Poll: Large majority support balanced budget amendment to US Constitution

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 27, 2011 10:51 PM GMT
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/27/poll-large-majority-support-balanced-budget-amendment-to-constitution/

    According to a recent Sachs/Mason-Dixon poll obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate.

    65 percent of the public supports the amendment with 27 percent opposed; 8 percent are undecided.

    81 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of independents support the amendment. Even a plurality of Democrats, the party that typically resists spending cuts, back the amendment by a 45 percent to 44 percent margin.

    “Americans are concerned about our nation’s deepening deficit and as a result, an overwhelming number support a balanced budget amendment,” said Alia Faraj-Johnson, Partner and Executive Vice President of Ron Sachs Communications, the organization that commissioned the poll.

    A large plurality – 46 percent to 21 percent — also say they would be “more likely” to vote for a presidential candidate who backs the amendment, the poll shows.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 1:37 AM GMT
    Sure they do. Right up until balancing the budget comes at the expense of Social Security or Medicare.

    You know why a balanced budget amendment has never passed? Because if we did have one, the vast majority of Americans would demand cuts in the military and increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy. They would not choose to allow those things to continue at the expense of the best social programs our country has ever seen.

    Much like abortion or gun control, the Right in this country does not want their bogey men to go away. Otherwise, they lose the only issues that divide working class and middle class people who would immediately vote against their economic agenda.

    The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, and all the Republican governors from Christie on down have seen their approval ratings sink and their citizens turn on them when they bring out their (only for the poor and working class) "austerity" measures.

    I sure hope you understand the politics of your native land than you do ours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 2:27 AM GMT
    Christian73 said...The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, ...

    The Republican candidate was not prepared to handle the scare tactics.

    Mediscare: The Surprising Truth - Republicans are being portrayed as Medicare Grinches, but ObamaCare already has seniors' health care slated for draconian cuts.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345732775990392.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    ... ObamaCare explicitly commits to cutting health-care spending for the elderly and the disabled in future years. ...

    ---------------------

    Who's Winning the Budget War? - Republicans are forcing Democrats to acknowledge that voters want spending reform.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576347623877424728.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    Here's the Washington headline of the week that nobody in America got to read: Paul Ryan, 40. Barack Obama, 0.

    Forty is the number of Senate votes that went in favor of Mr. Ryan's reformist budget, a tally that included nearly every Senate Republican. Zero is the number of votes President Obama got for his own tax-and-spend budget, a blueprint that not one of his own party had the backbone to support. It went down, 97-0.

    Washington is in a game of high-stakes chicken over raising the debt limit, though so far only one side is flinching. According to the headlines (and Democrats), Republicans are on defense over Mr. Ryan's plan, are risking America's creditworthiness, and are delaying sensible compromise by refusing tax increases. It is only a matter of time, goes the betting, before the party swerves.

    This has little relation to reality, in which it is Democrats who keep calling their own bluffs. It was Mr. Obama who first swerved, submitting a "do-over" of his initial, embarrassing budget. It is Democrats who have since swerved on the debt-limit debate, agreeing to spending-cut negotiations, then continuing to up the size of a package.

    By refusing to blink, Republicans keep forcing Democrats to acknowledge a very simple political reality: Voters do want spending reform, and do not want tax hikes. That's why this debate has so far moved in the GOP's direction.

    The White House's first bluff was its argument that America would crater if the GOP did not immediately hold a "clean" debt limit vote, allowing the administration to continue freely borrowing—no spending-reform attached. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was betting markets would respond to his public warnings and exhibit some turmoil in fear of "default."

    The GOP instead refused to back down, and Treasury keeps finding money to make payments. The markets have concluded that nobody will actually allow a default, and interest rates haven't budged. If anything, financial players are in line with a recent Washington Post poll showing far more Americans worried about America's debt levels than about an immediate risk of default.

    These stats are why the White House swerved from its "clean" vote demand and dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to negotiate spending cuts. It's why Democrats have gone from insisting they couldn't cough up more than a few hundred billion to Mr. Biden this week floating a $1 trillion figure.

    It's also why Democrats are cringing from the very "clean" vote they once demanded. "I will not vote for a clean debt limit extension if no Republicans vote for it and instead use it just to demagogue," complained Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. Democrats were happy to demand a clean vote when they hoped to scare Republicans into voting with them. They aren't so keen to go it solo in favor of more borrowing and no reform.

    Now comes the bluff that Republicans risk derailing negotiations if they don't agree to "revenue" (Democratic code for "tax hikes"). Obama National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling insists House Republicans are completely "isolated" on this issue. "Serious people doing serious discussions do not take an absolutist position that you cannot have a penny of revenue," he said.

    Really? If tax hikes are so serious, presumably serious Senate Democrats would this week have finally put out a serious budget, outlining their serious tax hikes.

    They didn't. They instead swerved and took the punk route of all voting against Mr. Ryan's plan. That's because serious Senate Democrats have worked out that the only way to get the "revenue" they need to cover their spending is to seriously hit up the middle class. And with 23 seats up for re-election, no serious Senate Democrat wants to go on the record voting for that. Seriously. Unless they can scare Republicans into going along with them.


    This week's GOP loss of a special election in New York (which revolved around Mr. Ryan's reform) has reinforced another Democratic bluff—that any discussion of entitlement reform is politically "toxic." The left knows entitlements are where the big spending reforms are, and they are eager to get them off the negotiating table.

    Yet the GOP once again refused to swerve. One day after the special-election loss, nearly every Senate Republican voted for Mr. Ryan's plan. Democrats, by contrast, didn't have the pluck to cast one vote for their president's reform-less plan.

    Such abdications are beginning to gain notice. On NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, host David Gregory put this to ranking House Budget member Chris Van Hollen: "[Mr. Ryan] is saying, accurately, that you Democrats don't have a plan, and we have a budget crisis." Mr. Van Hollen was left to stumble on about "some" Democratic reforms, such as to "incentivize" more "value" in health care.


    Republicans should know this: Nobody would even be asking these questions of Democrats if the GOP had blinked.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 2:53 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidSure they do. Right up until balancing the budget comes at the expense of Social Security or Medicare.

    You know why a balanced budget amendment has never passed? Because if we did have one, the vast majority of Americans would demand cuts in the military and increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy. They would not choose to allow those things to continue at the expense of the best social programs our country has ever seen.

    Much like abortion or gun control, the Right in this country does not want their bogey men to go away. Otherwise, they lose the only issues that divide working class and middle class people who would immediately vote against their economic agenda.

    The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, and all the Republican governors from Christie on down have seen their approval ratings sink and their citizens turn on them when they bring out their (only for the poor and working class) "austerity" measures.

    I sure hope you understand the politics of your native land than you do ours.


    The alternative view is that I understand politics in the US far better than you do. I can understand how you grasp to the mythology that Paul Ryan's plans will doom the Republicans especially as big spending liberalism gasps from the mortal wounds of reality. The irony is that it is the political success of those who share your ideology and partisanship that have provided the foundations for a reawakening of economic liberals en masse. The best that you can do is continue to claim that the economy is the way it is because government hasn't spent and regulated enough - as if adapting more of a failed idea will somehow result in success.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:05 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 said
    The alternative view is that I understand politics in the US far better than you do

    This is breathtaking arrogance.
    So, just to be clear: No, you don't.
    I can't imagine where your over-inflated self-opinion comes from.
    You've certainly never said anything on these forums that suggests an inquiring mind or one that can synthesize information. In fact, you can't even distinguish general information from hogwash.

    Understand us better than we do ourselves?
    Really.


    Irony abounds. Better than "yourselves" as in all Americans? No. But given your comments and those of Christian who brought up the issue in the first place, quite probably better than you and Christian.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:08 AM GMT
    If the liberals in this thread understood the US economy even 10% as well as riddler does, you could pat yourselves on the back. Unfortunately, you don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:12 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidBetter than "yourselves" as in all Americans? No. But given your comments and those of Christian who brought up the issue in the first place, quite probably better than you and Christian.

    You really ought to consider stopping embarrassing yourself.
    Can I put this more plainly?
    You don't have a clue about American culture or politics. All you know is the crap that Murdoch serves up. You're like those American tourists they used to make fun of who'd go on a one-week tour of Paris, Rome, and London, and then come home as experts on Europe.

    But you do have the condescending shmuck thing down pat, I'll give you that.


    Not being terribly familiar with what Murdoch serves up, I'll have to take your word for that. But while we're on the topic, what's the market share that Fox has relative to other networks?

    And for clarification, did he achieve that market share by _not_ understanding the American market / politics? Are you trying to corner the market on stupid deliberately or was that an unforced error?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:16 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness saidIf the liberals in this thread understood the US economy even 10% as well as riddler does, you could pat yourselves on the back. Unfortunately, you don't.

    I spent years on the stock exchange in New York as a floor trader.
    I doubt that many of you have the experience with the capitalist beast that I have.
    And when I tell you that riddler's assertions are laughable, they are laughable.


    And you deride me for arrogance? As if some knowledge achieved in trading necessarily translates into knowledge of how economies work / economic policy. It doesn't - and you're proof it doesn't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:25 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 saidAnd for clarification, did he achieve that market share by _not_ understanding the American market / politics? Are you trying to corner the market on stupid deliberately or was that an unforced error?

    I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with a pinhead.
    As to Murdoch's market share, uh, what was your point?
    Don't bother answering, I'm through with this thread. There are intelligent conservatives to talk to. You're just not one of them.


    Literacy clearly isn't your strong suit. My point was in the next sentence that you chose to omit. There are intelligent conservatives to talk to. As there are intelligent liberals. You clearly are neither and another example that age does not necessarily confer wisdom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:28 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. Right up until balancing the budget comes at the expense of Social Security or Medicare.

    You know why a balanced budget amendment has never passed? Because if we did have one, the vast majority of Americans would demand cuts in the military and increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy. They would not choose to allow those things to continue at the expense of the best social programs our country has ever seen.

    Much like abortion or gun control, the Right in this country does not want their bogey men to go away. Otherwise, they lose the only issues that divide working class and middle class people who would immediately vote against their economic agenda.

    The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, and all the Republican governors from Christie on down have seen their approval ratings sink and their citizens turn on them when they bring out their (only for the poor and working class) "austerity" measures.

    I sure hope you understand the politics of your native land than you do ours.


    The alternative view is that I understand politics in the US far better than you do. I can understand how you grasp to the mythology that Paul Ryan's plans will doom the Republicans especially as big spending liberalism gasps from the mortal wounds of reality. The irony is that it is the political success of those who share your ideology and partisanship that have provided the foundations for a reawakening of economic liberals en masse. The best that you can do is continue to claim that the economy is the way it is because government hasn't spent and regulated enough - as if adapting more of a failed idea will somehow result in success.


    LOL. You don't get it, do you? What "reawakening or economic liberals"?

    The last Tea Party rally with their "star", Nikki Haley, drew 30 attendees. 30! 70% of self-identified Tea Party members oppose doing away with Medicare in favor of a voucher system. 70%!

    Scott Walker's union busting law overturned yesterday by a moderate judge.

    Approval ratings for "economic liberals" elected in 2010 are plummeting. Rick "I want to make state workers take drug tests that conveniently my company provide" Scott has a 29% approval rating.

    The majority of American support a cap on salaries for bailed out companies.

    And what you claim is "economic liberalism" is in fact crony capitalism.

    If you actually supported a "free" market, you would be for competition, instead you're against it as you're against regulation that prevents monopolies.

    Many of the "free" market ideologues on here, support unlimited corporate contributions in politics and are then surprised by corruption.

    So, not only do you not know American politics, you don't even recognize actual economic liberalism when you see it.

    Please reread Adam Smith and get back to those of us who actually understand the political economy of the US.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:31 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said...The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, ...

    The Republican candidate was not prepared to handle the scare tactics.



    Is that the same naive waif who had a Chief of Staff harass the Tea Party candidate and then claim (conveniently off camera) that the was assaulted?

    Oh, yes, she's just little Nell from the country. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:35 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    riddler78 said
    The alternative view is that I understand politics in the US far better than you do

    This is breathtaking arrogance.
    So, just to be clear: No, you don't.
    I can't imagine where your over-inflated self-opinion comes from.
    You've certainly never said anything on these forums that suggests an inquiring mind or one that can synthesize information. In fact, you can't even distinguish general information from hogwash.

    Understand us better than we do ourselves?
    Really.

    If riddler understood US politics so well then he would know that the 0-97 vote he cites was procedural, not a final vote on the budget itself. And Democrats voted against moving it forward in order to take it off the table, since it was drafted in February, and more recent budget negotiations since then have made it obsolete. No sense keeping it out there when it had been superseded.

    It's true that Republicans are trying to do the same thing that riddler is: turn this vote into something it isn't, a vote against Obama. While riddler may claim the ignorance of a non-US citizen, with little training or experience in US politics, the Republicans know exactly the lie they're telling to less informed US voters. There's nothing on Earth as unscrupulous as a Republican or their supporters. But I'll exempt riddler from that charge -- he's just ignorant about the US, as you note, jprichva.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:38 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidSure they do. Right up until balancing the budget comes at the expense of Social Security or Medicare.

    You know why a balanced budget amendment has never passed? Because if we did have one, the vast majority of Americans would demand cuts in the military and increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy. They would not choose to allow those things to continue at the expense of the best social programs our country has ever seen.

    Much like abortion or gun control, the Right in this country does not want their bogey men to go away. Otherwise, they lose the only issues that divide working class and middle class people who would immediately vote against their economic agenda.

    The very whiff of the Ryan budget doomed NY-26 for the Republicans, and all the Republican governors from Christie on down have seen their approval ratings sink and their citizens turn on them when they bring out their (only for the poor and working class) "austerity" measures.

    I sure hope you understand the politics of your native land than you do ours.


    The alternative view is that I understand politics in the US far better than you do. I can understand how you grasp to the mythology that Paul Ryan's plans will doom the Republicans especially as big spending liberalism gasps from the mortal wounds of reality. The irony is that it is the political success of those who share your ideology and partisanship that have provided the foundations for a reawakening of economic liberals en masse. The best that you can do is continue to claim that the economy is the way it is because government hasn't spent and regulated enough - as if adapting more of a failed idea will somehow result in success.


    LOL. You don't get it, do you? What "reawakening or economic liberals"?

    The last Tea Party rally with their "star", Nikki Haley, drew 30 attendees. 30! 70% of self-identified Tea Party members oppose doing away with Medicare in favor of a voucher system. 70%!

    Scott Walker's union busting law overturned yesterday by a moderate judge.

    Approval ratings for "economic liberals" elected in 2010 are plummeting. Rick "I want to make state workers take drug tests that conveniently my company provide" Scott has a 29% approval rating.

    The majority of American support a cap on salaries for bailed out companies.

    And what you claim is "economic liberalism" is in fact crony capitalism.

    If you actually supported a "free" market, you would be for competition, instead you're against it as you're against regulation that prevents monopolies.

    Many of the "free" market ideologues on here, support unlimited corporate contributions in politics and are then surprised by corruption.

    So, not only do you not know American politics, you don't even recognize actual economic liberalism when you see it.

    Please reread Adam Smith and get back to those of us who actually understand the political economy of the US.


    How your straw men and ignorance of what economic liberalism means must give you comfort. You seem to automatically assume that those who aren't Democrats and parrot partisan views must therefore be free marketeers. the reality is that neither party is a natural ally of economic liberty.

    Who precisely are you talking about is surprised at political corruption? Where have I said I'm against competition? I suggest that you actually bother reading Adam Smith or Milton Friedman rather than railing against strawmen of your own creation of those of extremists you read.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 3:50 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidIf riddler understood US politics so well then he would know that the 0-97 vote he cites was procedural, not a final vote on the budget itself. And Democrats voted against moving it forward in order to take it off the table, since it was drafted in February, and more recent budget negotiations since then have made it obsolete. No sense keeping it out there when it had been superseded.

    It's true that Republicans are trying to do the same thing that riddler is: turn this vote into something it isn't, a vote against Obama. While riddler may claim the ignorance of a non-US citizen, with little training or experience in US politics, the Republicans know exactly the lie they're telling to less informed US voters. There's nothing on Earth as unscrupulous as a Republican or their supporters. But I'll exempt riddler from that charge -- he's just ignorant about the US, as you note, jprichva.

    The vote was procedural in that the Republicans forced it. But it clearly indicated no support for the budget presented by the White House by anyone, any Republican or any Democrat. Given the total repudiation of the White House Budget, and the lack of anything proposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, the leadership vacuum is obvious.

    On NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend, host David Gregory put this to ranking House Budget member Chris Van Hollen: "[Mr. Ryan] is saying, accurately, that you Democrats don't have a plan, and we have a budget crisis." Mr. Van Hollen was left to stumble...

    There is no way you can spin this that anyone above a single-digit IQ can't see through.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    riddler78 saidHow your straw men and ignorance of what economic liberalism means must give you comfort. You seem to automatically assume that those who aren't Democrats and parrot partisan views must therefore be free marketeers. the reality is that neither party is a natural ally of economic liberty.

    Who precisely are you talking about is surprised at political corruption? Where have I said I'm against competition? I suggest that you actually bother reading Adam Smith or Milton Friedman rather than railing against strawmen of your own creation of those of extremists you read.


    LOL. You're like Newt Gingrich in that you seem to think the rest of us have no memory. You've posted several articles by or supporting non-Democratic, so-called free marketers. And you constantly defend all manner of legislative, legal and "regulatory" that, regardless of their stated goals, are ultimately anti-worker, anti-consumer and pro-business, pro-oligarch.

    But, then again, there is no more "economic liberty" than there is a "free market". Both are con jobs designed to make people who are greedy feel better about their "natural" drives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 4:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow your straw men and ignorance of what economic liberalism means must give you comfort. You seem to automatically assume that those who aren't Democrats and parrot partisan views must therefore be free marketeers. the reality is that neither party is a natural ally of economic liberty.

    Who precisely are you talking about is surprised at political corruption? Where have I said I'm against competition? I suggest that you actually bother reading Adam Smith or Milton Friedman rather than railing against strawmen of your own creation of those of extremists you read.


    LOL. You're like Newt Gingrich in that you seem to think the rest of us have no memory. You've posted several articles by or supporting non-Democratic, so-called free marketers. And you constantly defend all manner of legislative, legal and "regulatory" that, regardless of their stated goals, are ultimately anti-worker, anti-consumer and pro-business, pro-oligarch.

    But, then again, there is no more "economic liberty" than there is a "free market". Both are con jobs designed to make people who are greedy feel better about their "natural" drives.


    Your understanding of the economy is remarkably superficial. You seem to think that when it comes to policy that legislating jobs or virtue will necessarily make it so. Once again - I hope you find comfort in your strawmen as liberals like yourself are forced to face the burdens of the economic reality of the policies that have been inflicted on the rest of the US and the world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 5:17 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow your straw men and ignorance of what economic liberalism means must give you comfort. You seem to automatically assume that those who aren't Democrats and parrot partisan views must therefore be free marketeers. the reality is that neither party is a natural ally of economic liberty.

    Who precisely are you talking about is surprised at political corruption? Where have I said I'm against competition? I suggest that you actually bother reading Adam Smith or Milton Friedman rather than railing against strawmen of your own creation of those of extremists you read.


    LOL. You're like Newt Gingrich in that you seem to think the rest of us have no memory. You've posted several articles by or supporting non-Democratic, so-called free marketers. And you constantly defend all manner of legislative, legal and "regulatory" that, regardless of their stated goals, are ultimately anti-worker, anti-consumer and pro-business, pro-oligarch.

    But, then again, there is no more "economic liberty" than there is a "free market". Both are con jobs designed to make people who are greedy feel better about their "natural" drives.


    Your understanding of the economy is remarkably superficial. You seem to think that when it comes to policy that legislating jobs or virtue will necessarily make it so. Once again - I hope you find comfort in your strawmen as liberals like yourself are forced to face the burdens of the economic reality of the policies that have been inflicted on the rest of the US and the world.


    I guess you, too, need a reminder that I'm not a liberal.

    And no one is trying "to legislate jobs or virtue." Greed, like your wont, is a part of some people's basic psychology. That, when coupled with the removal of consequences through the presumption of corporate "personhood" and insulation of the actual people responsible from the outcomes of the short-sighted, greed-fueled behavior turns many corporations into the organizational equivalent of a sociopath.

    Just as we regulate human behavior to ensure its excesses are not allowed to ruin others' lives, so must we regulate corporate behavior.

    The primary difference between us is that you find the antisocial behavior on the part of corporations necessary and even laudable ("must act in interest of shareholders"), when the same behavior and callous disregard for your personal health and well-being by another individual would have your screaming for the police.

    I do not share that disconnect. To me, antisocial behavior, whether by an individual or a corporate entity will always need to be kept in check.

    Further, the liberal policies you so deride are responsible for:

    *lifting seniors out of poverty
    *extending the lifespan of the majority of the populace
    *minimizing child hunger
    *educating the majority of our citizenry
    *keeping our cities and town clean
    *providing your clean drinking water
    *ensuring your car doesn't burst into flames when you have a minor collision
    *the end of child labor in most Western countries
    *the end of slavery in the US
    *the end of debtor's prisons

    And, well, the list goes on and on...

    Most of what you enjoy in your day-to-day life is the result of those terrible liberal policies. particularly in Canada, which is far more socialist than the US. It must be comforting to sit in the relative comfort provided by all those taxes, knowing you'll never go bankrupt because you get sick, or you won't be homeless because of welfare, or your parents won't end up in a poor house if they run out of money, and snipe at those of us in the US who think our fellow Americas deserve the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 5:57 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 saidHow your straw men and ignorance of what economic liberalism means must give you comfort. You seem to automatically assume that those who aren't Democrats and parrot partisan views must therefore be free marketeers. the reality is that neither party is a natural ally of economic liberty.

    Who precisely are you talking about is surprised at political corruption? Where have I said I'm against competition? I suggest that you actually bother reading Adam Smith or Milton Friedman rather than railing against strawmen of your own creation of those of extremists you read.


    LOL. You're like Newt Gingrich in that you seem to think the rest of us have no memory. You've posted several articles by or supporting non-Democratic, so-called free marketers. And you constantly defend all manner of legislative, legal and "regulatory" that, regardless of their stated goals, are ultimately anti-worker, anti-consumer and pro-business, pro-oligarch.

    But, then again, there is no more "economic liberty" than there is a "free market". Both are con jobs designed to make people who are greedy feel better about their "natural" drives.


    Your understanding of the economy is remarkably superficial. You seem to think that when it comes to policy that legislating jobs or virtue will necessarily make it so. Once again - I hope you find comfort in your strawmen as liberals like yourself are forced to face the burdens of the economic reality of the policies that have been inflicted on the rest of the US and the world.


    I guess you, too, need a reminder that I'm not a liberal.

    And no one is trying "to legislate jobs or virtue." Greed, like your wont, is a part of some people's basic psychology. That, when coupled with the removal of consequences through the presumption of corporate "personhood" and insulation of the actual people responsible from the outcomes of the short-sighted, greed-fueled behavior turns many corporations into the organizational equivalent of a sociopath.

    Just as we regulate human behavior to ensure its excesses are not allowed to ruin others' lives, so must we regulate corporate behavior.

    The primary difference between us is that you find the antisocial behavior on the part of corporations necessary and even laudable ("must act in interest of shareholders"), when the same behavior and callous disregard for your personal health and well-being by another individual would have your screaming for the police.

    I do not share that disconnect. To me, antisocial behavior, whether by an individual or a corporate entity will always need to be kept in check.

    Further, the liberal policies you so deride are responsible for:

    *lifting seniors out of poverty
    *extending the lifespan of the majority of the populace
    *minimizing child hunger
    *educating the majority of our citizenry
    *keeping our cities and town clean
    *providing your clean drinking water
    *ensuring your car doesn't burst into flames when you have a minor collision
    *the end of child labor in most Western countries
    *the end of slavery in the US
    *the end of debtor's prisons

    And, well, the list goes on and on...

    Most of what you enjoy in your day-to-day life is the result of those terrible liberal policies. particularly in Canada, which is far more socialist than the US. It must be comforting to sit in the relative comfort provided by all those taxes, knowing you'll never go bankrupt because you get sick, or you won't be homeless because of welfare, or your parents won't end up in a poor house if they run out of money, and snipe at those of us in the US who think our fellow Americas deserve the same.


    What is particularly sad - though perhaps unsurprising is that in nearly every case - where you believe that supposed goals have been achieved by liberalism in reality have actually been achieved by economics and markets - and what you consider to be the terrible world of deregulation having allowed markets to improve our standards of living, reduce our costs of living and ensure we live better healthier and even happier lives. You seem to be content to operate in a world where you believe there is only one way to solve a problem when the reality is that the solutions you advocate are not only inefficient but take us further away from achieving those goals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 28, 2011 11:07 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    What is particularly sad - though perhaps unsurprising is that in nearly every case - where you believe that supposed goals have been achieved by liberalism in reality have actually been achieved by economics and markets - and what you consider to be the terrible world of deregulation having allowed markets to improve our standards of living, reduce our costs of living and ensure we live better healthier and even happier lives. You seem to be content to operate in a world where you believe there is only one way to solve a problem when the reality is that the solutions you advocate are not only inefficient but take us further away from achieving those goals.


    Really? Market forces created Social Security? And Medicare? And public education? Ended poor houses for destitute elderly?

    How did the "market forces" do that?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 28, 2011 11:32 AM GMT
    Of COURSE they do

    and Voters will say yes to guaranteeing each citizen an endowment of a few thousand upon reaching the age of 21 as well

    That is until they find out what they'll have to give up in order for it to happen

    Let's do an experiment ... shall we?
    The Budget Balance Amendment has been passed and in order to reach that goal
    all Bush Tax Cuts have to be repealed and every oil and gas subsidy has to be abolished along with a new tax structure that requires a true progressive tax without any limitation
    .... oh and the ahem ... death tax is reinstated

    You up for it???? Huh? icon_biggrin.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 28, 2011 3:01 PM GMT
    It's in there ... a limitation on corporate welfare

    lol .... why what Limitations are YOU wanting to do?