Is there anything that he has done...Follow

There are degrees of "hands off" though.

Jefferson wrote at length about the problems of slavery, yet he owned slaves. He was a product of his time, but he had the forethought to realize that things might change in the future.

The writers of the Consitution, as a group, realized the same thing. They knew what they thought was the "best" way to run a country, but they also had the foresight to realize that they were a product of their time, and that what they thought was "best" might not be seen that way by future generations.

The Constitution contains within it the legal process to change it. And we've done so many times since then. That's not lawlessness, that's the process of law adapting to the change of time. That's a good thing.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find even a tiny percentage of the population today that thinks that the oligarchy envisioned by the founders would be the "best" way to run the US. The founders realized that the "best" system of government is the one that meets the requirements of the people the majority of the time. Not one in which the rules are written in stone and can never be changed. Since what people expect from a government changes over time, by necessity, the government must change as well. That's the real beauty of the US constitution.


Whether you individually agree or not, the laws we have today are the representation of what "We, the People" want. Not just what a small number of people 225 years ago thought we should have.


As to Libertarianism. I'll admit, there's a certain draw to it. However, there are some pretty serious flaws as well. First, there's the problems of inconsistency. Laws would change dramatically from region to region. After all, without a strong central government, you don't have anyway of enforcing or even establishing common laws across the states (or even within a state if you extend that to the state level). You don't have a common currency. You don't have things like public education (which I'll agree is less then ideal, but better then nothing). You don't have interstate highway systems. You don't have international trade.


It's really easy to start out thinking: "Gee. Each person should just be responsible for themselves". But once you start thinking about what happens when *everyone* is responsible for just themselves, you do start running into problems. The list of things you lose (yes, even people who think they are relatively self sufficient) under a fully Libertarian type system is vast. I really don't see how anyone who thinks the proces through can actually believe it's a better way of doing things. But that's just me...

Um... Did you even read the article?

First off. The date is 2002. They're talking about a reduction in manufacturing and exports from 2 years ago (ok, one full cycle).

Also, we were in the midst of an economic "slump" at that time. And not just us. You'll note this bit:



Let me read between the lines here. US consumers have more money to spend on imported products then consumers in other countries.

You're also ignoring the fact that the reason the numbers are so sharp is because of a dock worker strike that held up both imports and exports until (wait for it!) President Bush stepped in and got things going again.

Oh. And you missed this when readin the article apparently:



Wow! Look at that! Could that maybe explain the reduction in taxes and increase in spending?

Here's an exrtra credit assignment for you. Find the 2003 numbers for manufacturing in the US and compare to the 2002 numbers. Then let us know if you think Bush "did nothing".

Well there you go then. Disaster averted. You can all go back to your comfy lives now, safe in the knowledge that GWB is on the job (yeah. I do mean that tounge in cheek).

Whatever. Look at the economy as a whole between 2002 and 2003. Look at total production, not just one area. The big picture does show a recovery occuring in the last year, when we were looking at recession 2 years ago. Now maybe ol Bush had nothing at all to do with it. Maybe businesses would have started making more stuff and people would have started buying more stuff anyway.

But if that's the case, then why bother pointing fingers in the first place? It's amazing to me that people will firmly place the blame on Bush's administration for causing the economic problems of 2001 and 2002 (I'll point out that the article pretty much spells out the position that the economy was sliding back in 200 though), yet they'll give not an inch of credit for the fact (yes, the fact!), that the economy has gone through a pretty dramatic turnaround in 2003.


Heh. But that's what partisan politics is all about. I'm a Republican. I am one primarily because I believe that the economic strategies of the Republican party are better for our country in the long run then the Democrat strategies. But that's just my opinion. If you want my honest assessment of the men who've served as President for the past two administrations, here you go:


Clinton is a very intelligent person. He was actually a very good president. Unfortunately, his intelligence and qualities were marred by the mere fact that by being a democrat, his handlers and supporters required a democrat agenda from him. Heh. But that's just my opinion.

Bush is a complete and utter moron. However, despite that, his handlers and supporters are managing to push through an agenda that I agree with (at least economically). Since we're all starting from our own personal positions on the issue, I, being a republican, believe that Bush is better for the country, even if all he does is stand there while someone else puts their hand up his butt and works his mouth, then Clinton was.


I'm, of course, biased. :)

The way I look at things is this:

The "bad side" of the Dem party is the folks like Smash, who actively desire to crush our economy by taking as much from those who generate our prosperity as possible, while saddling us with mounds of entitlement in some vain attempt to make an inherenty unfair world "fair".

The "bad side" of the Rep party is the Religious Right nutballs who want to turn the US into their own personal religious church, complete with inquisition for those who don't toe the religous line.

IMHO. It is vastly easier to spot and stop the Religious nutballs then the dangerous Dem spenders. After all, you can usually get everyone in the country in an uproar about things like Gay marriage, removing the word Evolution from schools, and legistlating the value of PI to 3. Heck. All we need to is read the reactions and debate on the issues when the appear in this forum to see that this is true.

However, it's a heck of a lot harder to get a goodly percentage of the population to choose not to give entitlement. It seems like the "good" thing to do, right? After all, you can always find some knee-jerk, heartstring pulling reason why we absolutely must spend a bit more each year helping out one poor downtrodden group of people or another. It's an extremely slipperly slope. It's hard to spot when you've crossed the line. Heck. No one can agree where the "line" should be. Comparing anectdotally to thie forum, topics on the issue tend to be arguments from a few people who care one way or another, and a whole bunch of people complaining that it's a "boring" topic, or "white noise" that makes no sense and doesn't matter. It's for those very reasons that this is by far the more danagerous issue of the two. It's also (IMO) far more likely to hurt us in the log run then the Religius Right.


And that's why I'm a republican. I'm pretty strongly opposed to the religious right *and* to Dem tax/entitlement ideas. Having no party that explicitly covers both of those (and as I stated earlier, feeling that the Libertarians just fail worse on both), I've chosen to oppose the party that I feel has the "bad side" that is most likely to actualy be dangerous.

Um... Thus. I'd rather have a total idiot in office who is a Rep, then a total genius who is a Dem. Not out of respect for the person, but knowing that the personage of the president has only a very small amount to do with what policies get carried out. It's the party machinery behind that president that ultimately determines the agenda. I'm willing to accept the risk of the religious right and trust that "the people" will reject the silliness they may attempt to foist on them. I have no faith that those same people will reject the equally silly economic ideals of the Dems. It's just a matter of reducing the chances that something truely stupid will occur...

Gbaji-
Trust not in the fiscal sanity of the Bush team. They fudge numbers when it suits them and will deny plain reality in the face of consistent science. This "dumb republican" you seem to prefer over any democrat is not just a red meat tax cutter, which appeals to your own brand fiscal conservative. He is also and outlandish spender.

There is a lot of money being wasted, debt we are passing to our children. I am aware that you believe that running a deficit is either tolerable or good, but for how long? 10 years? 20 years? Just about all of the Bush teams economic forcasts have fallen short. Throughout 2003 they would realease steadily raising forcasts for the deficit, all of them ommiting the cost of the war in Iraq. Now Bush wants me to believe that if we follow his economic model that by 2010 the deficit will be cut in half.

How?

By making his taxcuts permanent? ARE YOU INSANE? I thought we proved in the last century that trickle down economics are a sham. As a matter of fact it doesn't work, and everyone knows it except the politically abstinent and the many blind and deaf voters who buy into single issue stances, like abortion or the war on terror. What thethese red meat voters don't realize is that this is all a setup. We are purposely bankrupting the federal government so we can kill social security.

Reread that last sentence. It is happening already. I assume you know this already, this starve the beast formula that is working all too well. But never, in any one of your volumnous writing can I remember reading you mention this at all. Which leads me to two assumptions:

1. You are a true believer in the economic voodoo you spew.
2. You are being dishonest in your posts by citing the benefits of trickle down economy.

Your blind deaf one-issue voters will wake up if they lose their social security. I don't want that for my parents, who have paid into social security since they were 18 and are now looking to retire. Social security is not a tax, it is an investment, a promise that will be broken with terrible consequences in the next 20 years.

I hope you like your tax cut.



Edited, Sun Feb 29 04:53:21 2004 by Meadros

You misinterpreted what I said. I have no problems with any of the ammendments. I do have a problem with any government agency that wasn't written into the Constitution. I have a problem with the way the "general welfare" clause has been reinterpreted to include almost anything. I have a problem with the reinterpreting of the clause pertaining to the "regulation of trade among the states" to include anything that is produced, manufactured, grown, etc...



Not true, you would have more international trade. Libertarians believe in the right of people to make their own choices on who to sell to or buy from regardless of that particular country's politics.



You do realize that the states were originally intended to operate as a "free market" in government? As long as they follow the US Constitution as well as their own constitution they should be able to make whatever laws they want. This would give the people the freedom to choose to live in the state that best meets their needs.



It would be an advancement in our society if every person was at least responsible for themselves. The way it is now you can always blame government, big business, the rich, the people on welfare, McDonalds for making their coffee too hot, your neighbor for having a pool without a fence around it to prevent your five year old child who isn't being properly supervised from falling into it, etc...



Note that it says nothing about manufacturing jobs moving from this country to other countries. That is what we were debating and what I refuted.



His tax cuts are just the tip of the iceberg. They don't go nearly far enough. Our goverment is too large by at least a factor of ten. Less government services, most of which are grossly inefficient and lacking in fiscal responsibilty, and more money in everyone's pocket would give us a stronger, more vibrant economy.



Social security is a sham. It is a pyramid scheme where for every person who collects there are three workers supporting him. In twenty years it will be 2.25 workers for each retiree. It is a tax and an entitlement. There is no guarantee made by the government that by paying into it you will get anything from it. This was already decided on by the Supreme Court. And to call it an investment is a stretch as well. I would expect any investment to have a better rate of return than a simple savings account.



A balanced budget /= a sound economy. However, if you want to be more accurate we should be looking at defecits during economic downturns and surpluses during economic booms. The only way we will ever achieve this is through cutting government and government spending drastically. Increased taxes will only make our economy less efficient causing bigger defecits and more debt.

Everything you have said to this point is conjecture, Meadros. Social security is still paying out, and unless your mom and dad are still in their teens, they are in all likelihood to receive whatever benefits they have coming to them. So take a breath, let that bulging vein on your forehead subside, and look a wee bit more objectively at the golden years of your beleaguered parents.

If social security is what they had counted on to get them through their incontinent years with oodles and piles of money to purchase Depends and Sea-bond denture creme, I'm sad to say we will likely see them selling matchsticks on streetcorners, ala ******* in Oliver Twist. Please tell me that this is not the extent of their retirement plan? Any bluehair worth their rapidly dwindling value to society should have placed something away above and beyond just what was forcibly taken out by Unca' Sam. If not, maybe Soylent Green is a workable solution and your folks should be the first to volunteer for the feeding vats?

Totem

Totem-
I think you missed my point, which is that supply side economics is the nice face put on so voters will unknowingly back the bankrupting of the federal government. Bush can't come out and say "We want to dismantle social security" so instead he touts the false benefits of supply side economics while pushing this agenda. If he admitid his true intentions he'd be thrown out of office. So instead, Greenspan comes out and basically admits that is what is happening and Bush feigns surprise.

I am not really worried about my parents, they are really smart people who have seen this coming. But there are millions who will not be able to retire without those benefits who back this agenda because they trust Bush has their best intentions in mind. He does not.


Dyzalot-
We agree that social security is a repressive tax, but it is also an entitlement earned. I get a letter every few yeas that tells me how much I am entitled to when I retire. Is it not impossible to make SS a less regressive tax and keep the entitlement program? I believe so, but not by making Bush's tax cuts permanent.

Agrees heartily with Meadros.

Gbaji is a voodoo economist and cant seem to own up to it. Trickle down economics to give to the wealthy doesnt work, they keep the money and spend it outside the United States over and over again. If you instead take that same money and food the roots, then those people spend the money in the US and create new markets for bussiness' to capitalize on. (FYI gbaji the request was for an article that proves we are losing in manufacturing, not who was at fault. Did you really even read the f%^king question? and yes Smash is right that is when Bush decided to reclassify people who "manufacture" hamburgers)

Dyzalot asks for proof without opening his eyes. Levi Strauss 3 weeks ago closed its last 3 US manufacturing plants they could no longer keep up with their competitors who were manufacturing overseas. American automobile companies now manufacture less of their product in the United States then Toyota and Honda. Maybe you should read some books like "Animal Farm" or reaserch some decisions like the Ford Pinto and see what big bussiness does when left to its own greedy goodness. Its simple really why are so many saying they used to make more? Why are the two Dem front runners hounding "Jobs" so successfully? Why is Bush ignoring the issue to focus on Gay Marriage? Its really easy open your eyes and look at more of the Internet then the libretarian websites.

I recently bought Sean Hannity's new book and plan on buying James Carville's new one as well. Open your eyes read what both sides have to say and make your own decision. However if you just focus on Libretarian/Republican discourse you will hear only what you want to and never be challegened to make your own decisions.

I'd say the proof is in the pudding.


Edited, Sun Feb 29 21:55:16 2004 by Meadros

That is the quote I responded to originally in regards to "lost manufacturing jobs" The next quote was my challenge.



I have yet to see any evidence that manufacturing jobs have left here for another country. Sure, you can show me we have less manufacturing jobs than we did 20 years ago. So what? So does the rest of the world. Can you show me which countries our lost manufacturing jobs went to?

The main problem I see with the Dems' job frenzy is the fact that they don't seem to have any answers either. They flame Bush for the state of the economy, yet provide no solutions themselves. As soon as the Dems cough up some plans for how they are going to fix this "economic disaster" that Bush is "responsible" for, then they can start beating him up on the issue.

gbaji, I love that voodoo that you do.

You guys are incredible. I agree that we have less manufacturing jobs now than we did 20, 10, 5 or even 2 years ago. That is not the argument. For the last time...