Mitch Daniels will not be running for President

[El_Machinae]

I'd hope that at least a decent portion of Americans actually want a form of socialised medicine, actually. Increasing the level at which it's socialised looks pretty smart, even if the US might not benefit from other forms of socialist policy. But medicine, yeah, I'd hope that a lot of people want that.

 

[Thedrin]

MikeL49NYVI:
Cutlass, you made this statement, and I gave some examples of people that do just that. And then you and Thedrin both focused on my use of the word "most" instead of using "more".

...

Yes, I could have used the word "more" instead of "most" . But I fear that the "more" keeps getting bigger and will eventually become "most".
And that is why I used some of the examples that I did.

Thedrin, when you take an objective look at the trends in the US, and some of the individual states, it is not a "far cry" at all. it is, in fact exactly where much of this seems to be heading. And that worries alot of people.

If the trends in the US are towards increasing federal taxes and some states' taxes, that does not mean that this trend will continue until the government controls the majority of the peoples' income.

You say that we're merely focusing on the difference between more and most, but there is a massive difference between those two terms, despite that people often conflate the two terms. Incidentally, using these words interchangeably is a fine example of a more passive way in which both sides of the US mainstream political spectrum attack each other and distort each others' point of view.

Cherry picking quotes (that are provided without context) does not provide sufficient evidence that your fears are well founded.

And I'm not convinced that Al Sharpton is representative of the typical US Democrat.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Well why should anyone but actual Republicans be allowed to help pick the REPUBLICAN candidate for President? I used to favor open primaries, but more and more I am thinking all the States should revert back to actual party caucuses (not even primaries, but just caucuses).

Considering that the two parties inflict their people on the entire nation, I think the entire nation should be allowed to mitigate the damage.

 

[El_Machinae]

Er, can't you just join the party if you want to affect the nomination process?

 

[Cutlass]

Ok, to keep some order and sense out of all of this: (and so I do not get too confused)


Cutlass I completly agree with this. But it is not all one-sided, and that was my original point that got us on to this subject.
Both sides send out ther "attack dogs" to accuse the other side of being fanatical, and either "ultral liberal", or "ultra right wing" .
Ajidica's use of the term "nutjobs" is just another example of this type of rheortic directed at those with whom someone does not believe. All I wanted to do is to fairly point out that there are two sides to everything.

It is true, you are right, that both sides use wild rhetoric. But look at the reality behind the rhetoric.

Cutlass, you made this statement, and I gave some examples of people that do just that. And then you and Thedrin both focused on my use of the word "most" instead of using "more".

Are you both saying that it is all right to use words like "nutjobs" and "radical" and phrases like "anyone at all in the whole country" to back your personal ideology, but not all right to be used by those who do not agree with you?

I am seriously am not trying to be argumentative here, but I hate double-standards from any viewpoint. If it is fair for one side, it is fair for both. And to agree again with you Cutlass, it is this type of partisanship that is crippling our country.

Yes, I could have used the word "more" instead of "most" . But I fear that the "more" keeps getting bigger and will eventually become "most".
And that is why I used some of the examples that I did.

No, it won't become "most". No one, no one who could get elected as a Democrat to major office, wants it to become most. We are not at all headed in that direction. And to claim we are is false.

Clinton was right in 2000, that we should not have cut taxes. That was just about the worst of all possible moves. All it resulted in was deficits and an ever bigger housing bubble.

For you to make the comment that there is "nothing remotely socialist going on in the United States," is simply not true. Here is a definition of socialism I got online from the Merriam-Webster web-page:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

If you look at my earlier examples, and compare them to this definition, you'll easily see the common threads. And if you then look at some of the laws, and regulations that have been comming out in the US, you'll see the same trends. I can provide examples if anyone wants.

So you agree that there is no trend towards socialism in the US because no one is trying to do that? Because, you know, no one is. The most anyone has proposed is Universal Health Care. And if you are a capitalist, and you are not for that, then you do not understand the situation.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

There is so much here that I am unsure where to begin.

Several posters here have directed comments and responses to me,making statements they say are absolute facts. All I have been trying to do is responed to them, in their context.

For all of you who have said things like; there is nothing socialist going on in the USA; or that no one is advocating government ownership or administation; or that the only socialist program has been universal health care; or that no liberal actually believes what I claim they believe; or other statements similar in nature; I am going to combine all my responses.

Let's start here, shall we?
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

Pretty self-explainatory, and if you through at it, you'll see some different connections to the Democratic Party. I am not saying they are one and the same, only that there is a link. And they have a tendency to be mutually supportive.

Here again, is the definition of socialism that I used.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

If the "means of production and distribution of goods" does not refer to the nation's economy then what can it possibly be referring to? And is it not true that by using governmental regulations and laws, that the "administration" of the goods is greatly effected, and controlled?
I do not think it necessary to get into a list of federal and state regulations that dictate to companies what can be done, and how it can be done.

But all of the absolute statements that have been made here are just plain out not true.
I have never said that all US polices are socialist. I have never said that all democrats are ultra liberals, and socialists. But there are those who do believe in these socialist principals, in different degrees, and they do promote these ideas. They do not use the word "socialist" but the connections and actions, and the voting records are there. In different degrees.

http://www.internationalsocialist.org/ Here is another link to a socialist organization in the United States.
If you look at the statement at the top of their page, it is in effect their mission statement. And just about all of the items that they stand for, are very similar to the positions that the Democratic Party takes.

I am not saying these people and the Dems. are the same thing, but they do have some of the same core values, and positions. There is a connection. There are people in the country that do believe these principals. There is some socialism in the United States. And with the move towards a larger Federal government, and regulations, the tendencies are there.

This is the entire context of my comments concerning your "absolute" statements.

Oh, and Thedrin I do not think that Sharpton is a typical anything, much less a Democrat either. But then they do not distance themselves from him either.

 

[Cutlass]

Regulating capitalism and "free markets" does not in any way, shape, or form resemble any form of socialism. It just makes markets freer and fairer and perform better. Regulation is pro free market and private enterprise. Not opposed to it.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Regulating capitalism and "free markets" does not in any way, shape, or form resemble any form of socialism. It just makes markets freer and fairer and perform better. Regulation is pro free market and private enterprise. Not opposed to it.

Regulation is the exact opposite of pro free market. Free market means just what it says on the box, a market "free" of any and all outside influence. Regulation is socialism, not capitalism. Does that mean we have a socialist economy? Obviously not, we clearly don't. We have a mixed economy, which come to think of it so does every other country. I'm not aware of a country that has a 100% socialist or 100% capitalist economy. We can argue all day until we're blue in the face about how much regulation if any is good for the economy and where that line is, but trying to rebrand regulation as part of a free market economy is completely disingenuous, by it's very definition regulation interferes with the free market.

 

[Cutlass]

Regulation is the exact opposite of pro free market. Free market means just what it says on the box, a market "free" of any and all outside influence. Regulation is socialism, not capitalism. Does that mean we have a socialist economy? Obviously not, we clearly don't. We have a mixed economy, which come to think of it so does every other country. I'm not aware of a country that has a 100% socialist or 100% capitalist economy. We can argue all day until we're blue in the face about how much regulation if any is good for the economy and where that line is, but trying to rebrand regulation as part of a free market economy is completely disingenuous, by it's very definition regulation interferes with the free market.

You have a lot of things reversed from reality there. A market with no regulation will not be free. It will be controlled by special interests. The regulations make the market more free. Because more people have more choices. And that is the opposite of socialism. The reason for regulating capitalism is to keep markets free so that socialism is not desired. It is the opposition to socialism.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

You have a lot of things reversed from reality there. A market with no regulation will not be free. It will be controlled by special interests. The regulations make the market more free. Because more people have more choices. And that is the opposite of socialism. The reason for regulating capitalism is to keep markets free so that socialism is not desired. It is the opposition to socialism.

Right, regulation creates choice, that's why I have so much choice in what company I get my electricity from, because the government granted legal monopolies (regulation) clearly increase choice. You don't seem to actually understand what a true free market entails. In a true free market special interests can't control anything because they are 100% at the mercy of their customers. You are the one that has it backwards. Regulation favors special interests. See for example the aforementioned legal utility monopolies. See for example the huge subsidies for corn farmers. See for example the power labor unions wield. Without regulation these problems do not exist. If another company can offer power cheaper, they can come in and compete and business will go to them. If people don't want so much damn corn, corn farmers will have to grow something people do want. If labor is valued at X dollars per hour, people will get paid X dollars, and if X is too low to live on, people will organize their own strikes or find work elsewhere until the company is forced to raise X. Face it, regulation is what is giving the special interests power, not the lack of it. From my perspective it seems like you are the one reversing reality on a whim.

I'm going to copy and paste this into the "economic misinformation" thread as well since this conversation is way off topic here, please direct any replies there.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll agree that regulation is the opposite of true 'free market'. Good regulation will increase the efficiency of the free market, by removing falsehoods and deception and by factoring in externalities.

However, regulation is very much not socialism. You'll run into pretty strong hiccups in a discussion if you present it as such

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Socialism is a bit of a hard word to use these days because it appears to have several distinct meanings and was possibly not the best way for me to word it, but I'm using it in the sense of economic socialism, which is what regulation is, the government directly imposing its will on the market. It's not all the way socialism but it's farther left on the scale than a pure free market. True socialism involves more than economics but I'm not aware of a good way to word it that distinguishes the two concepts, if you have any suggestions I'll be happy to edit my post .

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't have a good word either! We like catch phrases, but sometimes a word is just the wrong word. By analogy, we have squares and we have circles. If you make a square more 'triangle-like', then you'll run into issues if you call it "circling the square".

In economic theory, a 'free market' has some requirements (e.g., proper levels of information) in order to be the efficient outcome. A LOT of regulation is intended to move the 'true' free market into a 'theoretical' free market. By that, I mean that many of the legislators understand that the goal is to increase the consumer's ability to make choices.

Other regulation will make the specific industry more 'socialised', I'll grant. I don't really have a word for what to call regulation that increases consumer and citizen power, at the expense of business freedom, though.

 

[Cutlass]

Right, regulation creates choice, that's why I have so much choice in what company I get my electricity from, because the government granted legal monopolies (regulation) clearly increase choice. You don't seem to actually understand what a true free market entails. In a true free market special interests can't control anything because they are 100% at the mercy of their customers. You are the one that has it backwards. Regulation favors special interests. See for example the aforementioned legal utility monopolies. See for example the huge subsidies for corn farmers. See for example the power labor unions wield. Without regulation these problems do not exist. If another company can offer power cheaper, they can come in and compete and business will go to them. If people don't want so much damn corn, corn farmers will have to grow something people do want. If labor is valued at X dollars per hour, people will get paid X dollars, and if X is too low to live on, people will organize their own strikes or find work elsewhere until the company is forced to raise X. Face it, regulation is what is giving the special interests power, not the lack of it. From my perspective it seems like you are the one reversing reality on a whim.

I'm going to copy and paste this into the "economic misinformation" thread as well since this conversation is way off topic here, please direct any replies there.

Try deregulating electricity. That gives you the most expensive electricity in the country.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Try deregulating electricity. That gives you the most expensive electricity in the country.

I assume since you're so sure you've got some data to back that claim up?

 

[Cutlass]

I assume since you're so sure you've got some data to back that claim up?

Connecticut deregulated, the cost skyrocketed. Same in California. Thanks, Enron.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'm glad you bring that up because I live in California, and the energy crisis here was caused by partial deregulation. They deregulated the wholesale price of electricity, while at the same time continuing to mandate that the power companies have to sell their electricity to certain companies (Enron, like you mentioned, being one, there were a few others). These companies would then sell BACK the energy to the smaller companies. It was a total mess of unnecessary middlemen who held way too much power who only existed by government mandate. The problem in California was caused by incomplete deregulation, they literally didn't deregulate enough. Having never been to Connecticut I can't speak for there but I'd be willing to bet they had a similar situation. Other states, such as Pennsylvania, have had great success with deregulating.

 

[Cutlass]

See the issue here is that regulations were reduced, the situation became worse, and you claim that the solution to making things worse by reducing regulation is to reduce regulation further......

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is to preform the same task over and over again and expect different results.

 

[civver_764]

See the issue here is that regulations were reduced, the situation became worse, and you claim that the solution to making things worse by reducing regulation is to reduce regulation further......

Einstein said that the definition of insanity is to preform the same task over and over again and expect different results.

Are you serious? I don't even agree with him but this post is completely devoid of logic.

 

[Cutlass]

Are you serious? I don't even agree with him but this post is completely devoid of logic.

What do you mean? People are claiming that, when regulations are reduced, and the situation becomes worse, that the solution is to reduce regulation even further. As if they believe that doing more of what made the situation worse will then make it better.