Second Worst President in US History.

[tomclarke]

williatw,

I think you have nailed it in an elliptical way. We are getting the government we deserve. It is not the government it is the people. The trouble didn't start with FDR. It started with TR. What passes for conservatism these days is actually just Right Wing Progressivism. Balanced by Left Wing Progressivism. Some balance.

And the essence of Progressivism is: "We can make you do what we want because we control the government guns." Maoism to the bone. Just a bit kinder and gentler. For now.

People get the government they deserve. And they don't deserve much, but...

Governments depend not on popular decisions - no-one since Athens has done that, and it worked there because the right to vote was so restricted to a ruling wealthy and leisured class.

Governments depend on a triumvirate:
popular decisions
institutions (judiciary)
precise political system

At least two of those 3 things are adjustable. You can look at different experiments and see the pros and cons. There are better, and less good, examples.

So poeple get what they deserve filtered through a whole load of other stuff they don't choose. That stuff is the difference between a dictatorship and a decent democracy.

Having said that - in Russia it seems people want strong rule from the center. They are getting it, and it is pretty popular. What can you do, when people choose to have less freedom? Maybe, for most of them, that is the least worst option. That is what happens when you have democracy without the institutions that make things work.

[MSimon]

Having them in separate parties also allows them to switch support for matters at will.

Ah. So separate parties allows the parties to be unprincipled. That is exactly what I see.

As I said. I think our system of coalitions before elections is more fundamentally honest. The sell out happen in advance in America. You are not buying a pig in a poke. You see the pig before you buy. And no one thinks the pig is anything other than a pig.

[williatw]

williatw,

I think you have nailed it in an elliptical way. We are getting the government we deserve. It is not the government it is the people. The trouble didn't start with FDR. It started with TR. What passes for conservatism these days is actually just Right Wing Progressivism. Balanced by Left Wing Progressivism. Some balance.

And the essence of Progressivism is: "We can make you do what we want because we control the government guns." Maoism to the bone. Just a bit kinder and gentler. For now.

Well let me see...FDR is a failure because he started the social programs like SS that have now ballooned to the mess they are now. The fact that medicare etc were passed 20yrs after his death by a different prez/congress is beside the point, their his idealogical legacy so they make him a retroactive failure. Never mind wining WWII an ending the great depression..loser failure. So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements). Which led to Bush senior even larger ones (& of course Bush junior's larger still) and onewards to Obama's insanely large ones. So then by the same argument Reagan must be a failure too since the monster deficit spending of today are clearly his legacy...sure there are a few posters here who whould vehemently disagree with that.

[MSimon]

williatw,

I think you have nailed it in an elliptical way. We are getting the government we deserve. It is not the government it is the people. The trouble didn't start with FDR. It started with TR. What passes for conservatism these days is actually just Right Wing Progressivism. Balanced by Left Wing Progressivism. Some balance.

And the essence of Progressivism is: "We can make you do what we want because we control the government guns." Maoism to the bone. Just a bit kinder and gentler. For now.

Well let me see...FDR is a failure because he started the social programs like SS that have now ballooned to the mess they are now. The fact that medicare etc were passed 20yrs after his death by a different prez/congress is beside the point, their his idealogical legacy so they make him a retroactive failure. Never mind wining WWII an ending the great depression..loser failure. So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements). Which led to Bush senior even larger ones and onewards to Obama's insanely large ones. So then by the same argument Reagan must be a failure too since the monster deficit spending of today are clearly his legacy...sure there are a few posters here who whould vehemently disagree with that.

Me for one.

FDR destroyed the principle of limited government. He did win WW2.

Reagan's ballooned Defense budgets destroyed the USSR. Allowing us to cut defense back from 10% of GDP to the current 5% or so. So that was a good investment. It lowered future costs.

But on the rest I do agree.

The Arab Islamics need some attention. I like pornography.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... efeat.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... world.html

[paperburn1]

Are you admitting to breaking US laws, or is this just a hypothetical? <This assumes you are a foreign national, and don't have a green card. I personally don't know your situation, but it would be wise to consult the law before you donate.>]
Well my wife is a US citizen, so is my son. I am a foreign national who is in the process of getting a green card.
Since I have been living in Austria until now, this was purely hypothetical, but may turn actual soon. Thanks for the link and the information. Very useful. Anyway, it does not prohibit green card holders from making contributions. So that will work just fine
I can also engage in other non election related activities, which is what I was referring to as well.>

Skipjack could run a PAC and not violate any laws, See the Jon Stewart/ Steve Colbert PAC they made to run a presidential campaign in South Carolina. It was all done legally to make the point to show of what was allowed in politics and a huge gag at the same time. Hilarious and seriously disturbing at the same time.

[paperburn1]

Are you admitting to breaking US laws, or is this just a hypothetical? <This assumes you are a foreign national, and don't have a green card. I personally don't know your situation, but it would be wise to consult the law before you donate.>]
Well my wife is a US citizen, so is my son. I am a foreign national who is in the process of getting a green card.
Since I have been living in Austria until now, this was purely hypothetical, but may turn actual soon. Thanks for the link and the information. Very useful. Anyway, it does not prohibit green card holders from making contributions. So that will work just fine
I can also engage in other non election related activities, which is what I was referring to as well.>

http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/

Skipjack could run a PAC and not violate any laws, See the Jon Stewart/ Steve Colbert PAC they made to run a presidential campaign in South Carolina. It was all done legally to make the point to show of what was allowed in politics and a huge gag at the same time. Hilarious and seriously disturbing at the same time.

[Skipjack]

Ah. So separate parties allows the parties to be unprincipled. That is exactly what I see.

As I said. I think our system of coalitions before elections is more fundamentally honest. The sell out happen in advance in America. You are not buying a pig in a poke. You see the pig before you buy. And no one thinks the pig is anything other than a pig.

What party is ever principled? Separate parties gives people more choice and it prevents what is happening now, where the only two parties gang up to make laws that are unconstitutional and against the will of the general population. In Austria such a thing usually results in the 3rd party winning big time at the next election.

[MSimon]

Ah. So separate parties allows the parties to be unprincipled. That is exactly what I see.

As I said. I think our system of coalitions before elections is more fundamentally honest. The sell out happen in advance in America. You are not buying a pig in a poke. You see the pig before you buy. And no one thinks the pig is anything other than a pig.

What party is ever principled? Separate parties gives people more choice and it prevents what is happening now, where the only two parties gang up to make laws that are unconstitutional and against the will of the general population. In Austria such a thing usually results in the 3rd party winning big time at the next election.

In America we change parties. Or we primary the defectors. Our primaries are the equivalent of your multiparty elections.

And I like it that politicians are held in low regard.

"An election is an advanced auction of stolen goods" H. L. Menken

[MSimon]

Ah. So separate parties allows the parties to be unprincipled. That is exactly what I see.

As I said. I think our system of coalitions before elections is more fundamentally honest. The sell out happen in advance in America. You are not buying a pig in a poke. You see the pig before you buy. And no one thinks the pig is anything other than a pig.

What party is ever principled? Separate parties gives people more choice and it prevents what is happening now, where the only two parties gang up to make laws that are unconstitutional and against the will of the general population. In Austria such a thing usually results in the 3rd party winning big time at the next election.

In America we change parties. Or we primary the defectors. Our primaries are the equivalent of your multiparty elections.

And I like it that politicians are held in low regard.

"An election is an advanced auction of stolen goods" H. L. Menken

[Diogenes]

Reagan was the Greatest president since George Washington, and every Democrat President of the 20th Century (and the 21st Century) has been a horrible and massive failure.
They also enslave plenty on purpose. Look at Johnson's "War on Poverty". It made dependent chumps out of everyone it was intended to help.

The only part of this screed I could agree with...Reagan the greatest prez since Washington?! You gotta be f'ing kidding me?! FDR a horrible and massive failure?! My god but letting that go, I agree the war on poverty is/was a failure. I am adamantly opposed to giving able bodied people of working age money to do nothing, even if it isn't their fault they can't find work. As I have said here many times make them work for their benefit be it welfare/food stamps/gov paid housing. Pay them at least minimum wage, but expect work in exchange. Doesn’t show up for work doesn’t get paid period, argue with your empty growling stomach. The problem is that I think the current system is only somewhat because of LBJ incompetence/malignant intent. If you forced them to work what would they do? Expect a large percentage in public works type jobs, the ones where we have billions some say couple trillion bucks worth of infrastructure repair. Sounds like a match made in heaven except for the caveat: Public service workers(and their unions). They would fight tooth and nail to preserve their current overpaid/over benefited jobs and they vote in sufficient numbers to make sure nothing really changes. Think the current systems we have is more the result of that than some insidious plot by libs to enslave people to the gov, frankly don't think most of them are that clever to have thought of that. Of course since we are rapidly running out of money we may yet end up with something like I suggest. When public service unions go on strikes when their wages/benefit/retirement promises start drying up, welfare/food stamp recipients would make great strike breakers, higher them for allot less money. When "the long knives come out" people who are perceived as useful and productive will be fed first people less useful, not so much.

That's funny. I agree with everything you said except your carping about Reagan. (and your defense of FDR who GAVE us this massive and unsustainable debt.) As for what you would have welfare recipients do? If they can do nothing else, they can show up in a classroom!

I believe that those who have no useful skill or trade should be going to classrooms to learn more. The point is to not let them just sit around and vegetate leaving the taxpayers to support them.

I believe in the Democratization of College. I am so disgusted with the Liberal Crap that is being dumped into the minds of college students by virtue of their attendance at Universities that I see dismantlement as the only solution. A College degree should not require massive life burdening loans to acquire it. We are attaining an age where we do not need so many professors with their high salaries and their ridiculous benefits. (Tenure.)

The Kahn Academy is showing how it can be done. Education should be free (or at least reasonable) for those who want it. Texas is making noises about creating a degree program that will allow anyone to get a college education for about $10,000.00 . Still too much, but a step in the right direction.


I would like to go on, but I could fill dozens of pages with my ruminations on these two subjects. ( Really, there are no boundaries between subjects, just perceptions of boundaries.) Education and Welfare can be synergistic.

[Diogenes]

The two party system forces the governing coalition to assemble before the election. I like that. You know what you are voting for. I also like that the small parties can have a voice and can turn the larger parties over time.

The communist have done quite well in such a system. I believe the libertarians will do even better as they are more in the character of the American people.

Watch November.

I hope you are right...I am becoming steadily more libertarian the older I get.

Perhaps you will eventually get so old and wise that you will become a conservative.

[Diogenes]

williatw,

I think you have nailed it in an elliptical way. We are getting the government we deserve. It is not the government it is the people. The trouble didn't start with FDR. It started with TR. What passes for conservatism these days is actually just Right Wing Progressivism. Balanced by Left Wing Progressivism. Some balance.

And the essence of Progressivism is: "We can make you do what we want because we control the government guns." Maoism to the bone. Just a bit kinder and gentler. For now.

A lot of people pin this on Teddy Roosevelt. Yes, he did do a lot of things that were called "Progressive" and have caused us a great deal of subsequent trouble, but he is not the only one to have set a course for us to follow which has severely hurt us as a nation.

Abraham Lincoln established the power of Federal Supremacy. He did a lot of blatantly illegal things, and he set the stage for subsequent views on what is regarded as legitimate Federal involvement. It was his administration and the ideas of his party at the time that led to the 14th amendment. The first part of the 14th amendment is relatively innocuous, and had they simply left it at that it would have had no damaging impact to the nation, but they had to go and add all that other language forcing Federal barriers and oversight upon the states.

The 14th amendment has ever since been used to justify astonishing levels of Federal Interference with the Rights of, and the ability to administer the governments of the States. It was very "progressive."

The Amendment to Naturalize the slaves apparently also overturns State Laws against child murder, Makes Atheism the official religion of the United States, and allows judges to Order tax increases on populations. It has been used to justify the most ridiculous and heinous rulings of our seriously screwed up legal system. ( Thank you FDR, Harry Truman)

[GIThruster]

Great idea about education. I would remind however that this is a state issue. The federal government does not have a place in education.

California used to offer free education through undergrad to anyone living in the state at least 2 years. Great program if you can pay for it. New Jersey used to have what was called the "Star Program" that paid for 4 years of college if you started in the community college system or three if you went straight to university, if you were in the top 10% of your high school class. The program was massively successful and there were plans to extend it to the top 25% of students until the economy collapsed and the program was cancelled.

I'd expect with the success of the Star Program it will be reinstituted as soon as the economic climate here allows.

[Diogenes]

williatw,

I think you have nailed it in an elliptical way. We are getting the government we deserve. It is not the government it is the people. The trouble didn't start with FDR. It started with TR. What passes for conservatism these days is actually just Right Wing Progressivism. Balanced by Left Wing Progressivism. Some balance.

And the essence of Progressivism is: "We can make you do what we want because we control the government guns." Maoism to the bone. Just a bit kinder and gentler. For now.

Well let me see...FDR is a failure because he started the social programs like SS that have now ballooned to the mess they are now. The fact that medicare etc were passed 20yrs after his death by a different prez/congress is beside the point, their his idealogical legacy so they make him a retroactive failure. Never mind wining WWII an ending the great depression..loser failure.

FDR did not end the depression. He prolonged it.He also stole Gold from American Citizens.
He also let thousands of Americans be killed just so he would have an excuse to get involved in World War II. He is responsible for initiating Social Security which was never a viable idea. He also did great destruction to our Federal Court system by packing the Federal courts with socialist loons. A legacy still bearing rotten fruit to this very day.

I could go on and on about the failings of FDR, but I think you have plenty enough links to read already, if you bother to do so.
Objectively, FDR was a disaster.

So then I guess that Reagan is a failure since he started the largest(at the time) peacetime deficits to pay for his military spending(&growth of entitlements).

I keep seeing this accusation repeated. Reagan built up the military to defeat the Soviet Union. Congress Ramped up budget spending to pay off their political contributors and keep pork barreling themselves back in office. They dealt dishonestly with Reagan at every turn. One of my good friends is always telling me about how Tip O'Neal (Super @sshole from Massachusetts) Hammered his gavel down and declared that Congress had met the provisions of Grahm-Rudman. Tip O'Neal was a lying Democrat Sack of Sh*t then, and would still be one if he were still alive. His legacy of idiocy lives on in his assistant Chris Mathews.



The point is, Reagans tax breaks resulted in an INCREASE of government revenue, more than enough to pay for his military buildup. However, that pile of Scum (The Democrat Congress) simply could not refrain from spending money on stupid crap, all the while blaming Reagan for the Deficit.

The Fault for the Deficit lies with the Democrat Congress. It always has. They are simple minded Party Freaks with the mindset of the Grasshopper in that children's story, and they have no comprehension of cutting costs or saving money. They are like teenagers with their daddy's credit card.

To sum it up, for Reagan's Defense expenditures and policies, we won the cold war and got rid of the Soviet Union. For the Democrat Congress' excessive lack of discipline during the same era, we got lots of federal dollars spent on useless and counter productive crap.

Since it was in their best interest to blame Reagan instead of themselves, that is the popular narrative around Democrat Circles. It is not the truth. It is a lie.

Which led to Bush senior even larger ones (& of course Bush junior's larger still) and onewards to Obama's insanely large ones.

George H.W. Bush was the worst mistake Reagan ever made. I cannot express myself sufficiently at the degree of disgust I feel towards that man. The ONLY thing he did right was nominating and defending Clarence Thomas. George H.W. Bush was just another one of those North-Eastern Rockefeller Republicans (Elite Country Club out of touch) who had transplanted to Texas, thereby fooling people into thinking he was a sensible person.

But you are right. George H.W. Bush (using Deficits under Reagan as justification) ramped up Federal Spending, and set the standard for subsequent administrations to go even more insane. Clinton would have done so as well, but his support for Gun Control Legislation cost his party control of congress.,( I know, I helped knock out one of them personally.) and while being forced to deal with a newly elected Republican Congress ( Before they had a chance to get corrupted by living in Washington) they forced him to cut spending.

It's funny that Clinton is given credit for his spending restraints when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into them. The Media, of course, made it appear that those evil and draconian Republicans were just wanting old people and children to die from starvation or some such.

So then by the same argument Reagan must be a failure too since the monster deficit spending of today are clearly his legacy...sure there are a few posters here who whould vehemently disagree with that.

Like I said, we got something useful and tangible for Reagan's spending. What did we get for the Democrat Congress' spending of that era?

[Diogenes]

Great idea about education. I would remind however that this is a state issue. The federal government does not have a place in education.

California used to offer free education through undergrad to anyone living in the state at least 2 years. Great program if you can pay for it. New Jersey used to have what was called the "Star Program" that paid for 4 years of college if you started in the community college system or three if you went straight to university, if you were in the top 10% of your high school class. The program was massively successful and there were plans to extend it to the top 25% of students until the economy collapsed and the program was cancelled.

I'd expect with the success of the Star Program it will be reinstituted as soon as the economic climate here allows.

There is no reason why education should be so costly. Do we really any longer need the brick and mortar buildings with their meat world population? MIT has been giving out free lectures for quite some time, and also i've noticed plenty of free lectures on various satellite television channels. The Fineman lectures are still available as well. There is the Kahn Academy. I see no reason why Education media can't spread like pirate software, which is ubiquitous. Knowledge wants to be free!

All it takes is for some state to accredit the material in some manner, and issue out the degrees. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!



I think it will be a delicious irony to see those socialists in Academia and the public school system hoist with their own petard.