Southern Avenger

Frank Rich was a movie columnist before dabbling in politics - prob. not the best source of useful information.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I like how conservatives of all stripes have made political hay for decades, not by describing precisely how something (in this case, deficits) is bad for the country, but merely by stating it as fact and initiating a general hue-and-cry to work against whatever evil left-wing idea they are against at the moment.

So, Jack. Why not present your readers with actual ideas and theories about the problems of running national deficits instead of merely standing around saying, "They're, um, bad, you see because they are so bad they are bad."

Otherwise, feel free to continue sliding into irrelevance.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

"Democrats are Tea Baggers too name one".
The "Tea Baggers" and Republicans will end up splitting the Republican party, and hence give easy victories to the Democrats.
Hopefully, they can produce another Bill Clinton to once again do the impossible and balance the budget.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The worst investment I ever made? Social Security. SS returns an equivalent of maybe 2 percent annually, compared to at least 5 percent for a stock index fund.
Just to make things worse, if I die young that money is gone, I never see it and my heirs don't either.
Don't believe me? Run the numbers yourself for your own lifetime earnings.
And now, the Tea Baggers want to take even that away from me.
A good reason for this Centrist to vote Democrat.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

When I stop laughing at the "free market" comment above you, Jack, I might get back to you.

It might take awhile. Weeks, possibly months.

After all, it takes a lot to champion the "free market" *and* admit that some government controls are ok. Apparently, the Tea Party isn't fully on board the Friedman train yet.

Now, the Crazy Train on the other hand....

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I didn't say that. Did I say that? I don't think I said that. There aren't many people who advocate for total state control of an economy anymore and they aren't many who can argue the point for "free markets" with a straight face.

After all, if you want a free market then you don't - by definition - want OSHA or child labor laws. Unless the Tea Party is just like any other religion and people get to pick and choose which parts are the literal word of god and which parts are just curiosities left over from ancient times.

So, I'm still waiting to hear more about this "debt is bad" thing although I am pleased to see the Constitution has made its appearance. As one of the Right's new buzzwords, the Constitution is a good one. Nothing says America quite like attacking "socialism" and defending the Constitution.

But, this begs a few questions. Are we following the Constitution as it exists now? If so, then we are following a living document that changes and can be changed. If not, then we are following a document that is static, rigid and seeks to keep over half the populace from participating in the "democracy."

Or, is it again that we only talk about the parts we like and sweep the rest under the rug?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The GOP today confuses patriotism with partisanship. They see politics as ideological warfare, not problem-solving. And they believe they are carrying on a great American tradition in this regard. They're wrong. A GOP candidate will have to satisfy the teabaggers who want hillbilly mob rule, the business elites who want a license to steal and print money at will, and religious fanatics who want to dictate the behavior of the American people no less than the mullahs of Araby.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The Southern Avengers is always an inspiration thinker. That for some his message of Liberty will fly over their heads is to be expected. Liberty is the first principal of being a human being. Anything else is merely to be a well treated animal. Liberty is also the first requirement of being fully an adult. For those who want to remain forever children feeding off the teat of government milk then for you there is no hope. For those who wish to be fully grown then there is no way but Liberty.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

All you have Charlestowne2 is a morality for others. If you think something bad you have the choice and indeed the responsibility to put your own time and effort to making an improvement. Just saying that 'the government should do something about it' is just a cop-out and an abdication. Liberty is not an abdication of responsibility but an acceptance of it. In the first instance it is an acceptance of a responsibility for oneself.

Your example of the workhouse and the debtors' prison are exactly contrary to your argument as both these are state provided institutions. That's what you get when the state is the provider!

Don't think for one moment that the state will provide anything. They have already spent the money which you thought they where collecting to support needy people. All that will happen in the future is that all will be reduced to the level of the needy.

Liberty is for those not afraid to take responsibility. Its result makes things better not worse. Prosperity without which we all would go hungry comes from Liberty. Look in the USSR the government did exactly what you want the government to do. They had all the social provisions you say the government should provide and yet the people where in need and distress.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Charlestowne2 if the government does not take wealth to put to the uses you approve then that wealth is not destroyed it is still with the people and can be used. So the wealth is available for all the purposes you wish to see. Further government does indeed boast of all the 'good causes' it supports. But it does other things as well. It spend vast amounts on war and destruction. No cure for cancer in any of that spending. Government coffers are also used to reward and enrich its employees. Indeed I would argue that that is the main result of government programs and schemes.

At the very least government are waist-full. I would put it higher and say they are manipulative incompetent.

I want again to comment on your reference to debtors' prisons. How can you make such a statement when American prisons have within them many men who are imprisoned for debt? There are many destitute and impecunious men languishing in USA goals because they are too poor to pay child support or alimony. I could also bring in the fact that there is no private property in the USA as any man can have his property both past and future stripped for him and given to has departing wife.

Charlestowne2" when you think of government do not think of cures for cancer. Think of goals. Think of self enriching bureaucrats and tax collectors ( look at your bible if you want to see want Christ thought of tax collectors). Think of wars and suffering. Then you will have a better idea of the true nature of government.

This comment is already sufficiently long so I can not now respond to your other points.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Yes charlestowne2 I did not answer your question. Did you read my last paragraph which gave you the reason?

But yes there is one such state. It is call The United States of America. At least that was the intention when such an entity as the USA was formed. The philosophy you write of is entirely contained in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

That is all those who seek Liberty desire - that the Constitution be followed and upheld.

That this has not happened might best be explained in the words of John Milton who when writing in the seventeenth century of the failure of the English Revolution said 'The cause was good but the men where lacking'.

Now may be, just may be, men have arisen who will not be lacking and will uphold the Constitution.

That corruption has characterized so much of human history is not in doubt. So I agree with you there. That one can aspire to something better is the only way of hope.

I still have not addressed all you points but I think it poor manners to monopolize The Southern Avengers comment space in one posting.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I'd like to point out that Reader Out of State apparently has not read his Bible, has misunderstood his Bible or is just completely misrepresenting his Bible.

Jesus, to the shock of his disciples and those who had gathered to meet him, called to Zacchaeus - a tax collector, viewed as a traitor to his people for doing the work of the Roman Empire and collecting taxes from his fellow Jews - and had dinner with him in his home. Look it up, it's in the Gospel of Luke. That's in the New Testament. That's the one where God is loving and kind.

Perhaps Reader is confusing the tax collector for the story of the money changers in the temple. Perhaps Reader makes this mistake because he attends one of those new non-denominational churches, where they sell merch in the front lobby on Sundays. Ah, capitalism. It isn't the state, so it marries up with religion oh-so-nicely.

As for Reader's interpretation of Soviet Russia, well that's just funny. While certainly Russia has never been a lot of fun, it was possibly a marginally better existence under the specter of Communism than it has been under the spectre of Chicago School Capitalism. In the years between 1992 and 2006, Russia's population shrank by 6.6 million. UNICEF estimated that over 3 million children were homeless. Violent crime and drug use escalated. These were the fruits of the free market in Russia.

How much more of that do you want for the world?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mat Catastrophe as an atheist I yield to your greater biblical knowledge. As for communism the point might be that communism was not just the USSR. Here I expect may be I have a little more experience than you having lived for quite a long time in a former communist country. This I did so by choice. I brought a dwelling and live entirely amongst the people as one of them. I also travelled quite extensively in another former communist country - The Ukraine. So I don't have to rely on other peoples' statistics to form my impression.

Actually it is your interpretation of my remarks which is funny. You have endowed them with all sort of things which where not there. Although I don't think communism is compatible with Liberty and I would choose liberty, its record throughout the world is variable. Certainly communism combined with nationalism was stronger than American militarism during the Vietnam war. On the other hand its ability to provide a well functioning economy failed in the USSR but has not failed in China. If I take your statistic as true ( and I will do this temporarily for the sake of argument) the the fact that in some place things have got worse does not negate the equally true fact that things where dire before. Certainly in the former communist country where I lived what I saw was a rather enviable standard of living. On the other hand in The Ukraine I got a slightly different impression. Food was extremely abundant. Both fresh produce from the land and super market goods where in abundance. On the other hand buildings where in need of repair and the people lived in small units protected by steel doors. I don't know what things are like in Chicago but I don't think you would like it. I never in the whole time I lived and travelled in former communist countries saw anyone begging on the street. I saw poor people but never did I see destitute people. That does not mean it does not exist but I would rather take the evidence of my eyes that any UN report as my guide.

In a sense your words are a bit superfluous. If you want something more resembling communism in America then you can be content as you are getting it. May be socialism would be a better description. I suppose I have to admit that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not laws of nature and can be overturned and set aside. I would rather see the opposite happen and have the transcendent aspirations which those documents contain fully implemented. I may live to be very disappointed.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Ah, yes. I forgot. Spending time in a country trumps statistics every single time.

So, which former Communist (not communist. Big difference when you change the capitalization) country did you live in? You mention Ukraine but it is plain that is not where you lived.

Also, I don't know why you bring China into this discussion. China is Communist in political structure only - its economics have been more and more driven by "free market" ideas since the mid 1980's.

Talk about superfluous, though. I have asked this question at least one other time and have not yet actually gotten a really good answer: What do you mean by wanting "the transcendent aspirations" of the Constitution implemented? I hear a lot of modern conservatives babble about being Constitutionalists but I have yet to hear what it is that they think is so wonderful about it. I often suspect that it is just another emotional trigger/talking point that gets people worked up and lets them feel that have an "issue" to be "engaged" with.

As for my desire to see communism or socialism in this country, I fail to see how I am getting that. We have spent one year now skirting around the serious issues of health insurance reform and we probably won't get any serious action on that front. We still have an economy that is based on virtual money and credit, where the flow of capital and wealth is into fewer and fewer hands and away from the people who actually work to create it. Those who don't work are left almost completely in the cold, while those who do work often work well beyond our absurd and outdated 40 hour work week model. Corporations still plunder and pillage the nation to the tune of billion dollar profits each year, while avoiding responsibility and paying taxes while in the trenches people like you decry taxes and spending and complain about the national debt.

And you think we are getting socialism? Hardly. If you want to hear real socialist ideas, then here's one: Let's make all health care a function of the state. Not just insurance, that's not good enough. We should revoke all medical licenses for doctors who will not agree to work directly for the state. All hospitals, clinics, labs, nursing homes and other medical facilities would become property of the federal government. All insurance companies would be dissolved, with their monies going into the beginnings of the general fund to sustain this program.

That's socialism, not this weaksauce attempt at "placing limits" on the insurance companies.

"Personal responsibility" is a code word for "got mine, fuck you." It's old, tired and has no business in modern humanity. Freedom and liberty are great, yes, but freedom and liberty do not equate to a society where the very few maintain control over so much while so many starve and die - especially not in a country as blessed with resources and space as the United States.

I believe the Constitution was a useful document, but to believe that we should just wholesale wipe out the last two hundred years of American history and go back to some antiquated and poorly understood historical "dreamland" of early America is absurd and dangerous.

So, again, tell me: What exactly is it about that document that is so precious that it should be treasured above progress and the well-being of humanity?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Nuts. After reading "gunning down the constitution" I now have to read all your stuff. You are apparently on the right track. In the cited article however, you did miss a salient point. The only place in the Constitution that uses the word "necessary" is in the second amendment. Citizens were expected to keap and bear arms because they were expected to be a part of the legal state militia. When that body was illegally federalized in the early 20th century, we got into this stupid contest about who posesses gun rights. The STATE has the right to defend itself, as it did at Lexington, Concord and Charleston. Of course the only means to do this is the State Militia, which was made up of the county Militia, the city militias and the local militias made up of every able bodied man in each area - and they were REQUIRED to keep and bear arms, much like Switzerland today. These well ordered militiamen were subject to the elected leadership of the local sheriff, who has absolute power within his jurisdiction. How far we have come to "Homeland Security" which was always the job of the Militia.

Ed B
UpCountry SC

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Yes Mat I do think actual observation and experience is superior to being a know-it-all whose view of the world comes at best second hand.

I lived for quite a long time in Slovenia. Mostly people are not too familiar with this place so I don't always mention it. As I say I travelled in The Ukraine as well.Both these counties where communist countries though one was Warsaw Pact and the other was not.In both places I did not see everything but I did see a lot. In Slovenia the place I lived in was still called a commune (except they spelt it with a K). There where other remnants of its former communistic state. But my point was that it was not the basket case you where indicating was the fate of former communist states, and neither was The Ukraine.

As for The Constitution still being important the reason is this. It is The Constitution which defines the USA. Without The constitution there is no longer a USA. There will still be a physical entity but that entity will not be The USA. Now it is of course completely possible for people to choose this. It is also possible that what they choose might indeed be better than what The Constitution established.

So perhaps the real question is has The Constitution outlived its usefulness and should it be abolished or changed?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

the team party movement is complete astro turf. Everyone knows that Propogandist Fox News invented the tea party. The major backers of this movement all had something to do with the Bush admin. It is amazing that no one in the tea party thought to stand up to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, out of control spending in washington,etc 8 years ago.Especially since NO ONE is affiliated with any party (yeah right). Then suddenly, they want "their" country back, Obama is a socialist, bull, bull, bull, cry,cry,cry. But they enjoy their tax cuts under Obama, and they want to keep their socialist Medicare. The teabaggers are racist,bigoted,sad and scary . They remind me of the angry whites seen during desegregation. It scares me that these people have procreated and now my children will have to deal with them later in life.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

ladyliberal, you would have enjoyed Henry Rollins's comments about people like the Palins having so many children: "These people believe the earth is 6000 years old and flat so they probably figure if they have enough children they can just squeeze all the non-white people off the sides of the earth and into the Abyss."

As for Reader Out of State:

Yes, I think the Constitution was a nice framework to begin a nation with. In the 1780's. However, just like the Bible, there are some people who believe it to be an inerrant, unchangeable constant in human history. Well, that's just great if you great if you want to live in 1780-something (or the Dark Ages).

The simple problem is: We don't live in those times. Scholars can argue all day long about the Founder's intentions but the simple, sad fact is that the Founder's are dead and I, for one, could hardly care what their intentions were. Some of their ideas were brilliant and others were poorly thought out or written (I mean, the second amendment can be taken to support the right of individuals to bear arms or it can be taken to support the right of communities to maintain militias, take your pick).

At any rate, try to imagine where we would be if every single time an engineer at a car company was told, "Sorry Bill, your idea for new safety features is brilliant but it just isn't in line with what Mr. Ford wanted an automobile to be." Imagine moving into a house and telling your wife, "We will just have to live with this awful brown color on these walls, as that is clearly what the builders of the house wanted." It just doesn't make sense for a country that speaks of innovation and progress one minute to turn right around and get bogged down in the minutia of a two hundred year old legal document the next.

Now this might seem entirely too radical for most people around here but just remember: those Founding Fathers you hold so dear essentially shredded a good bit of five hundred years of English law when they built their Constitution. They took the bits they liked and threw out the parts they found abhorrent.

Maybe it is time to consider that again.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike