Not convinced liberals are any of those things. They promote collectivism, not freedom. Liberal isn't short for liberty as people often think it means. Liberal is a misleading word that means more.....a liberal government is more government...more taxed and more interference....and that's what he was really proud of.....
@coldsteel122 I always find it INCREDIBLY ironic when people say that liberals are for "more interference". That is the Republicans. Which party is trying to prevent people in love from getting married? Republicans. Which party is trying to prevent women from having control over their bodies? Republicans. Which party is trying to shove Christianity down the throats of the American people? Republicans. Shall I go on?
If that's not trying to interfere with people's lives, I don't know what is.
@aerdna14 Democrat's/ Republican's it's all a freaking act..Liberal controlled or republican controlled....it's business as usual. I left the Republican's after Bush's 2nd term. It was clear to me he was someone else's puppet. The same is true with the Obama Administration.
We don't live in a Republic or Democracy anymore..Spending millions for a job that only pays $50-$250,000 means none of them are our representatives.
@aerdna14 Oh...and I forgot to add...the Republicans are another flavor of leftest. You're only splitting hairs when you talk about policy....the fact is currently we are an oligarchy or happy fascist state.
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." -- George Washington
That is NOT what they mean by the term liberal. A liberal is someone who does not care for the sanctity of life (Barak Obama who promotes the killing of babies who survive an abortion attempt). A liberal is someone who promotes more funding to Prisons and inmates rather than on teachers and student (Jennifer Granholm of the state of Michigan). Ask yourself liberals, how much will CHANGE really benefit you when you attack the weak and take from those who need it most.
@hccirish Ah Republicans. They care for fetuses while they're still unborn, then once they're born the Republicans don't give a shit. Years later the same baby, who they insisted that mother have against her will, is unable to afford healthcare and is dying. The Republican response to this, apparently, is "too bad, it's your own fucking fault". So disturbing.
Baculus: I repeat..Ted was a fat, drunken,skirt chasing socialist,from a dysfunctional family & more than likely a murderer & a waste of air that a dog or cat could be using. He screwed the taxpayers out of billions for his state...Basically took up good space on this earth.The exact of opposite of John,the last true democrat.
@middsteve He would often go into bars in Boston or in Washington and get into brawls with other people. He would have drinking parties with fellow senators that would last until three o'clock in the morning. Nevertheless it's the end of an era with the death of Ted Kennedy.
I am PROUD to be a liberal, and most people are too ignorant to realize what LIBERALISM, one of the West's greatest traditions, means.
Here is what George Washington had to say about it:
""As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Washington was absolutely right and correctly used the term liberal as it was used at the time (in the classic sense). Sadly the modern usage of the term liberal, with its embrace of the (fraudulent) concept of positive liberty - that people have a "right" to such things as a living standard or health care (provided by others) - would have him and the rest of the Founders spinning in their graves rapidly enough to power the planet at the mere suggestion of being associated with it.
I doubt if Washington would be angry at modern positive liberties, such as police and fire department protection, or the concept of a citizen's right to public education. Or, in today's health care debate, the concept of a right to health care.
Also, liberals support a livable wage, meaning fair wages for workers.
I guess you oppose all these concept.
Classical liberalism of that time STILL applies to today's liberals. especially insofar as the concept of personal liberties.
Neither police and fire protection are examples of positive liberties. Police protection has always been the purview of the state. As for fire protection, the private sector was providing it just fine at the time. Public education was also considered a role of government, but not a right. They would have been shocked at the notion that anyone should be forced to provide someone else's healthcare or that workers were entitled to any particular wage level.
I don't think you understand the concept of "positive liberties."
Both police and fire protections are positive liberties. When someone says, "You are entitled, you have a right, to police and fire protection," THAT is a positive liberty. When someone says, "You are entitled to receive an education," THAT is ALSO a positive liberty.
A negative liberty refers to the inability of government to interfere with certain legal rights, i.e., the right to free speech.
YOU do not grasp the meaning of "posuitive liberty". Liberty - as understood by the Founders - is the absence of restraint by government unless one infringes upon the rights of others. The myth of positive libery argues that people have "rights" to things that must be provided by others. Police powers are the preservation of order by the state (not something given to others). Fire protection falls under similar lines though it was handled privately at the time of the Founders.
You just described a NEGATIVE LIBERTY - "the absence of restraint by government unless one infringes upon the rights of others."
There is no "myth of positive liberties," because, whether or not you agree with the notion, they exist, as supported by some people. Though "positive liberty" wasn't necessarily quantified by the Founding Fathers, folks such as Jefferson believed in such a concept, education wise, as I have demonstrated.
I described "nagative liberty" because it is the only kind of liberty that the Founders believed existed (and they were absolutely correct). That certain things are "supported by some people" does not allow them to be incorrectly classified as liberties.
You ahve demonstarted nothing. Jeffersin was quite clear that negative libery was the only kind that existed and that public education, while beneficial, was never described by him as a right or liberty as he never believed so.
In fact, Jefferson's views were roughly identical to Adam Smith's who in "The Wealth of Nations" described the appropriateness of the public funding of education but, at the same time, advocated a society based upon "perfect liberty" that never countenanced the perception that anyone had a "right" to the property of others except through mutually agreed upon exchange. And he excoriated the "poor laws" of Britain because, like all Welfare systems, they harm the people they are supposed to help.
Actually, Adam Smith was a bit of a socialist. For example, he support progressive taxes. As he said:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich."
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense."
Your reading of Smith is incorrect. Smith advocated a taxation upon house rents based on what he believed was a fundamental difference between land as a form of property and other forms. He DID NOT propose it as a tax upon the rich and merely observed that such a tax would "fall heaviest upon the rich" and that their "contribut[ing] to the public expense" was not undesirable.
Careful, I am a scholar of Adam Smith fully aware of the out-of-context quotes out there. You won't win that one.
That quote is not taken out of context. If you are "a scholar of Adam Smith," then you should be familiar with both his views. And what you said completely contradicts would Smith himself said in the quote I provided.
Again, he said, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
He is proposing a tax on the wealthy for certain functions related to the poor.
Yes, I AM familiar with Adam Smithls views. That's why I can say without the slightest hesitation (and consistent not only with Smith's views but the pre-eminent Smith scholars of today - such as Gavin Kennedy author of "Adam Smith's Lost Legacy") that Smith NEVER advocated direct taxation fo the rich. The quotes you have taken come at the end of his advocacy of taxes upon rents and describes the heavier burden upon the rich as a
You mentioned earlier that public utility ownership started during the 1930s. That is not necessarily true. This "sewer movement" started during the late 1800s, when the modern system was being developed and when urban activists pushed for the public ownership of such functions. (Some of these people were known as "sewer socialists.")
The Progressive movement, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, pushed for such public functions. This isn't a radical idea, after all.
I'll grant that I overlooked the public sewer systems (not that they have been exactly a story of success). No one is arguing that the progressive movement is somehow new, but then monarchy and dictatorship are certainly not radical new concepts either, but as they are oppressive and do real harm to society, they have been abandoned. The identical case can be made for socialism, even partial socialism as such items (minimum wage, welfare state, socialized medicine) yield such poor outcomes.
The concept of a "positive right" does NOT mean "anyone had a "right" to the property of others."
A "right to education" does not mean a person has a right "to the property of others." Folks such as myself who support positive rights never make that claim, and that is totally twisting the issue at hand.
That is what you don't seem to understand. Also, as I just quoted, Adam Smith believed the rich should bear heavier taxes. That is contrary to your claims.
By definitiion, "positive liberty" means the right to something not intrinsic that must be provided by others - now you can't seem to use the very terms correctly. An education doesn't simplty materialize from nothing. The resources necessary to provide it must come from somewhere. Positive (sic) liberty, by its very definition, requires that something must be obtained from one person or persons in order to provide it or something obtained with those resources to someone else. It's nonsense.
OF COURSE "an education doesn't simply materialize from nothing." Even Jefferson supported taxes paying for schools. The quote I provided shows evidence of this. Government, by itself, relies upon something "provided by taxes." Even the Constitution provides for government functions whose provisioning must be paid by us. The taxpayers. Also, the states themselves levy taxes for functions. Same for the county,
I pay for schools, via taxes, though I have no children. I am fine with this.
Again, at no point did I isagree with the fact that Jefferson supported the provision of some public education with state tax monies. And, again, that is emphatically NOT the same thing as viewing education as a "right" as neither he nor the other Founders ever believed that to be the case. The fact upon which we agree does not support your assertion that education is, or should be a right, or that any Founder, including Jefferson, ever believed that to be the case. They did not.
When Jefferson states that he believes monies should be used to build schools for the rich and poor, there is little practical difference between that view and those who view education is a "right."
You arrive at the same place.
Jefferson believed our Republic needed an educated electorate. That is the same view held by those who support the "right" of an education for the citizens. That is the view that I hold as well.
There is an enormous difference between a justification for public expenditure and the provision of a right, no matter how much you wish it were the case. In the former circumstance, such a provision is only warranted so long as the benefit outweighs the cost (and arguably that is no longer the case); in the latter case, the benefit to society is irrelevant - all that matters is the existence of an entitlement.
Jefferson was firmly opposed to the very notion of entitlement.
I will say this (this is a bit of a soapbox statement): The US is based on the idea of equality and egalitarianism. You cannot achieve such a concept unless citizens, regardless of gender, race, social status and wealth, have equal access to a school. This is a prime motivator for those who support public education.
None of these concepts are foreign to early American thinkers, and public education has been both a building block to our country and the reason for our high literacy rate.
The statement that the US is based on egalitarianism is too absurd for words. The US was based on the idea that the only role of government was to preserve the liberties of the people from incursion by others inclusing especially the state. It was based on the consept of equality of rights as provided by God and NEVER equality of outcome or egalitarianism. They were universally opposed to the entire concept of wealth redistribution.
That you cannot read the very quotes you post is not my problem. Smith advocated taxation based specifically on property based on the nature of the property (he has whole chapters distinguishing between rents, wages and capital), not upon either the income or relative wealth of individuals and as YOUR quotes demonstrate, merely argued that it was not undesirable that such taxes fall most heavily upon those best equipped to pay them. That is NOT an advocacy of "taxing the rich".
Americans have decided that its citizens have a right to equal access to education. That education is not only for the elite and wealthy. That we need an educated electorate for the Republic to function via its democratic process.
The Founding Fathers wouldn't have been shocked, because they were familiar with the concept of taxation for certain government functions, such as national defense, the mail system, etc. Levying money to pay for civic functions was not unknown at that time.
In fact, I have evidence to support the idea that Thomas Jefferson support public education. This is what he said:
"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler"
Again, as I already stated, Jefferson was a firm believer in the provision of education to the populace because of its overall benefit to society but he NEVER perceived it as a right.
"I [propose] three distinct grade . . , reaching all classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life . . desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. (Snip) The expenses of . . . should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."
"Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816"
I don't mean to spam all these quotes, but I cannot demonstrate them in any other fashion via this forum.
The second Jefferson quote underlines MY point (and blows a big hole in yours). Jefferson is explicitly stating that he never envisioned education being a part of the "fundamental structure of government" because in his view while wholly beneficial, it wa not something to which people were entitled to receive from others.
To the contrary, if you'd care to read the collected writings of Thomas Jefferson (I highly recommend it to pulling quotes off the internet) his stance regarding the states growing involvement in the lives of the citizenry became progressively more hostile. Again, he believed that the benefit of a public education outweighed its cost, but he did not believe it was a right and he would be appalled that so much of education is currently in the public sector.
I majored in history in college. I am surrounded by books relating to early American thinkers and the founding of this nation. This is a subject that is not foreign to me.
How would Jefferson be appalled when he himself supported taxes for public schools? Are you totally ignoring what he said on this subject?
Citizens were hostile to government when they rebelled against whiskey taxes. This didn't stop Washington from calling in the troops, did it?
Jefferson was, as his papers show (hopefully you have Julian Bond's collection handy), first and foremost a defender of liberty. His advocacy of public education did not extend to publci charity or the provision of additional services and viewed public education not as a right but an act of such benefit to a democartic society that it deserved public funding on its own merits, not because anyone had a right to it.
And Washington's action appalled Jefferson as an unwarranted use of force.
I know am familiar with the concept of Jeffersonian liberties. Most social liberals support some Jeffersonian liberties.
I think you are still skirting around the fact that Jefferson's view arrives at the same end position as a social liberal on public education.
So, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe an American has a right to an education? That attending school should be based on one's mean to pay for it?
If this is the case, then you and Jefferson are not in agreement.
Most social liberals embrace the concept of positive liberty as I have stated it - a concept wholly alien to his views. The end position of Jefferson's view is that some public expenditures are warranted on the basis of their net benefit to society but should be abandoned if that proves not to be the case (rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abandoned for any reason). On that basis, Jefferson would oppose virtually all social programs today includig, possibly , education given its record.
The belief in "negative rights," as we discussed, are not the only rights that the founding fathers supported. For example, legal rights were also construed, i.e., positive action via the law.
"Natural rights" were not the only rights supported by the Founding Fathers. That is the issue I have with your position. It is too constructive, because it ignores the nuances that the Founding Fathers, and other Enlightenment thinkers, had on rights, both innate and legal.
Legal rights are entirely different. They are based on contarctual agreement between two consenting parties and do not exist outside of the contarctual agreement. They are not societal rights as such. Still, the belief in legal rights in that context is entirely and completely seperate from the concept of positive liberty, which, again, was in direct conflict with the Enlightenment-borne concept of liberty retained by the founders.
Legal rights are in no way connected to or similar to positive rights and the nuances of which you speak are lqargely imaginary. Jefferson, in particular, did not deviate from the Enlightenment position at any point, nor did either of the Adamses or Madison. Washington's views are not as easily discerned from his writings but they do not indicate any such deviance from the Enlightenment position. Of which Founder do you speak that has these nuances?
Jefferson believed that everyone had a right to pursue an education and felt that the public provision of such a service (given its insufficiency at the time) was justified not on the basis of any entitlement but on the basis of its net public benefit. Your assertion that Jefferson believed education to be a right remains factually wrong. In today's more prosperous world where the private sector provides superior education at less public cost, he may well have opposed public schools.
Jefferson believed that perople had the right to "pursue" property (had infact initially written the Declaration that way. He did not believe that people has a RIGHT to property, merely the right to pursue it. His view on education was identical. Your obvious and deliberate misconstruction of his position does you no credit, sir.
Further, the right to pursue something does not guarantee or require its existence. the right to pursue happiness (as the Declaration was changed to) does not gauarntee or require that you actually obtain it.
The problem with the private sector world is that most students do not have access to such facilities. It has always been that way. I am sure the private sector have lessons for the public sector. There is no reason why such examples cannot be used by administrators.
The primary reason most Americans do not have access to private education is the virtual monopoly on its provisison retained by the state. The economic concepts of substitution and crowding out make it impossible for competition to survive unless the public school system is so dreadfully poor that private alternatives can attract students even with the higher cost associated with supporting both systems. There is no reason why private schools cannot serve all in the absence of that monopoly.
Your attempt to link these policies to classical liberalism is factually wrong.
Further, from a simply practical standpoint, there is no such thing as a "living wage". Fair wages are those that the worker can negotiate freely with an employer (and the Founders understood this). Any attempt to interfere in that relationship and impose a price floor merely guarantees that those with the fewest skills will be unemployed. Such laws have universally failed as an anti-poverty measure.
A living wage refers to a wage that is not outpaced by inflation and provides for a person's basic sustenance. Which, BTW, this entire decade, during the 2000s, war marked by a flattening of real wages and an increase in the ranks of the poor.
Also, I merely said that modern liberals are very much connected to classical liberals.
The flattening of wages canard is getting rather old. It is a deliberate distortion. In fact, since the mid-1960s wages have grown at a slower pace for one reason and one reason only - workers have been receiving more and more benefits as a percentage of total compensation. As a result, while real wages appear flat, total compensation (including benefits) has handily outpaced infaltion for more than forty years.
I know what you said. Modern liberals are the opposite of classical liberals.
Wage flattening is a reality, not a canard. It is a subject that affects the economic reality of Americans. These days, workers are receiving less and less benefits. One reason is due to the number of workers who are considered temporary workers.
One of the few reasons why some workers have received more benefits is due to the efforts of unions and collective bargaining. BTW, fewer workers today belong to unions, and, as a result, they often have lower wages and fewer benefits.
It is simply not true that compemsation and living standards have been declining (at least prior to this most recent government caused crisis and the verdict isn't in yet). The statement that workers are receiving less and less benefits is factually wrong and can be easily checked by looking at the compensation figures compiled by teh Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Unions, representing only a small fraction of American workers, have had little if any impact overall.
During the 40s, a third of American workers belong to unions. Unions pushed for the 40-hour work week, 8-hour days, safety regulations, and many of the standards that American workers now enjoy.
If it were up to industrialists, we would have far fewer protections afford to American workers.
To say that unions had "little if any impact overall" is totally ignoring the history of American labor and its effect on the modern worker (even as union numbers have declined).
During the 40s, America's greatest economic advancement was already behind us, unions were pushing for 40-hour weeks among those remaining companies that did not already offer it (often union companies who delayed offering it because unions had already demanded something else). The statement that industrialists would otherwise give fewer protections is propoganda without historical or factual basis.
To say that unions had little impact on the point made (with such low membership) is fact.
And feel free to take the credit for the civility. While I try to remain so, sometimes I end up mirroring the individual to which I am responding (and you can imagine how that may do me no credit in the end).
Oh, I admit that it can be difficult to always be civil, but I do strive for that when possible. Also, sorry if I threw out a bunch of responses, but I am trying to get this all out before the start of the (Redskins) game!
Unions certainly benefit their membership on the whole (except those with the least seniority when union wgae demands result in smaller workforces and more automation). This does not make them a boon to the economy as a whole (they are not) or anyone else since the pool of capital available for labor is largely stable.
Actually, the greatest period of relative economic growth in thsi country was from the mid 19th century until the very earliest 20th century before unions became much of a force in the economy.
You're not gonna win this one - the reason I am so familiar with Smith's position (and Jefferson's) and the (disastrous) impact of FDR on the economy is that my field (and my passion) has been economic history for the last quarter century.
Further, the gains that workers received were overwhelmingly provided by the private sector. It is no accident that, at one time, the ONLY stell mill in the country with an 8 hour day (and a hospital for emplyees and their families and a school offering engineering and metallurgy courses) was a non-union shop. The owners wished to attract the best workers (as all do) and they succeeded.
BTW, if you want to know what the thing that has most greatly increased the ranks of the poor, it is the Welfare state as put in place in the 1930s. If you look at the number of people in poverty and the number only considered above the poverty line due to public assistance, it is far higher (even during the 1990s) than it had been running historically before the welfare state was created.
You're being a bit disingenuous. It was the Great Depression that created the ranks of the poor after 1929. To blame the poor from the 30s on FDR is totally misleading. if anything, work programs put money into the hands of the unemployed.
The ranks of the poor greatly increased during this decade due to Bush policies. Fiscal policies that favor the rich while providing little rise in wages vs. inflation and cost of living increased the ranks of the poor.
The Great Depression was one of the greatest examples of government failure (manipulation of the money supply and unit banking laws) in history. Hoover's attempt to bolster wage rates and FDR's New Deal managed to rpolog it for years. Work programs simply took money from productive endeavors to waste them on public do-work projects (that ultimately destroy jobs and continued efforts to hold up wage rates gave us the highest unemployment in history.
The crash in 1929 was caused by a number of factors, but to blame it solely on government while ignoring the private sector speculators who caused the crash is a complete white wash of history. You''re acting as if capitalists and private bankers had no part in this event.
FDR policies led to tangible results: The ranks of the unemployed fell and major, needed projects were built. Modern American was partially built at that time.
The crash of 1929 was caused by the massive increase in the money supply diriing the 1920s. THAT is economic history. It was greatly exacerbated by unit banking laws and the Fed's massive tightening of credit just when banks were most in need. The "private sector speculaots" wer emphaticaly NOT a cause of the Great Depression according to any modern economic historian. Read "America's Great Depression" or "FDR's Folly" oe "A Monetary History of the United States" for an education.
The 1929 crash was a speculative bubble. The same sort of bubble we've seen in 1987 (which was a larger crash, during the Reagan years), It was a boom, fueled by marginal lending (and over-borrowing to fuel the stock purchasing), followed by a big crash.
Yes, the private speculators are the EXACT cause of the crash. After all, what do you think caused the bubble? What do you think caused the overreaching by the investors?
The 1929 crash was an asset bubble created by the massive increase of the money supply by the Federal Reserve (t support the British pound as it happens). You are falling for an outdated position that confuses symptom with cause. Booms are created by the unsustainable feeding of cheap money into the economy by the central bank that must eventually collapse. The buildup in the 20s cased a couple of famous economists (including Nobel laureate Hayek) to predict the crash. It was a govt failure.
FDR's policies led to tangible results: huge uncertainty that kept the economy in the doldrums, an INCREASE in unemployment (not a decrease - it had been falling before his policies were implemented and spiked again), and the Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8. Few, if any, "needed" projects were built and what public funds that were distributed went to those states most needed by the Democrats in the next election rather than where there was the greatest need. We now know FDR was an economic mess.
After the policies were put in placed, leading up to WW2, the ONLY year that had an increase in unemployment was in 1938 when New Deal programs' funding was decreased due to GOP efforts. Otherwise, every single year from 1934 onwards had a decrease in the unemployed. This information is readily available.
From 1929, unemployment rose from 15%, to 25%, to over 35% BEFORE FDR,
The fact is, it took years, and really into the 1950s, before we recovered from the Great Depression.
Your statement is factually wrong. The best figures for unemployment (as they were not captured as today) show continued unemployment increasses resulting from FDR's policies and the canard about a reduction of spending causing the 1937-8 recession suffers from the obvious problem that the downturn was already well underway before any such policies were undertaken.
In actuual fact, the ranks of the poor DID NOT "greatly increase" in recent history. Bush's wrong headed modern liberal economic policies in his second term (cheap money, bailouts, unrestrained govt spending, increased govt such as with Medicare) have certainly done great harm to the economy and to the poor in particualr. Sadly, the only thing that Obama has done is massively increase these failed economic policies.
Americans in poverty rose during the Bush years. This was also true during the Reagan years, when the percentage of the poor also rose.
What was the commonality between them? Supply-side policies, which greatly benefited the upper class. For example, the $1.2 trillion bush tax cut exemplified the "trickle down" theory.
When our industrial base moves to foreign countries, when US workers have to compete with cheap foreign labor, you have a "race to the bottom" effect caused by Free Trade.
This one requires a long response (bear with me) because it is inaccurate on many levels. First, the statement about the Reagan years is objectively inaccurate. Not only did the number and persentage of poor fall during the "decade of greed", but it was one of the few decades in which the poor got notably richer (according to the OMB, the IRS, and the Census Bureau).
I will give credit for one area: He pushed for the EIC, which was targeted towards the lower class. A program that, in today'w world, would be called "socialist" by the right since it is a negative tax. That being said, in a report from the late 80s, from the House Ways and Means Committee, stated that 1) the rich's wealthy increased two fold, and the gap between the classes widened. Otherwise, his programs were not aimed at helping the poor.
I dodn't say that they were aimed at helping the poor (and the EIC, while good, is noty as good as a general lowering). I said that fewer people were in poverty and the poor got richer (that the gap increased has no relevance). As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, it is also important to note that the percentage of the tax burden paid by the rich jumped dramatically (as it did after the Bush tax cuts as well). It is pointless to aim tax cuts at the population that pays no taxes.
It IS important that the gap between the rick and poor increased, because this shows the general disposition of the government.
When Thomas Jefferson visited France, he was appalled by the concentration of wealth, and said, "The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards."
He also said, ". . . the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind."
The "gap" has nothing to do with the "disposition of givernment" particularly when the historical results of every governmental attempt ever made to address such a "gap" has been universally harmful particularly to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Jefferson was appalled by a system that created inequity by penalizing the workers and funneling capital to the rich. The free market doesn't do that - the rich do not get so under such a system at the expense of anyone else.
Jefferson also said, in the same letter from visit to France in 1785, said, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
A progressive tax, if you will.
He further said, "The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on."
This, BTW, was the view of early conservative socialists.
This is why Jefferson, Smith, Locke, and other early thinkers, while purveying the idea of self-determination, politically and economically, they abhorred concentration of wealth and power. In spite of right-wing claims, Thomas Jefferson would despise their aims to consolidate wealth to the upper class, a class which, in many ways, resembles the nobility in France, and the concentration of power in corporations.
They would NOT support Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
One last quote from Jefferson:"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
The right-wing believe that Jefferson supported any and all unfettered economic freedom. This is not true at all. What they opposed was concentration of power, which they saw in the royal crowns of Europe, which prevented people from owning the profits from their labor
This is why the US has a burgeoning middle class, tremendous income mobility (neraly a third of the "poor" at any given time will eventually reach the top 20% and only a fraction will still be poor a mere 5-6 years later,
Jefferson opposed the the concentration of wealth and power BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE STATE - that is not in conflict with the concept of absolute economic liberty which is entirely consistent with Jefferson's views.
The entire issue with the 80s, the decade of greed, was the growing inequality gap between the top wealth holders and the lower class. And with reason, since tax cuts and capital gains cuts were geared towards that class, in addition to the military spending increased which favored the military industrial complex. Add to this the S&L scandal, which involved George W. Bush's brother, which was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.
The social programs affected by all of this impacted the poor.
Inequality is meaningless from any objective basis. It harms no one - what matters is the relative prosperity of the poor - which INCREASED. Yes, more was spent on the military (not that winning the Cold War - which was the result - was important). And the S&L crisis was the direct result of the Glass-Steagal provisions put in place under FDR - an interest rate ceiling on what S&Ls could pay coupled with long term mortgages - the crisis was that they were going bankrupt BEFORE deregulation.
And the deregulation wasn't Reagan's - the package was built by Rep St. Germaine (D-FL). The social programs have been a disaster for the poor - increasing poverty, creating an entrenched underclass, etc. That such programs were "impacted" may well be the vest thing that ever happened to the poor ... until Clinton signed Welfare reform and the people taken off the dole overwhelmingly got employment and saw their conditions improve.
Second, you overestimate the impact of presidents. It is significant but not even the primary cause of recessions. That hobor goes to the Fed, whose monetary manipulations are most responsible for the current crisis - though Bush's policies (and by extension Obama's) are still in large part responsible for its svereity and ultimately duration as I'll come back to).
Third, you highlight a common misreading of the data that is eaasily understood if you think about it. Presidents are not powerful Wizard Kings that can wave a magic wand on day one and alter the economy. While sopme policies have an almost immediate effect, fiscal economic policies take between 2 and 6 years to be fully realized. The conditions behid the double dip recession under Reagan and the first recession under Bush were already in place before they took office.
Incorrect. The Reagan recession was a direct result of his fiscal policies. it caused by Carter. When he cut taxes in 1982, this resulted in a budget shortfall, since he increased spending at the same time. Remember the 1980 election and the use of "voodoo economics"? Who do you think coined that term? His V.P.: George H.W. Bush.
The problem I see is that people ALWAYS want to try blaming Republican fiscal policies on Democrats, as if the GOP has no impact at all.
The Reagna recession could not POSSIBLY have been the result of Reagan's fiscal policies. The timing makes it impossible. Stagflation and the initial recession was underway before he took office. The downturn that was to become the double dip was already underway by the time Reagn's first budget was fully implemented. Beyond that, federal budget shortfall's have never caused recessions (or they'd be perpetual). And Bush's inaccurate statement seems to be the only one remembered...
I am not trying to blame Republican fiscal policies on Democrats, but the facts are as I have stated them; the timing doesn't work (as any reading of the leading economic indicators shows) and economically it is spending that harms the economy (on pretty much anything) not shortfalls due to lower taxes). As for Bush, the recession technically began BEFORE he took office - the beginning of two quarters of negative GDP growth began 1/1/01. Bush is much to blame for THIS crisis, not that one.
With Reagan, his fiscal policies had an immediate impact. After all, that as their design: To increase the country's economy after the 70s and the economic crisis.
As far as Bush is concerned, yes, very, very late in Bush's term, the economy was slumping, and the tech-bubble was about to burst. That still does not provide cover for his $1.2 trillion tax cut (which was, of course, added to the national debt.)
While Republicans attack a trillion dollar health plan over TEN YEARS . . .
The statement that Reagan's fiscal policies had an "immediate" impact is contrary to economic science (and actual history). What DID have an immediate impact - deregulation of oil prices - was beneficial as both gas lines and high gas prices disappeared.
Bush IS responsible for much of the policies that created this latest crisis but it was tax cuts or deficits but massive spending (on top of which Obama has already set in motion spending that will dwarf both of Bush's terms in a few years).
Fourth, the policies that Reagn adopted, primarilt working with Fed chairman Volcker to reign in the money supply, deregulating prices and markets (which gave us cheaper gas for 20 years and tax cuts for Americans that almost (though not quite) paid for themselves, resulted in a 20 year period of prosperity interrupted briefly only by the economic impact on the world economy of the invasion of Kuwait.
1. The tax breaks were direct Reagan supply-side, trickle-down policies. It had nothing to do with SS.
2. Like the 1929 crash, the 1987 crash was caused by speculators. The Fed is an enabler, but the don't create investor bubbles. The investors do.
3. The Savings and Loans scandal was caused by 1) outright theft and fraud, representative of the entire decade, and 2) deregulation enacted during the 80s.
4. The increased in deficit was partially caused by an increased military budget.
2. It is a common economic fallacy to confuse SYMPTOM with CAUSE. The asset bubble that causes the speculation comes into being by Fed expansion of the money suppy - look up Austrian Business Cycle Theory)
3. The S&Ls wre going bankrupt due to New Deal policies. That is why they sought deregulation. Again you confuse symptom with cause.
5. Yes, the increased deficit was partially due to increased military spending, but not mostly...
1, No, the tax hike was NOT SS. It was due to a shortfall in federal receipts. Why? Because Reagan decreased receipts while increasing spending. It is the reason why we had a deficit after he was in office. It is the the same economic tactics used by Bush, when Cheney said that "deficits don't matter."
2. The expansion of money supply still does NOT abstain responsibility to the investors. As I said, the Fed are enablers. You still have to blame the junky for their problem.
One last, yes, the tax hike WAS for social security as is easily checked (not a revenue shortfall). And I didn't absolve anyone for responsibility for their investments. The fact remains that the malinvestments that took place do not occur unless the risk signals in the marketplace are distorted by the increase in the money supply. THAT is the casue; the malinvestments are a symptom.
4. Dude. Seriously. The S&L scandal has NOTHING to do with the New Deal: You REALLY need to read about this scandal. Deregulation was one of the PRIME reasons for this crisis and it is also a reason why there was an economic slump in 90-91.
The symptoms were issues such as the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Nothing, not a thing, related to the New Deal from decades earlier.
How the New Deal caused the S&L crisis: Contrary to popular belief, fraud and imprudent lending practices played only a very small part. The problem stems from the artificial distinctions between S&Ls, commercial banks and insurance companies put in place in the wake of the Great Depression. The US is the only nation to create such distinctions and their lack has never harmed their economies. S&Ls were given a very restricted role offering mortgages based upon savings deposits.
This creates an enormous problem as mortgages are very long term (illiquid) instruments and savings deposits can be removed on demand and offer savers a very low return, particularly since the law placed a ceiling on how much could be offered. So long as market interest rates remained low enough that the cap didnt interfere with their ability to retain deposits, the system only experienced periodic problems. But the market doesnt care about such caps.
By the 70s, S&Ls had been requesting deregulation for years as higher interest rates were steadily drained their deposits. They couldnt even offer CDs that, at least, could better support long term lending. While no taxpayer money had yet been lost, the crisis was already well under way. By the beginning of 1979, with high interest rates in the marketplace well over half of the capital in the industry was gone and the whole industry was facing serious net worth problems.
With S&L failures already occurring at a rapidly increasing rate, the pleas for intervention were finally heard, but by the time the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act was passed in March, 1980, to address these asset-liability management problems inherent in the thrift portfolio structure, the industry as a whole was already insolvent. Worse, by trying to deregulate gradually, the underlying problems were still largely unaddressed.
By the time the Garn-St. Germain bill was passed in 1982, inevitable losses already far outstripped any existing insurance. A significant minority of S&L managers in a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation took riskier chances on higher return instruments in hopes that these returns would restore solvency and allow them to survive, but that would only have worked if the housing boom continued (and that had only occurred due to Fed policies that had already been reversed).
A tiny minority (that got most of the press Lincoln, Silverado, etc.) abandoned all pretense of caring about solvency and attempted to make as much as they could as quickly as they could without regard for depositors, shareholders or insurers. In all, more than half a trillion in capital was lost since the early 1970s, more than half before any deregulation occurred. The bill to taxpayers, only a tiny portion of which was due to fraud or mismanagement, came to about $125 billion.
No causal or contributory link has ever been established between the crisis and the 1991 recession (in no small part because the timing is radically off and fits almost exactly to the timing of the invasion of Kuwait). And the losses due to fraud and mismanagement PALE before the losses related to regulations that stemmed from New Deal era regulations that never served any beneficial purpose anyway.
1. Iran contra, etc., sure, economically, only the spending increases he specifically requested are subject to economic criticism
2. Government intervention in the economy is unersally bad, has never improved the lives of anyone and has harmed millions
3. Speculators are responsible for their own actions, but they do not magically become greedy - the govt increased supply of money alters the market signals that make such behavior happen
1. You have yet to criticize anything Reagan has done. So far, you have blamed all his problems on anyone but him. You even tried to blame the S&L crises on FDR, which is, frankly, mind-blowing.
2. Government intervention is not universally bad. I reject that. I USED To be an anarcho-capitalist, like you, but it is obvious that industry can and will do bad. They will exploit workers, their political connections, and policy for their advantage. Look at the 1800s, for example.
Please describe one example of governmental economic intervention that was NOT all bad. Businesses cannot "exploit" workers in a free market and the existence of political connections stems from the government's ability to play favorites. It is a givernmental failure.
The 1800s bolster my point - the railroads were govt granted monopolies and Standard Oil, excoriated for being a monopoly, offered lower prices and a better product (kerosene) due to innovation. They did not harm consumers.
All productivity is not good. Productivity by slave labor is not good. Productivity by coercion is not good. Productivity by exploitation is not good nor morale.
I disagree with the need to fetishize business and productivity. Every Jefferson and Adam Smith, with their support for free enterprise, would disagree with you.
Productivity for productivity sake's is NOT ideal. This country was not designed to be am oligarchy or a plutocracy.
Yes, all economic productivity is good. You must understand that slavery (coercion of labor) is COUNTER-productive. History shows clearly that slavery is a net economic drain (one of the reasons the South lost the war). Capitalist productivity the free market is never exploitive and is always beneficial. It is not for productivitys sake but for the sake of meeting the needs and wants of society and results in neither oligarchy or plutocracy.
The '90s economic boom was a continuation of the earlier trend. The economy was already on a strong growth track for more than a year before Clinton took office and, in the wake of the largest tax increase in American history growth SLOWED to its weakest post recession pace in history. Further, the White Hose never predicted deficits below $199 billion in any year until that continued economic growth caused them to appear.
Don't believe that tax hikes have EVER resulted in an economic boom.
Actually, the economy had a drop at the end of the 80s, during George H.W Bush's term. And some felt that the country was already going to feel a "hangover" from the Reagan years. (Similiar to what we saw from the 20s, and the resulting 1929 stock market crash).
Yes, after Clinton's tax hikes, we had the LONGEST peace time economic boom in US history. Remember, during the Eisenhower years, the top-rate tax rate was at 91% (or so), when the country was still very productive.
Actually, the economy did not have a drop until the early 1990s and corresponded directly with the uncertainty in worldwide oil markets in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The "hangover" canard never had any basis in reality of any kind and no economist (even those critical of Reagan) takes it at al seriously: it's pure nonsense.
The 1929 stock market crash was a direct result of an asset bubble created by Fed manipulation of the money supply (just as was this one).
It would seem that, to you, everything is a "canard." Everything I have described are actual realities. Just because you do not agree or believe in it does not mean they are "canards."
Reagan apologists always want to juggle and obfuscate in their cult of Reagan personality.
The Fed did NOT create the asset bubble. Are you an investor? Why are so beholden and determined to avoid assigning any responsibility to the investors? It is almost a fetish with you.
The Clinton tax hikes created the longest peacetime economic boom is still another canard. Not only must one include the period before Clinton took office to make that case (and you can't), GDP growth slowed in the wake of the tax hikes and had capital gains taxes not been cut the recession may have begun as early as 1998 (the leading economic indicators were already in freefall).
In the 50s, the economy experienced slow growth and two deep recessions - the success of the 50s is a myth.
I am going to simply start saying random stuff, just to see if you will come with an TOTALLY OPPOSITE viewpoint of "it's a canard. A myth."
To you (1) the 50s had no economic boom. 2) the 90s had no economic boom. 3) everything was wonderful during both the 80s and 90s . . as long as it benefits the wealthy.
Clinton deserves credit for not increasing spending still further, enacting welfare reform, cutting capital gains taxes and ending the economic train wreck that wa Hillary-care. That the tax increase disastrously pushed the total tax burden above 20% of GDP is a fact. I am not a Reagan apologist or a Clinton basher. I can defend my analysis of ANY specific policy and its impact on the economy. Tax hikes do not yield economic benefits - ever - under any circumstances.
Similarly, the tax cuts passed in Bush's first term to address a recession that, by traditional measurement, began before he took office, helped speed recovery. Were it not for HIS free money policy (letting the Fed flood the economy), his unrestrained spending, his encouragement of the manipulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and such demand side policies as "stimulus packages and bailouts, recession might well have been avoided entirely. Sadly, Obama has adopted all of these policies.
His tax cuts saddled the country with an extra debt, a debt which the average Americans will have to pay after receiving their measly $400 check. How much did the average wealthy (upper 5%) receive? $7,000.
And the the poor-rich gap widened further.
As I said before, the GOP is attacking a ten year, trillion dollar health care plan. (Which means it costs a $100 billion a year.) Meanwhile, they supported a $1.2 trillion tax cut -- how does that make sense?
The size of the tax cuts under Bush were microscopic in comparison to the impact of unrestrained spending (and don't confuse actual tax cuts with rebates - only the former do any economic good at all as even Clinton's economists told him). Again, the attempt to make it about what those nasty rich got is a waste of effort. All that ever matters is the relative change in condition for those you wish to help - and after the Bush tax cuts, the percentage paid by the bottom 50% fell again.
A $1.2 trillion dollar bill is not microscopic. It is hypocritical.
We spent a trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP had no trouble with this fact. The Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, want to spend a trillion dollars HERE in this country, over ten years, on health care, and they are called communists?
Apparently spending money on the rich and the military industrial complex is patriotic, and health care for US citizens is evil and bad.
And we stlll spend a half-billion a year on the DoD.
The $1.2 trillion dollar bill is not the rsult of tax cuts; it is the result overwhelmingly of spending (and is over a time span that makes the number not more than an estimate). The spending in Iraq and Afghanistan helps bolster this very point. Again, I am not defending Bush - merely pointing out which policies are ACTUALLy harful (spending) and which are not (tax cuts). Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a knee-jerk Republican; I'm an economist and researcher.
We face no crisis as a result of "our industrial base moving to foreign countries". First of all, it isn't happening - industrial output has been steadily and ceaselessly rising, only employment in that sector has fallen (as it has in every industrialized country in the world, including China). This is because the nature of modern economies is undergoing the same kind of change as when it evolved from an agricultural to an industrial basis.
Far from harming US workers, "outsourcing" has been a boon to the US economy. Not only does it result in cheaper goods for consumers and increase economic efficiencies which create jobs, but the open border policy that allows outsourcing to happen results in more and higher paying jobs being INsourced into the US. Attempts such as the steel tariffs, do nothing but harm, ultinately not "saving" a single job but costing thousands of jobs in industries using finished steel.
Back in 1992, Ross Perot talked about "that sucking sound" of U.S. industrial jobs being lost. And he was totally correct. It has even increased since that time. That is why Detroit has been impacted. That is why the Rush Belt has lost so many jobs. That is why union rolls have fallen, because we have lost so many blue-collar industrial jobs.
Free Trade has NOT been good for Americans. It has been good for cheap goods and foreign jobs. That is why we have trade imbalance.
Ross Perot is not a reliable source of information and he has been PROVEN to be totally and completely wrong. Not only was the jobs impact of NAFTA so small that it can't be determined if their were real gains or losses, but every year, again, more jobs are INsourced into the US than are outsourced.
Detroit was impacted because the UAW priced their membership out of the marketplace. While that IS why nion rolls have fallen, they have no one to blame but themselves.
This information can be researched. In 2003, it was reported that nearly 900,000 jobs, 879,280, at that time, were lost due to NAFTA.
This is not a small drop.
Further, as a result, here is the largest issues, wages have also been suppressed. Why would workers earn more pay when they are competing with lower paid workers? The failure for wages to rise during this decade has been a major issue. Meanwhile, once again, the income gap increases.
By 2006, several studies had indicated that the initial estimates were grossly overstated and that the actual impact was less than 50,000 jobs either way.
Wgaes have not been suppressed as a result (quite the opposite) largely because of increased opportunities and the fact that US workers are still generally better educated, require less training and are closer to consumers.
Meanwhile, once again, the income gap is meaningless.
Here, you are saying that the UAW "priced their way" out of the marketplace. This is the typical right-wing attitude that is puzzling (and untrue, BTW).
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Good. Sending jobs overseas to the detriment of the US worker. Good. The UAW trying to secure higher wages for their workers? EVIL UNIONS.
It is an attitude that is completely anti-worker. Everything for the rich, trickle down breadcrumbs for the workers.
It isn't a right wing attitue. It's an inescapable conclusion. Union workers in Flint, Michigan were earning more than 50% over the market wage paid elsewhere and were demanding more, The company had to write off a huge plant infrastructure, pay far higher unemployment premiums, build new facilities and hire and train a new workforce. Is it rational to believe that they would incur those costs if the cost imposed on them by the unions was not so high? Of course not.
Tax breaks for companies create jobs for workers. Allowing outsourcing to take place creates more and better paying jobs for employees. Those are entirely factual and PRO worker reasons to support them.
I actually have no problem with unions, as such, and people should have the right to band together whenever they wish. It is only when government gives them a monopoly that they can engage in suh brinkmanshio and ultimnately harm the workers they represent.
O'reilly is a douchebag. We need people like the Kennedy's before this great nation is taken over by the Fox News Tea Party.
Saebeck32 5 months ago 2
When someone call you a liberal. 99% of the time its not meant to target your actuall political view :P
gulbirk 5 months ago
Me too Ted. Rest in peace. Proud to be a liberal and proud to be an American.
dellboy99 6 months ago
"derp derp liberals eat babies, piss on american flags, derp derp, people value my Youtube posts derp".
angrydead 7 months ago
Not convinced liberals are any of those things. They promote collectivism, not freedom. Liberal isn't short for liberty as people often think it means. Liberal is a misleading word that means more.....a liberal government is more government...more taxed and more interference....and that's what he was really proud of.....
coldsteel122 8 months ago
@coldsteel122 I always find it INCREDIBLY ironic when people say that liberals are for "more interference". That is the Republicans. Which party is trying to prevent people in love from getting married? Republicans. Which party is trying to prevent women from having control over their bodies? Republicans. Which party is trying to shove Christianity down the throats of the American people? Republicans. Shall I go on?
If that's not trying to interfere with people's lives, I don't know what is.
aerdna14 4 months ago
@aerdna14 Democrat's/ Republican's it's all a freaking act..Liberal controlled or republican controlled....it's business as usual. I left the Republican's after Bush's 2nd term. It was clear to me he was someone else's puppet. The same is true with the Obama Administration.
We don't live in a Republic or Democracy anymore..Spending millions for a job that only pays $50-$250,000 means none of them are our representatives.
coldsteel122 4 months ago
@aerdna14 Oh...and I forgot to add...the Republicans are another flavor of leftest. You're only splitting hairs when you talk about policy....the fact is currently we are an oligarchy or happy fascist state.
coldsteel122 4 months ago
Love it.
93rardo 1 year ago
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." -- George Washington
dnutz111 1 year ago 2
You tell 'em, Ted.
philosophermike 1 year ago
That is NOT what they mean by the term liberal. A liberal is someone who does not care for the sanctity of life (Barak Obama who promotes the killing of babies who survive an abortion attempt). A liberal is someone who promotes more funding to Prisons and inmates rather than on teachers and student (Jennifer Granholm of the state of Michigan). Ask yourself liberals, how much will CHANGE really benefit you when you attack the weak and take from those who need it most.
hccirish 1 year ago
@hccirish
The Kennedy's did not attack the weak, they allways supported the weak. Healthcare, for instance, helps the poor.
93rardo 1 year ago 15
@hccirish Ah Republicans. They care for fetuses while they're still unborn, then once they're born the Republicans don't give a shit. Years later the same baby, who they insisted that mother have against her will, is unable to afford healthcare and is dying. The Republican response to this, apparently, is "too bad, it's your own fucking fault". So disturbing.
aerdna14 4 months ago
I miss Ted, we need more guys like him!
snowwolf7777 1 year ago
I guess Laura Bush will be going to hell to as she too murdered someone while driving.
stevedeclark 1 year ago
@stevedeclark WHAT?
67nairb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the death of an alcoholic drunk,womanizer and murderer what a happy day this was for me
and now we have a Republican in his seat now makes it even better
pattaya95 2 years ago
Sorry, murderers do not go to heaven.
HapaLife 2 years ago
There is no heaven. There is no hell. Stop playing pretend and start helping to fix the planet.
howarddeanlove 1 year ago
Baculus: I repeat..Ted was a fat, drunken,skirt chasing socialist,from a dysfunctional family & more than likely a murderer & a waste of air that a dog or cat could be using. He screwed the taxpayers out of billions for his state...Basically took up good space on this earth.The exact of opposite of John,the last true democrat.
middsteve 2 years ago
@middsteve He would often go into bars in Boston or in Washington and get into brawls with other people. He would have drinking parties with fellow senators that would last until three o'clock in the morning. Nevertheless it's the end of an era with the death of Ted Kennedy.
67nairb 7 months ago
I am PROUD to be a liberal, and most people are too ignorant to realize what LIBERALISM, one of the West's greatest traditions, means.
Here is what George Washington had to say about it:
""As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Baculus 2 years ago 5
Washington was absolutely right and correctly used the term liberal as it was used at the time (in the classic sense). Sadly the modern usage of the term liberal, with its embrace of the (fraudulent) concept of positive liberty - that people have a "right" to such things as a living standard or health care (provided by others) - would have him and the rest of the Founders spinning in their graves rapidly enough to power the planet at the mere suggestion of being associated with it.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I doubt if Washington would be angry at modern positive liberties, such as police and fire department protection, or the concept of a citizen's right to public education. Or, in today's health care debate, the concept of a right to health care.
Also, liberals support a livable wage, meaning fair wages for workers.
I guess you oppose all these concept.
Classical liberalism of that time STILL applies to today's liberals. especially insofar as the concept of personal liberties.
Baculus 2 years ago
Neither police and fire protection are examples of positive liberties. Police protection has always been the purview of the state. As for fire protection, the private sector was providing it just fine at the time. Public education was also considered a role of government, but not a right. They would have been shocked at the notion that anyone should be forced to provide someone else's healthcare or that workers were entitled to any particular wage level.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I don't think you understand the concept of "positive liberties."
Both police and fire protections are positive liberties. When someone says, "You are entitled, you have a right, to police and fire protection," THAT is a positive liberty. When someone says, "You are entitled to receive an education," THAT is ALSO a positive liberty.
A negative liberty refers to the inability of government to interfere with certain legal rights, i.e., the right to free speech.
Baculus 2 years ago
YOU do not grasp the meaning of "posuitive liberty". Liberty - as understood by the Founders - is the absence of restraint by government unless one infringes upon the rights of others. The myth of positive libery argues that people have "rights" to things that must be provided by others. Police powers are the preservation of order by the state (not something given to others). Fire protection falls under similar lines though it was handled privately at the time of the Founders.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You just described a NEGATIVE LIBERTY - "the absence of restraint by government unless one infringes upon the rights of others."
There is no "myth of positive liberties," because, whether or not you agree with the notion, they exist, as supported by some people. Though "positive liberty" wasn't necessarily quantified by the Founding Fathers, folks such as Jefferson believed in such a concept, education wise, as I have demonstrated.
Baculus 2 years ago
I described "nagative liberty" because it is the only kind of liberty that the Founders believed existed (and they were absolutely correct). That certain things are "supported by some people" does not allow them to be incorrectly classified as liberties.
You ahve demonstarted nothing. Jeffersin was quite clear that negative libery was the only kind that existed and that public education, while beneficial, was never described by him as a right or liberty as he never believed so.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
In fact, Jefferson's views were roughly identical to Adam Smith's who in "The Wealth of Nations" described the appropriateness of the public funding of education but, at the same time, advocated a society based upon "perfect liberty" that never countenanced the perception that anyone had a "right" to the property of others except through mutually agreed upon exchange. And he excoriated the "poor laws" of Britain because, like all Welfare systems, they harm the people they are supposed to help.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, Adam Smith was a bit of a socialist. For example, he support progressive taxes. As he said:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich."
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense."
Baculus 2 years ago
Your reading of Smith is incorrect. Smith advocated a taxation upon house rents based on what he believed was a fundamental difference between land as a form of property and other forms. He DID NOT propose it as a tax upon the rich and merely observed that such a tax would "fall heaviest upon the rich" and that their "contribut[ing] to the public expense" was not undesirable.
Careful, I am a scholar of Adam Smith fully aware of the out-of-context quotes out there. You won't win that one.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
That quote is not taken out of context. If you are "a scholar of Adam Smith," then you should be familiar with both his views. And what you said completely contradicts would Smith himself said in the quote I provided.
Again, he said, "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
He is proposing a tax on the wealthy for certain functions related to the poor.
Baculus 2 years ago
Yes, I AM familiar with Adam Smithls views. That's why I can say without the slightest hesitation (and consistent not only with Smith's views but the pre-eminent Smith scholars of today - such as Gavin Kennedy author of "Adam Smith's Lost Legacy") that Smith NEVER advocated direct taxation fo the rich. The quotes you have taken come at the end of his advocacy of taxes upon rents and describes the heavier burden upon the rich as a
"reasonable" side effect.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You mentioned earlier that public utility ownership started during the 1930s. That is not necessarily true. This "sewer movement" started during the late 1800s, when the modern system was being developed and when urban activists pushed for the public ownership of such functions. (Some of these people were known as "sewer socialists.")
The Progressive movement, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, pushed for such public functions. This isn't a radical idea, after all.
Baculus 2 years ago
I'll grant that I overlooked the public sewer systems (not that they have been exactly a story of success). No one is arguing that the progressive movement is somehow new, but then monarchy and dictatorship are certainly not radical new concepts either, but as they are oppressive and do real harm to society, they have been abandoned. The identical case can be made for socialism, even partial socialism as such items (minimum wage, welfare state, socialized medicine) yield such poor outcomes.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The concept of a "positive right" does NOT mean "anyone had a "right" to the property of others."
A "right to education" does not mean a person has a right "to the property of others." Folks such as myself who support positive rights never make that claim, and that is totally twisting the issue at hand.
That is what you don't seem to understand. Also, as I just quoted, Adam Smith believed the rich should bear heavier taxes. That is contrary to your claims.
Baculus 2 years ago
By definitiion, "positive liberty" means the right to something not intrinsic that must be provided by others - now you can't seem to use the very terms correctly. An education doesn't simplty materialize from nothing. The resources necessary to provide it must come from somewhere. Positive (sic) liberty, by its very definition, requires that something must be obtained from one person or persons in order to provide it or something obtained with those resources to someone else. It's nonsense.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
OF COURSE "an education doesn't simply materialize from nothing." Even Jefferson supported taxes paying for schools. The quote I provided shows evidence of this. Government, by itself, relies upon something "provided by taxes." Even the Constitution provides for government functions whose provisioning must be paid by us. The taxpayers. Also, the states themselves levy taxes for functions. Same for the county,
I pay for schools, via taxes, though I have no children. I am fine with this.
Baculus 2 years ago
Again, at no point did I isagree with the fact that Jefferson supported the provision of some public education with state tax monies. And, again, that is emphatically NOT the same thing as viewing education as a "right" as neither he nor the other Founders ever believed that to be the case. The fact upon which we agree does not support your assertion that education is, or should be a right, or that any Founder, including Jefferson, ever believed that to be the case. They did not.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
When Jefferson states that he believes monies should be used to build schools for the rich and poor, there is little practical difference between that view and those who view education is a "right."
You arrive at the same place.
Jefferson believed our Republic needed an educated electorate. That is the same view held by those who support the "right" of an education for the citizens. That is the view that I hold as well.
Baculus 2 years ago
There is an enormous difference between a justification for public expenditure and the provision of a right, no matter how much you wish it were the case. In the former circumstance, such a provision is only warranted so long as the benefit outweighs the cost (and arguably that is no longer the case); in the latter case, the benefit to society is irrelevant - all that matters is the existence of an entitlement.
Jefferson was firmly opposed to the very notion of entitlement.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I will say this (this is a bit of a soapbox statement): The US is based on the idea of equality and egalitarianism. You cannot achieve such a concept unless citizens, regardless of gender, race, social status and wealth, have equal access to a school. This is a prime motivator for those who support public education.
None of these concepts are foreign to early American thinkers, and public education has been both a building block to our country and the reason for our high literacy rate.
Baculus 2 years ago
The statement that the US is based on egalitarianism is too absurd for words. The US was based on the idea that the only role of government was to preserve the liberties of the people from incursion by others inclusing especially the state. It was based on the consept of equality of rights as provided by God and NEVER equality of outcome or egalitarianism. They were universally opposed to the entire concept of wealth redistribution.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
That you cannot read the very quotes you post is not my problem. Smith advocated taxation based specifically on property based on the nature of the property (he has whole chapters distinguishing between rents, wages and capital), not upon either the income or relative wealth of individuals and as YOUR quotes demonstrate, merely argued that it was not undesirable that such taxes fall most heavily upon those best equipped to pay them. That is NOT an advocacy of "taxing the rich".
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Americans have decided that its citizens have a right to equal access to education. That education is not only for the elite and wealthy. That we need an educated electorate for the Republic to function via its democratic process.
The Founding Fathers wouldn't have been shocked, because they were familiar with the concept of taxation for certain government functions, such as national defense, the mail system, etc. Levying money to pay for civic functions was not unknown at that time.
Baculus 2 years ago
In fact, I have evidence to support the idea that Thomas Jefferson support public education. This is what he said:
"I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler"
Baculus 2 years ago
Again, as I already stated, Jefferson was a firm believer in the provision of education to the populace because of its overall benefit to society but he NEVER perceived it as a right.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, I disagree. Jefferson said:
"I [propose] three distinct grade . . , reaching all classes. 1. Elementary schools for all children generally, rich and poor. 2. Colleges for a middle degree of instruction, calculated for the common purposes of life . . desirable for all who were in easy circumstances. (Snip) The expenses of . . . should be borne by the inhabitants of the county, every one in proportion to his general tax-rate. This would throw on wealth the education of the poor."
Baculus 2 years ago
Here is another Jefferson quote:
"Education not being a branch of municipal government, but, like the other arts and sciences, an accident [i.e., attribute] only, I did not place it with election as a fundamental member in the structure of government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816"
I don't mean to spam all these quotes, but I cannot demonstrate them in any other fashion via this forum.
Baculus 2 years ago
The second Jefferson quote underlines MY point (and blows a big hole in yours). Jefferson is explicitly stating that he never envisioned education being a part of the "fundamental structure of government" because in his view while wholly beneficial, it wa not something to which people were entitled to receive from others.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, as the quote I just demonstrated, Jefferson believed that schools for the rich and poor should be built and created by tax dollars.
If anything, I think his thoughts on this, and other matters, evolved over time.
Baculus 2 years ago
To the contrary, if you'd care to read the collected writings of Thomas Jefferson (I highly recommend it to pulling quotes off the internet) his stance regarding the states growing involvement in the lives of the citizenry became progressively more hostile. Again, he believed that the benefit of a public education outweighed its cost, but he did not believe it was a right and he would be appalled that so much of education is currently in the public sector.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I majored in history in college. I am surrounded by books relating to early American thinkers and the founding of this nation. This is a subject that is not foreign to me.
How would Jefferson be appalled when he himself supported taxes for public schools? Are you totally ignoring what he said on this subject?
Citizens were hostile to government when they rebelled against whiskey taxes. This didn't stop Washington from calling in the troops, did it?
Baculus 2 years ago
Jefferson was, as his papers show (hopefully you have Julian Bond's collection handy), first and foremost a defender of liberty. His advocacy of public education did not extend to publci charity or the provision of additional services and viewed public education not as a right but an act of such benefit to a democartic society that it deserved public funding on its own merits, not because anyone had a right to it.
And Washington's action appalled Jefferson as an unwarranted use of force.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I know am familiar with the concept of Jeffersonian liberties. Most social liberals support some Jeffersonian liberties.
I think you are still skirting around the fact that Jefferson's view arrives at the same end position as a social liberal on public education.
So, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe an American has a right to an education? That attending school should be based on one's mean to pay for it?
If this is the case, then you and Jefferson are not in agreement.
Baculus 2 years ago
Most social liberals embrace the concept of positive liberty as I have stated it - a concept wholly alien to his views. The end position of Jefferson's view is that some public expenditures are warranted on the basis of their net benefit to society but should be abandoned if that proves not to be the case (rights are sacrosanct and cannot be abandoned for any reason). On that basis, Jefferson would oppose virtually all social programs today includig, possibly , education given its record.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The belief in "negative rights," as we discussed, are not the only rights that the founding fathers supported. For example, legal rights were also construed, i.e., positive action via the law.
"Natural rights" were not the only rights supported by the Founding Fathers. That is the issue I have with your position. It is too constructive, because it ignores the nuances that the Founding Fathers, and other Enlightenment thinkers, had on rights, both innate and legal.
Baculus 2 years ago
Legal rights are entirely different. They are based on contarctual agreement between two consenting parties and do not exist outside of the contarctual agreement. They are not societal rights as such. Still, the belief in legal rights in that context is entirely and completely seperate from the concept of positive liberty, which, again, was in direct conflict with the Enlightenment-borne concept of liberty retained by the founders.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Legal rights are in no way connected to or similar to positive rights and the nuances of which you speak are lqargely imaginary. Jefferson, in particular, did not deviate from the Enlightenment position at any point, nor did either of the Adamses or Madison. Washington's views are not as easily discerned from his writings but they do not indicate any such deviance from the Enlightenment position. Of which Founder do you speak that has these nuances?
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Jefferson believed that everyone had a right to pursue an education and felt that the public provision of such a service (given its insufficiency at the time) was justified not on the basis of any entitlement but on the basis of its net public benefit. Your assertion that Jefferson believed education to be a right remains factually wrong. In today's more prosperous world where the private sector provides superior education at less public cost, he may well have opposed public schools.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You just said, "Jefferson believed that everyone had a right to pursue an education."
Exactly. "A right to pursue an education." He believed in this right and supported the use of state monies to build schools for this purpose.
Later, though, you contradict yourself by saying, "Your assertion that Jefferson believed education to be a right remains factually wrong."
You cannot have a "right to pursue an education" unless one has access to said education. Correct?
Baculus 2 years ago
Jefferson believed that perople had the right to "pursue" property (had infact initially written the Declaration that way. He did not believe that people has a RIGHT to property, merely the right to pursue it. His view on education was identical. Your obvious and deliberate misconstruction of his position does you no credit, sir.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Further, the right to pursue something does not guarantee or require its existence. the right to pursue happiness (as the Declaration was changed to) does not gauarntee or require that you actually obtain it.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The problem with the private sector world is that most students do not have access to such facilities. It has always been that way. I am sure the private sector have lessons for the public sector. There is no reason why such examples cannot be used by administrators.
Baculus 2 years ago
The primary reason most Americans do not have access to private education is the virtual monopoly on its provisison retained by the state. The economic concepts of substitution and crowding out make it impossible for competition to survive unless the public school system is so dreadfully poor that private alternatives can attract students even with the higher cost associated with supporting both systems. There is no reason why private schools cannot serve all in the absence of that monopoly.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Your attempt to link these policies to classical liberalism is factually wrong.
Further, from a simply practical standpoint, there is no such thing as a "living wage". Fair wages are those that the worker can negotiate freely with an employer (and the Founders understood this). Any attempt to interfere in that relationship and impose a price floor merely guarantees that those with the fewest skills will be unemployed. Such laws have universally failed as an anti-poverty measure.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
A living wage refers to a wage that is not outpaced by inflation and provides for a person's basic sustenance. Which, BTW, this entire decade, during the 2000s, war marked by a flattening of real wages and an increase in the ranks of the poor.
Also, I merely said that modern liberals are very much connected to classical liberals.
Baculus 2 years ago
The flattening of wages canard is getting rather old. It is a deliberate distortion. In fact, since the mid-1960s wages have grown at a slower pace for one reason and one reason only - workers have been receiving more and more benefits as a percentage of total compensation. As a result, while real wages appear flat, total compensation (including benefits) has handily outpaced infaltion for more than forty years.
I know what you said. Modern liberals are the opposite of classical liberals.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Wage flattening is a reality, not a canard. It is a subject that affects the economic reality of Americans. These days, workers are receiving less and less benefits. One reason is due to the number of workers who are considered temporary workers.
One of the few reasons why some workers have received more benefits is due to the efforts of unions and collective bargaining. BTW, fewer workers today belong to unions, and, as a result, they often have lower wages and fewer benefits.
Baculus 2 years ago
It is simply not true that compemsation and living standards have been declining (at least prior to this most recent government caused crisis and the verdict isn't in yet). The statement that workers are receiving less and less benefits is factually wrong and can be easily checked by looking at the compensation figures compiled by teh Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Unions, representing only a small fraction of American workers, have had little if any impact overall.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
During the 40s, a third of American workers belong to unions. Unions pushed for the 40-hour work week, 8-hour days, safety regulations, and many of the standards that American workers now enjoy.
If it were up to industrialists, we would have far fewer protections afford to American workers.
To say that unions had "little if any impact overall" is totally ignoring the history of American labor and its effect on the modern worker (even as union numbers have declined).
Baculus 2 years ago
During the 40s, America's greatest economic advancement was already behind us, unions were pushing for 40-hour weeks among those remaining companies that did not already offer it (often union companies who delayed offering it because unions had already demanded something else). The statement that industrialists would otherwise give fewer protections is propoganda without historical or factual basis.
To say that unions had little impact on the point made (with such low membership) is fact.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The debate's been fun but its family time. I will have to provide any further responses later.
Til then, be well.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Sounds good to me. Nice debating with you, and though it was contentious, thanks for keeping it civil.
Have a good night!
Baculus 2 years ago
And feel free to take the credit for the civility. While I try to remain so, sometimes I end up mirroring the individual to which I am responding (and you can imagine how that may do me no credit in the end).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Oh, I admit that it can be difficult to always be civil, but I do strive for that when possible. Also, sorry if I threw out a bunch of responses, but I am trying to get this all out before the start of the (Redskins) game!
Baculus 2 years ago
Unions certainly benefit their membership on the whole (except those with the least seniority when union wgae demands result in smaller workforces and more automation). This does not make them a boon to the economy as a whole (they are not) or anyone else since the pool of capital available for labor is largely stable.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, when America was booming,unions were an integral part of skilled industrial labor.
Baculus 2 years ago
Actually, the greatest period of relative economic growth in thsi country was from the mid 19th century until the very earliest 20th century before unions became much of a force in the economy.
You're not gonna win this one - the reason I am so familiar with Smith's position (and Jefferson's) and the (disastrous) impact of FDR on the economy is that my field (and my passion) has been economic history for the last quarter century.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Further, the gains that workers received were overwhelmingly provided by the private sector. It is no accident that, at one time, the ONLY stell mill in the country with an 8 hour day (and a hospital for emplyees and their families and a school offering engineering and metallurgy courses) was a non-union shop. The owners wished to attract the best workers (as all do) and they succeeded.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
BTW, if you want to know what the thing that has most greatly increased the ranks of the poor, it is the Welfare state as put in place in the 1930s. If you look at the number of people in poverty and the number only considered above the poverty line due to public assistance, it is far higher (even during the 1990s) than it had been running historically before the welfare state was created.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
You're being a bit disingenuous. It was the Great Depression that created the ranks of the poor after 1929. To blame the poor from the 30s on FDR is totally misleading. if anything, work programs put money into the hands of the unemployed.
The ranks of the poor greatly increased during this decade due to Bush policies. Fiscal policies that favor the rich while providing little rise in wages vs. inflation and cost of living increased the ranks of the poor.
Baculus 2 years ago
The Great Depression was one of the greatest examples of government failure (manipulation of the money supply and unit banking laws) in history. Hoover's attempt to bolster wage rates and FDR's New Deal managed to rpolog it for years. Work programs simply took money from productive endeavors to waste them on public do-work projects (that ultimately destroy jobs and continued efforts to hold up wage rates gave us the highest unemployment in history.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The crash in 1929 was caused by a number of factors, but to blame it solely on government while ignoring the private sector speculators who caused the crash is a complete white wash of history. You''re acting as if capitalists and private bankers had no part in this event.
FDR policies led to tangible results: The ranks of the unemployed fell and major, needed projects were built. Modern American was partially built at that time.
Baculus 2 years ago
The crash of 1929 was caused by the massive increase in the money supply diriing the 1920s. THAT is economic history. It was greatly exacerbated by unit banking laws and the Fed's massive tightening of credit just when banks were most in need. The "private sector speculaots" wer emphaticaly NOT a cause of the Great Depression according to any modern economic historian. Read "America's Great Depression" or "FDR's Folly" oe "A Monetary History of the United States" for an education.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The 1929 crash was a speculative bubble. The same sort of bubble we've seen in 1987 (which was a larger crash, during the Reagan years), It was a boom, fueled by marginal lending (and over-borrowing to fuel the stock purchasing), followed by a big crash.
Yes, the private speculators are the EXACT cause of the crash. After all, what do you think caused the bubble? What do you think caused the overreaching by the investors?
FDR wasn't even in office in 1929.
Baculus 2 years ago
The 1929 crash was an asset bubble created by the massive increase of the money supply by the Federal Reserve (t support the British pound as it happens). You are falling for an outdated position that confuses symptom with cause. Booms are created by the unsustainable feeding of cheap money into the economy by the central bank that must eventually collapse. The buildup in the 20s cased a couple of famous economists (including Nobel laureate Hayek) to predict the crash. It was a govt failure.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
FDR's policies led to tangible results: huge uncertainty that kept the economy in the doldrums, an INCREASE in unemployment (not a decrease - it had been falling before his policies were implemented and spiked again), and the Roosevelt Recession of 1937-8. Few, if any, "needed" projects were built and what public funds that were distributed went to those states most needed by the Democrats in the next election rather than where there was the greatest need. We now know FDR was an economic mess.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
After the policies were put in placed, leading up to WW2, the ONLY year that had an increase in unemployment was in 1938 when New Deal programs' funding was decreased due to GOP efforts. Otherwise, every single year from 1934 onwards had a decrease in the unemployed. This information is readily available.
From 1929, unemployment rose from 15%, to 25%, to over 35% BEFORE FDR,
The fact is, it took years, and really into the 1950s, before we recovered from the Great Depression.
Baculus 2 years ago
Your statement is factually wrong. The best figures for unemployment (as they were not captured as today) show continued unemployment increasses resulting from FDR's policies and the canard about a reduction of spending causing the 1937-8 recession suffers from the obvious problem that the downturn was already well underway before any such policies were undertaken.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
In actuual fact, the ranks of the poor DID NOT "greatly increase" in recent history. Bush's wrong headed modern liberal economic policies in his second term (cheap money, bailouts, unrestrained govt spending, increased govt such as with Medicare) have certainly done great harm to the economy and to the poor in particualr. Sadly, the only thing that Obama has done is massively increase these failed economic policies.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Americans in poverty rose during the Bush years. This was also true during the Reagan years, when the percentage of the poor also rose.
What was the commonality between them? Supply-side policies, which greatly benefited the upper class. For example, the $1.2 trillion bush tax cut exemplified the "trickle down" theory.
When our industrial base moves to foreign countries, when US workers have to compete with cheap foreign labor, you have a "race to the bottom" effect caused by Free Trade.
Baculus 2 years ago
This one requires a long response (bear with me) because it is inaccurate on many levels. First, the statement about the Reagan years is objectively inaccurate. Not only did the number and persentage of poor fall during the "decade of greed", but it was one of the few decades in which the poor got notably richer (according to the OMB, the IRS, and the Census Bureau).
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I will respond to each of your posts in kind.
I will give credit for one area: He pushed for the EIC, which was targeted towards the lower class. A program that, in today'w world, would be called "socialist" by the right since it is a negative tax. That being said, in a report from the late 80s, from the House Ways and Means Committee, stated that 1) the rich's wealthy increased two fold, and the gap between the classes widened. Otherwise, his programs were not aimed at helping the poor.
Baculus 2 years ago
I dodn't say that they were aimed at helping the poor (and the EIC, while good, is noty as good as a general lowering). I said that fewer people were in poverty and the poor got richer (that the gap increased has no relevance). As a result of the Reagan tax cuts, it is also important to note that the percentage of the tax burden paid by the rich jumped dramatically (as it did after the Bush tax cuts as well). It is pointless to aim tax cuts at the population that pays no taxes.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
It IS important that the gap between the rick and poor increased, because this shows the general disposition of the government.
When Thomas Jefferson visited France, he was appalled by the concentration of wealth, and said, "The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards."
He also said, ". . . the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind."
(Con't)
Baculus 2 years ago
The "gap" has nothing to do with the "disposition of givernment" particularly when the historical results of every governmental attempt ever made to address such a "gap" has been universally harmful particularly to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Jefferson was appalled by a system that created inequity by penalizing the workers and funneling capital to the rich. The free market doesn't do that - the rich do not get so under such a system at the expense of anyone else.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Jefferson also said, in the same letter from visit to France in 1785, said, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
A progressive tax, if you will.
He further said, "The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on."
This, BTW, was the view of early conservative socialists.
Baculus 2 years ago
This is why Jefferson, Smith, Locke, and other early thinkers, while purveying the idea of self-determination, politically and economically, they abhorred concentration of wealth and power. In spite of right-wing claims, Thomas Jefferson would despise their aims to consolidate wealth to the upper class, a class which, in many ways, resembles the nobility in France, and the concentration of power in corporations.
They would NOT support Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
Baculus 2 years ago
One last quote from Jefferson:"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
The right-wing believe that Jefferson supported any and all unfettered economic freedom. This is not true at all. What they opposed was concentration of power, which they saw in the royal crowns of Europe, which prevented people from owning the profits from their labor
Baculus 2 years ago
This is why the US has a burgeoning middle class, tremendous income mobility (neraly a third of the "poor" at any given time will eventually reach the top 20% and only a fraction will still be poor a mere 5-6 years later,
Jefferson opposed the the concentration of wealth and power BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE STATE - that is not in conflict with the concept of absolute economic liberty which is entirely consistent with Jefferson's views.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The entire issue with the 80s, the decade of greed, was the growing inequality gap between the top wealth holders and the lower class. And with reason, since tax cuts and capital gains cuts were geared towards that class, in addition to the military spending increased which favored the military industrial complex. Add to this the S&L scandal, which involved George W. Bush's brother, which was bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.
The social programs affected by all of this impacted the poor.
Baculus 2 years ago
Inequality is meaningless from any objective basis. It harms no one - what matters is the relative prosperity of the poor - which INCREASED. Yes, more was spent on the military (not that winning the Cold War - which was the result - was important). And the S&L crisis was the direct result of the Glass-Steagal provisions put in place under FDR - an interest rate ceiling on what S&Ls could pay coupled with long term mortgages - the crisis was that they were going bankrupt BEFORE deregulation.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
And the deregulation wasn't Reagan's - the package was built by Rep St. Germaine (D-FL). The social programs have been a disaster for the poor - increasing poverty, creating an entrenched underclass, etc. That such programs were "impacted" may well be the vest thing that ever happened to the poor ... until Clinton signed Welfare reform and the people taken off the dole overwhelmingly got employment and saw their conditions improve.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Second, you overestimate the impact of presidents. It is significant but not even the primary cause of recessions. That hobor goes to the Fed, whose monetary manipulations are most responsible for the current crisis - though Bush's policies (and by extension Obama's) are still in large part responsible for its svereity and ultimately duration as I'll come back to).
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Third, you highlight a common misreading of the data that is eaasily understood if you think about it. Presidents are not powerful Wizard Kings that can wave a magic wand on day one and alter the economy. While sopme policies have an almost immediate effect, fiscal economic policies take between 2 and 6 years to be fully realized. The conditions behid the double dip recession under Reagan and the first recession under Bush were already in place before they took office.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Incorrect. The Reagan recession was a direct result of his fiscal policies. it caused by Carter. When he cut taxes in 1982, this resulted in a budget shortfall, since he increased spending at the same time. Remember the 1980 election and the use of "voodoo economics"? Who do you think coined that term? His V.P.: George H.W. Bush.
The problem I see is that people ALWAYS want to try blaming Republican fiscal policies on Democrats, as if the GOP has no impact at all.
Baculus 2 years ago
The Reagna recession could not POSSIBLY have been the result of Reagan's fiscal policies. The timing makes it impossible. Stagflation and the initial recession was underway before he took office. The downturn that was to become the double dip was already underway by the time Reagn's first budget was fully implemented. Beyond that, federal budget shortfall's have never caused recessions (or they'd be perpetual). And Bush's inaccurate statement seems to be the only one remembered...
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I am not trying to blame Republican fiscal policies on Democrats, but the facts are as I have stated them; the timing doesn't work (as any reading of the leading economic indicators shows) and economically it is spending that harms the economy (on pretty much anything) not shortfalls due to lower taxes). As for Bush, the recession technically began BEFORE he took office - the beginning of two quarters of negative GDP growth began 1/1/01. Bush is much to blame for THIS crisis, not that one.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
With Reagan, his fiscal policies had an immediate impact. After all, that as their design: To increase the country's economy after the 70s and the economic crisis.
As far as Bush is concerned, yes, very, very late in Bush's term, the economy was slumping, and the tech-bubble was about to burst. That still does not provide cover for his $1.2 trillion tax cut (which was, of course, added to the national debt.)
While Republicans attack a trillion dollar health plan over TEN YEARS . . .
Baculus 2 years ago
The statement that Reagan's fiscal policies had an "immediate" impact is contrary to economic science (and actual history). What DID have an immediate impact - deregulation of oil prices - was beneficial as both gas lines and high gas prices disappeared.
Bush IS responsible for much of the policies that created this latest crisis but it was tax cuts or deficits but massive spending (on top of which Obama has already set in motion spending that will dwarf both of Bush's terms in a few years).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
And I attack the health plan because of the harm it does to the best health care on the planet (including from the perspective of access).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Fourth, the policies that Reagn adopted, primarilt working with Fed chairman Volcker to reign in the money supply, deregulating prices and markets (which gave us cheaper gas for 20 years and tax cuts for Americans that almost (though not quite) paid for themselves, resulted in a 20 year period of prosperity interrupted briefly only by the economic impact on the world economy of the invasion of Kuwait.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, I disagree. The Reagan "revolution" had questionable long term results. What did we have during his terms in office?
1. A tax increase after a tax break.
2. A stock market crash in 1987. ("Black Monday.")
3. One of the largest scandals in U.S. history, i.e., the Savings and Loan scandals, caused by deregulation (which was bi-partisan to a degree).
4. An increase deficit and debt.
The 90's economic boom were due to a number of policies, some of which were attacked by the GOP.
Baculus 2 years ago
1. A tax increase (to prevent the earlier insolvecy of SS) much smaller than the tax cut
2. A sock market crash resulting from a Fed-induced asset bubble that did not undermine the steady economic improvemnet
3. A savings & loan scandal created by wrong-headed government policies more than 40 years old
4. an increase in deficit and debt despite a trippling of tax revenues as every year Congress passed larger budgets than the White House requested.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
1. The tax breaks were direct Reagan supply-side, trickle-down policies. It had nothing to do with SS.
2. Like the 1929 crash, the 1987 crash was caused by speculators. The Fed is an enabler, but the don't create investor bubbles. The investors do.
3. The Savings and Loans scandal was caused by 1) outright theft and fraud, representative of the entire decade, and 2) deregulation enacted during the 80s.
4. The increased in deficit was partially caused by an increased military budget.
Baculus 2 years ago
1. The tax HIKE was SS.
2. It is a common economic fallacy to confuse SYMPTOM with CAUSE. The asset bubble that causes the speculation comes into being by Fed expansion of the money suppy - look up Austrian Business Cycle Theory)
3. The S&Ls wre going bankrupt due to New Deal policies. That is why they sought deregulation. Again you confuse symptom with cause.
5. Yes, the increased deficit was partially due to increased military spending, but not mostly...
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
1, No, the tax hike was NOT SS. It was due to a shortfall in federal receipts. Why? Because Reagan decreased receipts while increasing spending. It is the reason why we had a deficit after he was in office. It is the the same economic tactics used by Bush, when Cheney said that "deficits don't matter."
2. The expansion of money supply still does NOT abstain responsibility to the investors. As I said, the Fed are enablers. You still have to blame the junky for their problem.
Baculus 2 years ago
One last, yes, the tax hike WAS for social security as is easily checked (not a revenue shortfall). And I didn't absolve anyone for responsibility for their investments. The fact remains that the malinvestments that took place do not occur unless the risk signals in the marketplace are distorted by the increase in the money supply. THAT is the casue; the malinvestments are a symptom.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
(Con't)
4. Dude. Seriously. The S&L scandal has NOTHING to do with the New Deal: You REALLY need to read about this scandal. Deregulation was one of the PRIME reasons for this crisis and it is also a reason why there was an economic slump in 90-91.
The symptoms were issues such as the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Nothing, not a thing, related to the New Deal from decades earlier.
Baculus 2 years ago
How the New Deal caused the S&L crisis: Contrary to popular belief, fraud and imprudent lending practices played only a very small part. The problem stems from the artificial distinctions between S&Ls, commercial banks and insurance companies put in place in the wake of the Great Depression. The US is the only nation to create such distinctions and their lack has never harmed their economies. S&Ls were given a very restricted role offering mortgages based upon savings deposits.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
This creates an enormous problem as mortgages are very long term (illiquid) instruments and savings deposits can be removed on demand and offer savers a very low return, particularly since the law placed a ceiling on how much could be offered. So long as market interest rates remained low enough that the cap didnt interfere with their ability to retain deposits, the system only experienced periodic problems. But the market doesnt care about such caps.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
By the 70s, S&Ls had been requesting deregulation for years as higher interest rates were steadily drained their deposits. They couldnt even offer CDs that, at least, could better support long term lending. While no taxpayer money had yet been lost, the crisis was already well under way. By the beginning of 1979, with high interest rates in the marketplace well over half of the capital in the industry was gone and the whole industry was facing serious net worth problems.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
With S&L failures already occurring at a rapidly increasing rate, the pleas for intervention were finally heard, but by the time the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act was passed in March, 1980, to address these asset-liability management problems inherent in the thrift portfolio structure, the industry as a whole was already insolvent. Worse, by trying to deregulate gradually, the underlying problems were still largely unaddressed.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
By the time the Garn-St. Germain bill was passed in 1982, inevitable losses already far outstripped any existing insurance. A significant minority of S&L managers in a damned if you do, damned if you dont situation took riskier chances on higher return instruments in hopes that these returns would restore solvency and allow them to survive, but that would only have worked if the housing boom continued (and that had only occurred due to Fed policies that had already been reversed).
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
A tiny minority (that got most of the press Lincoln, Silverado, etc.) abandoned all pretense of caring about solvency and attempted to make as much as they could as quickly as they could without regard for depositors, shareholders or insurers. In all, more than half a trillion in capital was lost since the early 1970s, more than half before any deregulation occurred. The bill to taxpayers, only a tiny portion of which was due to fraud or mismanagement, came to about $125 billion.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
No causal or contributory link has ever been established between the crisis and the 1991 recession (in no small part because the timing is radically off and fits almost exactly to the timing of the invasion of Kuwait). And the losses due to fraud and mismanagement PALE before the losses related to regulations that stemmed from New Deal era regulations that never served any beneficial purpose anyway.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I am going to be blunt in this response, since your responses are puzzling. It seems like all of your responses are formed around a few points:
1. Reagan was not responsible for anything negative, only positives.
2. The government is responsible for everything bad. The private sector is all good.
3. Speculators are not responsible for any bubbles created by their investments. That's all government.
4. All productivity aimed at the wealthy, upper class is good.
You certainly aren't a populist!
Baculus 2 years ago
1. Iran contra, etc., sure, economically, only the spending increases he specifically requested are subject to economic criticism
2. Government intervention in the economy is unersally bad, has never improved the lives of anyone and has harmed millions
3. Speculators are responsible for their own actions, but they do not magically become greedy - the govt increased supply of money alters the market signals that make such behavior happen
4. ALL productivity is good
I'm an economist.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
1. You have yet to criticize anything Reagan has done. So far, you have blamed all his problems on anyone but him. You even tried to blame the S&L crises on FDR, which is, frankly, mind-blowing.
2. Government intervention is not universally bad. I reject that. I USED To be an anarcho-capitalist, like you, but it is obvious that industry can and will do bad. They will exploit workers, their political connections, and policy for their advantage. Look at the 1800s, for example.
Baculus 2 years ago
Please describe one example of governmental economic intervention that was NOT all bad. Businesses cannot "exploit" workers in a free market and the existence of political connections stems from the government's ability to play favorites. It is a givernmental failure.
The 1800s bolster my point - the railroads were govt granted monopolies and Standard Oil, excoriated for being a monopoly, offered lower prices and a better product (kerosene) due to innovation. They did not harm consumers.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
All productivity is not good. Productivity by slave labor is not good. Productivity by coercion is not good. Productivity by exploitation is not good nor morale.
I disagree with the need to fetishize business and productivity. Every Jefferson and Adam Smith, with their support for free enterprise, would disagree with you.
Productivity for productivity sake's is NOT ideal. This country was not designed to be am oligarchy or a plutocracy.
Baculus 2 years ago
Yes, all economic productivity is good. You must understand that slavery (coercion of labor) is COUNTER-productive. History shows clearly that slavery is a net economic drain (one of the reasons the South lost the war). Capitalist productivity the free market is never exploitive and is always beneficial. It is not for productivitys sake but for the sake of meeting the needs and wants of society and results in neither oligarchy or plutocracy.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
The '90s economic boom was a continuation of the earlier trend. The economy was already on a strong growth track for more than a year before Clinton took office and, in the wake of the largest tax increase in American history growth SLOWED to its weakest post recession pace in history. Further, the White Hose never predicted deficits below $199 billion in any year until that continued economic growth caused them to appear.
Don't believe that tax hikes have EVER resulted in an economic boom.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Actually, the economy had a drop at the end of the 80s, during George H.W Bush's term. And some felt that the country was already going to feel a "hangover" from the Reagan years. (Similiar to what we saw from the 20s, and the resulting 1929 stock market crash).
Yes, after Clinton's tax hikes, we had the LONGEST peace time economic boom in US history. Remember, during the Eisenhower years, the top-rate tax rate was at 91% (or so), when the country was still very productive.
Baculus 2 years ago 7
Actually, the economy did not have a drop until the early 1990s and corresponded directly with the uncertainty in worldwide oil markets in the wake of the invasion of Kuwait. The "hangover" canard never had any basis in reality of any kind and no economist (even those critical of Reagan) takes it at al seriously: it's pure nonsense.
The 1929 stock market crash was a direct result of an asset bubble created by Fed manipulation of the money supply (just as was this one).
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
It would seem that, to you, everything is a "canard." Everything I have described are actual realities. Just because you do not agree or believe in it does not mean they are "canards."
Reagan apologists always want to juggle and obfuscate in their cult of Reagan personality.
The Fed did NOT create the asset bubble. Are you an investor? Why are so beholden and determined to avoid assigning any responsibility to the investors? It is almost a fetish with you.
Baculus 2 years ago
The Clinton tax hikes created the longest peacetime economic boom is still another canard. Not only must one include the period before Clinton took office to make that case (and you can't), GDP growth slowed in the wake of the tax hikes and had capital gains taxes not been cut the recession may have begun as early as 1998 (the leading economic indicators were already in freefall).
In the 50s, the economy experienced slow growth and two deep recessions - the success of the 50s is a myth.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
"There you go again," as Reagan would say.
"Reagan economic issues" -- everyone else's fault.
"Clinton peacetime economic boom" -- a "canard."
I am going to simply start saying random stuff, just to see if you will come with an TOTALLY OPPOSITE viewpoint of "it's a canard. A myth."
To you (1) the 50s had no economic boom. 2) the 90s had no economic boom. 3) everything was wonderful during both the 80s and 90s . . as long as it benefits the wealthy.
Baculus 2 years ago
Clinton deserves credit for not increasing spending still further, enacting welfare reform, cutting capital gains taxes and ending the economic train wreck that wa Hillary-care. That the tax increase disastrously pushed the total tax burden above 20% of GDP is a fact. I am not a Reagan apologist or a Clinton basher. I can defend my analysis of ANY specific policy and its impact on the economy. Tax hikes do not yield economic benefits - ever - under any circumstances.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
I am going to finish watching this game, but will talk to you later. :-) Good debate, once again.
Baculus 2 years ago
@Baculus O.O I wonder how 91% would work today. Explain please?
guydudeasian 10 months ago
@Baculus That has nothing to do with the tax rates. It has to do with the dot com boom.
whothaplaya 4 months ago
Similarly, the tax cuts passed in Bush's first term to address a recession that, by traditional measurement, began before he took office, helped speed recovery. Were it not for HIS free money policy (letting the Fed flood the economy), his unrestrained spending, his encouragement of the manipulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and such demand side policies as "stimulus packages and bailouts, recession might well have been avoided entirely. Sadly, Obama has adopted all of these policies.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
His tax cuts saddled the country with an extra debt, a debt which the average Americans will have to pay after receiving their measly $400 check. How much did the average wealthy (upper 5%) receive? $7,000.
And the the poor-rich gap widened further.
As I said before, the GOP is attacking a ten year, trillion dollar health care plan. (Which means it costs a $100 billion a year.) Meanwhile, they supported a $1.2 trillion tax cut -- how does that make sense?
Baculus 2 years ago
The size of the tax cuts under Bush were microscopic in comparison to the impact of unrestrained spending (and don't confuse actual tax cuts with rebates - only the former do any economic good at all as even Clinton's economists told him). Again, the attempt to make it about what those nasty rich got is a waste of effort. All that ever matters is the relative change in condition for those you wish to help - and after the Bush tax cuts, the percentage paid by the bottom 50% fell again.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
A $1.2 trillion dollar bill is not microscopic. It is hypocritical.
We spent a trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GOP had no trouble with this fact. The Democrats, like Ted Kennedy, want to spend a trillion dollars HERE in this country, over ten years, on health care, and they are called communists?
Apparently spending money on the rich and the military industrial complex is patriotic, and health care for US citizens is evil and bad.
And we stlll spend a half-billion a year on the DoD.
Baculus 2 years ago
The $1.2 trillion dollar bill is not the rsult of tax cuts; it is the result overwhelmingly of spending (and is over a time span that makes the number not more than an estimate). The spending in Iraq and Afghanistan helps bolster this very point. Again, I am not defending Bush - merely pointing out which policies are ACTUALLy harful (spending) and which are not (tax cuts). Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm a knee-jerk Republican; I'm an economist and researcher.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
We face no crisis as a result of "our industrial base moving to foreign countries". First of all, it isn't happening - industrial output has been steadily and ceaselessly rising, only employment in that sector has fallen (as it has in every industrialized country in the world, including China). This is because the nature of modern economies is undergoing the same kind of change as when it evolved from an agricultural to an industrial basis.
(cont.)
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Far from harming US workers, "outsourcing" has been a boon to the US economy. Not only does it result in cheaper goods for consumers and increase economic efficiencies which create jobs, but the open border policy that allows outsourcing to happen results in more and higher paying jobs being INsourced into the US. Attempts such as the steel tariffs, do nothing but harm, ultinately not "saving" a single job but costing thousands of jobs in industries using finished steel.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Back in 1992, Ross Perot talked about "that sucking sound" of U.S. industrial jobs being lost. And he was totally correct. It has even increased since that time. That is why Detroit has been impacted. That is why the Rush Belt has lost so many jobs. That is why union rolls have fallen, because we have lost so many blue-collar industrial jobs.
Free Trade has NOT been good for Americans. It has been good for cheap goods and foreign jobs. That is why we have trade imbalance.
Baculus 2 years ago
Ross Perot is not a reliable source of information and he has been PROVEN to be totally and completely wrong. Not only was the jobs impact of NAFTA so small that it can't be determined if their were real gains or losses, but every year, again, more jobs are INsourced into the US than are outsourced.
Detroit was impacted because the UAW priced their membership out of the marketplace. While that IS why nion rolls have fallen, they have no one to blame but themselves.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
This information can be researched. In 2003, it was reported that nearly 900,000 jobs, 879,280, at that time, were lost due to NAFTA.
This is not a small drop.
Further, as a result, here is the largest issues, wages have also been suppressed. Why would workers earn more pay when they are competing with lower paid workers? The failure for wages to rise during this decade has been a major issue. Meanwhile, once again, the income gap increases.
Baculus 2 years ago
By 2006, several studies had indicated that the initial estimates were grossly overstated and that the actual impact was less than 50,000 jobs either way.
Wgaes have not been suppressed as a result (quite the opposite) largely because of increased opportunities and the fact that US workers are still generally better educated, require less training and are closer to consumers.
Meanwhile, once again, the income gap is meaningless.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Here, you are saying that the UAW "priced their way" out of the marketplace. This is the typical right-wing attitude that is puzzling (and untrue, BTW).
Tax breaks for the wealthy? Good. Sending jobs overseas to the detriment of the US worker. Good. The UAW trying to secure higher wages for their workers? EVIL UNIONS.
It is an attitude that is completely anti-worker. Everything for the rich, trickle down breadcrumbs for the workers.
Baculus 2 years ago
It isn't a right wing attitue. It's an inescapable conclusion. Union workers in Flint, Michigan were earning more than 50% over the market wage paid elsewhere and were demanding more, The company had to write off a huge plant infrastructure, pay far higher unemployment premiums, build new facilities and hire and train a new workforce. Is it rational to believe that they would incur those costs if the cost imposed on them by the unions was not so high? Of course not.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
Tax breaks for companies create jobs for workers. Allowing outsourcing to take place creates more and better paying jobs for employees. Those are entirely factual and PRO worker reasons to support them.
I actually have no problem with unions, as such, and people should have the right to band together whenever they wish. It is only when government gives them a monopoly that they can engage in suh brinkmanshio and ultimnately harm the workers they represent.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago