OWS finally shows its true colors

#26
#26
milohimself said:
I wouldn't call it government handouts or corporate welfare. More along the lines of contributing to candidates through increasingly looser campaign finance structures in exchange for having greater control over the language of legislation. There is an investment being made on part of the "1%" though.
Click to expand...

Get the government out of the position to be able to grant favors and the money is a non-issue.
 
#27
#27
nbakerld said:
There was this clip on Stossel, I wish I could find it. It was a free bike helmet giveaway in NYC to promote safety, of course sponsored by taxpayers. They set up in a very wealthy neighborhood and there's just these rich people walking by and picking up free bike helmets from the government. It's so pathetic how happy they were to get "free" stuff.
Click to expand...

Where in NYC was this? If it was Manhattan, that's because Manhattan is populated by rich people. People in Manhattan that aren't rich probably got there by train from Jersey, the Bronx and Brooklyn.
 
#29
#29
milohimself said:
I agree. Campaign finance reform, anyone?
Click to expand...

Nope. The founders fought a war before they fought a war. The first war was the war of propaganda. It was fought by men like Thomas Paine and his cohorts. They wrote pamphlets and then printed them and handed them out all over. Do you think that was free? What if they were even more limited on how much they could spend to spread the word? Political speech demands money. When the government tries to limit political speech, then you are living under an authoritarian regime. Why don't people get this? If you want to talk to your neighbor, you walk over and talk to him. If you want to talk to everyone in town, you put something in the paper or on the radio. Why should you be limited on how much you can talk? That is what spending/donating limits are. They are a way of limiting how much speech goes out. So people with more money can talk more. So what! A more eloquent speaker can influence more people than a clumsy one. Should we put limits on the eloquence that anyone is allowed to employ? Surely that is more fair since those with more eloquence/money should not be allowed to influence people more effectively, right?

It is simple. If you want the cronyism to stop, then limit what the government can control. There is no point in using money to influence politics if those with political power are prohibited from returning the favor economically or financially.
 
#30
#30
RespectTradition said:
Get the government out of the position to be able to grant favors and the money is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

The only way to do that is shrink government. The less power it has, the less influence it can peddle.

But that thought is horrifying for those on the left.
 
#31
#31
RespectTradition said:
It is simple. If you want the cronyism to stop, then limit what the government can control. There is no point in using money to influence politics if those with political power are prohibited from returning the favor economically or financially.
Click to expand...

Based on the language I've heard regarding the issue, it was that way at one point. What happened?
 
#34
#34
Pepe_Silvia said:
The Progressive Movement happened.
Click to expand...

Using the commerce clause to make pot smoking illegal or outlawing internet gambling are hardly overriding progressive issues. That's your moral majority in the conservative movement right there.

It isn't a party issue, its a power issue and every politician wants more of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
RespectTradition said:
Using the commerce clause to make pot smoking illegal or outlawing internet gambling are hardly overriding progressive issues. That's your moral majority in the conservative movement right there.

It isn't a party issue, its a power issue and every politician wants more of it.
Click to expand...


I'm speaking about the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century. We can thank them for the Federal income tax and the popular election of senators, among other travesties.
 
#37
#37
RespectTradition said:
Using the commerce clause to make pot smoking illegal or outlawing internet gambling are hardly overriding progressive issues. That's your moral majority in the conservative movement right there.

It isn't a party issue, its a power issue and every politician wants more of it.
Click to expand...

Um, right now, today, at this moment, 'progressives' are trying to grow government, while conservatives are trying to limit it.

So I'll believe the evidence of my eyes.
 
#38
#38
Negateer said:
Um, right now, today, at this moment, 'progressives' are trying to grow government, while conservatives are trying to limit it.

So I'll believe the evidence of my eyes.
Click to expand...


If by "conservatives" you mean the likes of the guys (except Paul) who are running for the Republican nomination, then you are dead wrong.
 
#39
#39
Negateer said:
Um, right now, today, at this moment, 'progressives' are trying to grow government, while conservatives are trying to limit it.

So I'll believe the evidence of my eyes.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You mean you will believe the evidence that FoxNews tells you.

Anyone who thinks the GOP is working to limit the growth of government has been asleep for a long time.

Maybe I am wrong... who passed...

No Child Left Behind
Medicare drug benefit
Creation of DHS
?

Didn't Bush add something like 20000 new pages of regulations while in office?

Believe it or not, spending on the military is also growing government.
 
#40
#40
Pepe_Silvia said:
I'm speaking about the Progressive Movement of the early 20th Century. We can thank them for the Federal income tax and the popular election of senators, among other travesties.
Click to expand...

Did you know the first federal income tax was passed in 1861... by republicans?
 
#42
#42
Did you also know that Hoover started the progressive policies that the New Deal was simply a continuation of?

How Herbert Hoover Didn’t End the Depression | Cato @ Liberty
Joshua Green writes in the Atlantic, after discussing the Austrian economists’ views in 1929 on what to do about the not-yet-great depression:

Herbert Hoover’s Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, offered similar counsel, famously urging Hoover to “liquidate” and “purge the rottenness out of the system.” But this failed to stop the catastrophe.
Click to expand...

That’s true. And you know, here’s a general rule: Absolutely nothing that a treasury secretary says to a president will affect the real economy if the president ignores his advice and does something else.

Hoover didn’t cut federal spending, he doubled it. He established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. He propped up wages and prices. Indeed, he launched the New Deal. And Green is right: In the face of these policies, Mellon’s memos to Hoover failed to stop the catastrophe.
Click to expand...

See also:
Herbert Hoover: Father of the New Deal | Steven Horwitz | Cato Institute: Briefing Paper
Reason Foundation - Whitewashing FDR
Reason Foundation - An Evaluation of Economic Crises Past and Present

Also:
Did I mention things like farm subsidies earlier?
Reason Foundation - The Red/Blue Paradox
 
#43
#43
RT, you're a guy that I can respect. You come in here and try to fight a good fight. I may not agree with you on some points, I like that you speak honestly and not blame things on one party or another.
 
#48
#48
Negateer said:
1861? lol.

Sorry kids, conservatives try to limit government everyday, progressives try to grow it. In the now. Right now.
Click to expand...


True conservatives like Ron Paul do try to limit government growth.

Neocons don't. They are just as happy as the Democrats with expanding government.
 
#49
#49
Negateer said:
1861? lol.

Sorry kids, conservatives try to limit government everyday, progressives try to grow it. In the now. Right now.
Click to expand...

When did Glen Beck start intravenous distribution and why did I not hear about it?

Just always vote Republican and good luck with that.
 
#50
#50
Negateer said:
1861? lol.

Sorry kids, conservatives try to limit government everyday, progressives try to grow it. In the now. Right now.
Click to expand...

Random fact. And interesting to those who like history, which should be anyone who wants to run his piehole about politics.

Let me repeat:

This century:
No Child Left Behind
Medicare drug benefit
Creation of DHS
Farm Subsidies
Corporate Welfare
TARP
Stimulus

all passed by the GOP.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top