We have been doing everything that the Neo-Cons wanted for the last eight years and it has been so successful in every area of governance.  Why mess with success?

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 300 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM

  (0+)

Again and again I read an excellent synopsis of our political process and how it is corrupted by power and money and unresponsive to the needs of the people. Then I read the conclusion that the way out of this wilderness lies with the Democratic Party....give it a rest, it certainly doesnt!

click here Democrats are just another corporate party.

As such, they are a disaster for the American people.

If you had any lingering doubts about this, check out the front page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

Mullins reports that both Obama and Clinton have been cleaning McCain's clock "among business interests that give mainly to Republicans."

Of seven major industries that have been the most reliable Republican resources, McCain has raised $13.1 million through February, compared with $22.5 million for Obama and $27.1 million for Clinton, the Journal reported.

Now, ask yourself - if the Democrats were the party of the people, if they were truly going to make the corporations serve the American people, would the corporate executives be dumping millions into their campaigns?

No they would not.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:07:48 AM

  (0+)

This truth doesn't ring true. If it were true, Dennis Kucinich would be our president in 2009. The corporate media and other big buck people managed to cut hm out of the race. Even in his own district, big money Democrats worked against him. Thankfully, the people who know him reelected him.

Indeed, Clinton and Obama are big money whores and nothing will change if either one of them is elected. There will be no health care plan that is not for profit. The insurance companies will continue to rake in big profits while denying proper health care to all of us. People who cannot afford health insurance will be forced to buy it with the same disastrous results that are now happening in Mass. where Romney was so jubilant about his idea for health care. Hah!!

No matter who is elected, there will be war for us with no end in sight. The deaths keep mounting on every side. No matter how many millions of Americans want to impeach this administration, it looks like that will not happen either. Please tell me why that has not happened. There is ample proof that this is the most corrupt bunch of politicians in history and still Ms traitor Pelosi smiles like a maniac and does business with the devils in office.

What's wrong with this picture? Everything!!!! And the people better demand that things change or the leaders of this disaster will be tossed out on their collective asses. The anger grows and grows and yet nothing happens. Does this sound like a revolt to you? It certainly does to me. So, revolt already!!! Where does it start? with us! Make a noise loud enough so that the members of Congress can hear you. Take away their health care plans that really work for them and see how they react. Reverse their pension plans that really work for them and see them react.

But above all, do something!!!!!!

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM

  (0+)

 You wrote, "Now, ask yourself - if the Democrats were the party of the people, if they were truly going to make the corporations serve the American people, would the corporate executives be dumping millions into their campaigns?"

 I respectfully disagree; big contributors give to whomever they see as the prospective winners in the coming elections.  Donating big dough may not buy them time but no money will buy distain.

by Gerald Sutliff (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:03:06 PM

  (0+)

You seem to imply that corporate donors simply give away their money to ensure that they gave to the eventual winner....err I know of no corporation that simply gives anything away. That money comes with strings and it didnt go to Kucinich, Gravel, Nader, but to those politicians who were certain to pay that money back with interest. Politics and business as usual.

PS that quote was notmine but Ralph Nader's..click a link on occasion, its good for your thought processes....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:08:19 PM

  (0+)

Republicans reduced government services by reducing the middle class which does the work.

Republicans like to set the middle class against itself by saying that one half is just useless govt. workers.  "Hire one half to police the other half"  Sound like the War on Terror?

The truth is that the rich are useless predators, and defense spending is a total rathole except in the time of non-bogus war. 

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:29:27 AM

  (0+)

Under 'BertCo', there WILL be federal spending cuts, across-the-board, and we'll see what we can do about getting rid of redundant and wasteful federal programs, get back into more domestic manufacturing, and get out of the global 'Florence Nightingale On Pixie Dust' mode that we've been in for the last decade or so. LOL

Bert08

by truthtruffle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 111 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM

  (0+)

The majority of people who vote republican and support these shortcomings of oversight and perspective are less educated people who make minimum wage and get crippled early in life for their troubles and ignorance.

I say, let them SUFFER. Why do you feel sorry for these gullible people at all. They hurt themselves through their own folly. Yes, the country hurts as well, but for the most part, liberals -who are better educated, more intuitive, and not prone to believing everything that's shouted at them- will hurt but survive in the long run. You can't save everyone but people who deserve to get fucked, you shouldn't help the.

I do very well in my business so I'm not worried. But if you want to help the gullible retards out there, you're wasting your time. 

by Paul O (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM

  (0+)

John Q, you better be kidding. The Bush Administration angrily got me to think that for some years, but now that I am better educated, I can see with my eyes that neither party has the general interest of us as a nation in mind. 

    First of all, your claim on who votes Republican and who votes Democrat is wrong. I'm going to assume that this is an oversimplification that came from your imagination, and that you don't have statistics to back that claim up. Be careful with your statements, because many uneducated poor vote Democrat as well, and your claim that liberals are better educated than conservatives is an offensive generalization. Most offensive is your generalization that these people "make minimum wage and get crippled early in life for their troubles and ignorance". If you're calling yourself a liberal, shouldn't you be jumping out to defend people like that compassionately, and not marginalize them? Political parties and agenda do not dictate, and are not an indicator of, character and intelligence. If you agree with this point, I would appreciate your posting of an apology, so that we can all be made aware of your gracefulness.

    Truth be told I wouldn't even know where to start with what else I want to say. It wouldn't do any good unless you have an open mind to begin with. If you really want to "listen to everything, question everything, then decide", start reading some of what others have posted down here, then start reading the Federalist Papers a bit online, they're all there. I'm not sure if you've listened to everything yet. Unfortunately, "everything" is hard to get a hold of.

    I'm hoping you'll have time to read and consider as I've asked you to, but since you "do very well in your business" and are not worried, I'd wonder if you'd take the time to think about your country ethically at all. 

by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:00:26 PM

  (0+)

Saw a study a few years ago that said that people with bachelors degrees vote Republican by a 4-to-3 margin but those with masters or PhDs vote Democratic by a 7-to-1 margin. Those with masters and PhDs are the "better educated."

by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:50:52 PM

  (0+)

but calling all Republicans idiots is not exactly the correct way to win allies, dontcha think? The simple fact that middle class folks value education highly and vote democratic mostly is not exactly what was wrong with that earlier post, as was well noted by the first responder.

Also, all the degrees in the world wont get you a thing if we see another depression and believing that liberals or democrats have a free pass is simply silly. The only ones with the gold admission card are those with theprivate islands and depression proof vaults.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:14:48 PM

  (0+)

Yes, less federal government intrusion is the goal. The conclusions in this article are ridulous. Simply allow the local governments to make more decisions. Increase the local taxes, decrease the federal taxes.

by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 147 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM

  (0+)

I'll be! Why didn't we do that years ago? It's all so clear now.

It seems that we all got so taken aback that Rob defended the democrats we neglected to hear his message. "Attack the republican mantra 'Less taxes, less government." Listen to the logic. Do you really believe that they mean to apply that to everyone? Sure, the corporate government wants less taxes, for them. Remember, they also believe in trickle down economics. Their line of thinking is that if they don't have to pay taxes then they can hire more of us suckers,, I mean, workers. Yea, and the less they pay us the more of us they can hire. They are great humanitarians, they're only thinking of us, after all. And we can do away with all of that nasty government, they don't need anyone regulating how they do business, how much they charge, whether or not their products are safe or if they pay $20. an hour or $20. a day. After all, the less they have to spend on production, the more sucke,, uh, workers they can hire.

I get Rob's point, no one has ever challenged them on that. Republicans just sit up high and shout. The have a million Bill O'reilly's yelling over everyone else so you can't hear anyone asking questions and they don't need to give any answers. The problem Rob had in his article is that he had a momentary lapse of the present. You know, when we finally realized that the democrats are just as corporate, just as money hungry and greedy as the republicans. The difference is that they're not as good at lying about it and they don't admit to being corporate lackeys.

There has never been a more appropriate time for that third party. Write in Edwards.

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:12:58 AM

  (0+)

Edwards isnt heading the ticket on any of them....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:42:55 AM

  (0+)

Glad you are not the campaign manager. Best way to lose the November election is to follow your strategy. More such off-the-top-of-your-head bad advice and the Mepublicans will fund your site.

by James Cordray (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 56 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM

  (0+)

The best way to win is to attack the opposition's strengths. Current events scream the truth that right wing less tax less government policy is a failed, wrong approach.  But it takes guts to say it, even if it's the truth.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:50:57 PM

  (0+)

Just because "government" hasn't been gotten RIGHT yet, like our Democracy, doesn't mean it should be drowned or thrown out with the bathwater!

The Repugs need to have their own half-baked, blatantly false canards thrown back in their faces

...BEFORE they dupe the sheeple again with their old blathering-points , like "tax and Spend" (on WHAT!?) and States' Rights (to do what?) and "Defense" (Where, and for WHOM?).

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:24:22 AM

  (0+)

People who have been given less taxes and less government are the wealthy elite who manage our multinational corporations. They have had their taxes reduced and government reduced by the act of less regulation and oversight. These policies have proven themselves to by disaster. Of course our big companies always welcome more government when it comes to bailouts and subsidies.

For the past several years much has been said about how incompetent government is compared to the private sector and if government would just drown itself in a bathtub all our countries problems would disappear overnight due to the fact that the private sector free market system would shift into high gear and everyone would prosper so much more. Anyone who doesnt agree with this kind of thinking must be a socialist they say. This is hogwash and pure corporate funded propaganda.

The private sector is often times more incompetent than government due to these reasons. Elected officials are publicly scrutinized and almost always have good solid educations and or a proven track record in the private sector. The private sector often times hires the person who will work for the least amount of pay and company owners don't have to pass any standards to start or run their own company. There is little or no oversight and greed and ruthlessness are two of the most important qualities for the success of the business.

As far as deregulating business and getting out of its way so it can do its thing there is an old saying I feel fits perfectly to the situation many American companies now find themselves and that is " Give em enough rope and they will hang themselves "  Sub-prime mortgage lenders can attest to that!

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

Let's start with the right wing, known to you as Republicans. Let me point out that the Democrats embrace all the same policies as the Rs, they just use different rhetoric. Also, bear in mind that pre-FDR it was the Ds that advocated free markets to protect the people from the Rs corporate welfare (as we call it today).

You wrote:

Then, we have the right wing's approach to big government-- Huge military, massive expenses for privatization using companies that rip the taxpayer off-- like Halliburton and Blackwater, charging many times the cost of government employees. And then we have the right wing's approach to privacy-- with pervasive spying by espionage agencies that have hundreds of billions in hidden funding. The right wing really doesn't want less government. It wants its version of big government.

As you point out, they most definitely don't represent less tax & less government. The Bush admin is the biggest spending one since Johnson. They're running the biggest deficits since Reagan (another less government fraud).

I'm sure that so far we agree. What I don't understand is why you say you're attacking the right wings "core values" when you point out that they don't embrace those same values. They're just a bunch of hypocrites.

If you want to talk about "Less Taxes and Less Government" then lets talk about the libertarian idea of abolishing the income tax & the IRS, & replace them with nothing. It's estimated that prices are 25 -30% higher now than they need to be because of the income tax. (The income taxes withheld from worker's paychecks are part of the price you pay.)

You also wrote:

The less government sales pitch is really a hidden way to deregulate industry and sell welfare for corporations and religious schools. It has led to weakening existing regulation of industries and corporations and to the failure to introduce new regulations to deal with new, evolving industries. This is particularly true for the finance industry. This policy of regulation avoidance and elimination has led to the USA facing the worst economic crisis in generations.

You've got it backwards here. It is precisely the governments intervention in the economy that causes the boom & bust cycle. If we had sound money (gold), free market, banking, & interest rates set by the market we'd have stability with strong growth.

Going on, you wrote:

While the right wing has characterized big government as a major evil, the progressive vision of government is very different. Government provides the underlying structure and resources to maintain fairness, justice and decent treatment for citizens. Government provides the regulators who carry out and oversee the regulations that rein in corporations. Now we know that failure to keep government adequately funded, with reasonable taxes, leads to massive losses for individuals and for America.

The experience of tother countries shows othewise. Take Ireland, for example. They massively reduced government spending, taxes, & regulations. In so doing they went from having a basket case economy to being a European "tiger". Then theres Estonia. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Far from being a failure, the less government idea has suceeded. You've presented no evidence to the contrary, you've only made unsubstantiated assertions.

One last thought, you wrote:

Good, responsible government is GOOD for America, good for our privacy, good for our privacy, good for our prosperity. We need to pay taxes to make it happen. When we do, we pay less in other ways. We earn more in other ways. The less taxes, less government mantra offers a devils bargain.

How government is good for our privacy privacy ;-) is beyond me. All I see them doing is using the info they have on us to oppress us.

Regarless, my point is to introduce another concept of good government:

"a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."

Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM

  (0+)

It's nice to be able to espouse a theory that's never been tested, hubris to trash other approaches when there's no evidence that it works any better.

Friedman advocated laissee faire economics. Now Naomi Klein calls it for what it really is-- disaster capitalism.

Thom Hartmann says that libertarianism is for right wingers who are social conservatives, ie., they want to smoke dope and get laid. Libertarianism is as irresponsible as right wing tax avoidance.   

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

Try clicking on the links in my reply, check this out, then you can take back this nonsense about untested ideas. What has been tested & failed is the government's intervention. From the welfare state to Fascism to Socialism the results are always bad.

IMHO, your reply is more of an evasion than anything. Try debunking my points. 

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:30:24 PM

  (0+)

Bob,

 I agree with you on taking on the conservatives and their "government and taxes are evil."  If you want to win and change the arc of History, you have to embarce.

Best regards, 

Paul

by Trainer12 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:54:20 PM

  (0+)

Either you stand for the right of a man to keep what he earns and live free from compulsion, or you stand in favor of one group of humans ruling over another group by force, dictating their lives and taking their earnings.

I don't want the U.S. to turn into another USSR or Red China (except they have lower taxes and less regulation).  This is not a defense of big-spending Orwellian state republicans, either.  This is a repudiation of both parties.

With either or both, it's a gun to the belly you get after all the airy rhetoric evaporates.  No Thanks. 

Ignoring the fiat money system and how it enslaves us only helps perpetuate the system.  They can print the money, so they run things, no matter which airhead gets elected. 

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM

  (0+)

Hey Bob:

I don’t think you have been paying attention.

The problem isn’t that we have gotten less government and less tax from republicans. The republicans and their democrat buddies have given us more big intrusive government and more taxes. The taxes have increased more under Bush and the democrat controlled congress than in any time in history. Remember that when government borrows to spend, the borrowed money will have to be repaid in one form of tax or another including inflation. Congress has the power of the purse. Congress is responsible for the weakened dollar and the financial crises the USA is facing. Congress is responsible for the weakened dollar, the high price of fuel, food and other necessities. Congress is responsible for the housing bubble busrting. The A-hole big government worshiping Bush asked his A-hole big government worshiping buddies in congress, both D and R for huge budgets and huge encroachments on our civil liberties and both the Rs and Ds went along. The blame lies with congress even more than it does so with Bush. And when you get right down to the nitty gritty, the problem lies with the people who voted the A-hole Rs and Ds into office. For the love of God, I sure hope they have learned their lesson and will not make the same error again. Your essay makes me think I have no reason to be optimistic.

The problem is that in 2006, people voted for democrats to hold Bush and company accountable but rather than do so, the democrats simply went along with Bush for the most part.

It is time to vote against any politician who will not promise to work to eliminate the Patriot (sic) Act, reverse all the encroachments of our civil liberties, start an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to set a goal of reducing the size of government at all levels to 50% of its current size.

The problem isn’t that the philosophy of lower taxes and less government has been implemented, the problem is that it has not.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:01:11 PM

  (0+)

That's about the way they want it, their own private government, enforced by Blackwater, paid for with the excessive taxes paid by the poor.

Man, Rob, Way to piss'em off.  I've been trying to figure out how to get around this election, vote for neither of these criminal parties and put someone real in office without anyone getting hurt and you, who I've been turning to for answers, have possibly joined the dems? Please say no!

We know the republicans suck and that , in office they will blatantly continue the destruction of the economy, the security and the dreams of the people who work the hardest to make this country great. That's a given. But the democrats, they smile in your face, all the while they wanna.....sorry. you get the picture.

We cannot fight these people, reps or dems, by giving credence to their double talk. We can't fight them by voting.  We certainly can not attack their rhetoric. We all know it's bullshit, they know it's bullshit and it doesn't matter to them that we do, just so long as they keep saying it. That's how rep's fight. They grow louder and more obnoxious. We need to fight, and discredit the dems. We need to prove that they are as much, if not more of a threat because of their two-face tactics. All of the liberals who believe dem's are on their side are dangerously mistaken. How can an administration who takes corporate donations and lunches with lobbyists going to represent us. Hilary actually defends her relationship with lobbyists by asking us to be stupid, for her, because she wants this so badly. "I'm gonna take their money but you don't really believe I'm gonna do anything for them, do you?" "sh*t, did I just say that out loud?"  C'mon now.   And really, just who is Obama? Last year I couldn't remember his name for 10 minutes. was that Osama?  Sorry, no connection intended. But look at his croud, discounting the reverend who I somewhat liked. They read like an Archie and Veronica comic. "Hey Gang"!

So now, what do we do? People sound really pissed, at the end of their rope, ready to cross a line. From the sounds of things lately, I believe that it's time for some politicians to  start being frightened, and I don't mean afraid of losing elections. The right has been blatantly murdering leaders for years and getting away with it so that tells me that they believe that old adage "All's fair in love and war." I believe that we haven't had a real, viable opponent to corporate politicians for years because they value their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Really now, is there any doubt in any minds? So, the biggest, most effective tool of the right is fear, as in terrorism. How fitting that they are the terrorists and how do we get them on that list? You know, hunt'em down, flush'em out, we will prevail? Or doesn't that count for us?

Tell me, are we screwed? I don't think so, not so long as people listen. And Believe. We can's afford to be naive, not any longer. There's not much time.

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:01:38 PM

  (0+)

I'm saying the dems need to take on the republicans and they need to start acting like Dems are supposed to act, protecting the commons, regulating big business, etc., things they're certainly not doing now. I'm trying to get the Dems to be joinable.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:15:00 PM

  (0+)

I understand and it sounds like an answer if only we could throw out the dems who are running under false pretenses. Hilary, for example, will never truly fit the definition of democrat, nor will, in my opinion, our esteemed liberal leader, Ted Kennedy. These people have already been bought and paid for. How do we weed them out?

I believe that we had our one shot with John Edwards but you see where he is. I'd like to know if that was stupidity on the parts of democrats or if again it was the powers at work. We had our chance and we blew it. I'd like to focus on something, figure out a way to get him back in the running.

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:55:43 PM

  (0+)

We were promised less government, but in reality we wound up with more government (at least the same as before with an added huge Homeland Security Department) but one that does far less, while spending a lot more. In addition to spending a lot more, far more of that spending is wasteful with no accounting allowing for far too much corruption.

by Brad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:13:55 PM

  (0+)

The "right" talks fine talk about smaller government and less taxes.

But they do *not* walk the walk.

Smaller government has not brought us these woes. *Bigger* government has! Government has grown exponentially under Bush! They are micromanaging our lives more than ever.

As for "less taxes," it is true we had a tax cut, but I think at the end of the day this will turn into a tax *hike.* The thing is, even while taxes are lowered, government spending is way *up.* And, someone has to pay for it sooner or later. We are already paying for it. Our dollars are worth less as evidenced by how much more we are paying for everything. Fuel prices are the most obvious, but look at everything else, how much more we are paying.

Rather than *attack* these core values, we should be attacking the right's hypocracy.

See my blog, where a new essay will soon appear in addition to the 3 already there: http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com .

by Alice Lillie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments [16 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:18:57 PM

  (0+)

You two hit the nail on the head. Rob, I have to say, I started reading your article and stopped on the first page. It made me sick.

This country was never meant to be a democracy. Democracy is all about mob rule. The founders understood that, and they knew that if allowed, people would vote to redistribute wealth.

Forced wealth redistribution is a bad idea, and has its roots in fascism. For example, I pay huge property taxes for the priviledge of living in California, and now the state, in its infinite wisdom, is laying off my children's teachers. How nice of them to decide that teachers should be cut, but not cut my property taxes. I'd rather put my kids through private school, but my options are limited precisely because of the property tax. And then my city comes forward saying they need to add a new tax to my property to pay for the local parks and libraries. When I point out that I already pay huge amounts in property tax, the answer is that the state keeps taking more and more each year.

I'm sick of paying for the big government social programs, state or federal, I don't care. BushCo continues to take my income tax and spend it on a war that I oppose, and Uncle Sam continues to pay billions to support foreign military bases that I object to having. I don't want my country to be imperial, but hey, that's what has happened. And this is what that "nut" Ron Paul has been saying all along--when we allow our elected leaders and bureacrats to violate the highest law of the land (that inconvenient document called the Constitution with its pesky Bill of Rights), this is what happens.

I know I won't see a dime from Social Security, so I want to opt out of paying it. Yet I am told I cannot and would risk jail time should I say "no!" This is unfair, and so are all of the taxes I am forced to pay for without adequate representation in Congress (they just don't read the bills they pass at all).

In fact, this wholesale federal government intervention into our lives (War on Drugs, Terror, Illiteracy, Obesity, Sickness, etc. etc.) is patently unconstitutional.

Republican core values say that individuals know best how to take care of themselves. These core values are found in our constitution, in fact. When you steal wealth from citizens for the "greater good," who decides what the "greater good" actually is? According to BushCo, fighting the evil terrorists in Iraq (and Iran, if they have their way) is for the "greater good." According to others, its promissing to take care of the elderly with money already spent. Still, others think that continuing to prop up Wall Street and inflating the crap out of our currency is for the "greater good. And I constantly hear about the "greater good" of affirmative action, welfare and now the new boondoggle, socialized medicine.

Any time I see talk about the "greater good" I run away screaming. The only thing that actually works for the "greater good" is for the government to protect our liberties. Period. Everything else is just Orwellian.

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:19:32 PM

  (0+)

What you see as a problem of overtaxation is a misperception. The problem you have is that such a large percentage of the taxes you pay are misappropriated in the right wing, indeed, fascist scams that redistribute income upward. I don't remember voting for that, however imperfect our democracy is.

Once that chunk of tax receipts are stolen, the infrastructure still needs support, so you pay more, and the more is inadequate to support the infrastructure, so it declines.

You are not overtaxed due to too much democracy. You are overtaxed due to not enough democracy, and it is a demand side problem; that being that too many citizens refuse to interrupt their routine to spend half an hour casting a vote for a candidate who will work in their interest.

This twisted, depraved governmental landscape was not always so. There are notable periods such as post WWII through the mid-seventies when the liberal model worked well enough to make this nation a model for the world. Then, in 1980, people changed their leadership because they were convinced to be afraid of "liberals", abortion doctors and homosexuals. And that is what gave you what you see before you now.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:38:24 AM

  (0+)

(Doo, you just don't get it doo you? )

What do you think public education is?

 (yeah, I know, your types have gutted that too, even as they complain that it doesn't work anymore. It USED to work just fine, as did Social Security before your heroes started using as their personal PIGGY bank!)

Socialism is EXACTLY what we need more of, administered not by a government of theives like the self-serving Greedy Neocons, of course, but by people who honestly believe there IS such a thing as the Common Good, and that decent government elected by the People CAN work. 

I know you've been brainwashed into thinking Capitalism=Freedom and Democracy and Socialism or Communism = totalitarianism or dictatorship (Most Americans have been thus brainwashed because of the bad example of Russia), but that's like comparing apples and oranges, and the fallacy is easily illustrated by pointing out that there are SOCIALIST Democracies in Europe that function way better than anything here and that our own Capitalist system is killing our Democracy! Recent history, including that of propping up smarmy little dictatorships just because they are NOT "communist" proves this: Our "Leaders" care nothing about Democracy and the working People, but everything about un-fettered Capitalism and their rich "Base" and Corporate cronies that have sold us down the river. 

Mob rule?

Not when the citizenry is properly EDUCATED, as Thomas Jefferson required.

...oh wait, that's right...you guys have already thrown THAT baby out with the bathwater, too! 

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:57:24 AM

  (0+)

Bia, you are confusing fascism with capitalism in order to sell socialism.  Capitalism is how humans interact in the absence of coercion.  Socialism and fascism are two names for slightly different theories on how to get the masses working under the whip for the ruling elite.  What we have now is a blend of the two, with the failures of each being blamed on each other and on capitalism, of which there is little vestige left.

The bottom line is that in order for you to violate my right to keep what I earn or to own property, you need to bring a gun and separate it from me by force or the threat of force.  Socialism always sounds good when you can live off the plunder of others.  But once you have gotten your aim, then I am either dead or completely unwilling to earn any more than subsistence level wages, in order to keep you from getting any more from me.  So within a few generations, despite indoctrination of the children in the glorious theories, once the wealth of the previous civilation is destroyed, your society crumbles, too.

You've already gotten your way, and it didn't take an armed Marxist revolution to pull it off.  But the wealth is being destroyed nonetheless.  What little is left is pulling up stakes and running past the borders as fast as possible.  You will soon not have anyone left to enslave except those who couldn't leave.  This recession might be different.  This time, the hated manufacturers are gone, leaving nothing but the farming sector of our economy doing anything productive.  This time, there won't be any real growth to fuel a recovery.  What will you do then, collectivise the American farm?  If you do, then you will surely starve, and deservedly so. 

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:41:32 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for the mention and for the great points.

A huge moral perversion has taken place despite the clear warnings from Jefferson, Orwell, and others.  Perpetual debt servitude is 'freedom'.  Boom and bust via money supply tinkering are 'market failures'.  Paying rent on land you pay for is called 'ownership', if you live to pay off the mortgage.  Payroll taxes that get spent by government before they are even received are called your 'retirement trust fund'.  Surveillance is called 'security'.  But the funniest one of all, that must make one choke and gag in the attempt to swallow it, is the putrefied bolus of regurgitated ordure outlined below, "Taxes are an investment in society".

Those who want to be ruled by elites -- told what to do, how to do it, relieved of the responsibility to think or act, relieved of having to suffer the consequences of their own decisions -- those who want to turn society into one huge hospital, need to use the government gun to subjugate those who will do the work to provide for them.  They have already carried the day.  It has worked.

All that is left now is for our society to slide down the inevitable path of all empires that place the collective above the individual. 

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:22:46 AM

  (0+)

I have long advocated a no tax zone for Americans who would like to test the theory under real world conditions. It wouldn't require a great deal of area, as nobody in their right mind would be able to stand living there for very long.

A homestead in such an area would, of course, be entirely unimproved, much like the American pioneers encountered. If any amenities of modern living were desired, O.K., pal, just fork over the cash. We're speaking of such amenities as access to potable water and food that is inspected for minimum standards of edibility and safety. Did you have police protection for your neighborhood in mind? There will be a monthly fee to cover hiring, training and equipping the personnel, and an additional fee if any response is required.

Be careful to make sure your house doesn't catch fire. It might take some time to negotiate a fee for the fire department to take care of it, if there is a fire department. You had better watch your neighbor's house too, as a fickle breeze could make his problem your problem in fairly short order.

Learn to drive defensively, traffic enforcement will be non-existant, which is likely to play hell with your car insurance premiums, too. Get a good job to drive to, as well, since these few items, and a myriad of others that have gone unmentioned will cost a boatload of cash.

Make sure your boss has a lot of investors to keep him stocked with cash. He's going to need infrastructure to get a product to market and courts to enforce his contracts. He is unlikely to be selling anything worthwhile, though, since you you can't afford to have your kids educated to the level he needs to produce efficiently.

Or, as an alternative, you could come to the realization that taxes are supposed to be how a society invests in itself. It is the transportation systems, the courts, the schools and libraries that can be the crowning glory of a society, or an emblem of a society's decline.

Since we have a criminal government dedicated to the thievery and misappropriation of the society's funds to slop the corporate hogs and enrich themselves, we have the infrastructure as an emblem of our decline. It is incumbent upon us to eliminate the criminals and take our society back.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:19:47 PM

  (0+)

Hey, no one's stoppin' ya, pal.  You don't think you pay enough taxes, by all means, pay more. 

A commie's wet dream:  more taxes, more government, less freedom for the individual.  Woo-hoo!  Can't wait!  :-)

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 3:54:36 PM

  (0+)

Sorry, but your less taxes crap, combined with the right wing anti government, anti-regulation anarchy followed by corporatist fascism doesn't cut it. If you really think that cutting taxes and decreasing govt/ regulation is good for you or America.

And commies? That paranoid claptrap went the way of fascist traitor to democracy Joe McCarthy. People who talk about commies are really modern-day fascists who abhor democracy and cheap, money-grubbing parasites who  don't want to pay their share of supporting what all have a common investment in. Using the name "commie" as an aspersion was something that may have worked in the fifties, but today, it reveals someone as a right wing neanderthal, with stale, dried up old cuss words that hold no meaning.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:32:22 PM

  (0+)

I disaggree Rob, people who talk about commies are people who don't know what they're talking about. I've been listening to their bullshit for 40 years. They don't have a clue about what's happening around them so they dig deep into their mental archives for something familiar. What they come up with? Commies.

I do get your column and agree with your premise. I just think that it's too late. The dem party itself doesn't even realize how deeply they've been infiltrated. No, not by commies, by big business, corporations, the establishment or who or whatever you want to call them. We need a third party, someone that the people, OUR people will trust and vote for. Someone familiar, like John Edwards (sorry for beating a dead horse but I'm hoping that there's still a breath of life)

I can't just give up so easily and every other solution just seems so futile, so many hurdles. How can we reach Edwards, convince him that we believe in him and that he still has a chance. Am I wrong to feel this way? Is Edwards, for some reason, not the man? I don't buy that. I believe with all of my being that he is the only man. He has name recognition, respect, experience and knowledge. He is the only person who could run a third party ticket where people wouldn't feel that they were throwing votes away to make a statement. As we stand and at the rate the dems are going, votes are going to go to McCain just because Obama and Hilary are acting like such assholes. Plus, it doesn't look like they're much different than the corporate right. What do we have to lose at this point?

If we don't work to get Edwards back in the race we all lose, I know it and I believe that you know it too.

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM

  (0+)

the best thing that could happen to the american political system. But we all know how unlikely the Ds and Rs are likely to let go of their chokehold.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:44:50 PM

  (0+)

May I again reccomend Instant Runoff Voting as THE best way to break the 2-party starnglehold: First choice goes to your "Third" (or fourth, or fifth!) party, but you get an all-important SECOND choice! Use this as insurance i.e. vote Dem so that your First choice doesn't automatically DEFAULT to the Repugs.

(works the other way around too, so forget the "Partisan" argument!)

If anything, we need MORE choice, not less!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM

  (0+)

There are many profoundly confused people here as evidenced by their insistence that the USA is a “democracy.”

The founding fathers found democracy abhorrent and proclaimed such. That is why they established the USA as a republic where the written constitution is supposed to trump the transient will of the masses.

The problems the USA is having today are due, almost 100 percent, to the democratization of the country by ignoring the constitution.

The word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Why do so many people cling to the erroneous concept of the USA being a “democracy?” Perhaps it is because their parents, their grandparents and their great-grandparents were all democrats and they cannot accept the fact that the name of the political party to which they are so emotionally bonded represents such an horrible form of government. They refuse to accept that the worldview their genetic line has embraced for so long is so improper and wrong. It is an ego thing.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep “voting” of what is for dinner.

No thanks, I’ll take the rule of law and a constitutional republic any day over a democracy and the mob rule it entails.

The solutions to most of the problems facing the USA today can be solved by simply following the rules..following the constitution. This would mean no more foreign empires, no more foreign aid, no more Blackwaters, no more doling-out lucrative favors to campaign contributors, no more wasteful spending on studying the perspiration problems of Australian Aborigines etc. and all the other special interest nonsense that both the Democrats and the Republicans have supported for so long. The main problem with Republicans is that they too often act like Democrats and try to bribe us into voting for them by promising to raid our neighbor’s pocketbook.

Down with democracy. Up with republicanism.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM

  (0+)

Bennett: Excellent, I couldn't have said it better myself (and I tried!).

Now if we can just get members of Congress to actually read the legislation they pass en-masse, and require that they justify everything they do against the constitution, then maybe we can return to a repulican and therefore free society. :-)

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM

  (0+)

I always liked George Carlin's "Pinko Commie f*g". Labels like these are so riduculous they become entertaining.

by Mark_T (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:48:12 AM

  (0+)

Rob,  an important effort.

here is a list of conservative organizations and the values and principles they claim to support.

http://progressivespirit.com/Projects/
FailedConservativeValues/Conservative-Organanizations-Values.htm
(join link)

there's a link to a table with this info as well.

When you say attack conservative values, what you pointed to were actually the conservative Principles.

- Free market
- Limited Government
- Strong Defense
- Family Values - (a coined term , not really a value)
- Traditional Values - (a coined term , not really a value)

by Edwin Rutsch (64 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 155 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:29:21 PM

  (0+)

I can't recommend it strongly enough. Let me know how I can help.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:47:00 PM

  (0+)

Yeah, conservative "Family Values" like McCain cheating on his wife with this rich stepford creature he married while his wife, the mother of his children, was in a wheelchair!

Maybe the cad who questioned Chelsea how she felt about Monica ought to ask McCain's kids about THAT!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM

  (0+)

Hey Edwin:

Do you realize that some of the “conservative” organizations on the linked page you provided have goals that are 100% diametrically opposed to each other? What does that say about you lumping them together and using the label “conservative?”

If by “conservative” ones means a person who advocates maintaining the status quo of huge intrusive government and high taxes, then Obama, the Clintons, Edwards, Kerry, Bush, Reagan and Gore could all be called “conservatives.”

I believe a more descriptive way of describing people’s political positions would be “freedom based” or “coercion based.” If a person believes in using the coercive force of government to compel people to behave a particular way then they would be labeled “coercion based.” Examples would be Mao, Hitler, Stalin, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushs.

If a person embraces the notion that government is best which governs the least, they would be labeled “freedom based.”

Such nomenclature would clear up so much of the confusion that comes from the use of meaningless terms such as “liberal,” “conservative,” “left,” and “right.”

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:13:26 PM

  (0+)

This was a great article and the discussion was great as well. One thing I know is when you cut upper Federal taxes, it automatically cuts the funds from the Feds to the states. States depend on those federal funds so NONE OF YOU HAVE TO DRIVE ON DIRT ROADS. Get it? Schools require Federal funds because STATES don't produce enough revenue through taxation to manage them WITHOUT Federal funds. Fire depts require Federal funds, good luck with the towns ppl and their buckets of water. Who the heck cleans your sewer lines? A ghost? What about those dead bodies? Who scrapes those up and hauls them away? Angels? Or would it be coroners paid by local taxes and federal funding. The system worked like an oiled machine before this trickle down crap.

I haven't felt a drop. It's all in the Rothchilds plan(1800). Their last intention and goal was to destroy Democracy. They about got 'er done.

The ones that attacked you Rob, must be part of the 19% that thinks the country is going in the right direction. My question is, how can 240,000,000 of us be wrong?

When the Republican administrations get the reins, then the local and state funding suffers because the repubs reward the top(tax breaks for the upper percentile & elite). Have you forgotten the "trickle down effect" the repubs so religiously swore by? I've watched this occur over and over, mostly started with Reagan. The ppl fall for the same crap, different decade, and cling to it even if it simply doesn't work.

The 19% best get out of our way. There are 240,000,000 of us that want to restore the rule of law.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 5:29:52 PM

  (0+)

Rob, your bottom line appears to be the paragraph: "Good, responsible government is GOOD for America, good for our privacy, good for our privacy, good for our prosperity. We need to pay taxes to make it happen. When we do, we pay less in other ways. We earn more in other ways. The less taxes, less government mantra offers a devils bargain."

Darren Wolfe made some very important points - which you have not countered at all. M Bennett did too, "The problem isn’t that the philosophy of lower taxes and less government has been implemented, the problem is that it has not." Dooglio also recognizes the utter falsity of your statements. Even Brad and Alice can see that there is no less government under the Republicans than the Democrats - both parties outdo each other in promising more, better, improved, tighter programs. All these programs are paid for, of course, through taxes - either direct from each individual to the taxing agency or through higher prices on products and services the providers/owners of which are acting as tax collectors.

Rob, what you are railing against - and properly so - is fascism, NOT a free market. What exists in the US and has increasingly so for a very long time is fascism (with its roots in mercantalism), although very few are ready to use that "F" word. Individuals/companies/corporations are given various protections (ie. limited access by others into a market) and/or subsidies for the payback of continued support (verbal/written for the government policies and monetary for those campaigning for office or even already there). The choices of ordinary individuals are enormously curtailed.

It seems to bear repeating - Governments do NOT make money; they do not earn money by producing something of value that others buy. They get money via various forms of taxes, some of which are euphemistically called fees that are charged for a service which is monopolized by the government and no one else is allowed to compete under threat of penalty.

The US economy is a mess; made so starting back when Lincoln was elected president with the explicit plan of putting into effect a combination of policies known as the "American System", which was actually mercantilism, the practices of which so many early colonists had fled Europe for the promise of "the New World". The federal government began its drive into the "business" of "internal improvements" by way of subsidizing corporations, restricting potential competitors out of various markets, and succeeding finally at nationalized banking which allowed the government to simply print money in order to finance their special-interest subsidies. (Anyone who really thinks that the Federal Reserve is a private banking arrangement doesn't really understand the involvement of government in the scheme of nationalized banking starting from its very beginning in the US in 1862 with the Legal Tender Act.)

Although all such "internal improvement" endeavors which had been done previously by individuals states were a money loser for the taxpayers of all those states, including Illinois where Lincoln had been elected to the Illinois Legislature, he pushed for them during his presidential campaign. Lincoln's own law partner, William H. Herndon, described the Illinois internal improvement program as "reckless and unwise... every river and stream bed ... was to be widened, deepened, and made navigable... cities were to spring up everywhere" (Paul M Angle, ed., The Lincoln Reader; New York: Da Capo Press, 1947, p. 82, 83.). Herndon also wrote that, "the internal improvement program system, the adoption of which Lincoln had played such a prominent part, had collapsed, with the result that Illinois was left with an enormous debt and an empty treasury." (William H. Herndon and Jesse W Weik, Life of Lincoln, New York: Da Capo Press, 1983; pg 161.)

Lincoln was a master speaker, user of words and phrases to emotionally move audiences, manipulating facts or simply ignoring them. Few at the time ever saw his words in writing and, if so, even fewer reviewed them for consistency with actual facts or with the contents of the US Constitution. The changes put into place on the national level by Lincoln during his presidency, many done even without initial agreement of Congress and contrary to the Constitution, have for the most part stayed and been enlarged by subsequent presidents acting on that precedent.

The US Constitution was emasculated by Lincoln of its relatively strong control over the federal government, that document purposely created to grant only specified functions to the federal, leaving the real power with the individual states and individuals themselves ("the People"). Any improvement in the current situation of an economic mess, created in fact by a runaway federal government, requires that at the very least that it be returned to the status it was prior to the Lincoln presidency. (However, since it was relatively easy for the degeneration to the current mess, I and husband Paul Wakfer do not see the entire system of even prior to Lincoln's time as truly stable and, because of its inherent flaws, will eventually fall prey to another Lincoln, making possible another FDR, Bush and others of one political party or another but all the same intention - power over the lives of others.)

A very good book which utilizes the many sources of direct Lincoln period information - rather than the sanitized US history textbooks of the past 150 years which carry on the mythology of Lincoln, and makes clear how the federal government was started on its path of imperialism is The Real Lincoln by Thomas J DiLorenzo (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.)

Another highly recommended inclusion in everyone's personal library is Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson - a short, very readable but immensely informative book on what, for most people unfortunately, is a very complicated subject. It's only complicated because some - mostly those in government or promoting its plans - attempt to cloud the basic issues. Hazlitt's little book is great at clearing away the muck and mire that government has made of economics. It's such a good book, it is virtually timeless and has been in print since 1946.

The fact that so many, like you Rob, continue to act (and write) as though the government can "cure" economic problems is likely because most (?all?) of them think that they can reap some benefit. Such benefits as government intervention makes possible - only very narrow and short-term - of course would only come either as money having been taken from taxpayers in one form or another or by prevention of individuals from acting on their evaluation of what is in their own best interest.

Government can only really solve the mess of a country's economy by staying out of it, and at most serving only as an arbiter (which could be actually be a private arbitration business) between parties who have entered into voluntary interactions, each of whom has determined it to be for the purpose of optimizing hir lifetime happiness (the purpose of each individual's life whether or not s/he fully recognizes it to be so).

Separation of economy and government (as well as education and government) should be as inviolate as separation of church and government (State).

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

by Kitty Antonik Wakfer (26 articles, 27 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 163 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:06:09 PM

  (0+)

Ignoring the fundamental concepts and then arguing about which gang should take more money from whom and where it should be spent only assures a continued slide into the morass.

We need to agree upon or destroy the fundamental reasons why free people would voluntarily form a government and grant to it the exclusive right to use force. Without common understanding of these principles, then arguments shoot past each other without addressing any real points.

I contend that for clarity of definition, Ayn Rand put it best:

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules."

"This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government."

"A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man's deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his."

I added my own emphasis to certain phrases above.

Anyone who wants to propose and endorse compulsion by force of arms, must explain to me why they think I should be forced to comply, and should explain how they would feel morally justified in personally putting the gun to my belly and pulling the trigger if I decide not to comply. That's why they are scared of Second Amendment nuts: because they realize that at the core of their philosophy is the basic premise that the rest of us need to be bossed around at gunpoint, our labor and property to be used as they decide. And that could be dangerous if the victims claim the right to their own lives and property, along with the right to defend them against confiscation or aggression.

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:17:48 AM

  (0+)

Thanks, to Kitty and others, for bringing up fascism. This is an excellent book written by a true conservative over at Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/6r8xup

The book, written by Jonah Goldberg, makes the case for the root of progressivism/liberalism being in fascism. I highly recommend it. I'm still reading it, but once I'm done, prehaps I'll write a real article about the book.

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM

  (0+)

Taxing to fund social programs, the commons and collective resources shared by the people helps a country to become prosperous.  Leveling the playing field through regulation, breaking up overly consolidated industries so there is free and fair competition helps industries be competitive and keeps prices down.

In the last 30 years we have seen companies consolidate up.  Trickle down economics become a vacuum cleaner to most communities and the concentration of wealth and the gap between rich and poor grow.

Venezuela has it right.  The major industries that we all rely on should be government run and be part of the commons.  Media, Energy, Health Care should we all have a collective interest in and should share in the "wealth" created by these industries.  That's the role of government - to even the playing field.

We should through out the transnational's or at least bust them into small enough pieces where they assume their rightful place in our society, and that is, regulated by our government (the people) and not the other way around where we have a quasi-facist nation.

The Empire is crumbling, and our Emperor - should be jailed along with his entire cabinet.  Impeachment is too nice a solution for what these bastards have done to our country and the majority of the people in it. 

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 6:06:18 PM

  (0+)

You're making good points, though it is arguable that:

1. The Democrats as a party can not be trusted to further this kind of agenda

2. Over regulation of industry can cause stagnation as well as the positive effects you are speaking of. (I believe conservative application of like-minded principles might be of help to us there, as long as the goal is preventing the domination of big-business and keeping markets as fertile and diverse as possible for everyone else!)

3. National Health Care sounds good, but government involvement has raised the price-tag of healthcare as it is, and while we wouldn't directly be paying for healthcare under a nationalized program, we'd still be paying for it in taxes instead.

4. Nationalized Media!? ...well, that's just a terrible idea!

5. Nationalizing industries in general: less efficient, more wasteful, more costly. (I have an open mind to it working out, but you'll have a hard time convincing me. I'm Cuban, and I know plenty of people who have seen first-hand the kind of mess that nationalization can create.)

Any nationalization of industry (i.e. healthcare) in the current system that we have now, is in my humble opinion a recipe for disaster. I just can't help coming to the conclusion that there's too much corruption, too many legislative loopholes, too much money going to and from government and big corporations. If we can ever clean up this mess that we have on our hands, I would be open to a healthy debate on whether we should nationalize our "commons" or not.

by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:03:54 PM

  (0+)

August,

You wrote: 

Venezuela has it right.  The major industries that we all rely on should be government run and be part of the commons.  Media, Energy, Health Care should we all have a collective interest in and should share in the "wealth" created by these industries.  That's the role of government - to even the playing field.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Venezuela is a lot poorer & more dangerous now than before the Red Paratrooper (Chavez) took over. Take it from somebody who lived there & keeps in touch with people still there. 

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 401 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:04:49 PM

  (0+)

I suggest that you research the economy of Venezuela, both before the ascendancy of Chavez and after...It would save you the embarrassment of posting such crap.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:44:47 AM

  (0+)

Just want to tell all the idiots out there who have no faith in government that you should all move to your own country were everything is privatized and true libertarianism is put in place. I am talking private police and fire protection here as well as schools. I would say that in a few short years Hitlers Germany would emerge and a small elite group would annihilate those not cut out for true free market success.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:04:18 PM

  (0+)

Yeah. That's informational.

Don't call people idiots for expressing their views in a fair and respectful way. That just makes you look like a jack ass.

by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:21:20 PM

  (0+)

What method are you using to divine the future, a crystal ball, tea leaves, chicken entrails or a Ouija board?

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:42:28 PM

  (0+)

Rob, illegal drugs, illegal arms, undocumented workers who also include American citizens that are not paid on the book...the folks practicing business like this, are not paying taxes or have regulations.  The herion junkie has no regulations protecting them in any way...they pay no taxes...so it does exist Ron..the thing is...it's the government profitting off of this, building privatized prisons (Thanks Bill Clinton!)..and this is not the purpose of government. 

I want less government..absolutley..Government gives us things like the response we saw during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina..it was not the American citizens who messed up.  Poor Iraqis.

As for the GOP..Several people here responded to you that the GOP especially under Bush has not been displaying conservative values..and this is why MSM has made McCain into a straw man.  I wish you would go to a GOP meeting...I wish you would go to a local meeting and see for yourself what a mess it is...and why Ron Paul is saying "Come on in...it's up for grabs."

The Democrats and Liberals have Clinton, Obama, Nader, Gravel (Liberatarin now..) but all these are Democrats Rob...and McCain is a liberal to conservatives...and really doesn't need security...he knows that...he's bummed govt is making him buy security.  Nader has bigger rallys than McCain for christs' sake.  GOP is a straw man.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:14:11 PM

  (0+)

C'mon. You have to be kidding.

Yeah, I agree that the Rs are totally disconnected from their core values, but as has been said above, those values are underlied by a cesspool of real values. I'm not at all convinced that Libertarianism is far removed, especially when the best you can come up with as a successful example is criminal enterprises. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 10:55:27 PM

  (0+)

That is what Government has made capitalism into.  And Rob, tens of thousands of people survived this way at Grateful Dead /concert tours for decades.  Millions of people survive and thrive on criminal enterprises..and the reason they are criminal is because they are capital. 

Sex, drugs and rock and roll may not be your cup of tea and violins, but that doesn't mean you're a better person or have a better life, unless you want to start defending GOP core values like, "The Bible Says". 

Imagine consumer protection as a criminal market.  That's revolution.

BTW Did you read the news about the Warren Jeffs compound in TX being raided by the FEDS (Bush)?  How's that for conservative values...Bush isn't protecting any church...he went after the catholic church first thing, now this, during worship no less, feds raided the compound took the kids.  I'm an Objectivist, an atheist, and I find that raid unconstitutional.

Now liberals...they say GOOD!  Good the feds BUSH is protecting the children.  I don't have children and so when I hear "the children", I know right there it's about taking MY rights away...for the children...children have all these rights with the liberals because children are weak, and liberal govt controls adults through children.  GOP says it's respects private property...BUSH raiding a private compound, private school is not respecting private property...so to me Rob..because Bush was such a traitor to conservatives, and I expect, if a Democrat wins, they will also be traitors, as they are already poised.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:40:56 AM

  (0+)

It was not government that made capitalism a "criminal enterprise" it was unfettered and uncontrolled capitalism that subverted the intentof our government and usurped its power to their own purpose.

You folks who see government as the enemy are engaging in animism, after all government is an institution, it has no personality nor humanity, makes no decisions as if it were such and your view of it is a comic book fantasy.

Your solution to the problems besetting our nation seem to be as throwing gasoline on a fire. You would free the corporations who use their money and the infliuence it buys from any regulation or control, thus giving even more free rein to the very thing that has subverted our governance in the first place...I dont get it! But then, neither do you apparently.....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 9:51:52 AM

  (0+)

    Rob, I'm disappointed. I haven't read many articles in the past few months, but the title that you gave this one caught my eye.

    If asked what I've learned throughout the cycle of this presidential election, I would answer that I've learned how to be an American. Part of what I've learned is the value of less taxes and limited government. Unfortunately, I've found that it's a difficult truth to discover through all of the smoke and mirrors that modern American politics are.

    We all agree that our government has degenerated into something terrible. Now we just fight over who is to blame about it.  This article of yours is trying hard to sell me an idea, which is exactly what I joined OpEd News to escape. I came here to read articles written by people who are making observations, and not selling me the political drama, pushing me into party loyalty or something like that.

    Most of the commenters have responded with negative commentary. Many of the comments disagreeing with you include very strong arguments, facts, and links to resources. You have a small number of comments in agreement with you, and unfortunately, only one that I read even contained thorough reasoning as to why "less taxes and less government" is bad.

      Someone talked about "trickle-down", and maybe I'm too young to be familiar with the term, but the only thing I see trickling down is this deceitful nonsense that the politicians attack each other with: we seem to be adopting their faulty logic, too.

    I've gone over a few blogsites to try and argue the defense of limited government, and faithfulness to the constitution, and I've been disappointed that so many people would oppose me, insult me, and lose their temper with me, but never return to me a fair and reasonable argument against my points. Many of these people who have posted have made extensively reasonable arguments against "big government", and again, there are no answers back.

    For every problem you think you can fix with more Federal government, there is a faster, cheaper, safer, freer, and easier way to do it.    

by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:37:24 PM

  (0+)

Hey, maybe there is a happy medium, but have any of us, on either side of the aisle, seen it yet? Let's face it -- the commie's wet dream of taxing society into prosperity doesn't work, not to mention that America's libs who claim to care for human rights turn their face away from the brutal dicatators who TORTURE (REAL torture, not just panties on your face, but REAL torture) and KILL those who even dare simply WRITE an editorial in opposition.... I mean, Rob Kal is probably a nice guy who really means well, but his political policies haven't worked so far in communist China, Cuba, communist Russia, and EVERY OTHER fascists state where it's been tried. Can anyone name ONE commie country that worked?! Other than for those in govt. uniforms, I mean? Why would we think they'll work now? Is it like, "Oh, yeah, man, communism will work if we just do it right. Can you pass me that bong, man?"

Oh, yeah, power to the people -- the ones in the government uniforms have all the guns and all the toilet paper, thus all the power. Thanks anyway - I'd like my own guns, and my own TP, and my own bong.

:)

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 7:44:45 PM

  (0+)

indicates a real lack of knowledge of political institutions on your part. Having revealed that, as you have with your mixing of every imaginable sort of authoritarian government, I must conclude that you are simply parroting the Reaganesque propaganda that you have been fed.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:07:49 AM

  (0+)

at least not in their current incarnation. I left the Democrats in disgust in 2000 and became a Green. I have seen nothing in the past 8 years to convince me I made a bad decision.  It was clear from their response to the theft of the election, and the theft of subsequent elections, that opposing neo-conservative imperialism and profiteering though neo-liberal economics was not on their minds. What the DLC wanted, then and now, is to be the the driver'seat.  The policies are fine with them.

We can attack the foundations of the neo-con (and neo-liberal) agenda, and many people do so.  What progressives lack is the bully pulpit.  I believe the Greens are the only party proposing good solutions, and I will continue to support Green candidates.  But the Greens (and for that matter the Libertarians, and every third party) are marginalized by the duopoly. The Republicans and the Democrats are rotting from the top down. We cannot rely on a political party for salvation. 

 The best things I see going on are local groups that are addressing progressive issues without reference to the major parties. It is not an accident that the number of voters registering unaffiliated is increasing by leaps and bounds. We need an institute or working group independent of and not influenced by the parties, regardless of the leanings of the members. We don't have that now. The Center for American Progress and the Rockridge Institute are unabashedly Democratic, and will not welcome progressives outside of the party. This tug-of-war between supporting Democrats (in the hope that they will somehow turn out progressive policy) vs supporting progressive ideals fro their on sake is killing the progressive movement.

Political parties are avenues for expression of ideals and a legal tool for implementing policy that realizes their goals. But the Democratic and Republican parties have become ends in themselves, rather than a realistic vehilce for representing the aspirations of Americans.  Sun Tzu made the point that attacking a stronghold is waste. Go around it and leave to stew in its own juices. I think we can do that with the duopoly.

by Wayne Turner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 8:52:24 PM

  (0+)

This article definitely generated some great replies. Sorry Rob, it appears not all would like more of both. Whether you agree or disagree, the discourse on both sides has been very enlightening. Thank you to all that participated, very very good.

by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 147 comments) on Sunday, Apr 6, 2008 at 9:02:09 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for turning on the kitchen light. When I used to hear Reagan being called the "Great Communicator" I used to laugh uproariously, but seeing the response here from people who truly have embraced his gospel is a real eye opener.

I see a great deal more to do than the mountain of work I saw before.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:35:14 AM

  (0+)

It's amazing how the righties push for less taxes and government, but are amazed how fire fighters and police don't respond to emergencies. How our roads and schools are in shambles and how bridges collapse. Yet aren't willing to increase taxes to improve the commons. They scream: I don't want to pay extra for...because it's communist, but are shocked that it takes hours to see a doctor. So why not raise taxes and reinvest into your neighborhood. Your community. Your future. Your children's future. No because it's a me society and yes, on the Democratic side, the DLC too mimic the right. On taxes, you're making $50,000. After taxes, you roughly make $33500. Can you survive off that? Not really. Yet if you're a multimillionaire or a billionaire and you make your money from dividend checks, you only pay up to 15% in taxes? Or, say 30 percent of your income social security: 6.2% on earnings up to $102,000 and 1.45% on all earnings on medicare. Well did you know that that is the cap? Paying that much for a millionaire or billionaire is pocket change, while the folks in here who are blue and white collor working class is vastly affected. Unfair you say? The tax cuts are not for us but for the rich elite. Taxes are not a way to punish the rich but for them to put in their fair share of using the commons. Say a school cost $10 million to build. In 30 years when the loan is paid off, the bank had made a profit and most folks who attended the local school, raise children not to far from they were born. Therefore, the community s paying an investment into the system so that Junior can receive a good education and in 20 years, return back to his or her home and reinvest into the commons. It's an investment into your future and by doing so, only creates wealth and beauty therefore increasing the value of your property, not like now. As for the government, I live in the City of Los Angeles. Everything here is regulated. Our power, water, trash, sewer and so on is regulated by the City Council. We're raising our electricity price 8%. Seems like a lot? Guess what, our current rate is .0825 per KwH. Increasing it 8% will cost me .0891 cents per KwH. And unlike privately owned power company, you know, the Dynegy and Enron? They can raise prices up to .15 per KwH because there is no real regulation. Gee, which is better? And with the raise, it helps rebuild the infrastructure. allows more homes to become energized and reinvest in the commons. So taxes and government is not an evil entity, it can be helpful. But with Bush promise to minimize government is a lie. He's turning our government: Of, by and for into a fascist state. Oh and keep in mind? you Second Amendment supporters? Hitler was a right-winger and he took away the people of Germany's gun. And finally Google FEMA takes guns away from Katrina Louisiana citizens. That's less government? More like less oversight.

by T H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:55:17 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

 Right you are.  The ideology of Norman Norquist needs to be exposed and attacked. Government is not the problem.  It says right in the Constitution that the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare" of ALL the people, not just the rich and their companies like Halburton.

You can't "defend and protect the Constitution" if your government is shrunk to the size that you can drown it in a bathtub, as Norquist would like to do.  We need smart government, with smart people with smart taxes that produce results.  If a law, a program or agency doesn't work or fixes a problem, we fix it, we don't eliminate the law, program or agency because it doesn't work.  We find competent people after changing the law, program or agency. 

If you believe that the "invisible hand of the free market" will fix all of our problems, that is folly, madness and simple greed.  Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.  If you correct problems like the meltdown of our economy, you have to enforce regulations passed by our elected government and that costs money, which I am willing to pay for.  The problem is corporate control of government, incompetence in government, lack of law or regulations and lack of enforcement of regulations.  Bring back "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

by Trainer12 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:51:58 AM

  (0+)

What part of “Thou shalt not steal” don’t you understand?

If a man comes to my door and demands I give him my piano and I refuse, is he justified in simply taking it?

If two men come to my door and demand that I surrender my piano and I refuse and one suggests that the three of us “vote” on the proposition and they both vote “yes,” are they justified in taking it?

If the same situation arises but there are ten men at my door and a vote is taken and the outcome is 10 in favor of taking my piano to my lone no vote, are the men justified in taking my piano?

How many people does it take to vote “yes” to stealing from me for it to be justified?

The answer to intellectually honest people is that it is never justifiable to steal.

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:08:15 PM

  (0+)

All taxation is stealing, end of story.  Next you'll claim that, because of liberals, the person stealing your piano can turn around and sue you for injuring his back.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:52:11 PM

  (0+)

For all of those privatization proponents who think that unregulated capitalism and free trade is the key to human well-being and justifies neo-liberal economic policy, I recommend to you Bad Samaritans: Rich Nations, Poor Policies and the Threat to the Developing World, by Ha-Joon Chang

Governments, whether communist or democratic, do no neccesarily fail on the validity or lack of validity of their ideals (I exclude fascism because it doesn't have any ideals, it is simply the logical extension of unchecked capitalism). Rather, they fail (or succeed) on the strengths and weaknesses of the people implementing the policies. Honest people make honest efforts, dishonset and lazy people don't.

How honest have the efforts of the "free-market" proponents been?. Not very. In fact, a significant number of the current "leaders" in the US, at least on the neo-con side, are disciples of Leo Strauss, who advocated public deception as a tool of government.  Talk about a basic value that can be attacked, the Straussians (= neo-cons) are vulnerable here. They embrace lying  as an important component of "good" government.

Small government proponents are tied to the idea that rugged individulism will solve all problems. But individualism that is devoid of the concept of community invariably results in individual practices that harm others. The idea that private property is a license to engage in destructive behavior is at the root of many of our problems. Anyone who doubts this can take a trip to the Appalachians and see what happens when entire mountains become the private property of coal companies.  For those opposed to all government intervention, what will you do when your neighbor opens a mass-production hog farm next to your home?

by Wayne Turner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 53 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:39:47 AM

  (0+)

Good points Wayne, Its good to see some logical thinking here!

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:34:06 PM

  (0+)

Trashing freedom by equating fascism with free markets is either dishonest or misinformed.  What we have today is a blend of fascism with socialism, and there is no excuse for mistaking what they are.  I'll let an authority on the subject inform you himself:

[Adolf Hitler on Nazism and socialism:] "Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism—not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper …

"[T]he people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept intact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

As outlined by Ayn Rand:

"It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of "Freedom or dictatorship?" into "Which kind of dictatorship?"—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political "right," but of the "left"—that the basic issue is not "rich versus poor," but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism."

 Which explains why there isn't a dime's worth of difference between any of the leading presidential candidates.

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:41:20 AM

  (0+)

I still believe we the people choose representatives that will make government work to promote the well being of the people. In other words I believe in our Constitution. The state of our nation is that big corporations are allowed to take over control of both our governement and the media.

We debate which party is best for our nation but it doesn't really matter because both major parties are controlled by the wealthy. We discuss core values but it doesn't really matter because those in control have more profits as their goal.

We the people have lost control of our government and unless we can regain control all this talk about what form of government is best for our nation will be meaningless.

by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 209 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:57:29 AM

  (0+)

after reading most of the stupid comments i can only say your web site has been infiltrated by Republicans out to damage thinking in any form.It has been proven throughouyt history that when you don"t regulate greedy pigs they will pick your pocket and leave you out to dry.America became a great nation when FDR started pushing for business regulation before that time we were a nation of sweatshops and child labor with adulterated food.everything in your article is true and i agree less taxes means less protection and lower living standards for the people.It may be time to limit all these Republican commentators just as conservative blogs and news sources do because the people talking sure aren"t intelligent democrats.

by liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:58:59 AM

  (0+)

So let them post all they want!

 Self-exposing their ignorant attitude can only help our cause.

Give them 'em plenty of rope to hang themselves! 

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:28:16 AM

  (0+)

Sieg Heil!

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:53:36 PM

  (0+)

Your suggestions in this article ignore both the history of this country, world history and the tax revolts that litter that landscape.

Being heavily governed and taxed created a little fracas commonly known as the Revolutionary War.

Lastly, in one of your comments, you suggested that neither the Dems nor Repubs would loosen their choke holds. So we vote for another round of gasping for breath?

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:02:37 AM

  (0+)

....kinda like we have now.

Taxation ain't the problem; it's what they use it for, like endless WAR!  

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM

  (0+)

thank you , it is nice to see some intellect here , however infrequent the occurance.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:47:04 AM

  (0+)

So you don't think a "Great" rich country that put a man on the moon, terrorizes the rest of the globe with some 1,200 NUKES; where advantaged CEO's make an obscene 600 times what their average worker makes, that calls itself a "world leader" and champion of Democracy, can't be expected to provide a safety net for the poorest of us? Hmmmm?

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:17:26 AM

  (0+)

Nice effort Rob, but I think it oversimplifies some issues.  First, most Republicans are not very supportive of Bush/Cheney.  The Iraq war, their mismanagement of the economy, the deficit spending, these are not the hallmarks of most Conservative Republicans.  Second, rational people support some government, not "no government".  The issue instead is "where should government stop and business take over? Who can do the best, most effective job, government or free enterprise?”  This is where Democrats and Republicans have always differed.  Bush is an anomaly in his attitudes, views and approach to government.

No government or any business works without accountability.  We need accountability back in our government.  It has been missing for nearly 8 years now.

Government must be efficient and transparent.  It should use the resources and expertise it has available to ensure this (science advisors, GAO, fiscal advisors). 

Government may do more than it should.  That’s not a problem if there is a way to self-rectify this through a budget process, oversight and assessment of the relative return versus cost.  Government has to duty to justify what it does, and it must be reviewed regularly to determine if it is accomplishing its goals!

Discussion of government size is a waste of time.  Government is as big or small as society believes it must be to carry out its functions efficiently and effectively. 

Taxes will always fall disproportionately on those most able to pay.  However, those paying the  most typically benefit the most from government and a smoothly functioning society. 

No one likes to pay taxes.  The problem is most people fail to appreciate that if government is doing its job effectively, our return from each tax dollar we pay is far greater than what any of us is actually paying.  That benefit comes in the form of improved convenience, larger markets, improved job opportunities, greater pay, enhanced security, improved efficiency, etc.  The more you make, the more you benefit either directly or indirectly from an efficient, smoothly operating society and business world.

The real function of government is to facilitate the smooth and effective functioning of business and society.  When we need uniformity and consistency throughout the country in a service or function, it is typically best provided by government.  Government must also do those things we would not trust in the hands of private enterprise either because of our concerns of exploitation, variable quality or inequities.

Government works best when we are involved and interested in what it is doing or NOT DOING.  Our government was hijacked by Bush/Cheney because too many of us ignored what was happening until it was too late.  Lesson learned.  Let’s do what we can to make sure it is taught to all future generations so it NEVER happens again. 

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM

  (0+)

THAT's what we need to make sure this never happens again!

 I laugh when I see the TV commercials for "Divided we Fail".   

(Where were they when the Repugs were steamrolling everybody, locking the Dems out of their late-night good-ole-boy sessions?)

NOW they want us to unite?     First, let's put the blame solidly where it belongs, at least where to Big Players are concerned . For that, we need a re-investigation of 9/11 and impeachment. THEN we need indictment and prosecution.  I am basically against the Death Penalty, but since Bush and Cheney are FOR it and TORTURE too, I have no problem seeing them both swinging from the gallows on the National Mall if convicted of these crimes that constitute HIGH TREASON. 

Now, THAT would be a pretty strong deterrent against any such abuse of power in the future!

(I'll even knit them some socks!) 

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:25:59 AM

  (0+)

Let me see here, USSR stood for Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. Most agree that the USSR was a communist state.

The Nazis were also socialists but are pretty much universally called fascists.

So please tell me how to distinguish between fascist socialists and communist socialists.

It is all the same evil. It is people trying to control others and extract their life energy. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, the FDW/GWB version of authoritarian government smells like sicialism/communism/fascism to me regardless if you call it "new deal" or "compassionate conservatism."

by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM

  (0+)

The only big government that has been drowned in the bathtub is the government of "We the People!" It has been replaced by the government of "We the Rich!" The welfare state belongs to them. They get all of the welfare while the rest of us get nothing. Only the massive problems they have created for us.

I would like to add(at my own peril) this is precisely why I will not support Ron Paul. Yes he is the greatest of all the repubican candidates and yes he might even stop the war. But he will also look the other way to the millions of people who stand on the edge of the abyss, placed there by those who say big government(of the people) is bad.

We're going to need big government (as the right wing calls it, not as they have created) to care for these people and as FDR once said, not the rich, they can take care of themselves and they do! Otherwise we'll be witnessing what the major media fails to report, the thousands of food riots going on around the world. Compassionate government, wise government and a regulatory government on big business. That is what we need and more taxes on the rich(the free wheelers on the coattails of the average American taxpayer) is exactly what's called for. It is also justifiable and for the common good, what a government is supposed to be. We also need a government that will see to it this kind of destructive nonsense we are currently subjugated by will never again be allowed to rear it's ugly head. That is unless of course we all wish to live in a third world country.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 2:44:17 PM

  (0+)

Embracing the core right-wing values is damaging the country? We've not as a nation, at least in my lifetime, embraced right wing values. Government has not reduced in size, scope, or expense since the early 1900s. . Democracts tax, borrow, spend and increase the size and power of government. Republicans claim to cut taxes, borrow more, spend, and increase the size and power of government. The stealth way of taxing the sheep through inflation and robbing wealth through the back door continues unabated.

One could say the Democrats are more honest about the financing of the government, but overall, that's pretty thin gruel.

Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate the borrowing/deficit financing, then tell me if it truly damages the nation. Until it's tried, one can't truly say it's hurt anyone. As is, the D's and R's are arguiing around the margins. D's want intervention at home, not abroad, while the R's say they want intervention worldwide but not here. No one is advocating leaving folks alone, are they?

Unfortunately, it will take generations to wean us off the regulatory and income redistributing habit, as it's taken generations to put it in place.  (Assuming the Pols and Federal Reserve can pull a rat out of a hat to keep the whole pile of poo from collapsing;-)

by Bill Meyer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:41:35 PM

  (0+)

That was about the most senseless article I've seen in a long time.  One which is like just about on par with the MSM reporting on any issue.  All emotion and no facts to back it up.  You say lower taxes is a bad idea?  How about my belief, NO TAXES AT ALL!  Right, you heard me correct, no income tax, no fair tax, just plain no tax!  We would have to reign in big government all the way back to spending levels of the year 1999.  Whoa!  What a setback, 1999.  Gee, wasn't that before they just decided to print up all that money for Iraq, and at the same time destroy the value of our dollar?  Before Bush, the Euro was at about 88 cents, today it is over $1.60.  All other major currencies have faired as well as the Euro.  That's why bread and milk is so expensive.  How about oil?  It has kept on par with the value of gold.  Hmmmm, wasn't gold the standard at one time not too many years ago (until Nixon took us off that standard and caused the hyperinflation of the 70's).  The problem with prices going up everywhere IS big government.  They overspend massively ($9 Trillion deficit), and then they either just borrow, or they print up the money.  When they dump tons of freshly printed money on the economy, each existing dollar is worth less, like your 401K savings.  Your buying power has lost almost half of it's value since Bush took office.  How about the borrowing routine?  What do we owe China and Saudi Arabia?  We don't play hardball with China anymore because of this debt to them.  If we piss them off they can dump all this US debt back on us and totally destroy our economy.  Talk about a repeat of the Great Depression.  I do agree that we should dump the empire.  We don't need military bases all over the world either.  Shut them all down and bring the troops home from everywhere.  Even if it isn't reduced in size, at least all that payroll money will be spent in OUR economy, not in a foriegn one.  Taxes, is it so bad to let me decide what is best for my family?  Why does some politician get the right, here in what was once the land of the free, to forcibly take the fruits of my hard earned labor and redistribute it to Halliburton or health care for illegal aliens?  Rob, if you want to pay for that, then go ahead, as for me, no way!  Imagine the economy in a town as small as 100,000 people that could keep their Federal Income tax money.  It adds up to over $1 billion dollars put into their economy.  Can you imagine all that money put into a small city economy?  Life would get much better, I tell you.  Businesses would be hiring once again, and shortly after it started, there wouldn't be enough people to fill the new jobs so the businesses will have to pay higher wages and better benefits to attract new employees before their competition took the limited supply of labor.  Now imagine this happening across the country?  Economic BOOM!  Get rid of price fixing regulations and it outs businesses on a competitive edge.  The best product or service for the best price.   You got it, dog eat dog competition.  Real competition.  Dude, I don't know what school you went to, but haven't got a clue about economics.  Everytime the gov't steps in to solve some perceived problem, the prices go up.  Read a little history will ya?  Now we're talking national health care?  Are you nuts?  The prices will skyrocket!  You won't be able to feed your family with the new taxes required to pay for that.  Let's face it, the politicians are in the pockets of the HMO's and Big Pharma.  Do you think the lords and masters of the polls will not have more regulation passed in their favor and against yours?  Wake up and smell the coffee.

by Steve Grycel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:12:16 AM

  (0+)

What's that trickling down your leg?

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:40:28 AM

  (0+)

Steve, we COULD have national health care we can afford, if we got out of the OCCUPATION and the Empire-building!

And de-regulation hasn't gotten us much except more pollution, more poverty, more obscenely fat and lazy CEO's outsourcing labor, unsafe roads, airlines, food, water, ..and ultimately more WAR.

Like I said, there's a purpose for our taxes, but theirs is the wrong one. '

Government is not the problem, BAD government IS!

by Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 169 comments) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:51:22 AM

  (0+)

 My best hope is that the progresses are United enough for US to tell Obama what we want. At least health care for a start. The Massatack or axachusetts plan is not the answer. I talk to people every day who say it sucks... that they make US criminals for not being able to affrod health care.

 My pet dream... is for the TV stations to pay the City and States they are in, to pay for what ever is the best plan in that City or State. Blue Cross was always a good one here in Mass, Kaisor wasn't a bad one in California. See the picture of the billions and billions TV makes, going to the people.

My other pet dream is for D.C. or even City's, County's and State's govt. to let the Unions work with the Corporations to work out the details of how the Worker Ownership of the Mondragon Cooperative... can work here in America. Having been in the IBEW, which stands for nothing but I have Been Every Where and I am Broke Every Week. But I know the Unions can make it work.

You can find Monragon on the link to this page some where.

http://my.care2.com/leoburg

by Michael Dewey (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 245 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM

  (0+)

adminstration go on a less tax, less government program?  I mean really this is the stupidest lie you could come up with.  Bush increased spending far faster than Clinton did, yet you're willing to say that lack of spending is the problem.  I guess by that standard Clinton was worse than Bush?  I'm no fan of Slick Willie but even I only give him a D- to Bush's F. 

  Bush's policies at the moment are "More tax (delayed until after I leave office), more spending".  To claim that less government intervention is the problem is moronic. 

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 1:55:13 AM

  (0+)

So has the idea that government can solve the problems you indicate.  Guess what?  The evidence shows that every one of those problems was created by government!  So why are you carrying water for the Republicrat party? 

by Michael Price (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 2:03:28 AM

  (0+)