A trnansient society in the making.
Posted on 02/24/2006 6:24:09 AM PST by Sam's Army
A trnansient society in the making.
I figured it out, though. In 2006 and 2008 and 2010, it probably will swing better for the Democrats, if economic news is not associated with any President or party. If mushy middle people associate the economy with the party in power, and the economy is good, they won't want to vote the Dems in. So...break the association as much as possible.
You have that right. Socialism gains credibility when the chief beneficiaries of Capitalism misuse their wealth & power at the expense of those less fortunate.
The reason Karl Marx developed such a following in his day was not because of anything he personally did, but because corporate interests lived up to the very worst stereotypes of themselves.
The second - "some level of redistribution of wealth". No society can exist for long without some redistribution.
I'd like for you to continue your logic a little farther,
You would like it, but I would not. Have you ever heard about Aristotle doctrine of the mean or moderation?
From the fact that it is good to heat the house in winter you cannot draw a conclusion that it is good to burn it. And reverse - from the fact that that it is bad to to burn the house it does not follow that heating it is bad.
A lot of Hush Bimbo "reasoning" is based on such false sophisms. He really bamboozles his audience. I guess he has a good laugh with his friends: "So what BS should I sell these suckers tomorrow?"
Usually instincts have a proper role and cannot be eradicated without causing much greater damage.
There are plenty of such places. And we do not want America to become such place.
The above makes it a little clearer why you took the stance you did. Not my view of conservative thinking, but perhaps it wasn't meant that way anyhow.
There is the third way - supression in El Salvador style.
I grew up in Communist Poland. After Stalin it was not so horrible place and much better than some Latin American countries or other Third World capitalist oligarchies.
I met people who moved to Poland from such places.
It is nice that YOU are nimble. What is has to do with the topic?
Or with the supression El Salvador style.
I do not buy that you desire to help anyone.
Fortunately, your purchase is not required.
This is what made USA different from Latin America. There were land grants (as opposed to the few families getting the whole land), GI Bill, labor laws and many other things. And this TRICKLE UP economy worked better.
Still Republican can win thanks to the Democrats obsession with "gay marriage", abortion and secularism.
That's because Poland at the time was a country with still [barely at the time] functioning civil society. But socialism is incompatible with the civil society and wears it out. Thus what you experienced in Poland was precisely a transient phenomenon.
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I should have put on my "victim identity" and bought into "the topic" of the article.
I especially love his theory that socialism with a face (Communist Poland) is superior to American capitalism. Very funny coming from someone who left that workers paradise to come to heartless America.
Thank you both for your comments. I was about to say this has been one of the more interesting economic threads I have read on FR in a while, when I saw WilliamofCarmichael had already expressed the same thought in post 80.
One of the ironies is that I think Bush understood going into the presidency that most people are emotional rather than logical when it comes to voting for their economic self-interests, i.e. his "compassionate conservatism." I believe though for the most part his attempt to care for the needy and give a hand up to the poor in America has been fatally flawed because in most cases he has sought to do so through government programs. Such a job is simply too big for the government, and government's attempt to do it corrupts the characters of the "givers" (aka taxpayers) and the recipients in the process. At one time I believe the Republican party was being more innovative in its approach to problems of the poor (Kemp's enterprise zones; Schundler's many initiatives). But that spirit within the GOP seems to have died or gone dormant.
IMHO the GOP needs to once again find and promote innovative, market-based solutions that unleash the power of communities, families and churches to address these issues. That was part of the genius of Reagan: He understood the power of emotion (for instance, his famous definition of the difference between a recession and a depression) and sought to make structural reforms that unleashed the drive and initiative of the average American while encouraging every person to realize his or her full potential.
On the other hand, after watching the aftermath of Katrina, I wonder if it may be more effective for grassroots people just to jump in and push government out of the way (i.e. the churches that have gone into the areas affected by Katrina and provided aid from food to housing repair while the government was still dawdling). Perhaps it is more effective to build strong communities so that people don't perceive a need for the government to "take care" of them. But either way it's a tall order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.