The Laffer Curve results from our assumptions about how people will react to varying rates of income taxation.
Now we must put our understanding of human nature to work. We must ask ourselves two questions, the answer to the first being obvious, and the answer to the second being not so obvious, but just as certain. The first question is, “If the income tax rate is zero %, how much income tax revenue will be raised?” The answer is, of course, “None.”
Now, here is where it gets a bit tougher. The second question is, “If the income tax rate is 100%, how much income tax revenue will be raised?” To answer this question, we must place ourselves in the position of an income earner who faces a tax rate of 100% on every extra dollar he earns. Will he have any reason whatsoever to earn any more money? The answer is, “No, he won’t.” He will refrain from any activities likely to result in taxable income. So the income tax revenue from a 100% income tax will be zero, or nearly zero. There will always be a few suckers who go ahead and earn some money, only to have it taxed away. But the number of people willing to do so must be exceedingly small. For all practical purposes, the number is zero.
Okay, now we get to the nub of the “infamous” Laffer Curve. We must take the ideas discussed above and reach some conclusions. The reasoning goes like this: If a zero % income tax rate brings in zero revenue, and if a 100% income tax rate brings in zero revenue, the tax rate which will bring in the most revenue must be somewhere between zero % and 100%. It necessarily follows that in a given economy, there is some optimal income tax rate which will bring in the most revenue possible. In that economy, a lower than optimal rate will bring less revenue, and a higher than optimal rate also will bring in less revenue. Are we all still together here? Did you get that? If not, go back and do it again. Keep doing it until you get it.
Okay, that is all the Laffer Curve claims. Let’s all say this together, “In any given economy, it is possible that the income tax rates are already too high, and if the authorities wish to bring in more income tax revenue, they must lower the tax rates.” Do we all understand that? Even the Democrats amongst us?
The Laffer Curve does not claim that lowering income tax rates will always bring in more revenue. It only claims that a lower income tax rate may bring in more revenue. If the tax rates are already very low, lowering the rates may not bring in more revenue. But if the rates are too high, lowering the rates will bring in more revenue.
The problem people tend to have regarding the Laffer Curve is that they confuse economics with their political considerations. Many people have political reasons to desire high income tax rates on the earnings of the rich. They wish to prevent the rich from earning more money, even if the resulting tax revenue is smaller than it would otherwise be, and the economy less productive than it would otherwise be. These people do not believe that the income tax on the rich can ever be “too high.” They are willing to deprive the government of revenue and deprive the economy of the productivity of the rich, all for the sake of their politics. There really is no arguing this point, as it is merely the outward manifestation of envy.
The Laffer Curve does not address questions of envy and redistributionist politics. It only addresses the question of how to have the healthiest economy producing the highest income tax revenue.
The Laffer Curve does not claim to know exactly what tax rate is the “right” tax rate. In fact, the only way to know if the current tax rates are too high is to lower them, and see whether revenues increase or not. If the revenues increase, the rates were too high. If the revenues decrease, the rates were too low. Of course, it would be equally valid to run the experiment the other way around: raise the tax rates and observe the results. The choice is the politicians’ to make, based upon whether the current rates “seem” to be high or low. In 1981, the rates seemed rather high. The Laffer Curve experiment showed that the rates were, indeed, too high.
Now, let us consider whether the Laffer Curve “failed” to deliver on its promises during the Reagan administration. Remember, the Laffer Curve does not promise to balance the budget. The Laffer Curve does not promise to solve social problems. The Laffer Curve does not promise to force elected representatives to propose and enact lower spending programs. The Laffer Curve only promises that, if the tax rates are too high and they get lowered, revenues will increase. Income taxes were lowered (and “flattened”) during the Reagan administration. Income tax revenues increased. In fact, they increased a great deal. Unfortunately, neither the Republican Reagan administration nor the Democrat-controlled Congress were interested in lowering the rate of growth in federal spending. While the income tax revenues increased substantially, federal spending increased even more. The result was that the federal government ran up a staggering national debt. But please, let’s not blame it on the Laffer Curve!
Robert Stergeon.
The Big Hurt
The US is insolvent. As of the third quarter of last year, the federal government had assets of $2.67 trillion and total liabilities of $14.12 trillion.
That leaves a net negative position of more than $11 trillion. By the way, this is projected to get a lot worse, fast. The feds are expected to increase their debts by about $3 trillion more over the next 2 years. Federal spending is out of control…the feds have lost control of their own budget, let alone the economy.
Typically lenders look for what they call ‘debt coverage’ – debt compared to revenue. If you take the US revenue as a whole, you find federal debt currently equal to a bit more than 80% of GDP. But that number is going up quickly. It will be over one hundred percent in just 2 or 3 years.
Well, so what? As long as you have the income to support it, you don’t worry, right? Well, let’s look at it from that angle.
Hmmm… Doesn’t look so good from that perspective either. The income tax only generates 43% of the budget. The feds get a little more from corporate and other taxes, but the deficit is enormous…from a third to a half of all expenditures.
This is not looking good. Most of the deficits do not come as emergency reactions to a financial crisis. Most of red ink is ‘structural’ – the result of programs already in place before the crisis hit. They are hard to curtail, since it requires major acts of political will to undo them. So, they tend to continue.
Which means, the US needs to borrow huge amounts of money just to continue drifting along in the style to which it has become accustomed. There is no end in sight to the deficits…no practical way to reduce them…and no way out of the debt whirlpool. Which means, financing them has got to be a losing proposition for the lenders.
Nothing new in that…
Still, we drift…we wander…we float from one bank to the other…and wonder when we will finally sink.
Bill Bonner. Who is right? In economics is there a right way?
File where YOU can locate it later.
You guys pussy foot around way too much, read several harsh (heh) words from more than one American. This is the way to talk about and to the commie failure that America elected.
Words will soon be followed by actions…mark my words.
Papa Ray
vb (16)
“While I accept that some social security recipients are probably living on the edge, there are very many who aren’t. These people and succeeding generations still employed really need to ask themselves whether a change in lifestyle to something more modest really means a decline.”
I’ve often wondered why those who have double the median income without SS should be getting SS. Whenever means testing comes up, however, half the boomers I know (I’m at the trailing edge of the boomers myself) have a fit about it being, “their money”. When I suggest that at double the median income, your SS should be paid normally but only until you have gotten back the exact same amount paid in, the fit starts again.
I thought SS was intended to be a safety net for those without other resources, not a general entitlement to a better level of retirement if you had other resources. I don’t know how you get the SS monster under control unless and until you can get an awful lot of people to admit that their SS payment adding a motor home or a vacation home to their lifestyle isn’t reasonable or moral. After all, if you have double the median income without SS you’re not in danger of starving to death or doing without much of anything. Well, unless you’re living in the more liberal paradise cities and states.
Salt Lick (6)
“Ryan’s a breath of fresh air.
Now the GOP needs to take the argument a step further — unless the elderly are willing to accept a decline in their lifestyles, only vigorous economic growth — generated by tax cuts, nuclear power, and a smaller government — can solve the problem. The pie has to grow or somebody gets less pie.”
You’re absolutely right. Every “great cause” the democrat propaganda machine has drummed up since WWII has had at its’ root a demand that we stop enlarging the pie. Democrat arguments always focus on anything but how to pay for things because they don’t want to pay for them. They want to promise and deliver entitlements as a means to breed dependency, not as a means to actually help those they’re making promises to. They want power, and a capitalist system doesn’t reward politicians with power, it rewards those who produce and create wealth.
Regards
There are still lots of wind-up robots out there wandering around aimlessly.
Every ‘new’ generation coming forth still think THEY (and only themselves) discover the new path / means to utopia.
IF ONLY us ‘old codgers’ will give way and abandon our stubbornness.
rashputin/
“I’ve often wondered why those who have double the median income without SS should be getting SS. Whenever means testing comes up, however, half the boomers I know (I’m at the trailing edge of the boomers myself) have a fit about it being, “their money”. When I suggest that at double the median income, your SS should be paid normally but only until you have gotten back the exact same amount paid in, the fit starts again.”
I just got my calculator out and figured out how long I would have to live to collect the amount that I have paid into SS.
I would have to live until I was ONE HUNDRED AND TWELVE years old. Of course I made a lot of money so I paid a lot of money, as did my employer.
I don’t think I will live that long myself, but who knows. Vodka and Hot sauce have certain unknown powers they say.
Papa Ray
#47 Apostle of Love – (No, folks, this was not sarcasm. She actually believes this nonsense.)
So, Apostle, have you even looked at the numbers? You could seize all the wealth of the top 5%, and still not pay for all this stuff. The well is not bottomless. Besides, if they can take the money of the rich, what stops them from taking yours, too?
The top 5% pay 70% of all income taxes. Do you really believe they don’t pay any taxes? The bottom 50% pay almost nothing. The rich are already paying for it all.
Do you have a job in the private sector? If you do, you work for a rich man! You don’t work for a poor man, because a poor man can’t pay you. Do you think that rich man didn’t earn his money? Do you think it was just easy for him?
You have fallen for the Marxist canard that the workers create the wealth, and the rich exploit them and steal the wealth. We’re gonna take it back. This is patently false.
The workers do not create the wealth. If they knew how to do this… they’d be wealthy! The Wealthy create the wealth, because they know how! It’s a skill.
To make that skill work, to create wealth, requires capital. You cannot open, expand, or even run, a business without capital. Now, there is only so much excess capital in society. Either the wealthy invest that money into the economy and grow the economy, or the government STEALS the capital, invests it into government and grows the government.
The private sector produces wealth. The public sector consumes wealth. One is a taxpayer. The other is a tax-parasite.
Those rich guys who have more money than they can spend, whose money you want to seize by force (armed robbery), what do they do with all that excess money? Do they sleep on it? No, they reinvest it into the marketplace and earn more money that they can’t possibly spend. It’s a great game.
When they do this, they produce wealth. The by-product of this wealth creation, or the process of it, is job-creation. These jobs allow people who do not know how to create wealth a way to feed their families and live in a reasonable lifestyle. If the wealthy people do not create the wealth, YOU DON’T EAT!
So, let’s not demonize those “evil rich”. Do not bite the hand that feeds you!
Same goes for the canard about Big Oil. If they don’t make a profit, they stop. You won’t have gas in your tank, and our economy will collapse. Pray that these guys continue to successfully do what they do, because the alternative is hunting game with sharpened sticks.
Don Rodrigo @44:
I agree that around 15% total economic output spent on all levels of government combined is about right. I disagree with you about where that money should be allocated.
The original U.S. Constitution severely limits the function and scope of the Federal Government.
The FedGov shouldn’t need or receive more than 6 or 7% of GDP to provide for the common defense with a world dominating Navy, Air Force, and Army, and to fund all other constitutionally mandated Federal functions.
The FedGov has no authority or lawful purpose being involved in nearly every program that results in the vast majority of current FedGov spending. Nearly all current Federal spending is unconstitutional if that document is read and interpreted in a way understandable to the founders.
Nearly every government service used on a daily basis, with the exception of protection by the military should properly be provided by a state, county, or municipal government, or better yet, by a privately owned corporation, or by individuals for themselves or for others in trade.
It’s the state, county and local governments that should receive the majority of that 15% because they are the ones who should be providing nearly all of a greatly reduced number of government services.
I knew Paul Ryan would be there. Everyone in Congress knows him as THE budget wonk. He really knows this stuff. Does his homework, he does.
I like Cantor, too. A real Conservative. And articulate.
Boehner is more of a political operative. I don’t like him, but he has kept the Pubs united. At first, the Lib Pubs wandered from the reservation, but now, the Pubs are a truly united group. Of course, that’s not all that hard, since they at first were horrified by the Obama agenda, and now, they see a bright political future for themselves.
I like what Michael Moore had to say. (Iknow. Hear me out.) He was repudiating the Dems. He gave props to the Pubbies. “They came into town with guns blazing.” When Michael Moore admits that the Dems got their butts kicked, then it was truly a butt-kicking! When the Far-Left is bitchin’, then it was truly a knockout.
The Dems brought all their old sob stories, the emotional pleas. The Pubs were more reasonable and business-like. They’d done their homework, and came in with a battle plan. The goal was to fight for the middle. This they clearly achieved. Their approach was one the middle responds to.
Hell, the Dems are so clueless, they can’t even get their own base on their side, while the Pubbies have everything right-of-center locked down tight!
‘There are still lots of wind-up robots out there wandering around aimlessly’.
Maybe these should be called orphan Marxists. their mother country is gone.
But the damage they can do is tremendous.
Papa Ray (72)
First, I hope you make the 112 year mark and then some. Vodka most assuredly will help you reach that goal as long as you’re not consuming more than about a quart a week. I’m only aiming for 110 myself, so I’m sticking to Scotch.
Second, I don’t understand folks who can’t accept some sort of means testing SS or getting back just what they paid in if they’re above that point. Folks who paid in a ton would still get it back. I also think that people should be able to take what they paid in as a tax free lump sum but then I don’t know what you do if they blow it all on Bingo or something.
Most of the people I know who go ballistic worked somewhere 25+ years, have a retirement income and benefits as good as the majority of people still working enjoy, and yet feel like taking less from SS is a horrible idea. I wonder how much just taking people on Federal pensions other than military pensions off of SS would help?
I don’t know, maybe it’s my opinion that the “Greatest Generation” greased the skids for the slide we’re now on that makes me distrust programs they were so fanatic over. One way or another, I don’t know how we’re going to keep SS on the path it’s on and not hit a brick wall at some point. You can only juggle the books so long before it becomes a comedy routine rather than clever accounting.
Regards
75. Marc Malone:
“Hell, the Dems are so clueless, they can’t even get their own base on their side, while the Pubbies have everything right-of-center locked down tight!”
Non Serviam!
The Fact that the republican party sucks less than the democrat party does not mean that it doesnt SUCK. I.E> the relative fecundity of dog feces to cat feces does not render dog feces somehow palatable.
Also there is not just universal, but apparently madatory, access to cosmetic enhancement surgery. Likely that is an unavoidable requirement of mandating spandex clothing. See how regulations snowball?
The thing that Star Trek doesn’t answer is what outlets do Federationites find for their social competition. Humans tend to be socially competitive. It used to be that wealth and the possessions you could buy with it were status symbols. Robin Leach and “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” But when champagne and caviar, not to mention carribean vacations, got within reach of any upper-middle class DINKs, the competition switched to time. Who had the leisure time to make hand-crafted Halloween doo-dads like Martha Stewart?
People always aspire to what they don’t have. If replicators take away material wants, those Federation Citizens would find something else to want. Power, is the most likely answer I’ve heard to that question. Odds are the Federation would be a rats-nest of backstabbing and nanny-state regulating gone berzerk.
One of the reason we’re in trouble is that too many people are clueless about the Goldman Sachs effect. Some think it’s just, well nothing at all.
Henry Merritt “Hank” Paulson, Jr. (born March 28, 1946) served as the 74th United States Treasury Secretary. He previously served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs
Paulson started the stampede.
Larry Summers
http://tinyurl.com/csw4jz
But Summers, a leading architect of the administration’s economic policies and response to the global recession, appears to have collected the most income. Financial institutions including JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch paid Summers for speaking appearances in 2008. Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.” — Washingtonpost.com
Tim Geithner Goldman Sachs alum ,now Treasury Sec.
Tim Geithner apologized for not paying his taxes and some Republicans criticized his involvement in the TARP program at today’s hearing, but Barack Obama’s nominee for Treasury Secretary appears on track for confirmation.
Congress is “all in a panic” and “really clueless” about this all-important member of Obama’s cabinet, says Christopher Whalen, managing director and co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics. “I’m just not sure Tim Geithner is the guy we should have driving the bus.”
Beyond his tax gaffe, which will mainly serve to politically weaken Obama’s pick, Whalen says Geithner is the wrong many for the job because of his decision-making as President of the New York Fed.
“I believe Tim Geithner only represents part of Wall Street – Goldman Sachs,” he says, suggesting Goldman was the “primary beneficiary of the AIG bailout” and notes Goldman alum Stephen Friedman serves on the board of the NY Fed. (Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin, with whom Geithner had frequent meetings in the past year, are also Goldman alum.)
Whalen further questions the inconsistency of the Fed’s decision to rescue Bear Stearns – in the end, their debt and shareholders got something – while letting Lehman Brothers “go to hell.”
Yeah, no Goldman Sachs fingerprints anywhere.
Do all the former Trekkies now watch the Simpsons?
One thing for sure is a good deal of putative brain power went into watching Star Trek ….. at least as measured by the ST eructations emanating forth here.
A lot of people think that Star Trek makes no sense whatsoever, on many levels and for many reasons – the main one being that they have technology with immense possibilities and never use it properly. Nanotechnology, for one; which may be how the replicators work
There is a deeper point. Star Trek’s Federation is, or should be, a post-scarcity society. And none of us know how such a society will work if we ever get to that point. What proportion of people will work if they don’t have to in order to get the basic necessities (or even minor luxuries) of life? And, in a related point, how are humans going to react to having an intelligence, or many of them, many orders of magnitude greater than any of ours looking over our shoulders – ones that we know for certain are there?
The CATO Institute published this about the optimal size of Government. in January of 2009. But neither revenue v spending nor local v federal size really hits the mark on the question that needs to be asked. How much government is too much, and not how much is too little? I do not believe there is a little red riding hood solution to it. For no amount of government is just right, only some is necessary and more preferable especially in matters of defense.
Ryan says it well, the rep. from Detroit says it too.
Lifeofthemind @ 63 said:
“One caveat, Eric Blair/George Orwell always claimed to be a man of the Left, even after his break with the orthodox Communists. In Spain he sided with the Trotskyist Party.”
I would argue that Orwell’s political awakening happened after his participation in the Spanish civil war. Many of the foreign communists fighting in Spain against Franco’s fascists were pathological moonbats. I suspect getting up close and personal with political fanatics was part of what lead to both Orwell’s and Koestler’s political awakening. As far as being a “man of the left”, I suspect if George Orwell were still alive, he’d be quite comfortable contributing to Belmont Club and probably give Leo Linbeck III some serious competition as best commentator.
Habu @ 68 said:
“The US is insolvent. As of the third quarter of last year, the federal government had assets of $2.67 trillion and total liabilities of $14.12 trillion. That leaves a net negative position of more than $11 trillion. By the way, this is projected to get a lot worse, fast. The feds are expected to increase their debts by about $3 trillion more over the next 2 years. Federal spending is out of control…the feds have lost control of their own budget, let alone the economy.”
I have read information confirming this observation from other sources. I suspect the current state of the US economy is not unlike the Titanic shortly after hitting the iceberg and it being realized that 5 of the ship’s 16 watertight compartments were flooding. From that point on, the people in charge knew the ship was going to sink and there was nothing they could do to stop it. The only remaining issue was how ugly things were going to get before the ship actually sank. Our response as individuals is either to hold hands and listen to the ship’s band play “Nearer, My God, to Thee” or else start fabricating our own floatation devices and quietly make a discrete exit.
The representative from Michigan Thaddeus McCotter saying it.
I believe George Orwell understood that Marxism is no different from Fascism in regards to the value (measurable – not infinite) and rights (State-derived and reversible – not God-given and unalienable) of the individual. Both Marxism and Fascism are built on submission of the individual to the all powerful Collectivist State – in effect individual worship of the State.
“The individual is only a cell… power is collective. The individual only has power in so far that he ceases to be an individual… If he can make complete utter submission; if he can escape from his identity; if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all powerful and immortal… Can you not understand that the death of the individual is not death; the Party is immortal… You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature… You are rotting away. You are falling to pieces. What are you? A bag of filth… The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others… We are different from all the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we’re doing… Power is not a means, it is an end… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the priests of power… Power is power over human beings, over the body; but above all over the mind… The real power; the power we have to fight for night and day is not power over things but over men. How does one man assert his power over another… by making him suffer… Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing… We shall crush you down to the point from which there is no coming back… Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling; everything will be dead inside you… You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” George Orwell – 1984
“Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand… You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois (middle class) individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual… By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community…” Adolph Hitler
“For Liberalism the individual is the end and society the means… For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.” Alfredo Rocco
http://www.peikoff.com/lr/chapter1.htm
I applaud Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor as two of the brightest lights in the GOP. However, I can’t help but think Ryan is falling into a perennial trap that the GOP lays for itself, specifically that of conflating an effect (money) for an underlying cause (progressive state-as-god government).
I would further argue that the reason Republicans have failed so miserably over the past decades to effectively confront progressivism, is that their only position amounts to “it costs too much”. This mantra ultimately falls on deaf ears because it triumphs no underlying principles, thus emasculating Republicans in the eyes of the general public.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out, if the GOP is unable or unwilling to change, then the US will continue its drift into European-style socialism, and the GOP will be reduced to the role of “Christian Democrat” in which they no longer argue against the welfare state, but only on whether they can make it more efficient.
People throw labels around like “capitalism”, “Socialism”, etc, ad nauseum, without context or what they truly were intended to represent.
In a True Capitalist society, the USA Legislative Branch would not be begging a monopoly of banks to loan it money, in order to keep the “capitalist” system from crashing around itself. And where does the Federal Reserve cite as the source of the loans..? there are none, it is created as a ledger entry.
Because this is what is occurring in the USA, the Legislative branch must run hat in hand to a monopoly of banks (Federal Reserve), and Beg them to loan the USA government enough money every 6 months to keep the system operating. And the Federal Reserve in turn simply creates the funds on its accounting system and issues Debt notes to a Government too ignorant to understand its own predicament.
In exchange for operating loans, the Legislative branch agrees to pay Interest on funds that guarantee loans are never paid, in effect it is interest only loans that perpetually keep the USA in a state of massive debt.
This is economic slavery, as the debt is assumed by all taxpayers, even though they do not receive equal benefit of that debt. In fact, those that do not pay tax receive the benefit, establishing a socialist “lite” environment.
Allowing the monopolizing of US banking system by European banking families ( The Federal Reserve), has placed the USA on a course that can only end in failure of the hybrid system.
But it is certainly not capitalist. It is hybrid and exists outside norms of economic theory and reason it must collapse; it cannot sustain itself.
“Do all the former Trekkies now watch the Simpsons?”
Hey, you’re talking about the 2 most intellectually stimulating TV shows of the last 50 years. And even if a lot of elements of ST-TOS look lame after 44 years, you still have to give it credit for boldly going where no TV show had gone before.
You’re truly a trekkie if the phrase “Help me, Spock!” instantly makes you cringe in shame. Also, if you were watching Futurama during the arena scene on Zoidberg’s world and his planet’s national anthem made you burst out in laughter and sing along.
on another note:
I for one was highly amused by Apostle of Love’s little speech. It was a very short post that hit on at least 11 hot button topics, 12 if you include the pseudo-religious connotations of the name. C’mon, that is far too densely constructed to be a haphazard rant. There’s not a single wasted word or phrase in it – every last syllable is focused on the goal of pushing somebody’s buttons.
Nicely played, sir. Nicely played.
From today’s WSJ (with a Star Trek reference coincidently):
Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties”:
Today, Democrats and Republicans live in different universes, both intellectually and morally.
“What Democrats believe,” he says “is what textbook economics says”:
But that’s not how Republicans see it. Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”
Krugman scoffs: “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view–but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.”
What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called “Macroeconomics”:
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl’s “bizarre point of view” is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman.
Podcast
James Taranto on Paul Krugman’s universes.
It seems Krugman himself lives in two different universes–the universe of the academic economist and the universe of the bitter partisan columnist. Or maybe this is like that episode of “Star Trek” in which crewmen from the Enterprise switched places with their counterparts from a universe in which everyone was the same, only evil.
Like Spock, the evil Krugman is the one with the beard.
Habu @ 68: The US is insolvent. As of the third quarter of last year, the federal government had assets of $2.67 trillion and total liabilities of $14.12 trillion.
Morally bankrupt and ethically exhausted, maybe, but that is not a valid numerical accounting
Yes the federal debt is $14t, and maybe annual income taxes are on the order of $3t, but that’s $3t *revenues* per year, and figuring assets yield about 5% per year, one would estimate federal tax assets at about $60t. Not to mention untaxed assets (that produce little or no revenue) like the national parks and, y’know, the armed forces.
–
I wonder what the average American family has in the way of debt to assets ratio. Probably about 1:1, but NOT counting a paying job as an asset the way I did above. Let’s see, the “average” household income is still only about $50k, right? Then, say they have $25k in liquid assets, a house worth $250k, another $125k equity in the house and a debt of $125k. They’d have almost equally balanced assets and liabilities. Monetize their job (a very dubious step), they’d have $1m in “extended” assets against $125k in debt, a ratio of about 10:1.
Note that I did not count operating expenses in either case. For the feds, it would be – what? Maybe $3t? $4t? Monetizing that as a liability is what gives you a ratio, one way or another.
I’m just pulling this out of my — hat. I doubt I’ve ever even seen an attempt at macroeconomic balance sheets. But they’d have to run along these lines.
“the federal government had assets of $2.67 trillion”
Really? Does anyone really know the value of the assets of the Federal Government?
What about the huge Federal land-holdings, especially in the American West? What about the extensive Federal mineral rights, onshore & offshore, which could be sold outright instead of being leased? How much would someone pay for a National Laboratory? What would Google pay for the Library of Congress? Then there is the whole interstate freeway system which could be sold off and transformed into turnpikes. Launch facilities at Cape Canaveral. The Tennnesse Valley Authority. Yosemite.
One of the optimistic scenarios is that the Federal Government eventually has to sell off some of those national assets to fund their Ponzi schemes. It might be a good way of keeping faith (to some extent) with those who have been defrauded by the politicians’ schemes while simultaneously (and permanently) rolling back the size & scope of the Federal Government.
Eggplant
“Our response as individuals is either to hold hands and listen to the ship’s band play “Nearer, My God, to Thee” or else start fabricating our own flotation devices and quietly make a discrete exit.”
Like I said (for the last two years) Prepare yourselves and protect your family and of course…
Buy More Ammo.
Papa Ray
I agree with Chris only people that listen to National Public Radio are smart. all other Americans are stupid!
Bart is correct: there is no such thing as ‘capitalism’; it’s a construct of Marx’s. So-called ‘capitalism’ is whatever people do when they are left to their own devices to negotiate among themselves. Substitute the word, “freedom”, for it wherever it occurs, and you’ll get some idea of what is really at stake here.
Apostle of Love and your stone-ignorant sympathizers: go sit at the kiddies’ table. Go on, now. Go.
A better indicator of the future than Star Trek, IMO, would be Serenity. No matter how advanced we get big government will try to control us, most will follow the sheep’s behind to their front and some will try to confound them and stay one step ahead. I would aspire to be Mr.Universe- except better armed.
There is a truth about our fiscal mess that some smart people on both sides understand: Our creditors–people buying government debt–have the pink slip. Whoever runs the USA has the car. China cannot repo an equivalent amount of our territory or other ‘real’ assets if we decide to stiff them. Some of the Gramscians get this, and consider that they will do a better job with what they can expropriate than Robert Mugabe. They will create winners and losers by breaking the system, and ‘redistribute’ wealth and power . How can a retired person hurt the state, really? Granny terrorism? Sue the President? good luck with that, suckers.
JMH #79
“But when champagne and caviar, not to mention carribean vacations, got within reach of any upper-middle class DINKs, the competition switched to time.”
Mister, you said it.
The phrase “I’m just too busy” has become a way for people to signify that they are better than everyone else. When everyone has money, those who feel the need to view themselves as superior use relative importance of one’s time as a marker.
Talk to anyone who runs their business on a schedule – hairdressers, psychologists, accountants, dentists – and they’ll tell you that in the past ten or so years scheduling people and making sure they keep appointments has become a nightmare for exactly the reason you state.
FC #82
“What proportion of people will work if they don’t have to in order to get the basic necessities (or even minor luxuries) of life?”
This seemingly innocent question is actually one of vital importance, Fletcher. I believe that no economic system will work if this isn’t taken into account in said system’s design.
Based upon my life’s experience (admittedly not a completely scientific method of determination), the breakdown goes something like this:
-50% of able-bodies human beings will work hard no matter what, because it gives their life purpose.
-25% will work hard but will work a lot less hard if they didn’t have to to feed and house themselves.
-20% will work only if it’s the only alternative to starving to death.
-5% won’t work under any circumstances.
If you accept these numbers as being pretty close to the way things are, you’ll see right away that making it easy to live without working will reduce the productivity of nearly half the population of any given country. Yes, you’ll have to make some allowances for natural resources, culture, etc., but it readily becomes apparent that, despite the assertions of Roddenberry, a society where all wants are removed will quickly degrade into the worst type of decadence.
When the truth of this is understood, one realizes that the only economic system that makes sense is one in which there is a very real possibility of facing suffering and even death, or of requiring private charity with behavioral requirements rigorously attached, if a person chooses not to work.
In other words, the Western world before the advent of the welfare state.
The collectivist “solutions” of the past century or so have failed because they don’t address these realities of human nature and attitudes and behavior with regard to work.
When I see people like Krugman saying that “making it easy for someone to keep living without having to work will diminish their efforts to get off the dole” is inexplicable, I know I’m dealing with a jailhouse lawyer mentality. He knows damn well that the statement is true (as evidenced by his writings as put forth on this thread)but will use whatever semantic and legalistic calisthenics are required to attempt to prove the opposite. Gotta preserve the narrative, after all.
Worse is the conceitedness and arrogance of leftists like Krugman and Obama who are so convinced of their towering intellect and powers of persuaion that they think they can talk ANYONE out of whatever behavior pattern they might possess. Sorry, guys, but you just aren’t that good at sales. Nobody is, or ever will be.
Habu @ 67:
Thank you for that lucid explanation of the Laffer Curve.
Sincerely, could I ask you to explain something that never has been clear to me: How does the federal government ‘borrow money’? Is it something like a state government selling bond issues? When I lived in California, I voted against (almost) every ‘bond issue’ because it seemed to me that government should function on tax revenue only. I’ve never heard the common expression ‘they’re stealing from our grandchildren’ explained clearly. Please excuse my ignorance.
whatdayameanitstoohot @ 85:
Thank you for that link. Thaddeous McCotter is a gem in the Lincoln mold.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
83. whatdayameanitstoohot:
“I do not believe there is a little red riding hood solution to it. For no amount of government is just right, only some is necessary and more preferable especially in matters of defense.
Whoa, that was supposed to be goldilocks under that riding hood.
A couple of links for your consideration, after of course your morning coffee or Vodka, V8, hot sauce and pepper.
Obama Bets the Farm on American Stupidity
This next link bothers me a little. I guess the authors proof or such is in his book. I am bothered by those that make accusations and claims and don’t bother backing them up with proof. But most of this article is over my head, so I present it for those of you who know and understand it.
Organized crime: The ‘looting’ of $11 trillion from the U.S. economy
Anyway have a good Saturday, I have to take my oldest grand daughter to the dentist, fire up the smoker and cook a pile of ribs and make potato salad, cole slaw and a pot of Texas style pinto beans.
Enjoy life with your family and friends, that is what it is all about.
Papa Ray
Fletcher@82,
Right. And Star Trek also didn’t take into account the newly realized facts about our universe; ie, supernovas and a multitude of other galactic-driven cataclysms occur a thousand times a day (maybe millions/ times/day, we can’t yet see that far back), and that there’s no escape if you’re within a few million light years. And that there are billions of black holes, scattered all around, and untold numbers of laser-like “gamma ray bursts” fired off annually in random directions, and the billions of asteroids in just our galaxy collide often and fracture unpredictably. Extinction of lifeforms on earth avoided only by chance. But, extinction events on Earth are apparently quite frequent, with and without assistance from space.
Getting and operating out there looks increasingly risky; even with the technology to do it. Centuries away, if we manage to get there. I don’t forego the vision; but I suggest that we have NASA concetrate on identifying and destroying near-Earth objects (which delivers a side benefit by instantiating a missile shield).
Mission: identify the on-going cosmic threats to spaceship Earth, before we waste another dollar on staffing anything outside orbit.
This obscure little planet in the far reaches of our galaxy is nevertheless just as much a random target for demolition as any other entity 24/7 forever. That’s nature. The more we learn, the scarier it gets.
Most of these cataclysmic effects can not be avoided; it’s essentially over in a moment. Some provide time to do something. Basing everything on wishful thinking seems imprudent. AGW-related vs. defense spending is repainting the deckchairs instead of avoiding icebergs.
@70 Whenever means testing comes up, however, half the boomers I know (I’m at the trailing edge of the boomers myself) have a fit about it being, “their money.”
Hah. This is probably the single biggest misconception people have about SS. They really think they have an account somewhere, like the pass book you used to get at a bank, that has “their money” in it, just waiting for them to take it out. Of course it never did and never will have any such thing.
If it did, a lot of older retirees would find they had long ago taken out way more than they ever put in. Newer retirees, like Papa Ray, would realize they’ll never get “their money” out in their lifetime. And if you actually did get a “statement” of “your money,” you’d realize what a pathetic rate of return you’ve been getting all these years.
I think a big part of the reason many people go ballistic at the mention of privatizing SS is because they think it’s already like a private savings account. They don’t realize it’s just a ponzi scheme passing money along the way with nothing being saved anywhere. Perhaps Katie Couric and Oprah and Jon Stewart could start informing the folks about this reality, but somehow I doubt it.
On the other hand, if you had been able to put the same amount of cash into a REAL account for all these years, you’d likely be looking at a few million bucks waiting for you when you retired. Well, chances blown and all that.
Because of the way the system works, means testing is absolutely needed. For god’s sake, how many old millionaires are still picking up a check every month? It was never their money, and so they shouldn’t get a farthing of it. Let’s just call it what it is, which is welfare for old people. If we called it that, who could possibly object to cutting off welfare from millionaires? How many Social Security checks did Leona Helmsley get? How many aging Hollywood millionaires are collecting tin? When does Madonna start to cash in?
And why it heaven’s name can’t somebody in the GOP start calling it welfare for old people and get on with the business of ending the whole stupid thing?
SpeakEasy @ 97 said:
“A better indicator of the future than Star Trek, IMO, would be Serenity.”
Serenity is in a much higher league than Star Trek… Too bad Serenity got canceled after the first season.
C’mon, guys… There are a lot of us who have enjoyed watching Star Trek without for an instant thinking that Rodenberry was showing us the way things OUGHT to be. All of the TV episodes, all the movies, were entertainment not futurist insights. Twilight Zone, even more so.
Most folks who’ve spent time at the Library looking for some good Science Fiction books have a keen awareness that even the most highly-hyped, special-effects-crammed Hollywood Science Fiction extravaganzas typically are just discovering ideas that were the currency of SF writing fifty years ago.
I finally saw “Avatar” yesterday, and recommend it enthusiastically. My brother pointed out that the plot owes a lot to the 1950′s Western “Broken Arrow.” That’s okay. The visuals alone are worth the ticket price.
Too bad the native women weren’t a little more emphatically mammalian…
The self-styled western social democracies are caught in the vortex between the success of their multi-generational endeavors to reduce human populations and the concurrent expansion of the cradle to grave entitlements they have employed to keep a more manageable and compliant polity in line under the supposed efficiencies of concentrated sociopolitical and economic control.
Their kinder, gentler, pink-hued ‘Gleichschaltung’ ain’t working.
The stopgap measure of importing what amounts to an indentured serf class of breeders into social structures that have been design engineered to eliminate population growth is compressing the cultural pressure gradient.
There are clear signs that the relatively calm inner eye of their storm is contracting rapidly as the destructive winds of change consolidate their furies in the time-space left before the current order is dissipated – signaling the completion of the latest eye-wall replacement cycle of civilization.
I propose we name the storm Shiva.
CS@87: I would further argue that the reason Republicans have failed so miserably over the past decades to effectively confront progressivism, is that their only position amounts to “it costs too much”. This mantra ultimately falls on deaf ears because it triumphs no underlying principles, thus emasculating Republicans in the eyes of the general public.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out, if the GOP is unable or unwilling to change, then the US will continue its drift into European-style socialism, and the GOP will be reduced to the role of “Christian Democrat” in which they no longer argue against the welfare state, but only on whether they can make it more efficient.
Succinct.
This country is already “Christian Democrat”. I would argue that it was inevitable given the multi-decade expansion of peacetime wealth.
Globalization was the SHTF moment. Labor and manufacturing dislocations pressured government and business in ways that were not particularly opaque or unanticipated, but we were told everything would be alright. None so blind as those who will not see. None so sad as those been had.
Democrats might be taking a public relations hit with health care, but they have a ways to fall before they are hated with the loathing and contempt reserved for Republicans. (Line stolen with some embellishments from you know who you are, but it’s true.)
Postscript to Apostle of Love: as per someone upthread – masterful, clean and professional. I agree with the first item, specifically Goldman paying 1% effective tax for 2008. Some very uncomfortable issues out there. We’ll see what kind of steam powers the Tea Parties.
Habu stop telling the truth!!
Ryan aside, looking back over the last few decades, I have not a shred of belief that Republicans’ belief in fiscal responsibility is anything more than mere rhetoric. They sure didn’t believe in it before the Dems took over Congress.
#104 geoffgo:
Precisely. There are some threats that we have no realistic possibility whatsoever of surviving if they become manifest in the next few hundred years; a stellar-mass black hole wandering through Sol system, a GRB that by chance happens to have us in its sights… There are also threats that we can do something about on a realistic timescale, such as asteroid impacts and of of course AGW if you believe in that.
Note that some of the anti-AGW measures give us more capability against other threats; one solution to AGW involves SPS which necessarily improves our capability against asteroid impact.
Thinking in the long term, the imperative of Homo sapiens is to expand as fast as possible; expansion into the greater Sol system insures us against asteroid impacts, interstellar expansion insures us against other problems.
There are some possible threats to humanity that we will never be able to defend against; false vacuum collapse being the lead here. Some we will be able to defend against with a few years’ lead. Some require us to expand to the stars.
I firmly believe that the “last, best hope of mankind” is to expand as fast as possible, and as far as possible. Doing this gives us defense of Earth’s ecosystem as a useful byproduct.
112 FC
I agree. The human imperative is to expand, and just as our expansion helped us survive local disasters here on Terra, so too will galactic expansion help us survive larger catastrophes (on a stellar scale). The paradigm works on many scales and levels.
Monkeyfan 108
“The stopgap measure of importing what amounts to an indentured serf class of breeders into social structures that have been design engineered to eliminate population growth is compressing the cultural pressure gradient.”
This is precisely the cowardice and laziness to which I referred in my opening comment. The use of illegal immigration by the political class of the U.S. and Europe as a means of dealing with globalization of labor supplies is only that, a stopgap. It is poorly thought out, has no long-term advantages or sustainability, and labor globalization’s impacts on income and community stability are simply ignored.
Once it was seen that the globalization isn’t turning back, simply allowing people of varying cultures and political bents to run around willy nilly to wherever the jobs might be was a recipe for disaster. Some means of mitigation and phased-in transitions would make this into something uncomfortable but manageable instead of something potentially deadly. Instead we get jolts.
Better men would have devised a superior way to deal with the world’s labor market becoming global.
There are some possible threats to humanity that we will never be able to defend against; false vacuum collapse being the lead here.
But enough about Keith Olbermann’s ratings …
If ‘equality” as liberals want it is actually described, what they mean is, ‘equal outcomes.’
How likely is that? I mean, really!
If equal outcomes was what the world is supposed to be, why was I shortchanged when it came to my turn? I am not 6′ 7″ tall. I am not physically capable. I am not a brain. I am not a Hollywood handsome star. I did not go to an Ivy League school. I did not obtain a 4.0 (Boy did I miss out on that one!!)
Equal opportunity is what we strive for in America. Equal outcomes is what some fantasy dreamin liberal thinks this all means.
That the bill is due is not only understandable, its obvious. The bill can be paid. We can rework or remake our lifestyles & we can regain our advantages, our economy, our exceptional status.
And there is nothing at all wrong w/ American exceptionalism. If any other nation could accomplish this, they would & they would look back at America the whole time, while they mocked us for not keeping up with them.
We need not mock anyone. We can help others along the way & show them how they too can aspire to greatness. We just cannot afford to pay for all to catch up. Some of the work is their responsibility too.
I will not succumb to socialism. The idea someone has appointed themselves or another they’ve decided should oversee me, to be my better, only because they have money or political connections, is unacceptable.
Helping others is something I do because I want to. I do not want the government.. not Washington or the United Nations… making decisions for me or deciding who gets my help, because the government or the unelected bureaucrats at the UN are in charge. I am in charge of my ‘charity’ if thats the word one wants to use.
Ryan is right & the very real fact is, his way could be a plan that we could adapt & use to recover. But we will not recover if we continue to follow this current agenda. The redistribution
of wealth according to the plans of government, is a plan to submit to the control of those who espouse they are better or smarter than me.
Nope! That dog don’t hunt here.
November 2010 cannot come soon enough & between then & now we must make sure politicians realize ‘we the people’ have retaken America & plan to recover with or without their help &/or cooperation. If they want to tag along they had better get with the team. If they fail to do this, we will gladly dump them & let them wallow in their fantasy utopian dream state. Maybe they can smoke some dope or pump some stuff in their veins to pass the time. But, we the people are back & we want our freedoms & our possibilities back.
Paul Ryan 2012!
It would shock me if the “you can’t drill for oil anywhere” crowd didn’t kill space exploration on the grounds that we can’t have the nasty humans despoiling the pristine perfection of the Cosmos. In their view everything is natural and acceptable except for anything done by human activity, especially if that activity was done for profit. They view humanity as a disease that only produces the toxins of pollution.
To be blogged under the title “To Boldly Go … Nowhere?”
LOTM, you are describing the attitude of a huge portion of people who truly believe that there is no higher power; no spiritual basis for our sojourn in this universe; nothing but the mechanical elastic interactions of physical particles – people who think humanity represents the ultimate measure of all things.
Meanwhile there are many scientists studying the unseen world of subatomic particles fizzing in and out of existence like tax proposals from obama. They see a world in which matter and energy are no longer separate aspects of a deeper unity, but in which there seems to be only energy behaving according to rules.
(I know I’m over-simplifying, and I apologize.)
Such a description of the working of the universe seems to fetch up against questions that would create discomfiture for a thinking atheist.
By the way, “go out and prove our superiority to the Borg” is entirely backwards.
It’s the Borg who are the mindless hive-mind socialists…
Speaking of atheism; I have a question. I know that the Founding Fathers asserted that we have “God-given” rights: life liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc., but I cannot actually find these rights asserted in either the Old or New Testaments, where being part of a GROUP, either the Israelites in the OT or the Christians in the New seems to be the ultimate value. Jesus does not seem to care much that Caesar is soaking people with his taxes. I understand the principle of individuality and individual rights, but don’t see what “God-given has to do with it. The Founders were invoking God because it sounded effective in the vernacular and religious belief of the day, but it appears that they actually meant “natural rights.”
On a different note, certainly many governments and politicians are ruthless, but so are many individuals and businesses.
Finally, it strikes me as quaint to the point of unreality that Tea Partiers and Glenn Beck look back to the Founding documents and babble/fantasize about how if we could only get back to that, things would be OK. Isn’t it pretty to think so?
The whole thing turns on the more PRACTICAL question of where on the Laffer curve the system works best. The reason the Repubs do not take up the “cause” in a more principled and consistent fashion is that they know it cannot win. Government cannot be shrunk, but its expansion may be checked RELATIVE to a future expansion in the economy, should we be fortunate enough to get another one.
What is most likely to happen is that the Obama huge spending stuff is a tourniquet of sorts to get us through our deep fears of Depression. Once we feel like we are out of the wood, then we try to be “fiscally responsible.” Politics and governance, like war, is always lurching from one crisis/battle to the next.
Matthews is what is called by the would be tyrants “a useful idiot”. Most idiots are ideologues who cannot or will not see the reality of the situation and will blindly follow on faith their beliefs. There was a NYT reporter, Walter Duranty, who filled the same role Matthews, Olbermann and others fill now.
All tyrants need willing fools to do their bidding. Obama needs Matthews, until he doesn’t, which is usually the fate of the useful idiot in the end.
w@110: Habu stop telling the truth!!
Second that. Chris Whalen is one very smart guy. I (still after 2008) maintain a healthy respect between me and the nearest conspiracy angle, but when Chris Whalen is uncomfortable, I listen a little harder. Some people don’t need guns – or Bibles. And my blood pressure prevents me from going into that subject any further, those ##@!&*(^$#@.
RE: a world in which matter and energy are no longer separate aspects of a deeper unity
Quantum physics was sexy, stunning, and exciting – until it bumped up against the hard nut of proof, at which point I nodded my head with sage “I figured as much” wisdom and closed the door on that subject as well. Allegedly the CERN hadron collider was to provide (some) proof but that was before the magnets melted.
My one and only foray into futurism was the prediction that an elite few will “move” beyond this reality while the rest of us remain stuck with the seemingly unsolvable core of humanity’s contradictions and self-destructive impulses. Yes life is such. I wish it were more linear (optimally with a progress arrow) and less circular.
As more and more Americans listen to what Paul Ryan has to say, I think they will discover that he transcends politics and actually looks to put us back on course before the costs get so great that we pass the “point of no return”. I tell my grown children how lucky I was to have Ronald Reagan as my president….I hope that in 6 or 10 years, they will be able to say the same about Paul Ryan or one of the other young conservative leaders.
In a way, the Laffer Curve is a measure of the optimum amount of socialism that can be economically sustained, using taxation as a simple indicator. At a minimum, one can discern some indication that an optimum does exist, given the assumption of correlation between taxation and socialism, however defined. If defined in an economic context as wealth redistribution, the correlation is close to perfect after factoring out expenditures for The Commons.
Emphasis on the word ‘simple’ and no apologies.
121. These rights most certainly are listed in the Old Testament, and they are assumed in the New:
Right to Life- “Thou shall not commit murder,” and murder is a capital offense
Right to Liberty- Kidnapping is a capital offense, slaves must be granted freedom after seven years, at most, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
Right to Property- “Thou shall not steal,” “You shall not defraud a worker of his wages,” theft was punishable by paying a fine to the victim, proportional to the value of the stolen property, and vandalism is the same as theft. Failure to pay the fine results in being sold into indentured servitude.
Right to equality before the Law- rendering partial judgments or accepting bribes was explicitly condemned.
Right to a trial and the presumption of innocence- “By two witnesses shall a fact be establish- no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness.” Lying under oath was punishable by the same penalty as would have been imposed on the accused had he been found guilty. The accused had the right to cross examine witnesses against him and call witnesses in his defense.
Protection against Cruel and Unusual Punishment- No one may be put to death for anything other than what is explicitly listed as a capital crime, for which the accused has been duly convicted. No scourging may exceed 39 lashes. Property crimes shall not result in forfeiture of life or limb.
Right to Self-Defense- killing a home intruder is explicitly mentioned as not a crime.
Federalism- Tribes, clans and families were permitted to decide their own internal disputes so long as they did not refuse to enforce the fundamental laws or infringe upon other tribes.
What do you call these, but God-given rights?
Geeze Louise… Using the Laffler Curve to measure the ‘optimum’ amount of socialism that can be economically sustained, is an interesting theory. In the end, facts will always triumph over fantasy.
Dwight 121
If man is made in the image of God, then his/her value is infinite; and all men are equal in value before God, and equal before the law. If man is not made in the image of God then some will become; as in Animal Farm, “more equal than others” based on their measurable value related to natural selection, and their “Will to Power” as described by Friedrich Nietzsche.
If man is made in the image of God; then, since God lives and gave life to man, man has a sacred unalienable right to life and self-defense. Do you believe all individuals equally possess these rights, and if so what makes them unalienable? Where does your right to life and self-defense come from – from a group of other people – from government?
If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is free, man has a sacred unalienable right to liberty – man is born free. Do you believe all individuals equally possess these rights, and if so what makes them unalienable? Where does your freedom of speech (without fear of life, limb, liberty, or property) come from – from a group of other people – from government?
If man is made in the image of God; then, since God is the Great Creator, man has a sacred unalienable right to his/her own creativity – a right to property created through individual labor – a right to the pursuit of happiness. Do you believe all individuals equally possess this right, and if so what makes it unalienable? Where does your right to honestly earned private property come from – from a group of other people – from government?
If man is made in the image of God, then the American Declaration of Independence is true.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
If man is made only in the image of pond scum, then the Communist Manifesto is true.
“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… and the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at… There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of thousands, could be good or could be bad.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
http://www.alor.org/Library/LegacyofTerror.htm
Dwight 121
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.” John Locke
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111locke1.html
R@127: In the end, facts will always triumph over fantasy.
And parabolic curves drawn on the back of a napkin during lunch at Elaine’s.
I don’t disagree. Empiricism is the final, but seldom finite, test, whether the subject is taxation or socialism.
126. myth buster:
These rights most certainly are listed in the Old Testament, and they are assumed in the New: …
… slaves must be granted freedom after seven years, at most, …
Wow! Where is that? Can you give us the verse please?
Best regards, Peter Warner.
New rule: no one attempting to converse about deficit reduction can be taken seriously unless they are willing to admit that any solution involves all of the following. Like almost every politicians, Ryan is only good on a couple of these.
1. Tax Increases.
2. Entitlement reform.
3. Sharp cuts to popular middle class programs.
4. Substantial cuts to defense budget.
5. Basic reorientation of our foreign policy towards an America First position.
131. Deuteronomy 15:1. This illustrates why I don’t like saying that the Bible permits slavery, because it’s really indentured servitude. Indentured servitude was used as a means of extracting repayment of debts from those unable to repay them or get their family to repay them, including debts incurred as a result of fines for theft or property damage.
#132 Markus – You’re babbling.
Tax increases actually REDUCE government revenues. to increase the revenues, one must reduce taxes.
You can’t have America First without a strong military. There IS a lot of pork in defense spending, however. The system is inefficient, but it is better than anyone else’s, which is why we are the world’s lone superpower.
For our population, our military is rather small compared to much of the world. Much of that is because our military is not used to suppress the populace. we could actually sustain a much larger military at relatively little more cost. It’s the infrastructure which is the greatest cost.
We spend more money on the military than the rest of the world because of force projecton capability. The battlefields are a long way from our shores… and that’s the way I like it.
We also spend more money, because we constantly keep our equipment up to snuff, and get the highest tech we can get. We do this to maximize our firepower… rather than just throw warm bodies at the enemy. We might as well, since we’re fighting halfway around the worl, and we can only maintain a certain size force at the end of the logistical pipeline.
Besides, defense is one of the things that is explicitly in the Constitution.
Marc Malone….. well said. You are correct to point out that defense is in the constitution as opposed to all this stuff Democrats want to push on us.
Besides, defense or military is one of the few things the government does rather well.
That may be because, you find few atheists in foxholes!
(BTW, I too babble at times, so please be sure to call me out on it so I temper my comments.)
Markus,
New rule
Old answer. No.
The only one who is trying to limit liberty around here is you. My first principle, among many first principles, is to distrust anyone and discount their opinions if the first thing they say is that they have a first principle that excludes all other opinions from the conversation. That is a technique favored by the PC police of the Left.
So I will continue to speak up for a brand of politics that is rooted in a faith in American Security, Free Enterprise, a civil and law abiding society that values individuals, and engagement with the world. May that interaction be peaceful and productive when possible but I would rather we fought than retreated when challenged.
If you don’t like it then I suggest that you either use Tocque to ensure that you only see what you agree with, which will make I suspect for a very small page indeed, or use the red X to the upper right or red dot to the upper left.
Perhaps you may want to try again on a new thread by supporting your ideas rather than denigrating those who disagree on a particular point? This is really a very stimulating and insightful community.
To be blogged under the title “To a Paleocon.”
Geeze Louise @ 123::
“Quantum physics was sexy, stunning, and exciting – until it bumped up against the hard nut of proof, at which point I nodded my head with sage “I figured as much” wisdom and closed the door on that subject as well. Allegedly the CERN hadron collider was to provide (some) proof but that was before the magnets melted.”
I think you’re confusing quantum physics with some other branch of physics, e.g. high energy particle physics. With the exception of celestial mechanics, straight quantum physics has among the best experimental validation of any branch of science. Supposedly it was the experimental validation of quantum physics that turned Albert Einstein into an atheist. Einstein firmly believed the Laws of Physics were deterministic and his religious view was based upon that belief. However the experimental evidence behind quantum theory was irrefutable and that shook Einstein’s religious faith. I might add that I think Einstein was incorrect in seeing quantum theory this way. I see no contradiction in universe being an artifact and having quantum physics as part of its Physical Laws.
Eggplant 137,
Albert Einstein was not an atheist.
“He (Albert Einstein) rejected at first his parents’ secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the ’spirit manifest in the laws of the universe’ and a sincere belief in a ‘God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists’… Einstein did, however, retain from his childhood religious phase a profound faith in, and reverence for, the harmony and beauty of what he called the mind of God as it was expressed in the creation of the universe and its laws. Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly–in various essays, interviews and letters–his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one. .. ‘Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.’… Do you believe in God? ‘I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws… The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man… There are people who say there is no God,’ he told a friend. ‘But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views… What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,’ he explained… ‘The fanatical atheists,’ he wrote in a letter, ‘are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.’”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html
I was referring to String Theory as one attempt to parse the GUT problem. String Theory is a branch of quantum mechanics, or more accurately, quantum chromodynamics, both of which are subsets of theoretical physics.
Storm-Rider @ 138 claimed that Einstein was not an atheist and linked a comment from Time Magazine to support his point.
The following link from an atheist website lists various Einstein quotes that indicate Einstein was an atheist:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm
The story that I was told when I was a physics undergraduate was that Einstein gave up on religion after he was convinced of basic quantum theory’s irrefutable validity. Again, I believe Einstein was in error to base his atheism upon the validity of quantum mechanics. IMHO, quantum mechanics is a consequence of the universe having an intrinsic “thickness” also called the “Planck Length”. This thickness is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions (think four dimensionally) and associated with time.
Geeze Louise @ 139 said:
“I was referring to String Theory as one attempt to parse the GUT problem. String Theory is a branch of quantum mechanics, or more accurately, quantum chromodynamics, both of which are subsets of theoretical physics.”
Skepticism of String Theory makes perfect sense (I agree with you!). However skepticism of basic quantum theory makes no sense at all. The agreement between the quantum theoretical description of atomic hydrogen and experimental evidence is arguably the greatest success story of modern science. For the specific case of atomic hydrogen, physicists can match theory and experimental data to an amazing number of digits. String Theory on the other hand has been the province of sly hustlers and charlatans like Michio Kaku. Whole books have been written about the utter nonsense of String Theory, e.g. “Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law” by Peter Woit.
Geeze Louise,
For what it’s worth, I think a valid GUT will come from modeling the Laws of Physics at the quark/lepton/boson level as cellular automa, refer to “Conway’s Game of Life”. I suspect if quark/lepton/bosons were modelled as chaos driven cellular automa along with the correct assumptions concerning dimensionality and rules of automa interaction then the Standard Model would appear seemingly by magic. Unfortunately I’m not smart enough to prove this hunch.
People say they reject belief in God because it seems absurd. However, truth is not determined by common sense, or by whether or not a belief makes sense to the human mind. Rather, truth is determined by whether or not a position’s claims are consistent with reality. Quantum physics doesn’t make sense to people because it is so contrary to every day reality, and in many cases downright counter-intuitive. Furthermore, few even begin to understand it. Even so, no rational person would deny the validity of quantum physics, because if Newtonian physics held at the quantum level, there would be no such thing as radioactivity! Surely, one would be called a madman if he asserted there were no such thing as radioactivity because the idea of quantum mechanics is absurd.
133 Myth Buster:
‘Deuteronomy 15:1. This illustrates why I don’t like saying that the Bible permits slavery, because it’s really indentured servitude. Indentured servitude was used as a means of extracting repayment of debts from those unable to repay them or get their family to repay them, including debts incurred as a result of fines for theft or property damage.’
Thank you for that, Sir. From the Tanakh, Deuteronomy 15:1:
‘ Every seventh year you shall practice remission of debts. This shall be the nature of the remission: every creditor shall remit the due that he claims from his fellow; he shall not dun his fellow or kinsman, for the remission proclaimed is of the LORD. You may dun the foreigner, but you must remit whatever is due you from your kinsman.’
This gives me much to ponder over. Thank you.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Eggplant 140,
I read the entire list of Einstein quotations from the atheist website; nowhere does Einstein claim to be an atheist. Einstein himself said “I’m not an atheist” and “I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist.” Einstein was a Deist and recognized that the Universe is the natural product of a supernatural Creator.
Science, by the way, has nothing to do with either atheistic faith or faith in God.
“The doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for it can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.” Albert Einstein
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_einstein.php3
“Where revelation comes into its own is where reason (science) cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason (science) to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason (Science), are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason (Science) has nothing to do.“ John Locke
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
Eggplant -
Just to keep the (my) record clear, I was not questioning the validity of basic quantum theory. I was writing quickly to mitigate the effects of being OT.
I have some passing familiarity with cellular automata, as well as Wheeler’s It for Bit ideas. I did not know that String Theory had been discredited. Someone should inform Brian Greene.
Having worked through all that, the point is proof, which is noticeable for its (persistent) absence. Back to particle splatting.
I see the Woit and Smolin critiques were published in 2006. That is relatively recent in a layman’s time frame, but probably a lifetime for a physicist.
144. Storm-Rider @ 144 said:
“I read the entire list of Einstein quotations from the atheist website; nowhere does Einstein claim to be an atheist.”
Referring to the same link:
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere…. ”
– Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
“Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.”
– Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”
– Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
Looking at the Wikipedia article on Einstein, I see the following quote:
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
—Albert Einstein
I interpret this quote to say:
“I won’t explicitly call myself an atheist because that would require a leap of faith (and be politically incorrect) so I’m trotting out this vague metaphor in the hope that you’ll become confused and go away.”
Eggplant 147
Your assertion that Einstein was an atheist is incorrect. Einstein was a Deist – a believer in the God of creation but not in what he called a “personal God.” Einstein’s metaphor perfectly illustrates his faith in a mysterious Creator because he saw reason and order in nature’s scientific laws. I don’t agree with Einstein’s lack of faith in a “personal God” because God, in addition to creating the Universe and its scientific laws; also, by creating us in His image, created moral laws – the laws which have been distilled through the ages and written in their finest and simplest form in our Declaration of Independence.
I majored in Biochemistry as an undergraduate, and minored in Physics; so Albert Einstein is one of my heroes – a great great man of science – and also a man of faith.
• Science is the process of determining how matter (The Universe) behaves using observation, testing and inductive reason; with reason defined as the ability to see and understand self-evident truth.
• Faith is any belief undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief the object of which is unobservable and untestable.
• Religion contains faith that eternal God created matter (The Universe); an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation.
• Atheism contains faith that matter (The Universe) is either eternal or created it’s self; an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation.
By definition there can be no conflict between Science and either Atheistic Faith or Religious Faith since all faith is outside the domain of science, and science likewise outside the domain of any faith. True faith and true science are, and always have been, mutually exclusive and never in conflict.
Faith in a rational God is made rational by the individual’s observable, self-evident equal value before an equalizing Creator; individual value which is self-evidently infinite, and which renders the individual with corresponding unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property earned through creative labor (pursuit of happiness).
Storm-Rider,
We will have to agree to disagree about whether or not Einstein was an atheist. As with you, Einstein is one of my heros and I also see him as a great man of science. I would also agree that he is a man of faith, i.e. his faith being in atheism.
Storm-Rider @ 149 said:
“By definition there can be no conflict between Science and either Atheistic Faith or Religious Faith since all faith is outside the domain of science, and science likewise outside the domain of any faith.”
This statement is true based upon our current understanding of science. Whether this will always be true is open to doubt. Einstein described the problem nicely when he said:
“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of
the world.”
Again Einstein shows his typical ambiguity on the subject of atheism. Obviously if God had no choice in the creation of the world then there is no logical need for God. If modern science can show that the Laws of Physics come spontaneously from chaos then that represents scientific evidence supporting atheism. However if the universe is indeed an artifact then it is possible that the scientific method could find “God’s signature” embedded in the Laws of Physics, e.g. a recognisable pattern or message in a dimensionless physical parameter like the electron mass divided by the proton mass. It is conceivable that science may someday discredit faith and firmly establish whether or not the universe is an artifact.
Eggplant,
Your agreement to disagree with me about Einstein is one thing; but your irrational disagreement with Albert Einstein himself is another.
Eggplant: “Supposedly it was the experimental validation of quantum physics that turned Albert Einstein into an atheist…I would also agree that he is a man of faith, i.e. his faith being in atheism.”
Albert Einstein: “I’m not an atheist.”
Eggplant: “If modern science can show that the Laws of Physics come spontaneously from chaos then that represents scientific evidence supporting atheism.”
Einstein himself said in one of the foundational laws of Physics (E=MC2) that mass can be converted into energy (and visa versa) but neither mass nor energy can come from nothing – that violates Einstein’s greatest scientific achievement – the conservation of mass and energy.
“Scientific evidence supporting atheism” is an oxymoron and so is “Scientific evidence supporting theism.” Science is based on observation; so once God (or the origin of an eternal or self-created Universe) can be directly observed, belief in God (or an eternal or self-created Universe) would no longer faith but science – but there is no “scientific evidence” for God or the origin of an eternal or self-created Universe because none of those things can be observed by any of us.
Your statement is unscientific and irrational.
Quantum physics doesn’t make sense to people because it is so contrary to every day reality, and in many cases downright counter-intuitive. Furthermore, few even begin to understand it. Even so, no rational person would deny the validity of quantum physics, because if Newtonian physics held at the quantum level, there would be no such thing as radioactivity! Surely, one would be called a madman if he asserted there were no such thing as radioactivity because the idea of quantum mechanics is absurd.
Quantum Mechanics is real science because it is based on actual observations and mathematical models which correspond to what is observable. Science on the sub-atomic level is counter-intuitive because we live at the macro and micro levels – our everyday experience doesn’t touch the nano and sub-nano levels – if it did Quantum Mechanics would not be counter-intuitive.
Well that’s weird. I wrote comment #153, but I have no idea who Ilan Ben Menachem is. My point is that the validity of the Bible is not determined by the apparent rationality or irrationality of its claims, but by whether its claims are consistent with observed reality. Specifically, the test is, “Do the prophesies come to pass as prophesied?”
The ponzification of federal entitlements [partially offloaded onto the states, e.g. Medicare/Medicaid] has reached the crisis stage when the twin Asian mercantilists China & Japan have grown sated with U.S. bonds [with some $70 trillion of unfunded U.S. liabilities yet to ponzi-upon-ponzi]. The flimsy edifice of Uncle Sam’s credit line is termite-riddled by sundry handicaps [some self-inflicted]:
a) a metastasizing public sector including early-in-life pensions to government employees who are already over-remunerated relative to the private sector
b) anti-business, golden-goose-gutting regulations propounded/enforced by the unelected, unaccountable BurgeoningBureaucray [see a)], impeding:
- oil companies from exploring/drilling/refining
- drug companies from marketing drugs over a reasonable patent-life to recover their costs
- lumber companies from cutting timber
- California Central Valley farmers from obtaining irrigation water
- etc, etc
I.e., Mr. Taxpayer is supporting a phalanx of well-paid Democrat voters to strangle the economy and to enlarge the government sector
c) an anti-free-market narrative summarized by “8 years of George Bush failure”. The more
accurate narrative: a CronyCapitalism failure
manifested by a FannieMae/FreddieMac/BarneyFrank/ChristopherDodd/CommunityDevelopment-affirmative-action slush fund [together with a somnolent-overly-accommodative-FederalReserve] which finally melted down in the final 6 weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign, triggering a recession and electing an administration which plague us still.
d) publicly-funded education that increasingly
places Democrat, teachers union, gooey-Green, secular-politically-correct indoctrination over objective, value-added, real-lessons-for-economic/civic-life learning.
e) The SilverTonguedObfuscator frenetically endeavoring to break the camel’s back with BigInsuranceStrawMen, who are at least susceptible to competitive pressures. How much competition [and associated quality-improvement] are at play in Veterans Administration, Indian reservation, United Kingdom or Canadian health care?
Paul Ryan is dangerous. He knows this is an unsustainable course… and says so… articulately, knowledgeably and credibly.
What will happen ..Paul Ryan 2012!