Class warfare - Page 16 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MTI · #**226** 08-06-2011, 12:40 AM

Yes, listen to him. That's the super genius method of civil discourse. But apparently he doesn't think you have the ability to think of it on your own.

sjh · #**227** 08-06-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Which country with a smaller government do you think we should emulate?

Just to show you my thoughts and I hope you'll accept that I have not done a detailed analysis, but I'd say I would prefer that the government and the electorates relationship with the government was much more similar to what existed in this nation in 1960 than what we have today.

This is not some childish yearning to regress because my childhood sucked!

It's observing that in 1960 people expected more of themselves and less of their government. And people are pretty amazing. They will somehow meet the challenges that are set before them if that is expected or they will fail the challenges if that is the expectation.

tonkovich · #**228** 08-06-2011, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

Just to show you my thoughts and I hope you'll accept that I have not done a detailed analysis, but I'd say I would prefer that the government and the electorates relationship with the government was much more similar to what existed in this nation in 1960 than what we have today.

This is not some childish yearning to regress because my childhood sucked!

It's observing that in 1960 people expected more of themselves and less of their government. And people are pretty amazing. They will somehow meet the challenges that are set before them if that is expected or they will fail the challenges if that is the expectation.

yes, when the top earners paid a more appropriate measure of taxes?

and when every day in school began with talk of jesus?

and, of course, when black people and women "knew their place"?

as the saying goes, "nostalgia ain't what it used to be".

You are a child, with simple beliefs centered around the pink baby jesus - meanwhile the world passes you by.

Chas H · #**229** 08-06-2011, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

Just to show you my thoughts and I hope you'll accept that I have not done a detailed analysis, but I'd say I would prefer that the government and the electorates relationship with the government was much more similar to what existed in this nation in 1960 than what we have today.

This is not some childish yearning to regress because my childhood sucked!

It's observing that in 1960 people expected more of themselves and less of their government. And people are pretty amazing. They will somehow meet the challenges that are set before them if that is expected or they will fail the challenges if that is the expectation.

I don't believe "big" government is a problem; it's bad government that is the problem. Right now we seem to have both big and bad.

sjh · #**230** 08-06-2011, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I don't believe "big" government is a problem; it's bad government that is the problem. Right now we seem to have both big and bad.

Well, obviously I think bad is undesirable.

But I do think the view that now exists that the individual does not need to grow is terrible. And, at least the way we have come to view the government leads to this result.

Then there are the simplistic statements, such as, as any bureaucracy increases in size it tends be less efficient. But the crux of my personal belief is the second paragraph.

MTI · #**231** 08-06-2011, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjh

Don't fall for this guy's spiel...

No one has said what he contends. He consistently engages in fallacies, often strawmen, but also likes to redefine terms, whenever, however it serves his purpose.

I truly dislike saying this but he has no solidity, no core, no center. He's almost certainly a stranger to himself. A chimera.

The more one is a stranger to themselves the more adamantly and desperately they argue. One at peace can be elastic, say things like, "I see what you are saying" or "have you considered this?", etc.

I mean I'm talking to a Muslim on this board and we touch on matters involving our Faiths. I don't doubt for one moment that he is sincerely seeking to live his life correctly. I can't speak for him but I suspect he would say the same about me. Yet we both know, that at least to the best of our ability to understand, that we have some major differences. However, we are civil and listen to each other.

Why is it, that someone, who at least from a superficial analysis, would have much more in common with me can't grant me (or others with whom he differs) the same dignity?

Look over the various mannerisms of those that speak here. When one encounters brittleness, demonization of opponents, etc you're dealing with one who is projecting an inner struggle onto those about them.

A few posts back I said something like I accept the sincerity of the cause of progressives but doubt the effectiveness of their methods.

Doesn't seem like much of a sentence but I acknowledge the humanity and the decency of those who differ with I.

Now look at this man's words for the past 10 or 20 or 30 posts. Is there one time that he speaks of those who differ in any manner but derisively?

The statement is simple: Fulfill the responsibilities of adulthood and obtain the rights of adulthood.

My goodness, yiou went back and re-edited your entire post after I responded to it.

I suppose I should be flattered by the lavish attention which you have bestowed on my posts . . . you appear to be truly smitten.

Honus · #**232** 08-06-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Has the government gotten larger or smaller in it's reach, size, budgets, expenses, debt, or future promises in the last 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

I'd say you have it backwards: the pro government crowd has won and gov continues to get bigger. Nearly all entities want to grow and expand their sphere of influence and governments are not immune to this; indeed they are one of the primary examples of it's truth...

That's true, government spending continues to grow. The anti-government attitude I'm referring to shows up in other ways. Reagan, for example, appointed James Watt, a rather zealous opponent of environmental protection laws, as Secretary of the Interior. It was Reagan's prerogative to do that, but it showed an anti-government attitude. Likewise with Reagan's choice of Ed Meese to be Attorney General. His mission, it seems, was to find ways to ensure that pesky regulations concerning public benefits and other laws they didn't like were not enforced. Fast forward to 2010, and we have the Minerals Management Service allowing off-shore oil rig operators to fill out their own inspection reports in pencil so the inspectors could just trace over them in pen and sign off. We have deregulation every where you look, often leading to disastrous consequences. There's this constant effort to get government off the backs of the people. That's a worthy goal, but government needs to be on the backs of certain people.

It's all part of an anti-government attitude that Reagan made popular. It hasn't resulted in smaller government, but it has resulted in stupider government, IMHO.

MS Fowler · #**233** 08-06-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I don't believe "big" government is a problem; it's bad government that is the problem. Right now we seem to have both big and bad.

That simple statement might point up some significant differences in the way we view government.
It seems to me that BIG government, by its very bigness attracts attention from lobbyists who want to use that big government to favor themselves, and their clients. Far better, in my mind to distribute that power, greed and larceny among 50 state governments than in a single super-sized federal one.

I do agree that we are plagued with a government that is both big and bad.

MTUpower · #**234** 08-06-2011, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Then I take it that you believe the country's electorate has deteriorated since the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870? What evidence is there of that . . . another 100 years and development of the US as a superpower was impeded because you didn't have to be white to vote? Didn't the Civil Rights Act and the Voter Rights Act diminish the racial prejudice in certain areas of the country? What proof are you seeking which hasn't already been covered and taught in schools.

On the other hand . . . what has been the track record of apartheid?

Your attempt at deflection goes nowhere.

You can assume all you want- and you do that alot it seems. I will not assume you know the breakdown of assume is- so go ahead and google it.

Why don't you just answer the question that you failed at in the first and second attempt? Let me answer that for you: you can't or you won't; and instead you try to muddy and deflect. Does that win you cases?

MTUpower · #**235** 08-06-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I pulled that number out of my rear end, but on that specific issue (prevailing opinions about Bush and the Tea Party), I'll bet I am not in the minority. Neither of them was popular last time I checked.

I'll bet none of your views about politics are in the majority- very few are, including mine. However that does not mean your argument has a valid conclusion, but you know that.

One political view that is in the majority is that we need a balanced budge amendment. The last poll was near 75%. I'm of that opinion, and you are not.

MTUpower · #**236** 08-06-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Which country with a smaller government do you think we should emulate?

Did I espouse emulating anything? How about we just get smaller and stay within our means?

MS Fowler · #**237** 08-06-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Which country with a smaller government do you think we should emulate?

NONE.

That would following. I believe that we should be the leaders; not the followers. How about you?

I am not one who has ever said that we should be like France, or Germany, or any other country.

Honus · #**238** 08-06-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

I'll bet none of your views about politics are in the majority- very few are, including mine...

I suppose that's true.

Quote:

One political view that is in the majority is that we need a balanced budge amendment. The last poll was near 75%. I'm of that opinion, and you are not.

It seems like bad economic policy to me, but I'm no economist. I've only read one version of a BBA, that being the one proposed by the House last week. It is a POS. Maybe one could be written that's not a POS, but I doubt that one could be written that would work.

MS Fowler · #**239** 08-06-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I suppose that's true.It seems like bad economic policy to me, but I'm no economist. I've only read one version of a BBA, that being the one proposed by the House last week. It is a POS. Maybe one could be written that's not a POS, but I doubt that one could be written that would work.

You are not alone in thinking your views reflect the majority. Everyone does!

I heard a story some years ago that well illustrates the point: Seems some gentleman was looking to advertise on a local radio station in order to build his business. After talking with a sales person, they offered him a package including some time on Sunday afternoon, ( or some time that research showed was an excellent slot). The man refused saying, " Oh no! That's when EVERYONE is playing polo." Obviously, his "Everyone" was his perception because that was his circle of friends. Of the general population, relatively few actually play, or even watch polo. ( Thought that needed to be said, in case someone here was a polo advocate.)

Also agree about a BBA. Ideally one could be written, but I doubt that any of the clowns in Washington ( bi-partisan slur) have the intelligence or the will to do it. Dems would love one that triggered automatic tax increases. Repubs, one that made cuts in selected depts. Neither will happen.

Botnst · #**240** 08-06-2011, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Has the government gotten larger or smaller in it's reach, size, budgets, expenses, debt, or future promises in the last 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

I'd say you have it backwards: the pro government crowd has won and gov continues to get bigger. Nearly all entities want to grow and expand their sphere of influence and governments are not immune to this; indeed they are one of the primary examples of it's truth.

BTW: sorry about going off on your rant, it seemed like a stupid rant to me. You really think 50% of my countrymen think like you? That's an high figure.

Excellent.