Tuesday, Jun. 2, 2015    Login | Register           

So-called conservatives now are playthings of the rich who benefit most but contribute least

Dr. Mark Hendrickson’s article in last week’s Citizen is, I believe, representative of present day conservative intellectualism and its selective choices. The difficulty with intellectually selective choices in the end are their wrongheaded conclusions.

Example: WWI taught French military intellectuals that war favored a strong defense. They convinced the French people and political establishment to spend inordinate sums building an “impregnable” line.

The German military learned different lessons and were not too proud to borrow from the writings of a simple British Army captain on mobile, fast moving armored warfare. France surrendered in 40 days not because her men were poor fighters or her technology deficient. France was defeated by her intellectual myopia.

Someone titled the article “Honoring Bill of Rights Day,” but the article really had little to do with the title and everything to do with Hendrickson’s axe grinding.

He began with the premise: “To the founders, government’s sole legitimate purpose is to protect our rights.” Historically I have no idea where he got that premise and naturally Hendrickson doesn’t say.

I do know the Bill of Rights were proposed and adopted after the ratification of the Constitution by 11 states. If enumerated rights were number one on “the founders” hit parade, how did they manage to miss these ten articles over an entire summer of debate?

Dr. Hendrickson quickly segued to the Declaration of Independence, which is perhaps the most recognized and least read document in the world. Since the Constitution doesn’t mention God, he naturally went to the document which does. Curiously, though, when the Declaration of Independence talks about God given inalienable rights it mentions “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson originally mentioned property but the drafting committee changed it to “the pursuit of happiness.” I wonder why?

Anyway, the point of all this selective historic misinterpretation by the good Dr. Hendrickson seems to be his aversion to social programs in general, and his aversion to paying the taxes required to sustain those programs in particular. He doesn’t mention any specific programs so we have to assume he doesn’t want any whatsoever.

So let us go back to theme number one. Hendrickson asserts that the founders thought the only purpose for government was the protection of our rights. However the foundation for the U.S. Government is the Constitution.

The Preamble states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...”

Hendrickson, George W. Bush, the bloated drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the half-wit Glen Beck, the Tea Party and a vast number of the citizens of this county miss what the “founders” actually could and did agree on.

They revolted against the king of England because they did not feel themselves represented. However, their attachment to ultimate state sovereignty threatened the very fabric of society and propelled them to fashion a new form of government.

In the letter to Congress recommending the adoption of this Constitution and signed by George Washington, Goeverneur Morris had written: “It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States to secure the rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained ....”

The Founders disagreed on almost everything, but they agreed that ultimately government must assure society. The Constitution is purposely obtuse and was left for the ages to meet whatever exigencies society and government encountered.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution have played an immense part in the formation of our national character and protecting individual liberties. Dr. Hendrickson’s assertion that government’s efforts to assure a just and stable society are somehow a prima facie violation of those immutable rights is either gross ignorance or a bald-faced lie. I am inclined to believe the latter.

I believe we are building our own societal Maginot Line. The so-called conservatives in this country have become the intellectual playthings of the very rich who benefit most from our society but wish to contribute proportionally the least.

At the same time they haven’t the fortitude to name the cuts which must be made to balance the giant shift of assets without the giant shift of obligation. We are then stuck adding to a dangerous national debt, lacking the will to act.

In the end we will find what the founders knew all along. Government must assure stable society, and there is no way to assure anything in the absence of this stability.

Remember that the next time you read a piece from the Center for Myopia and Delusion at some crappy little college in Pennsylvania.

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.

Location: 

Comments

Your argument gets lost in you petty little name calling.

Please enlighten us to who gets to define what a "stable society" is.

Observerofu's picture

of Progressives.

I mean what is Charity for if Government can not just force it.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I guess you are prepared to state that the founders intended by this phrase to encourage out of wedlock young women to have more and more illegitimate babies so they could take (yes, take) more and more of my hard-earned tax dollars? How many of these babies did Adams, Jefferson and Madison think I need to support? At $500 per baby per month, I must of had 5 kids I never met that I was supporting in 1998 - my last tax-paying year.

Next we will be hearing that "Insure domestic tranquillity" is founder-speak for legalization of marijuana.
Are you liberals completely nuts or what?

Live free or die!

Gort's picture

RW_Morgan, Season’s Greetings

[quote] Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”[/quote]

Nothing like the good old days, eh?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/12/22/scrooge_was_a_liber... Was a Liberal</a>

<cite>The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)</cite>

<cite>Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.</cite>

<strong>Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. (Some of you may also know them as "insufferable blowhards.") These "bleeding-heart tightwads," as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.</strong>

<strong>Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent, less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also "significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier." (Count Nancy Pelosi's change carefully!)</strong>

<strong>Secular liberals are, however, 90 percent more likely to give sanctimonious Senate speeches demanding the forced redistribution of income. (That's up 7 percent from last year!).</strong>

Here's a perfect example of what Coulter is talking about:
<a href="http://sweetness-light.com/archive/rangel-hands-out-free-turkeys-in-harl... Ritual Gives Rangel a Respite</a>

<cite>Imagine, the great man handed out turkeys for 20 minutes! But notice that Mr. Rangel didn’t have all that much to do with this generosity. "Community groups" organized the lottery, and the turkeys themselves were provided by Fairway’s – a store which even advertises on the Rush Limbaugh show. But in the best tradition of Democrat machine politics, they did their best to make it seem like the turkeys were coming from Mr. Rangel.</cite>

Liberals are only generous when it comes to handing out OPM (other people's money)

Robert W. Morgan's picture

I saw this study somewhere and thought - boy does that say it all!
Hope someone does a study to see how much higher the level of voluntary giving would be if we could cut out the forced giving through welfare programs and of course the staff costs to redistribute our money.

Live free or die!

Gort's picture

Joe_K, Bah, humbug I say, humbug!

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

Much has been made of the Syracuse study that conservatives give more to "charity" than liberals.

Interestingly, if you exclude all donations made by conservatives to the church they attend, the rate of giving between conservatives and liberals is essentially the same.

Mike King's picture

"Interestingly, if you exclude all donations made by conservatives to the church they attend, the rate of giving between conservatives and liberals is essentially the same"

It's nice to know which side attends a worship service, but then I would not put that much credibility into a study done by grad students under the direction of tenured and very likely liberal PHD's.

Merry Christmas.

PTC Observer's picture

two of your posts. I could see them on the front page but could not link to them or see them in the string.

If you would like to repost them I will respond.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, tomorrow I'll try to find were we left off on the two yarns we were spinning and pick it up again. By chance, do you remember what the topic on the tread was?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

had something to do with our wonderful representative Congressman Westmorland I believe.

Chao

Gort's picture

PTC_0, I couldn't get back to them either. So, I guess we’ll have to wing it.

On one thread, the last thing you asked me was “What would make me change my mind about the passage of the Obama health care bill.”

I answered something like, "When someone had something better."

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

What if you and everyone with modest means could get HC through the private market?

Those that couldn't would be taken care of through charity.

How about something like that, could you agree to it?

Gort's picture

PTC_0, Thanks for looking out for me but I have insurance through my job and my own doctor. 8 - )

I'm open to suggestions and willing to consider your idea of charity but it leaves me with lots of questions.

What is the name of this charity you are talking about? Where does it get its money from? Do they have enough cash on hand to start services? Can it generate enough cash to pay their overhead, administrative expenses and still satisfy demand to pay for medical services? Will it deliver medical services directly, pay for services directly to private providers, or both? How will it be coordinated to insure that all geographical sectors of the country are provided for?

Running a non-profit charity on the scale you are talking about would be a tremendous enterprise.

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

charity in general.

I'll pose the question again.

What if most people could get good healthcare through private and free enterprise, and those that couldn't would get their HC provided by charities?

Would a solution like this be acceptable to you?

Gort's picture

PTC_0, okay, it would be acceptable to me, "if" charities could provide the services.

Unfortunately, I know of no charity on earth with the resources to provide that type service on such a large scale. If they could, why aren't they doing it already?

Your not trying to sell me "blue sky" now are you? 8-)

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

Nope, no blue sky.

I don't know how old you are, but the system I am describing is the same as we had in the 1960's. This was prior to the "Great Society" programs of LBJ. We even had doctors visit our homes; it was called "house calls". ;-)

Medicare was a disaster in the early years and it's an even bigger mess now. It was paid on a cost plus basis. So there was no need to hold costs down, if it cost more that was OK because you just added your profit on top and the government would pay.

It wasn't until the late 1970's that government even attempted to get control of the situation. It brought in a payment system that was first attempted in New Jersey call DRG's. (Diagnostic Related Groups). These were diagnostic classifications to set a maximum limit on specific groups of services. It didn't work and costs kept climbing.

Needless to say, when a government tries to regulate something as complex as the healthcare system all sorts of economic problems arise. But who wins? Does the consumer of HC win? Nope. Do the big HC companies win? Yep. Do insurance companies win? yep. How about drug companies, yes they win too. How about the taxpayers do they get what they pay for? Nope.

So, what's the answer? Well I would suggest that we let all these companies compete for our money, if they want to provide a better service, then they get rewarded, if they don't they go out of business. Will the poor get "great" healthcare, no, but do they get it now? The fact is we throw more money away trying to make things equal and we end up with the poor paying the most in terms of poor healthcare. It's the poor that always get the shaft but government is not the answer. It is freedom to choose.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, I'm starting to see a little mission creep happening here. Let’s slow down and catch our breath.

In this thread, I thought we were talking about providing healthcare for people with "no insurance" using charity. Are you now saying you want to include all the people that already have insurance through Medicare as well?

Second, I have no problem letting insurance companies "compete for our money." But it’s not clear to me who provides the charity you talk about. Are you saying that private healthcare related businesses have to provide the charity or they will not be allowed to operate?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

Yes there is a mission here and that is to provide you with some ideas so we can discuss them.

As an individual consumer in a free market you can decide what insurance you want, insurance companies would compete for your dollars by providing better and better services. They would have an incentitive to lower costs but if they tried to do this at the expense of service they would lose your business. So, they might run their own hosptials and hire their own doctors to provide for your healthcare in order to control their costs.

My point is that when government becomes involved in anything they distrupt the market. This is what happened back in 1967 with Medicare. Capital flows through government and it is allocated back to the market based on government priority, but not based on what would happen if there was a free flow of capital without government. This money that the government has, is taken from us and allocated. This is opposed to us deciding how we would want our money to be used for healthcare for our families, the government is doing it for us. This is not an effective use of capital.

As far as charity is concerned it too is forced out of "business" by government capital. Since government takes on the role of providing services to the disadvantaged, charities can't compete, nor do they want to. It is true that the disadvantaged would likely not get as good healthcare as those that buy insurance, but then that is why we work, isn't it? To provide ourselves and our families with something better. However, charities providing healthcare to the disadvantaged goes back 100's of years. In fact they had their own hospitals, nurses, and doctors. All in all it worked pretty well and it still has a place in today's healthcare system but not to the extent that it should. You can find charity hospitals throughout the country and they work quite well.

Why do you think Medicare is broken? Do you think that it is because we don't pay enough into the system? Or could it be that government cannot work as well as a market driven system. Why do our costs keep going up? Is it because government has an incentive to hold costs down? Do you think it works as good as the market that is competitive? Do I think we should end Medicare today? No. But I do think that it ultimately will collapse along with Obama care, you simply can't raise the capital necessary to keep it all going. This is especially true if the government has no incentive to reduce costs....there are other factors here that I won't go into.

Gort, let's talk.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, we are talking! What I hear you saying is Medicare is bad. It is holding back the invisible hand of the free market. If the free market was allowed to work, it would drive down the cost of medical insurance to a point that most people could afford to pay for their own. The number of people that could not afford to pay for their own medical insurance would be so small that existing local charities could pick up the cost.

Am I hitting on all cylinders now?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

I think this a very good summary of the argument. The key though is to have very little government oversight and this is something that Progressives are generally not willing to accept. There is something built into their psychic that seems to trust centralized authority above individual human action. Why they believe in this immoral imperative is beyond me.

To clarify:

You write:

".... that existing local charities could pick up the cost."

It could be local, national and they may exist today but likely new charities would be created.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, thank you for the compliment. I accept your change from: "existing local charities" to: "charities". I purposely did not include any comments about the involvement of government, people’s motives, and historical interpretations. They tend to end communication real quick, if you know what I mean?

So now that I understand what you are saying. I have two questions but I'll ask them one at a time.

The first question is, "What has to be done to get from were we are now to a point that the free market can work?"

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

Well, I don't have all the answers but government assistence is a little like addictive drugs. You can pull the patient off them and they have withdraw symptoms that could kill them. It would seem to me that these programs would have to be withdrawn so as to not "kill" the seniors and others that it was meant to help. I think this could be done by birth date. This would allow younger healther consumers to begin making choices early, driving the market for their consumer dollars if you will. The older patients would stick to the current system until they die or could be absorbed into the market or charities.

The idea is to get the free market working again without hurting those that put their trust in a government system. When the Soviet Government finally broke down under its own fiscal weight, the seniors where simply left holding the bag. Many committed suicide and others live in poverty without help from a free market, charity or anything else. When our system fails, and it will, we can't let this happen to our seniors.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, don’t feel alone about not having an answer. No one else seems to have the answer that can satisfy all social, economic, and political forces in our country. We all cheer for our own side like it was some sort of football game. The object of the game changes from “solving problems” to just “winning”.

Let’s go back to discussing “free markets”. For the sake of the argument let me say, Medicare is nothing more than health insurance. The only difference between Medicare and private insurance is how they get money to operate. They both exist for the purpose of paying the bills for medical services to its members. The only reason people need medical insurance at all, is because of the high cost of medical services.

Let me change just of few words in the statement I made to you earlier.

[quote] All health insurance is bad. It is holding back the invisible hand of the free market. If the free market was allowed to work, it would drive down the cost of medical services to a point that most people could afford to pay for their own. The number of people that could not afford to pay for their own medical services would be so small that existing charities could pick up the cost. [/quote]

With that said, my second question to you is, “Why don’t we bypass all medical insurance and let the “invisible hand of the free-market” work directly on bringing down the cost of medical services?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

Gort's picture

PTC_0, the second thread was about my personal ideas about how the health care issue should have been reformed. The problem is I couldn’t get back to our last post to see where we left off. If you’re willing, I’ll start again by defining the problem. The way I see it anyway. 8-)

As a percentage of GDP, the US spends too much money on healthcare compared to all other industrialized country. For every $100 of GDP the US spends about $15 on healthcare. All other industrial countries spend about $10.

This leaves the US at a competitive disadvantage with other industrialized countries. Do you understand what I mean by a “competitive disadvantage”?

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

Are we competing with the rest of the world for healthcare?

A compeititive disadvantage is when you are competing with another enity and that enity has a better techincal solution or a lower cost. Therefore that enity has a competitive advantage over others. In a free market consumers are free to choose between good HC providers and with their dollars vote on which service provides the best solution. In a centralized command and control system the government decides how resources are allocated.

However, with regard to our HC system in the US, I don't believe we are competing with other countries. Or did I miss your point?

What do you think causes our HC system to be so expensive compared to other countries?

Gort's picture

PTC_0, lets park this thread until we finish our other one, okay?

[quote]To be continued![/quote]

Remember: If you think Social Security and Medicare are worth saving, vote Democratic.

PTC Observer's picture

by me.

I'm almost sure you may not drink - but would prohibition of the sale of liquor change your personal habits? I was surprised at how many people here in Fayette County serve wine in their homes on Sunday - I won't even mention beer. How is this a 'liberal' issue? Most of the residents here in Fayette County claim to be 'conservative'. Just asking. Do all of our 'service' programs to assist our neighbor fall into the category of unwed mothers (a Palin)?

What is your secret? 1998 your last tax-paying year?

Don't know about Adams or Madison, but some of the heirs of Jefferson are still with us in the U.S. - and doing well. (Their great-great-great,etc grandmother was a slave) {As far as I know, they all pay their taxes and contribute to the welfare of our country} What part of the Constitution were these American leaders (founders) adhering to? Our Constitution and its words of wisdom have survived some ugly days.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

Prohibition is Exhibit A for government meddling in our lives and causing things that were not forseen. Not only did people ignore the do-gooders and the law and continue to drink, but they began by making moonshine and bathtub gin (poorly) which resulted in many deaths. Then the speakeasys and organized crime came along and things got so bad even the fools in Washington knew they would have to repeal that very bad law. I think the War on Drugs is exactly the same thing except no one has the courage to propose ending it.

1998 was my last tax-paying year because that's the last year I worked. Tax-free munis provide me with all I need since then - and my needs are very modest. More people need to learn to live like me.

I guess the Jefferson comment is how you drag race into everything - even this, but my point is the founders didn't even consider welfare programs. LBJ started that stuff - or at least expanded it to the point that it marginalized black males and destroyed black families and created a whole under-class that is now 3 or 4 generations bred-in to living on the dole. Saul Alinsky would approve. Madison and the others would not.

Live free or die!

[quote]Next we will be hearing that "Insure domestic tranquillity" is founder-speak for legalization of marijuana [/quote].

What is the ' prohibition' of marijuana doing to our society? I agree with you about the foiled attempt to prohibit liquor.

What is it about my intent to discuss race on this blog that you can't comprehend? You don't have to reply - but RACE is an issue in this country. . . .and always has been. Because certain textbooks 'deleted' racism from content - doesn't mean it didn't exist. I have been made aware during my stay here that there are those who feel very uncomfortable discussing it and feel that there is no need to examine this issue any longer. However, there are intelligent participants in this discussion that feel they have been the victims of reverse racism. There are participants who feel that they are still being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their religion, or their accent. Not many remember knowing slaves - but many do remember their grandparents and great grandparents who were slaves. That is not the memory that hurts. The memory that brings up 'race' is the practice of segregation throughout our country - not just the south. The joy that this memory invokes is the reality that times are changing - and the most change has been made in the south. I have learned from the past - and rejoice in the present - and have hope for the future. I congratulate you on living within your income. Happy New Year!

[quote=Davids mom][quote]Because certain textbooks 'deleted' racism from content - doesn't mean it didn't exist.[/quote].

DM - specifically, which textbooks 'deleted' racism from their content?
Be specific now, don't make stuff up like you usually do.

I've been a good boy, Santa Cal, I haven't been banned once this year!

My Christmas list is very short:
<ol><li>World peace</li>
<li>A Democratic landslide in 2012</li>
<li>A regular column in the <em>Citizen</em> for Timothy J. Parker</li></ol>
.
A column for Mr. Parker might serve as a "reality check" on some of your columnists who have a sadly tenuous grasp on sanity (*cough*TerryGarlock*cough*)

Yours respectfully,
Chris P. Bacon
RealAmericanâ„¢

PTC Observer's picture

can you ask for a column for yourself? ;-)

Let's be democratic and vote on it.

As for your three "wishes"

I go for #1

but

#2, #3 are dreams or nightmares depending on your philosophy.

There is a book you may have read, "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant, that talks about this perplexing phenomena we see going on in our country. The poorest of the poor, voting against their own interests, continuing to vote in the very people and political party that has every intention of keeping them poor and destitute... it makes no sense.

"...of white have-nots...It is maddening and provocative that the true believers in 'American exceptionalism' and ersatz machismo, side with those stepping all over them." - Studs Terkel

Peace and Happy Holidays, to you and yours Tim.

This debate will have an important impact on all of our elections.

<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/One-Minute-Debate/2010/0927/Shoul... the Christian Science Monitor</a>

SPQR's picture

I have friends who reside and work in the academic world. Their perspective is similar to yours. Are you an academic by profession?

[quote]The difficulty with intellectually selective choices in the end are their wrongheaded conclusions.[/quote]

PTC Observer's picture

If the socialists aren't burning history they are re-writing it.

Congratuations on upholding the highest ideals of the socialist philosophy.

PTC Observer: What is your definition? As for 'our' history; it does not have to be 're-written' - just more inclusive and honest.

Tried multiple times, it never ends well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism -GP

PTC Observer's picture

In the Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek made several points on the characteristics of the socialist mind; one is the denial of individual responsibility. The unending march of socialism thus always attacks individual responsibility. If the concept of individual freedom can be banished from the minds of men. If they can be made to feel not responsible for their actions or helpless, then according to the socialists their lives should be controlled by the state. They must be regulated, regimented, and controlled - for their own good, and the good of the general welfare of the state.

Mr. Parker is excellent at double speak and clouding the issues surrounding this fundamental idea. Like Bacon, Mr. Parker is a socialist and the only way that socialists can succeed is for us all to believe that the state is the answer to our problems, when in most cases it is the cause of our problems. Our willingness to give over our personal responsibility to the state is the first step in enslavement. All one has to do is read personal histories of those that have lived under socialist states to find out. Or better yet talk to those that have lived under the socialist philosophy.

The ultimate end to this process of class warfare is another Warsaw ghetto, to suggest otherwise is simply ignoring facts. Statists with twisted words and hyperbole are dangerous to you and your freedoms. The sooner we recognize this fact and take care of it at the voting booth the more secure our freedoms.

[quote=PTC Observer]Like Bacon, Mr. Parker is a socialist[/quote]

There you go again.

For the record, I'm a Democrat, not a socialist.

has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP

[quote=Georgia Patriot]has been taken over by the so-called Progressives, which are nothing more than Communists without the guts to admit it. -GP[/quote]

h8riot, that is one of the more asinine comments you've ever made.

Let me lessen your ignorance somewhat:

A progressive is a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight.

A communist on the other hand denounces capitalism as "flawed" and replaces it with a state-run economy, where the government controls manufacturing and distribution of goods.

PTC Observer's picture

You are a self described Democrat but in your response to our friend GaPatriot you describe a progressive as 'a strong believer in Keynesian economic theory, which embraces capitalism but insists on government oversight." But isn't this also the position of the Democrat and Republican Parties?

Progressives, socialists and Democrats are the same in their beliefs in government power and control and they are not far from going to the next step of being fascists. Fascists are those that 'embrace" capitalism as long as the capitalists stay in line and produce what they are told to produce. Through regulation or outright purchase, they take over the banks, car companies, power companies, healthcare and other industries and install their crony managers to do their bidding. The cronies get rich and provide a power base for the political elite through political funding. You know, like more fuel efficient cars, or wind power, or “universal” healthcare. Since they know that their philosophy goes against the nature of man to be free they enforce their "ideal society" on others through the force of government. If it all sounds familiar, it is. Fascism always leads to trade barriers, war, poverty, and destruction, all in the name of the state and the general welfare.

As to your definition of Communism, it is only partially correct. Communists are always socialists but not all socialist are communists; they are sometimes fascists and their precursor progressives. Communists believe in state ownership of all property and all the tools of production, for the common welfare of the state. Without exception every nation that has experimented with communism has fallen into poverty, starvation and destruction.

You sir are a socialist, whether you want to believe this or not. You are a dupe for the socialist political elite that award themselves “Peace Prizes” and celebrity. You have no clue what the endpoint of your political philosophy is because you are so immersed in self-delusion and hatred. You and people like you are a danger to our freedom, our property and our way of life.

[quote]But isn't this also the position of the Democrat and Republican Parties?
Progressives, socialists and Democrats are the same in their beliefs in government power and control and they are not far from going to the next step of being fascists[/quote]

<strong>Why delete Republicans from your second sentence?</strong>

PTC Observer's picture

"Democrat" should have been "democrat". I see little difference in the Democrat and Republican parties. They essentially believe in the premise that government should direct our lives. One, the Democrats, believe that government should have a central role and the other, Republican, believe that government needs to be there to protect us.

I agree that the Republicans give lip service to the idea of individual freedom and then they go about destroying it when they are in power.

Until we actually reduce the power and scope of the government, we are all at risk and so is our freedoms. So, next time when you go to the polls elect those that will agree to massively cut government programs, departments, etc. I know you will do this DM because you are a rational woman. ;-)

NUK_1's picture

Until people wake up and realize there is no salvation in the Repub Party and that the Repubs have been for a very LONG time just like the Dems, things will not change for the better. Both have a real problem with concepts like "liberty" and "freedom" that doesn't involve massive governmental control and restrictions.

We'll see what the various Tea Party groups have to offer up and whether they can deliver. They had some notable successes this past election(let's see how they vote now) and some complete nut-jobs like Angle and O'Donnell that goofy Palin anointed. It's early, but if they stick to the fiscal issues and far, far away from the "social" issues, they may have some longevity.

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content

Opinion

Recently, the President of the United States spoke at the graduation of the U. S. Coast Guard Academy. There he proclaimed that one of the greatest threats to national security was ...