Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=69042)

RainMaker 02-03-2010 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217755)
The best part about this is that when such an initiative came up as potential legislation (as a ballot initiative in California in 1978), among the people who opposed it was that well-known liberal Ronald Reagan. :D

Quoth the Great Communicator: "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

I guess this really isn't your father's GOP. :D

He made up for it years later when he let gay people die of AIDS because it wasn't worth looking into a matter that was only effecting that part of the population.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217755)
The best part about this is that when such an initiative came up as potential legislation (as a ballot initiative in California in 1978), among the people who opposed it was that well-known liberal Ronald Reagan. :D

Quoth the Great Communicator: "Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that a child's teachers do not really influence this."

I guess this really isn't your father's GOP. :D


I don't think the real Reagan could win a primary in today's GOP. He raised taxes multiple times, negotiated with our greatest enemy, negotiated and sold arms to Iran, cut and ran form the terrorists in Beirut, worked closely with the Dems to pass his legislation, etc.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 2217750)
HArdball last night, Chris Matthews has a guy on who was against repealing DADT and in the end he got the guy to admit that he wanted Homosexuality outlawed. It was awesome. Chris Matthews will sometimes just hit 'em out of the park....then other times he says dumbass shit.

Hardball with Chris Matthews-Repealing ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ - AOL Video

He's pretty much a crapshoot. Gets really out there sometimes but is also intelligent enough to just destroy someone when he wants to. I remember when he destroyed that guy a couple years ago who didn't know what appeasement was despite using it as his talking point the whole episode.

SportsDino 02-03-2010 12:50 PM

I love thought experiments so lets try this one.

Ignoring where the money would go, figure out how to cut $X from the federal budget. No favorites about 'oh it will go to tax cuts' or 'oh it will go to more entitlement programs'. Just find places to cut.

If it will help, use this website perhaps: Budget 2009 - Summary Tables

There may be a more accurate/accessible reference somewhere.

We could hunt for line items, for instance I wouldn't mind sinking (2010 numbers):
- Extend 2001 estate transfer taxes/gift taxes: 3.4 billion
- Extend 2001 dividends and capital gains structures: 9.5 billion
- Homebuyer credit for DC: 19 million
- Subpart F extension: 1.3 billion (unless you are a big fan of outsourcing which this helped encourage that touch more)

Or in general, what would you be willing to cut?

Maybe a breakdown by department would make more sense, I think those tables may be a little too high level. I would love a straight up list of every program we are funding and what it does, I'm sure we could find billions in stuff that both sides of the spectrum would consider bullshit.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217759)
Look at this chart from the CBO. It shows a deficit line based on continuing the status quo and a line based on Obama's budget projections.



You can argue that Obama isn't doing enough to reduce the deficit if you'd like, but there's no basis to argue that Obama is making the deficit worse.


I hear that chart was drawn up by the same guy who drew up the unemployment rates without a stimulus bill and with a stimulus bill.

Yes, that would be the same stimulus bill that last week became $75 billion dollars more expensive than previously anticipated.

Stimulus now $75 billion more expensive - Jan. 26, 2010

JPhillips 02-03-2010 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217765)
I hear that chart was drawn up by the same guy who drew up the unemployment rates without a stimulus bill and with a stimulus bill.


I heard it was drawn by Jesus using the magical ink-like tears of the virgin Mary.

Check and mate.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 12:58 PM

$75bn isn't that much in the scheme of things. certainly not as a % of the budget

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2217769)
$75bn isn't that much in the scheme of things. certainly not as a % of the budget


If every bill we passed through ends up 10% over budget..........

$75B is $75B that we don't need to spend when our government is this far underwater. I remember when GOP representatives would justify Bush's spending saying that it wasn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It was a crock of shit then and it's a crock of shit now.

molson 02-03-2010 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217747)
Okay - is that a justification in any way? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because that reads as a quasi-defense.


No, I think its just a fact, I was highlighting people's ignorance.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217772)
If every bill we passed through ends up 10% over budget..........

$75B is $75B that we don't need to spend when our government is this far underwater. I remember when GOP representatives would justify Bush's spending saying that it wasn't that much in the grand scheme of things. It was a crock of shit then and it's a crock of shit now.


75bil on extended unemployment and food stamps is exactly what we should be doing in this severe of a recession.

btw- How can you slam the inaccuracy of the CBO and praise their conclusions in the same damn post?

molson 02-03-2010 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SportsDino (Post 2217763)
I love thought experiments so lets try this one.

Ignoring where the money would go, figure out how to cut $X from the federal budget. No favorites about 'oh it will go to tax cuts' or 'oh it will go to more entitlement programs'. Just find places to cut.

If it will help, use this website perhaps: Budget 2009 - Summary Tables

There may be a more accurate/accessible reference somewhere.

We could hunt for line items, for instance I wouldn't mind sinking (2010 numbers):
- Extend 2001 estate transfer taxes/gift taxes: 3.4 billion
- Extend 2001 dividends and capital gains structures: 9.5 billion
- Homebuyer credit for DC: 19 million
- Subpart F extension: 1.3 billion (unless you are a big fan of outsourcing which this helped encourage that touch more)

Or in general, what would you be willing to cut?

Maybe a breakdown by department would make more sense, I think those tables may be a little too high level. I would love a straight up list of every program we are funding and what it does, I'm sure we could find billions in stuff that both sides of the spectrum would consider bullshit.


I think the first step is focusing on institutional/administrative waste. And I don't know if there's an easy way to do that at the federal level, and I'm not familiar with the federal budget process.

At the state level, governors can call on agency heads to submit a proposed budget that slashes say, 10% from their prior budget. It's amazing how creative people can be about saving money when the get that edict. This is just my impression (though its based on close observation), but a 10% across the board cut in state government equals about a 0.5% cut in actual services. There is a point, where you're cutting bone and that % of services loss increases, but I don't think we get there very often.

The defense budget needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, of course, to create a more suitable armed forces for the threats we face today. I'm all for massive health care reform that puts the U.S. more in line with other countries when it comes to % of GDP and cost per person. I'd eliminate and consolidate departments, reducing staff by as much as possible. Federal employees would be required to take staggered unpaid furloughs.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217775)
75bil on extended unemployment and food stamps is exactly what we should be doing in this severe of a recession.

btw- How can you slam the inaccuracy of the CBO and praise their conclusions in the same damn post?


but you forget...mizzou doesn't need food stamps or extended unemployment, so they don't matter to him.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217775)
btw- How can you slam the inaccuracy of the CBO and praise their conclusions in the same damn post?


Well, it's pretty clear that the unemployment projections weren't even close to reality, while it's easy to quantify an added cost. If that's what you're talking about, then I find the criticism and praise to be perfectly legitimate.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2217780)
but you forget...mizzou doesn't need food stamps or extended unemployment, so they don't matter to him.


Neither do some of the people who collect unemployment or food stamps, but that doesn't stop them from doing so.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 01:15 PM

That CBO is tricky. Use it when it helps your narrative but discount it when it doesnt. awesome.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217782)
Neither do some of the people who collect unemployment or food stamps, but that doesn't stop them from doing so.


I see - so since you didn't deny it i assume we hit on the crux of it - if you don't utilize a program it's not important so it should be cut, even though other people might actually need it.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217777)
I think the first step is focusing on institutional/administrative waste. And I don't know if there's an easy way to do that at the federal level, and I'm not familiar with the federal budget process.

At the state level, governors can call on agency heads to submit a proposed budget that slashes say, 10% from their prior budget. It's amazing how creative people can be about saving money when the get that edict. This is just my impression (though its based on close observation), but a 10% across the board cut in state government equals about a 0.5% cut in actual services. There is a point, where you're cutting bone and that & of services loss increases, but I don't think we get there very often.

The defense budget needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, of course, to create a more suitable armed forces for the threats we face today. I'd eliminate and consolidate departments, reducing staff by as much as possible.


I work for the federal government as a contractor. While the contractors do good work because the next contract depends on doing good work in the existing contract, the government employees often have little incentive to do more than the bare minimum. This statement isn't meant to say all government employees don't do good work, but I'd guess that at least 50% of the government employees I interact with at their effort level wouldn't have a job in the private sector.

In summary, there's a LOT of places to trim the fat, but when funding never dies out, there's no incentive to do so.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2217784)
I see - so since you didn't deny it i assume we hit on the crux of it - if you don't utilize a program it's not important so it should be cut, even though other people might actually need it.


Some do, but I'd argue that much like other government programs, there's far too much waste.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217782)
Neither do some of the people who collect unemployment or food stamps, but that doesn't stop them from doing so.

Yes, I just hate getting in line behind a millionaire who just demands she pays for her groceries in food stamps.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217794)
Yes, I just hate getting in line behind a millionaire who just demands she pays for her groceries in food stamps.


You've obviously never worked at a grocery store. You'd be very surprised who walks through with 'food stamps' (they're actually on debit cards now) and what they buy with those food stamps.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217796)
You've obviously never worked at a grocery store. You'd be very surprised who walks through with 'food stamps' (they're actually on debit cards now) and what they buy with those food stamps.

I actually did work at Jewel Food stores for a couple years when I was in high school.

What exactly are people buying on these? Illinois, like most states have strict rules in place as to what you can and can't buy on the card.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 01:37 PM

MBBF is still pissed about that time ODB came into his store and bought a case of Colt 45 with his food stamps.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217806)
MBBF is still pissed about that time ODB came into his store and bought a case of Colt 45 with his food stamps.


That does still piss me off. Don't bring it up again.

Mizzou B-ball fan 02-03-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217802)
I actually did work at Jewel Food stores for a couple years when I was in high school.

What exactly are people buying on these? Illinois, like most states have strict rules in place as to what you can and can't buy on the card.


How strict is 'strict'? Missouri just says no alcohol or tobacco or food for immediate consumption. That still leaves a lot of options that might not be the best choice for someone looking to feed themselves or their family. It really should be limited to generic brands as much as possible as well to avoid wasteful spending on what amounts to little more than a fancy label.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 01:48 PM

Tell you what, MBBF, I'll let you create very strict rules for food stamp use if you'll let me cut out all the obvious waste and inefficiency in defense contracts.

With the money you save we can give everyone a 0.001% tax cut. With all the money I save we can buy Japan.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217814)
How strict is 'strict'? Missouri just says no alcohol or tobacco or food for immediate consumption. That still leaves a lot of options that might not be the best choice for someone looking to feed themselves or their family. It really should be limited to generic brands as much as possible as well to avoid wasteful spending on what amounts to little more than a fancy label.

It's limited to food or food product for human consumption. If someone wants to buy name brand over generic, then they are not getting their money's worth. The amount is based on what the State determines is enough money to feed an individual or individuals. If they don't spend it wisely, they are out of luck.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217819)
So, you want the government to control what people eat? Sounds awfully bi government of you.


And as we all know, bi government is just gay government that hasn't come fully out the closet yet.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217819)
So, you want the government to control what people eat? Sounds awfully bi government of you.

But seriously, I find it amusing that conservatives always complain about the horrors of poor people maybe buying brand name ice cream or macaroni 'n' cheese but ignore the massive waste going on in the defense department.

Or conservatives ignore the fact that the Red states are the welfare states in this country.

Ronnie Dobbs2 02-03-2010 01:52 PM

Why can't they both be terrible, terrible wastes of money? Why must everything be seen through the partisan prism?

RainMaker 02-03-2010 01:55 PM

Unemployment is also not an expense the rich are forced to pay for. It comes out of a tax that is factored into every employee's salary. Each employee is in essence paying 6.2% on the first $7,000 they make each year. Unemployment is a government run insurance policy on your job.

If you get rid of unemployment, you have to get rid of the tax employees are paying for it.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 01:56 PM

If you want something to get bent out of shape about, get bent out of shape about the billions of dollars from U.S. appropriations that simply disappear each year in Afghanistan & Iraq (most likely to corruption).

sterlingice 02-03-2010 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217820)
Tell you what, MBBF, I'll let you create very strict rules for food stamp use if you'll let me cut out all the obvious waste and inefficiency in defense contracts.

With the money you save we can give everyone a 0.001% tax cut. With all the money I save we can buy Japan.


What if I don't want Japan? I mean, I'd love to visit but, by all indications, it looks like a pretty crowded island. ;)

SI

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217820)
Tell you what, MBBF, I'll let you create very strict rules for food stamp use if you'll let me cut out all the obvious waste and inefficiency in defense contracts.

With the money you save we can give everyone a 0.001% tax cut. With all the money I save we can buy Japan.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2217819)
So, you want the government to control what people eat? Sounds awfully bi government of you.

But seriously, I find it amusing that conservatives always complain about the horrors of poor people maybe buying brand name ice cream or macaroni 'n' cheese but ignore the massive waste going on in the defense department.


seriously. control what they eat? are you kidding mbbf?

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217825)
Or conservatives ignore the fact that the Red states are the welfare states in this country.


this too. and yet they bitch about welfare.

kind of like the anti-gay preachers who have homosexual affairs - it's like they argue against their own self-interest out of self-hatred or delusion or something.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2217829)
Why can't they both be terrible, terrible wastes of money? Why must everything be seen through the partisan prism?


they both are terrible wastes of money. one is just more of a waste than the other.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 2217848)
What if I don't want Japan? I mean, I'd love to visit but, by all indications, it looks like a pretty crowded island. ;)

SI

Have you seen the porn they produce?

sterlingice 02-03-2010 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2217829)
Why can't they both be terrible, terrible wastes of money? Why must everything be seen through the partisan prism?


They can both be bad news but there's the matter of scope. I get annoyed about stepping in gum on the street. I've never understood how hard it is to toss it in the trash, yet there is it. And it just is annoying and something that might even bother you for a day: from when you get it stuck on your shoe to when you have to clean the last bits of it off when you take your shoes off for the day. But, you know what? I don't care about gum on my shoe if my house is burning down. And I would get really annoyed when someone wants to claim the gum on my shoe is my only real problem.

SI

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2217829)
Why can't they both be terrible, terrible wastes of money? Why must everything be seen through the partisan prism?


Because the amount of money wasted by the Pentagon's use of no-bid and cost-plus contracts absolutely dwarfs the amount of money wasted by people buying brand name raisin bran instead of generic raisin bran on food stamps.

Ronnie Dobbs2 02-03-2010 02:15 PM

I'm not talking necessarily about the "food stamps" point. It always seems to me that when both parties just sidestep problems with their own pet projects by waving their hands at the other side's problems, nothing will get fixed. It's like the ship will continue to sink while the two halves of the crew bicker about who missed the iceberg.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217862)
Because the amount of money wasted by the Pentagon's use of no-bid and cost-plus contracts absolutely dwarfs the amount of money wasted by people buying brand name raisin bran instead of generic raisin bran on food stamps.

The person buying name brand Raisin Bran isn't getting more money though. It's a set amount based on what the state feels is the minimum an average person needs to get by. Someone could use their whole card to buy a giant rack of lamb if they want and it doesn't cost the government a dime more than someone who bought generic Cocoa Puffs and powdered milk.

Arles 02-03-2010 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217825)
Or conservatives ignore the fact that the Red states are the welfare states in this country.

It's hard to be "an elitist" like many coastal liberals when you wake up on a farm and work 12 hours a day (did it myself for 2 summers as a kid). You don't make a ton of money and it doesn't leave much time to bitch and moan about horrible people on message boards ;)

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217871)
It's hard to be "an elitist" like many coastal liberals when you wake up on a farm and work 12 hours a day (did it myself for 2 summers as a kid). You don't make a ton of money and it doesn't leave much time to bitch and moan about horrible people on message boards ;)


funny how these "elitists" that you are talking about are the ones arguing for a more compassionate country. doesn't sound very elitist at all IMO.

the real elitists are the ones arguing for tax breaks for the wealthy and reduced social programs, not the ones arguing FOR them. funny that those are also the people who end up disporportionately paying for those programs also.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 2217863)
I'm not talking necessarily about the "food stamps" point. It always seems to me that when both parties just sidestep problems with their own pet projects by waving their hands at the other side's problems, nothing will get fixed. It's like the ship will continue to sink while the two halves of the crew bicker about who missed the iceberg.


I'm right with you there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217864)
The person buying name brand Raisin Bran isn't getting more money though. It's a set amount based on what the state feels is the minimum an average person needs to get by. Someone could use their whole card to buy a giant rack of lamb if they want and it doesn't cost the government a dime more than someone who bought generic Cocoa Puffs and powdered milk.


I understand that, but that wasn't my point.

We could definitely save money on the Food Stamps program if we were more restrictive on what people could buy. But the money potentially saved pales in comparison to the money that would be saved if we were a more restrictive on how DoD contracts are done. And that's to say nothing of the difference in effort between the two changes. On one hand you've got to clearly define and police food choices, almost certainly creating a ton of overhead. On the other hand you require all contracts to be bid and be Fixed + Fee.

After all, it was only 7 years ago that the Pentagon admitted it couldn't account for $1 trillion in expenditures.

SportsDino 02-03-2010 02:40 PM

Lets just try to create the biggest pool of waste we can cut from the budget... maybe we could get both supposed parties on the ticket if its a platform of 'reduced government spending' combined with 'cut taxes on the lower classes'.

So say we screwed the top 1 or 5% entirely, and just passed all the savings directly to the lower brackets. As an independent I would love that (although I wouldn't benefit directly at all). If we are supposedly a consumption-based economy (however sickening that may be)... nothing would create as massive a boost in that consumption as severe reduction in taxes on the 'consumer class'.

Why? Because as a percent of income/taxes or however you want to measure it, rich people don't spend the same percentage of their incomes on the stuff that makes company profits soar (excluding finance, boooo) as lower/middle classes.

Since I'm not convinced we have a shortage of capital, encouraging investment (or trickle down economics) is pointless. If the middle class is paying X dollars less in taxes, the percent of that X going into consumption will be higher than any other government program can manage... at high efficiency even... since it doesn't require all that much administration to just adjust the formulae.

Throwing aside the partisan goggles, what can we cut?

I say Afghanistan to start, we don't need it, replace it with better border security and intelligence screening of travel (and intelligence in general). More cost effective and secure than a war, the only thing in the way is our oversized ego.

Next, Agriculture, kill off subsidies left and right, for the most part big-agriculture has been profitable all along (ignore stock price games...). They don't need help. And I'd venture the little guys would actually make more money and grow faster in the long run without the government meddling. Replace the subsidies with basic health-based regulation of the industry, focusing on raising food safety standards and stopping massively polluting meat factories. This BOOMS smaller farmers in my opinion, on average I'd argue they are putting out higher quality/safer product at lower margins compared to an industrial giant creating lakes worth of pig poop.

Well I can go into subsidies quite a bit (I hates them), but I'm sure we can find some that even pro-subsidy individuals can admit are just money handouts to specific companies that don't need them.

Administration, decrease its budget each year so it has to continue to tighten the belt. If something requires a lot of money to keep going, consider it as a program to reinvent or cut, because if you need that many bureacrats to keep it running you are probably doing something wrong. Just a hunch, but we could probably have a perfectly useless government with HALF the number of office workers it has now... after all it don't take much effort to filibuster every fricking thing coming through the Senate and whine to the media about it. Most of that office worker mess is probably to deal with all the lobbyists swarming around the place anyway.

flere-imsaho 02-03-2010 02:52 PM

Any google of "examples government waste" gives plenty of food for thought, some of it even with data, citations and from reputable think tanks.

The problem is that there's no real benefit to your average Congresscritter to get involved in cost-cutting. Rare is the constituency that's going to let you cut their spending, and even rarer is the Congresscritter who's going to allow you to cut their spending.

This is, honestly, where the President and his bully pulpit come into play. It's not a great tool, nor always a particularly effective one, but it's probably the only one really available to get a crusade on spending and waste started.

Then again, there's no real benefit for a first term President to do this either, in all but the most rare situations.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217878)
I understand that, but that wasn't my point.

We could definitely save money on the Food Stamps program if we were more restrictive on what people could buy. But the money potentially saved pales in comparison to the money that would be saved if we were a more restrictive on how DoD contracts are done. And that's to say nothing of the difference in effort between the two changes. On one hand you've got to clearly define and police food choices, almost certainly creating a ton of overhead. On the other hand you require all contracts to be bid and be Fixed + Fee.

After all, it was only 7 years ago that the Pentagon admitted it couldn't account for $1 trillion in expenditures.

I know. It was more directed at MBBF who made it seem like buying generic products would save money when the amount is already predetermined.

You are 100% correct. Like getting in debt as a family and deciding you're going to switch to generic paper towels when the wife is spending $500 a month in designer purses.

stevew 02-03-2010 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 2217814)
How strict is 'strict'? Missouri just says no alcohol or tobacco or food for immediate consumption. That still leaves a lot of options that might not be the best choice for someone looking to feed themselves or their family. It really should be limited to generic brands as much as possible as well to avoid wasteful spending on what amounts to little more than a fancy label.


In PA it was stupid. We'd get smashed on the day the cards got loaded. I worked in a gas station, and you'd see an order for 5 cold subs, they'd come to the counter and buy 3 bags of chips and a bunch of 2 liters. I can deal with the program, but the abuses(and lack of restrictions on what could be bought) were absolutely insane. Cold fruit smoothies($3-4) were covered, for instance, and purchased way more than they should be.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2217915)
In PA it was stupid. We'd get smashed on the day the cards got loaded. I worked in a gas station, and you'd see an order for 5 cold subs, they'd come to the counter and buy 3 bags of chips and a bunch of 2 liters. I can deal with the program, but the abuses(and lack of restrictions on what could be bought) were absolutely insane. Cold fruit smoothies($3-4) were covered, for instance, and purchased way more than they should be.


i see your point, and i think it honestly comes from "gee i wish the people would use it wiser and eat healthier," and i agree with you on that. but it's not like they used all that money and then got more the next day. they got what they got...it was a fixed amount. how they choose to spend it, wisely or poorly, was their own choice.

stevew 02-03-2010 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 2217878)
I'm right with you there.



I understand that, but that wasn't my point.

We could definitely save money on the Food Stamps program if we were more restrictive on what people could buy. But the money potentially saved pales in comparison to the money that would be saved if we were a more restrictive on how DoD contracts are done. And that's to say nothing of the difference in effort between the two changes. On one hand you've got to clearly define and police food choices, almost certainly creating a ton of overhead. On the other hand you require all contracts to be bid and be Fixed + Fee.

After all, it was only 7 years ago that the Pentagon admitted it couldn't account for $1 trillion in expenditures.



I agree with making tons of cuts to defense. Downsizing the welfare we provide to countries perfectly able to defend themselves would be a major chunk to the bottom line.

Ronnie Dobbs2 02-03-2010 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2217919)
i see your point, and i think it honestly comes from "gee i wish the people would use it wiser and eat healthier," and i agree with you on that. but it's not like they used all that money and then got more the next day. they got what they got...it was a fixed amount. how they choose to spend it, wisely or poorly, was their own choice.


Sure, but why it should it be their choice to waste money that comes from all of us? Why give them that choice?

RainMaker 02-03-2010 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2217871)
It's hard to be "an elitist" like many coastal liberals when you wake up on a farm and work 12 hours a day (did it myself for 2 summers as a kid). You don't make a ton of money and it doesn't leave much time to bitch and moan about horrible people on message boards ;)

I don't quite get the "elitist" charecterization. Aren't these the people who want socialism and everyone in every profession to be treated as equals? The group that wants everyone to have the same access to health care? That doesn't sound elitist in any sense of the word.

When I think of elitist, I think of someone who acts as if they are better than someone. I'd probably give that to someone who believes everyone on welfare is lazy and that people don't have health insurance because they aren't sophisticated enough to figure out a way to purchase it.

So the guy who throws some change in the homeless guys hat is the elitist and the one who tells him to get a fucking job is the one who's not? I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong as I'm actually someone who opposes a lot of how we handle welfare type stuff. But it just seems odd to me to be calling those people elitist.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew (Post 2217920)
I agree with making tons of cuts to defense. Downsizing the welfare we provide to countries perfectly able to defend themselves would be a major chunk to the bottom line.

Actually, foreign aid is really low. It's under 1% of our total budget. Also, a lot of aid actually works in our favor. For instance we help a country and in return they buy some planes or products from American companies. Or when it allows us to get things done in another part of the world that is much cheaper than doing it ourselves (aid in return for cheap oil, etc).

molson 02-03-2010 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217923)
I don't quite get the "elitist" charecterization. Aren't these the people who want socialism and everyone in every profession to be treated as equals? The group that wants everyone to have the same access to health care? That doesn't sound elitist in any sense of the word.

When I think of elitist, I think of someone who acts as if they are better than someone. I'd probably give that to someone who believes everyone on welfare is lazy and that people don't have health insurance because they aren't sophisticated enough to figure out a way to purchase it.

So the guy who throws some change in the homeless guys hat is the elitist and the one who tells him to get a fucking job is the one who's not? I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong as I'm actually someone who opposes a lot of how we handle welfare type stuff. But it just seems odd to me to be calling those people elitist.


I think the "liberal political elitist" is someone that thinks because they have a college degree, they know best how everything should work, and anyone who disagrees is a moron, and immoral. They're SO sure they're right that they mock other people for living the way they want, and running their state and local governments the way they want.

Obviously, plenty of conservatives do this to, but there's generally much less intellectual snobbery. It's party a urban v. rural, north v. south cultural thing. "We know what's good for you so shut up with your opinions, redneck."

And I know I beat this horse into the ground, but this is the political thread - people who favor socialism are not, based on that belief alone, more moral or compassionate than someone who hates socialism. These are political and economic discussions, not morality discussions. We're all on the same page. Nobody wants human suffering. There's just different ideas about how to get where we want to be. I think there'd be a lot more creative ideas, progress, and a better world if we see these things as good v. evil, I'm compassionate and you hate poor children, etc.

SportsDino 02-03-2010 03:13 PM

Maybe we should create a new form of Congress-critter then. Given the mass corruption I'm seeing out of the Dems/Reps, I'm pretty much voting third party from now on (except for particular individuals who might standout from their parties). With all the power of the internet you would think someone would start a populist machine by now, the problem is none of them want to actually think about simple platforms that can grab a huge crowd. They drag into 'remaking the world' style platforms that are pie in the sky, allow themselves to be dragged into the supposed two-party style debate of non-issues, and then fall apart.

A little social networking and engineering, I'm sure a motivated group could take over a small state if it focused to particular theme and maintained all the status quo on unrelated issues (to avoid fragmentation over silly stuff that won't be changed anytime soon anyway, the supposed social issues). Would you vote for your old useless incumbent republicrat again who you know will do jack shit even if elected, or would you vote for the narrow-minded platform that actually changed something you agree with?

Hell, we are in the era of people longing for government paralysis because it is that ineffective. What better time to shake it up?

stevew 02-03-2010 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217925)
Actually, foreign aid is really low. It's under 1% of our total budget. Also, a lot of aid actually works in our favor. For instance we help a country and in return they buy some planes or products from American companies. Or when it allows us to get things done in another part of the world that is much cheaper than doing it ourselves (aid in return for cheap oil, etc).


Military welfare specifically.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217931)
I think the "liberal political elitist" is someone that thinks because they have a college degree, they know best how everything should work, and anyone who disagrees is a moron, and immoral. They're SO sure they're right that they mock other people for living the way they want, and running their state and local governments the way they want.

Obviously, plenty of conservatives do this to, but there's generally much less intellectual snobbery. It's party a urban v. rural, north v. south cultural thing. "We know what's good for you so shut up with your opinions, redneck."

I can go with that. There is more intellectual snobbery on the left although I'd say there is more moral snobbery on the right.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217931)
And I know I beat this horse into the ground, but this is the political thread - people who favor socialism are not, based on that belief alone, more moral or compassionate than someone who hates socialism. These are political and economic discussions, not morality discussions. We're all on the same page. Nobody wants human suffering. There's just different ideas about how to get where we want to be. I think there'd be a lot more creative ideas, progress, and a better world if we see these things as good v. evil, I'm compassionate and you hate poor children, etc.

I agree in some cases but I still think there is an element of both sides condoning human suffering and making excuses for it.

The right has tried to turn those who collect welfare into losers who are riding the system. Reagan did make famous the "welfare queens" from Chicago. Even the story about the Lt Governor from South Carolina reaks of that attitude that these people are lesser human beings and don't deserve anything from us. During the health care debate we had a lot on the right in this thread alone come in talking about how these people could afford insurance if they weren't all driving expensive cars and buying plasma TVs. There is an element of "these people deserve it" that goes into that rhetoric.

And the left does the same thing with anyone who has been succesful. They treat those who went to school, worked hard, and made their mark as people robbing the poor and screwing over society. They treat the rich as people who "got lucky" instead of people who just worked really hard in their life. That these people "owe society" something.

It's a form of class warfare that has always been around in this country and played out through our politicians. Sides need common enemies. It's easy to justify not paying welfare if the person getting it is just some loser who is lazy. Just as it's easy to justify taxing someone more if we portray them as some cold-hearted asshole who got lucky.

molson 02-03-2010 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217943)
I agree in some cases but I still think there is an element of both sides condoning human suffering and making excuses for it.

The right has tried to turn those who collect welfare into losers who are riding the system. Reagan did make famous the "welfare queens" from Chicago. Even the story about the Lt Governor from South Carolina reaks of that attitude that these people are lesser human beings and don't deserve anything from us. During the health care debate we had a lot on the right in this thread alone come in talking about how these people could afford insurance if they weren't all driving expensive cars and buying plasma TVs. There is an element of "these people deserve it" that goes into that rhetoric.

And the left does the same thing with anyone who has been succesful. They treat those who went to school, worked hard, and made their mark as people robbing the poor and screwing over society. They treat the rich as people who "got lucky" instead of people who just worked really hard in their life. That these people "owe society" something.

It's a form of class warfare that has always been around in this country and played out through our politicians. Sides need common enemies. It's easy to justify not paying welfare if the person getting it is just some loser who is lazy. Just as it's easy to justify taxing someone more if we portray them as some cold-hearted asshole who got lucky.


Very good post.

The only thing I'd add is that any argument against taxes, or more government programs, tends to be opposed on moral grounds, that the only conceivable reason someone might be for a more fiscally responsible government is that taxing the rich is "unfair", or something. That one really bugs me. (Most) people who want smaller, more responsible government aren't motivated by the hardships of taxation on the rich.

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217931)
I think the "liberal political elitist" is someone that thinks because they have a college degree, they know best how everything should work, and anyone who disagrees is a moron, and immoral. They're SO sure they're right that they mock other people for living the way they want, and running their state and local governments the way they want.

Obviously, plenty of conservatives do this to, but there's generally much less intellectual snobbery. It's party a urban v. rural, north v. south cultural thing. "We know what's good for you so shut up with your opinions, redneck."

And I know I beat this horse into the ground, but this is the political thread - people who favor socialism are not, based on that belief alone, more moral or compassionate than someone who hates socialism. These are political and economic discussions, not morality discussions. We're all on the same page. Nobody wants human suffering. There's just different ideas about how to get where we want to be. I think there'd be a lot more creative ideas, progress, and a better world if we see these things as good v. evil, I'm compassionate and you hate poor children, etc.


Not to get all intellectual and snobbish, but this reminded me of a passage I just read in "Throes of Democracy" by Walter McDougall.

Quote:

The universal lust to reform society, to reform other people in a spirit of ideology rather than faith, must at last come to this: "Love me as your brother, or I will cut your throat."


I read this the same day DT expressed his desire to kick states out of the union if they didn't support civil unions, btw. :)

JPhillips 02-03-2010 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217955)
Very good post.

The only thing I'd add is that any argument against taxes, or more government programs, tends to be opposed on moral grounds, that the only conceivable reason someone might be for a more fiscally responsible government is that taxing the rich is "unfair", or something. That one really bugs me. (Most) people who want smaller, more responsible government aren't motivated by the hardships of taxation on the rich.


But you repeatedly have accused people on this board of hating the rich for any suggestion that a progressive tax structure akin to the Clinton levels would be viable.

molson 02-03-2010 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217970)
But you repeatedly have accused people on this board of hating the rich for any suggestion that a progressive tax structure akin to the Clinton levels would be viable.


Nah, I just think that moral superiority is what motivated some of those opinions from particular posters. Same thing I'm saying here.

And I remember a rhetoric that demanded "results" way, way, way beyond the Clinton levels of taxation. As in, what was wrong and evil with the U.S. was wealth disparity, and that we had too many billionaires. Which I don't think was going to be changed with Clinton level tax cuts (the implication I guess was that Bush created wealth disparity with those tax cuts). Something else was really being proposed, just nobody had the balls to suggest it.

The real motivation for those opinions is pretty obvious when its there (which is pretty rarely)- just like it was with that Lt. Governor from South Carolina.

Crapshoot 02-03-2010 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2217960)
Not to get all intellectual and snobbish, but this reminded me of a passage I just read in "Throes of Democracy" by Walter McDougall.



I read this the same day DT expressed his desire to kick states out of the union if they didn't support civil unions, btw. :)


With all due respect, the South's moral compass is not exactly overwhelming; they've been wrong on every major civil rights issue in the last 200 years (Church v. State, Slavery, civil rights, poll taxes, Science v Religion,) - but by all means, defend them.

If that Research 2000 poll is accurate (and Bruce Bartlett is hardly a hack) and 73% of Republicans believe that gay people are too goddamn icky to be allowed to teach in schools, we have a problem. This bullshit moral relativism about "differences in opinions" doesn't allow outright discrimination, and is somewhat ridiculous when the same parties (legitimately, in my opinion) complain of the whitewashing of Islamic barbarism in the name of relativity.

RainMaker 02-03-2010 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2217960)
Not to get all intellectual and snobbish, but this reminded me of a passage I just read in "Throes of Democracy" by Walter McDougall.

OT, but McDougall is great. Out of the stuff I've read on the Civil War, this was one offered some of the more unique and less talked about perspectives. Really thought provoking although took me forever to finish based on its sheer size. Not sure if you've read Freedom Just Around the Corner, but I thought it was even better and one of the best early American history books I've ever read.

I put McDougall right there alongside McCullogh as one of my favorite historic writers.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217971)
Nah, I just think that moral superiority is what motivated some of those opinions from particular posters. Same thing I'm saying here.

And I remember a rhetoric that demanded "results" way, way, way beyond the Clinton levels of taxation. As in, what was wrong and evil with the U.S. was wealth disparity, and that we had too many billionaires. Which I don't think was going to be changed with Clinton level tax cuts (the implication I guess was that Bush created wealth disparity with those tax cuts). Something else was really being proposed, just nobody had the balls to suggest it.

The real motivation for those opinions is pretty obvious when its there (which is pretty rarely)- just like it was with that Lt. Governor from South Carolina.


Can you show me who said we have too many billionaires, because I don't recall that comment.

You consistently argue that liberals or Democrats believe this or that often without being able to cite someone saying it. Whether or not you have proof, though, doesn't matter because you know what's being proposed. If you want to get past arguing in good vs. evil terms it would be beneficial to stay away from gross generalizations based not on what you can prove, but what you "know".

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 2217974)
With all due respect, the South's moral compass is not exactly overwhelming; they've been wrong on every major civil rights issue in the last 200 years (Church v. State, Slavery, civil rights, poll taxes, Science v Religion,) - but by all means, defend them.

If that Research 2000 poll is accurate (and Bruce Bartlett is hardly a hack) and 73% of Republicans believe that gay people are too goddamn icky to be allowed to teach in schools, we have a problem. This bullshit moral relativism about "differences in opinions" doesn't allow outright discrimination, and is somewhat ridiculous when the same parties (legitimately, in my opinion) complain of the whitewashing of Islamic barbarism in the name of relativity.


With all due respect, where did I defend the South?

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker (Post 2217985)
OT, but McDougall is great. Out of the stuff I've read on the Civil War, this was one offered some of the more unique and less talked about perspectives. Really thought provoking although took me forever to finish based on its sheer size. Not sure if you've read Freedom Just Around the Corner, but I thought it was even better and one of the best early American history books I've ever read.

I put McDougall right there alongside McCullogh as one of my favorite historic writers.


I haven't read Freedom Just Around the Corner... very tempted to, but since I just finished Throes of Democracy and I've done quite a bit of early American history lately, I picked up Menard's The Metaphysical Club. It's actually working well as a followup to Throes of Democracy.

molson 02-03-2010 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217986)
Can you show me who said we have too many billionaires, because I don't recall that comment.

You consistently argue that liberals or Democrats believe this or that often without being able to cite someone saying it. Whether or not you have proof, though, doesn't matter because you know what's being proposed. If you want to get past arguing in good vs. evil terms it would be beneficial to stay away from gross generalizations based not on what you can prove, but what you "know".


The only thing that got me on this again was SteveBollea criticizing Colorado Springs for budget cuts, and then DT's moral superiority proclamation (how his opinions are the "compassionate" ones). I'll go away again. This thread is a lot smoother when MBBF is the only one with a dissenting opinion on anything. I kind of wish he would go away, just out of curiosity about you guys would talk about. I guess it would be like one of those threads where someone's relative dies and everyone wishes them well.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 04:36 PM

Pointing out those specific posts is fine whether or not I agree. The problem comes when you criticize generalizations by making generalizations.

btw- I don't really care what the voters in Colorado Springs decide to fund. I wouldn't want to live with that level of services, but if others do so be it.

sabotai 02-03-2010 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2217986)
Can you show me who said we have too many billionaires, because I don't recall that comment.


I seem to remember someone posting a link to wikipedia that showed the list of the world's billionaires (or the Top 100 or something like that), and some people reacting negatively that Americans made the majority of the list.

EDIT: Nevermind. Found the thread and no one reacted badly to the number of billionaires, just the disparity of wealth from a different graph.

Arles 02-03-2010 05:00 PM

Why not just word it a different way: based on the responses, it seems most in this thread have little issue with how wealth is distributed in the US. Is this correct?

For me, I have no problem with it.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 2218010)
Why not just word it a different way: based on the responses, it seems most in this thread have little issue with how wealth is distributed in the US. Is this correct?

For me, I have no problem with it.


Actually this is where the debate was centered. The problem, though, is the assumption that income disparity can't be lessened without reducing the number of billionaires. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care about the raw number of billionaires. I do think too many government policies are weighted towards the top one or two percent of earners.

I also believe that a more balanced distribution of income will lead to greater overall growth for the economy. You can disagree, and that's a valid debate, but it has nothing to do with trying to make sure there are less billionaires or hating rich people.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217991)
The only thing that got me on this again was SteveBollea criticizing Colorado Springs for budget cuts, and then DT's moral superiority proclamation (how his opinions are the "compassionate" ones). I'll go away again. This thread is a lot smoother when MBBF is the only one with a dissenting opinion on anything. I kind of wish he would go away, just out of curiosity about you guys would talk about. I guess it would be like one of those threads where someone's relative dies and everyone wishes them well.


So unless we agree with you we're somehow being unfair? You're not the only person with a dissenting opinion. In fact at times the dissenting opinion is the majority opinion. Just over the last few pages there have been a number of different posters with differing viewpoints.

Flasch186 02-03-2010 06:30 PM

i remember when dissent was deemed unpatriotic as opposed to Obama's intro at the GOP meeting. He's such a socialist!

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 06:30 PM

The dissenting opinion is the majority opinion? I'll never understand you relativists.

larrymcg421 02-03-2010 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217991)
The only thing that got me on this again was SteveBollea criticizing Colorado Springs for budget cuts, and then DT's moral superiority proclamation (how his opinions are the "compassionate" ones). I'll go away again. This thread is a lot smoother when MBBF is the only one with a dissenting opinion on anything. I kind of wish he would go away, just out of curiosity about you guys would talk about. I guess it would be like one of those threads where someone's relative dies and everyone wishes them well.


Oh please get over yourself. This has got to be one of the lamest posts you've made. You made generalizations, you got called on it and your response amounts to the equivalent of a Kindergartner threatening to take his ball and go home. Either defend your position or don't, but spare us this passive aggressive bullshit about how you're trying to even the debate playing field. Maybe one day you'll realize you're just as partisan as anyone else here.

gstelmack 02-03-2010 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SportsDino (Post 2217935)
With all the power of the internet you would think someone would start a populist machine by now


Someone did, it's called "The Democratic Party".

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2217960)
Not to get all intellectual and snobbish, but this reminded me of a passage I just read in "Throes of Democracy" by Walter McDougall.



I read this the same day DT expressed his desire to kick states out of the union if they didn't support civil unions, btw. :)


i stand by that desire by the way - as stated earlier (maybe not in the initial post, but certainly as it was fleshed out in the discussion that followed).

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson (Post 2217991)
The only thing that got me on this again was SteveBollea criticizing Colorado Springs for budget cuts, and then DT's moral superiority proclamation (how his opinions are the "compassionate" ones). I'll go away again. This thread is a lot smoother when MBBF is the only one with a dissenting opinion on anything. I kind of wish he would go away, just out of curiosity about you guys would talk about. I guess it would be like one of those threads where someone's relative dies and everyone wishes them well.


if you're talking about the post i think you're talking about i wasn't talking about moral superiority, i was talking Arles' definition of "elitist" being somewhat "off"

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2218099)
i stand by that desire by the way - as stated earlier (maybe not in the initial post, but certainly as it was fleshed out in the discussion that followed).


Oh I know you do, that's why I found the quote so fitting. Your stance reminds me in some ways of the stance taken by the hardcore abolitionists in Boston before the Civil War. I think it's Chief Rum who quotes William Lloyd Garrison in his signature. Garrison also said, "The compact which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." That sounds like something you'd give a "+1" if you saw someone post it here.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218120)
Oh I know you do, that's why I found the quote so fitting. Your stance reminds me in some ways of the stance taken by the hardcore abolitionists in Boston before the Civil War. I think it's Chief Rum who quotes William Lloyd Garrison in his signature. Garrison also said, "The compact which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." That sounds like something you'd give a "+1" if you saw someone post it here.


Can't say I could think of better company that WLG and the abolitionists of Boston to be put with IMHO.

So thanks.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea (Post 2218122)
+1. I mean, if not for the slavery thing, I would've been perfectly fine to let the South leave. We'd have a much better country in the other 37 states.


I'll +1 that right back.

Then again, I think (and I think you'd agree) that the good that we did by removing the institution of slavery was worth it.

JonInMiddleGA 02-03-2010 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 2218048)
In fact at times the dissenting opinion is the majority opinion.


Umm ... huh?

cartman 02-03-2010 08:52 PM

minority <> dissenting

JonInMiddleGA 02-03-2010 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218120)
Garrison also said, "The compact which exists between the North and the South is a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." That sounds like something you'd give a "+1" if you saw someone post it here.


Don't know that I recall hearing that quote before but I'd go +1 on it.

JonInMiddleGA 02-03-2010 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cartman (Post 2218135)
minority <> dissenting


I can only figure you mean "dissenting from the original proposition".

(That's the only thing I could come up with on JPhillips might have meant that made any sort of sense)

Flasch186 02-03-2010 08:57 PM

Well I interpreted it to mean that you could have a majority of people dissent from the 'administration' and yet still have the administration continue on their way....much like the Townhalls decried against the UHC. right? I could be wrong but that's where my brain was on it.

JPhillips 02-03-2010 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2218134)
Umm ... huh?


Just a poorly worded way to point out to molson that there's a pretty broad range of opinion and he's not always isolated in a bunker fighting off hoards of liberals all by his lonesome.

DaddyTorgo 02-03-2010 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2218136)
Don't know that I recall hearing that quote before but I'd go +1 on it.


:lol:

i don't think i need to point out the obvious necessarily...the "death" and "hell" in that quote are not something that can be flipped around and have the quote retain the same meaning that its speaker intended.

but that's cute Jon.

CamEdwards 02-03-2010 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2218121)
Can't say I could think of better company that WLG and the abolitionists of Boston to be put with IMHO.

So thanks.


You're welcome. But here's the thing: Garrison and the abolitionists didn't convince anyone. Black codes became more restrictive in the North in the 1840's and 50's. After the war, many of them were used as the basis for the Jim Crow laws in the South. When Garrison made his comments about the Constitution being a pro-slavery document, it pissed off a lot of people. Garrison split with Frederick Douglass shortly after making those comments, because Douglass believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document, while Garrison set the Constitution on fire, literally, in an act of defiance against the government. He managed to marginalize himself and his position in the eyes of the public. In fact, it was Garrison and the abolitionists that had to adjust their views to fit conventional wisdom once war began. Garrison wasn't a Unionist, he was a secessionist who believed that secession needed to come from the North. Once the war began, Garrison realized that to maintain any credibility in the North he would have to adapt his views to better fit that of popular culture, while also trying to inculcate his views of the war being a religious crusade against slavery among the People at large. Only by selling out his belief in non-violence did Garrison find any credence for his views among the American people.

And just so I understand this... you don't have a problem with Garrison making these arguments in religious terms? Because WLG was a true fundamentalist in his religious beliefs. He ultimately believed "love me like a brother, or I shall slit your throat... or at least encourage other mothers and fathers to send their own sons to slit your throat".

Quote:

I could not turn a deaf ear to the cries of the slaves, nor throw off the obligations which my Creator had fastened upon me. Yet, in view of the inequalities of the contest, of the obstacles which towered like mountains in my path, and of my own littleness, I trembled, and exclaimed in the language of Jeremiah,—'Ah, Lord God! behold I cannot speak: for I am a child.' But I was immediately strengthened by these interrogations: 'Is any thing too hard for the Lord?' Is Error, though unwittingly supported by a host of good men, stronger than Truth? Are Right and Wrong convertible terms, dependant upon popular opinion? Oh, no! Then I will go forward in the strength of the Lord of hosts—in the name of Truth—and under the banner of Right. As it is not by might nor power, but by the Spirit of God, that great moral changes are effected, I am encouraged to fight valiantly in this good cause, believing that I shall 'come off conqueror'—yet not I, but Truth and Justice.


Further, you don't have a problem with WLG burning a copy of the Constitution, or his position that the Constitution was an inherently pro-slavery document? You don't have a problem with WLG's belief that citizenship itself is a form of participation and violence and oppression against slaves (in the case of gay marriage/civil unions I guess the parallel would be that your citizenship only validates the discriminatory federal and state laws currently in place)?

You may admire Garrison's ends, but if you're honest you'd have to vehemently object to his means. After all, he spent most of his life in pursuit of making others live under his fundamentalist religious views.

sabotai 02-03-2010 11:24 PM

Was it Garrison that turned his back on Frederick Douglas after Douglas married a white woman saying that Douglas had gone too far?

*needs to look that up* EDIT: Bah, can't find it, but doesn't look like it was.

DaddyTorgo 02-04-2010 08:00 AM

Oh boy. A CamEdwards-style history lesson on WLG. Fun fun. That's alright, I know you wanted it to be some insult and weren't expecting the embrace of it by myself and a couple others, so I can understand your follow-up.

I think what you discount though is that by saying "there's no better company i can think of to be lumped into," that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with all of the motives & methods used 100% of the time. Attempts to paint someone with a brush like that are really just intellectually lazy - clearly one can have differences of opinion or find certain parts of someone or their movement less attractive than others.

I should probably do some work today, but let me go through and address a few points in your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
You're welcome. But here's the thing: Garrison and the abolitionists didn't convince anyone.


Wasn't a matter of convincing. In that regard I'm like Jon - it's about intolerance of an utterly reprehensible institution being the morally correct stance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)

When Garrison made his comments about the Constitution being a pro-slavery document, it pissed off a lot of people.




The truth hurts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
Garrison split with Frederick Douglass shortly after making those comments, because Douglass believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document, while Garrison set the Constitution on fire, literally, in an act of defiance against the government. He managed to marginalize himself and his position in the eyes of the public. In fact, it was Garrison and the abolitionists that had to adjust their views to fit conventional wisdom once war began.


I greatly admire Frederick Douglass, and honestly would have been equally as happy to be lumped-in with him. The split between the two was unfortunate in that regard.

It's not about whether his veiw was the prevailing view or not, it's that his view was what it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
Garrison wasn't a Unionist, he was a secessionist who believed that secession needed to come from the North. Once the war began, Garrison realized that to maintain any credibility in the North he would have to adapt his views to better fit that of popular culture, while also trying to inculcate his views of the war being a religious crusade against slavery among the People at large.


I know you've been following along in this thread - I know you're aware of the fact that Jon and I (and others - SteveBollea?) agree that permanant secession would have been a vastly superior outcome to what we have today. I however, am greatful that the North did take it upon itself to remove the institution of slavery from North America. Whether that secession came from the North or South doesn't matter to me. I don't fall under the "secession is not allowed" reading of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, my father's side (where he has understandably done the vast amount of genealogical research) dates back a Thomas Harris, born in Kent UK in 1586 who died in Henrico VA in 1682. His son, Robert Harris was born in what is now York County, VA in 1630. The family migrated over the years from VA to NC to SC to AL. Members of that branch of the family fought in the war for AL brigades. I've got no issues with secession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
Only by selling out his belief in non-violence did Garrison find any credence for his views among the American people.


That's fine. If I had been alive during those times, I would have been a violent abolitionist. Although clearly the raid on the Federal Armory wasn't the greatest idea (tongue in cheek under-exxageration there), I gotta say that (again) although there are aspects of him that I find less appealing, John Brown was a great man - a hero, who (in the words of biographer Richard Owen Boyer) "gave his life that millions of others might be free." As Louis Rachmunes says "Brown's action was one of great idealism and placed him in the company of the great liberators of mankind."

Although I generally am non-violent, there are times (such as when the lives of millions are at stake) that violence as a means to an end is justified. "Just war" theory and all that.


Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
And just so I understand this... you don't have a problem with Garrison making these arguments in religious terms? Because WLG was a true fundamentalist in his religious beliefs.


I wouldn't say I don't have a problem with it, but it's something that although I might have couched it in other ways, I can still agree with his ultimate goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
He ultimately believed "love me like a brother, or I shall slit your throat... or at least encourage other mothers and fathers to send their own sons to slit your throat".


With regard to that particular evil that he was engaged in struggle against, I have zero problem with that.


Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
Further, you don't have a problem with WLG burning a copy of the Constitution,


Nope. None. Freedom of speech. If anything I think that should have aroused much greater shock then than you're trying to make it have now - it was much more "recent history" then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
or his position that the Constitution was an inherently pro-slavery document?


Nope. I think it pretty clearly was - the 3/5 compromise is a pretty clear indication of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
You don't have a problem with WLG's belief that citizenship itself is a form of participation and violence and oppression against slaves (in the case of gay marriage/civil unions I guess the parallel would be that your citizenship only validates the discriminatory federal and state laws currently in place)?


On an intellectual level I think it's a fascinating position. Does that mean I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of renouncing my citizenship tomorrow? That's unlikely - unless I could get citizenship somewhere else in return, somewhere where I could continue my business, etc. But purely on a political philosophy level, no problem with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 2218206)
You may admire Garrison's ends, but if you're honest you'd have to vehemently object to his means. After all, he spent most of his life in pursuit of making others live under his fundamentalist religious views.


Already covered above. Certainly I think there were other ways to go about it, but as far as galvanizing a movement, at that time, that was certainly the most effective way.

As Garrison himself said - "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead."

flere-imsaho 02-04-2010 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 2218138)
I can only figure you mean "dissenting from the original proposition".


That's the way I took it. Here's how it works:

1. Poster A states an opinion.

2. Forty-three people reply in dissent to that opinion.

In fact, that's probably how most conversations work around here. :D

flere-imsaho 02-04-2010 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 2218069)
Oh please get over yourself. This has got to be one of the lamest posts you've made. You made generalizations, you got called on it and your response amounts to the equivalent of a Kindergartner threatening to take his ball and go home. Either defend your position or don't, but spare us this passive aggressive bullshit about how you're trying to even the debate playing field. Maybe one day you'll realize you're just as partisan as anyone else here.


Here's the thread where we debated whether or not the Left hates the rich: Question for people that hate the excessively rich... - Front Office Football Central

The fun starts with post 35.

King of New York 02-04-2010 09:38 AM

Nice going, Flere: you just broke our "most consecutive posts mentioning William Lloyd Garrison" streak :)

flere-imsaho 02-04-2010 09:41 AM

:(

flere-imsaho 02-04-2010 09:41 AM

On the other hand, I was the person who kept a discussion of sodomy running for three pages in this thread. Doesn't that count for something?

DaddyTorgo 02-04-2010 09:41 AM

quick! edit!!

flere-imsaho 02-04-2010 09:42 AM

Since I'm being a killjoy anyway, I'll link to today's NYT editorial which talks about the defense portion of the budget: Editorial - The Defense Budget - NYTimes.com

CamEdwards 02-04-2010 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 2218334)
I know you wanted it to be some insult and weren't expecting the embrace of it by myself and a couple others, so I can understand your follow-up.


I didn't mean it as an insult. I was hoping you'd actually write more than a sentence or two, so I could try to get a better read on where you're coming from.

Quote:


On an intellectual level I think it's a fascinating position. Does that mean I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of renouncing my citizenship tomorrow? That's unlikely - unless I could get citizenship somewhere else in return, somewhere where I could continue my business, etc. But purely on a political philosophy level, no problem with it.


So you're willing to sacrifice for your beliefs, as long as your sacrifice doesn't actually entail a sacrifice. Gotcha.

Quote:


Already covered above. Certainly I think there were other ways to go about it, but as far as galvanizing a movement, at that time, that was certainly the most effective way.


But as we've already determined, it wasn't particularly effective until the public was willing to buy war as a moral and religious crusade. By saying that, you're reducing a man's faith to a cynical public relations ploy. His faith wasn't just the "most effective way" of making his argument, it was WHY he was compelled to make the argument and what sustained him during his times of personal sacrifice and physical threats.

But more importantly, your answer tells me that you'll make excuses for any behavior, even behavior that you find abhorrent. This was your original statement back on page 164.

Quote:

The "Bible-thumping" brigade (for lack of a better term, yes i recognize it's a gross generalization) would like for this to be a non-secular nation where we all agree to live by Christian values or GTFO - call it a "fundamentalist Christian state," but unfortunately this country was founded on religious freedom and toleration not bigotry and intolerance and forcing one's views on another.

If you want a fundamentalist Christian nation...GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.



But you'll condone it, as long as that behavior is coming from "your side". Not a shocking revelation for anyone, but since you're one of the High Princes of Sanctimony in this thread, it is nice to see it so blatantly revealed.

Is there anything you truly believe in, DT, other than the absolute correctness of whatever position you happen to hold at the time?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.