Thomas Jefferson...a Visionary - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

450slcguy · #31 03-03-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

I agree.

X2. If your gonna talk the talk, then walk the walk.

A264172 · #32 03-03-2009, 01:59 PM

"A man who tries to carry a cat home by its tail will learn a lesson that can be learned in no other way," -Mark Twain

Pooka · #33 03-03-2009, 03:50 PM

According to the University of Virginia's databse on Jefferson quotes, quote #3 and #8 are the only quotes from Jetterson that are listed here.

The rest are not. They were obiviously said by someone, but that someone was not Jefferson.

Who, and why, would someone do such a thing as put words in Jefferson's mouth?

A264172 · #34 03-03-2009, 04:17 PM

We shall seize control of this nation as we have seized our two dollar whores on evening last- JP Morgan (dubious)

MS Fowler · #35 03-03-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I certainly don't think Jefferson was a man of our times, he was a man of his own times, and in his time, his ideas were radical, in fact, the most radical of his day. Do you deny that?

Yes, his ideas were radical. That does not mean that he was radical in the same way that President Obama is radical. I believe Jefferson would be appalled at the reach of the federal government, and the reduction in personal liberty.

A264172 · #36 03-03-2009, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Yes, his ideas were radical. That does not mean that he was radical in the same way that President Obama is radical. I believe Jefferson would be appalled at the reach of the federal government, and the reduction in personal liberty.

In Jefferson's day, he was 'appalled' by the reach of an overseas government, and the power of the wealthy and religious to enforce their benefits over him. He felt his colony could do a better job at setting the laws than his rulers had done. But his solutions were rooted in the nature his world. A world that was different than the world of today, or surely he would have addressed the structure ours more directly. There was also plenty left unfinished in the paradigm they laid out. A lot of the roles filled by government today aren't unique to America, and grew up around the world over the 19th century. These are the nature of the world we confront today. I wonder how he would structure his freedoms in light of them.

JollyRoger · #37 03-03-2009, 05:39 PM

I think there are things that would appall him on both sides. The GOP's cavalier attitude towards attacking another country would have caused him great consternation, and he would have been outraged by the memo published yesterday in which Bush claimed he could simply ignore the Bill of Rights. The federalization of the country being done by the Democrats would have given him fits. There is plenty to go around. But the idea that the American Revolution was carried out by a bunch of Gingrich conservatives is ludicrous, these men were the far-left radicals of their time, the mere idea that a society could exist without an aristocracy or a national religion was unthinkable to the conservatives of the day, and the idea that all men were created equal was unimaginable. I would think that if the same men were born into this world as babes, they would grow up to be more on my side of the fence than yours, because, what they hated most of all, was the status quo.

JollyRoger · #38 03-03-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

In Jefferson's day, he was 'appalled' by the reach of an overseas government, and the power of the wealthy and religious to enforce their benefits over him. He felt his colony could do a better job at setting the laws than his rulers had done. But his solutions were rooted in the nature his world. A world that was different than the world of today, or surely he would have addressed the structure ours more directly. There was also plenty left unfinished in the paradigm they laid out. A lot of the roles filled by government today aren't unique to America, and grew up around the world over the 19th century. These are the nature of the world we confront today. I wonder how he would structure his freedoms in light of them.

Jefferson felt he was building an "engine of Democracy", that as time went on, the Constitution would expand human rights to ever and greater groups and populations, and that rights would be defined ever and ever more expansively. Of all the Founding Fathers, this view of his most clearly parallels what actually happened to us, in the Civil War, in the Civil Rights Era, and now among the trans-gender people, that is what the US has been about, an ever-increasing realization that All Men Are Created Equal. It is what makes him one of the three or four great giants of humankind.

A264172 · #39 03-03-2009, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Jefferson felt he was building an "engine of Democracy", that as time went on, the Constitution would expand human rights to ever and greater groups and populations, and that rights would be defined ever and ever more expansively. Of all the Founding Fathers, this view of his most clearly parallels what actually happened to us, in the Civil War, in the Civil Rights Era, and now among the trans-gender people, that is what the US has been about, an ever-increasing realization that All Men Are Created Equal. It is what makes him one of the three or four great giants of humankind.

True. But that shouldn't overshadow the point you made about his probable revulsion at the federalization of power. There is a monstrous machine of government in the U.S. that resembles the one he tried to overthrow on many levels. Yet he clearly believed the federal government had to be the ultimate guarantee of the rights of citizens. It's a contradiction that stems from the susceptibility of democratic processes to influence by the other powerful forces in a society. They cannot be shaken by a declaration of values. A king can give equality and citizenship to any in his domain, but there is nothing to prevent his grandson from seizing it back as the worm turns. Jefferson meant for power to be kept by the people and by the states, and it has been 'to less than a bare minimum' as the circle expands to include more who are free to be controlled by the liberal and conservative forces of the day, till when all men are finally equal, and there will be a new name for oppression.

Not that he could have succeeded, as that is a job for the ages.

Botnst · #40 03-03-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Jefferson felt he was building an "engine of Democracy", that as time went on, the Constitution would expand human rights to ever and greater groups and populations, and that rights would be defined ever and ever more expansively. Of all the Founding Fathers, this view of his most clearly parallels what actually happened to us, in the Civil War, in the Civil Rights Era, and now among the trans-gender people, that is what the US has been about, an ever-increasing realization that All Men Are Created Equal. It is what makes him one of the three or four great giants of humankind.

I see you couldn't answer my previous question so I'll give you an easier one.

Which founder was more in line with the current statist philosophy of the major parties, Hamilton or Jefferson?

mplafleur · #41 03-03-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

You completely missed the point. Think again, "dark meat".

I got it the first time. I ignored your meaning.

sheeesh

mplafleur · #42 03-03-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Tax cuts must be matched by spending cuts, if they are not, as has been brutally proven by George Bush, the government must borrow the money to make up the difference, resulting in a distorted and unstable economy that will eventually collapse, because in essence, you are creating wealth that simply does not exist - tax cuts financed by borrowed money is the same as just printing more money to expand an economy. The government the people desire, which is what has created our current entitlement state, must be paid for by taxes, or the entitilements ended.

Good. Let's end the entitlements. They're illegal anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

You Republicans simply would not do either, you had the votes to end the entitlement state, yet were afraid doing so would cost you votes, so instead, you just concocted a plan to hand the people who financed your campaign lots of free money, instead of handing them the responsibility to pay for the government, and you borrowed the money to maintain the entitlement state you were supposedly against. In essence, Republicans refused to finance The State, and because you could not do so, the public removed you from government. Well, Democrats will finance The State. If there is no public will to end the entitlement state, we will find the means to pay for it, it is that simple, and it will result in a better economy, not the disaster these ridiculous ideas have created.

Don't group me with them. I'm a libertarian. But yes, they had a chance and they blew it. Bush frustrated me all the time. What frustrates me more is your mobocracy mentality. You want the State to forceably take from others to pay for what you want. This is wrong on so many sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

You people continually use this "smaller government" baloney to get re-elected, and once in office, you govern irresponsibly. At least the Democrats, as painful as it will be, tell the truth. We are going to raise taxes. What other choice is there in a country where the public wants SSI, Medicare, and a host of other things? Should we play pretend, like the Republicans? In the end, you had your chance, and blew it. We are not going to pretend. Government costs money. The majority of the people in this country want National Healthcare, they want SSI benefits, they want good highways, and a decent education for their children, exploration of space, and a fine army - and all of these things cost money. Under our system, they elect representatives to achieve these things, and that is what we shall do, and we will not play pretend, we will pay for, and make sure the burden of paying for it falls on those who benefit the most, not on those who benefit the least, from our system of government.

You do touch on a good point. You say they get elected while standing for smaller government. It seems that's what people want. However, when they don't deliver, they get kicked out. They didn't give people what they wanted, smaller government.

I don't believe the majority national health care and SSI. They want health care they can afford and a retirement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I personally think that if your tax cutting ideas had been matched by spending cuts, you would have been successful and still in power, but that would have meant losing the elderly vote over Prescription Drug benefits, and you would not have been able to have your fun little fascist war, both of which were about getting votes and power - how remarkable that your fear of losing power, which drove your hypocrisies, ended up costing you so dearly. If you had had the guts to do as your principles demanded, you would not be in the position you are today, people without credibility with a track record of economic collapse. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Economic booms and rises in personal income are not tied to tax cuts, they are independent of them, we have had economic booms at time of high taxation and at time of low taxation. All this is simple smoke and mirrors talk to screen what is really desired, which is for those who benefit the most from our system of government to avoid having to pay for it. That charade is now over.

Tax rates have an impact, but they are not the sole reason we have booms and busts.

MS Fowler · #43 03-04-2009, 06:30 AM

I wish that we could agree on facts. (sigh).
Jolly brings up one that I find pasticularly partisan. He complains the "you republicans" point to Reagan's tax cuts and say, "the deficit grew". That is mixing apples and oranges, as they say.
There are two seperate points involved.
1) Revenue to the US Treasury GREW when the tax rates were cut.period! Cutting tax rates gave the government more money to spend. They did not cost the US Treasury anthing. They were not "taken" frfom the poor to subsidize the rich. Tax cut = more money.
2) The Congress, with the President's approval, overspent. The deficiet grew not becasue of the tax cuts but because of increased over-spending.

They are not related issues, and to continually blur them borders on purposeful deception.

dannym · #44 03-04-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I see you couldn't answer my previous question so I'll give you an easier one.

Which founder was more in line with the current statist philosophy of the major parties, Hamilton or Jefferson?

That's a trick question, Hamilton isn't a "founder" and didn't sign the declaration of independence.

That aside, it's a difficult question to answer I think.

IMHO Jefferson was an extremely smart person who showed moments of extreme stupidity.
I think he's overated by the fact that people seem hellbent on perpetrating a lot of myth's about him like he wrote the declaration of independence and such.

Danny

Brian Carlton · #45 03-04-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

There are two seperate points involved.
1) Revenue to the US Treasury GREW when the tax rates were cut.period! Cutting tax rates gave the government more money to spend. They did not cost the US Treasury anthing. They were not "taken" frfom the poor to subsidize the rich. Tax cut = more money.

Actually, there are three points involved. The aforementioned point is divided into two points.

1) Tax rates were cut and, therefore, revenue to the U.S. Treasury was reduced. That's a fact.
2) The economy, and specifically the stock market, improved and the resulting revenue to the Treasury increased.

They are not necessarily related issues, and to continually blur them borders on purposeful deception.