Progressive Democrats and Black History

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Markets only work when there is mobility and competition.

And well informed consumers. The less accurate the information, the less ideal consumers' decisions will be. The less information available, the more random (or perhaps chaotic) consumers' decisions will be.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually you can. You even have options regarding how to do so. You can move to a location within the jurisdiction of a different government. Alternately, you can participate in government, including, but certainly not limited to, voting out the politicians with whom you disagree about policy.

Much easier in a market.

Not necessarily. Not all markets are conducive to easily switching from one supplier to another, for example, home energy, mobile phone service (in less populated areas), home internet service, etc.

Similarly, it is with varying degrees of difficulty that one can leave the jurisdiction of one government in favor of another.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You even have options regarding how to do so. You can move to a location within the jurisdiction of a different government. Alternately, you can participate in government, including, but certainly not limited to, voting out the politicians with whom you disagree about policy.

Ahh, this is consistent with a strong state's rights position (gasp) and a key consideration of the original founders. (50 political experiments with no federal intervention and people choosing with their feet which is best by moving to those states they like best until the slackers respond to maintain their population)

Now which political philosophies wants to protect the sovereignty of the states and which want to just condense all government to the national level???

(I'm just being wry - actually the thread is moving along pretty nicely)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Ahh, this is consistent with a strong state's rights position (gasp) and a key consideration of the original founders.

Not really. Acknowledging that laws vary by jurisdiction (be it local, state, or national) is not the same as advocating states' rights.

Like Hamilton and the Federalists, I believe states' rights should be limited, and the states should be subordinate to the federal government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Ahh, this is consistent with a strong state's rights position (gasp) and a key consideration of the original founders.

Not really. Acknowledging that laws vary by jurisdiction (be it local, state, or national) is not the same as advocating states' rights.

Like Hamilton and the Federalists, I believe states' rights should be limited, and the states should be subordinate to the federal government.

then we have two philosophies:

example: Say that you like the laws and policies in New York, and hate the laws and policies in New Jersey. Others might agree with you or not, but that's what you think.

One position advocates that people should have the ability to freely choose to move from NJ to NY until NJ decides to try some of the things that NY is doing. or vice versa.... or even those inclined just end up in the best state for their views.

The other position think that the feds should just force NJ to be like NY, and what the hell - let's just adjust the other 48 while we're at it....



seems one allows choice, the other is a bit bossy and intrusive. but that's just me


Edit: This is the point where Quade brings up the slavery non sequitor. again

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ahh, this is consistent with a strong state's rights position (gasp) and a key consideration of the original founders.

Not really. Acknowledging that laws vary by jurisdiction (be it local, state, or national) is not the same as advocating states' rights.

Like Hamilton and the Federalists, I believe states' rights should be limited, and the states should be subordinate to the federal government.

then we have two philosophies:

example: Say that you like the laws and policies in New York, and hate the laws and policies in New Jersey. Others might agree with you or not, but that's what you think.

One position advocates that people should have the ability to freely choose to move from NJ to NY until NJ decides to try some of the things that NY is doing. or vice versa....

The other position think that the feds should just force NJ to be like NY



seems one allows choice, the other is a bit bossy and intrusive. but that's just me

Yet another position would advocates that people should have the ability to freely choose to move to any state, from any state, and laws in the country should be pretty uniform so that people have true freedom to live where they want and can afford, without respect to local regulations.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yet another position would advocates that people should have the ability to freely choose to move to any state, from any state, and laws in the country should be pretty uniform so that people have true freedom to live where they want and can afford, without respect to local regulations.

I'd revise that to " and a very basic and specific set of laws in each state in the country should be pretty uniform". And we're in agreement and fitting the real intent.

This really comes down to the extent of those laws that need to be uniform and where to draw the line. Basic human rights, but not really anything beyond that - IMO. The states can handle ALL the subjective stuff. As designed. This still aligns to position 1, but your caviat is good clarification.

The states absolutely should not be forced into carbon copies of each other. And it's funny that serious laws (example: like Murder) are left up to each state to try in court.


Now defining that grey line between - 'real stuff' and 'subjective stuff' is always the tough debate.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

This really comes down to the extent of those laws that need to be uniform and where to draw the line. Basic human rights, but not really anything beyond that - IMO. The states can handle ALL the subjective stuff. As designed. This still aligns to position 1, but your caviat is good clarification.

The states absolutely should not be forced into carbon copies of each other. And it's funny that serious laws (example: like Murder) are left up to each state to try in court.


Now defining that grey line between - 'real stuff' and 'subjective stuff' is always the tough debate.

I'm still in agreement with Hamilton. States should have been stripped of virtually all sovereignty. However, I recognize that the Constitution only strips them of most of their sovereignty, which has proven to have both beneficial and detrimental consequences.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

>If I find a market maker difficult to deal with, I simply move on to another one.

And if you find a government representative difficult to deal with, you simply elect another one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

For those people that favor markets, they tend to have a negative view of their fellow man when it comes to government. Ah, you can't trust men in government. Yet, they'll take some of their fellow men, elevate them into position of market makers, and trust them. Their view makes no sense to me.

Actually, a person who feels a need for strong government reflects the inherent believe that man ungoverned is a bad thing.

Here's the difference between markets and government. A market is a group of people (in the US hundreds of millions of people) who exercise individual choices to meet their needs and desires. Government takes a person or a few persons who, to do their job, insert their personal choices and impute them on the masses, leaving far fewer avenues of providing or obtaining needed or desired goods and services.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Actually, a person who feels a need for strong government reflects the inherent believe that man ungoverned is a bad thing.

Here's the difference between markets and government. A market is a group of people (in the US hundreds of millions of people) who exercise individual choices to meet their needs and desires. Government takes a person or a few persons who, to do their job, insert their personal choices and impute them on the masses, leaving far fewer avenues of providing or obtaining needed or desired goods and services.

"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint. Has it been found that bodies of men act with more rectitude or greater disinterestedness than individuals? The contrary of this has been inferred by all accurate observers of the conduct of mankind; and the inference is founded upon obvious reasons." -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #15

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[deltron80 0]

Civil War era political parties have very little to do with the political parties of today. You clearly know next to nothing about history if you agree with this video.

If you're interested in the subject you should read an actual history book not written by Focus on the Family. It's not as simple as looking at the names of the parties.

I can't even laugh about the stupidity displayed in that video because the level of ignorance is just sad and scary.

Have you ever heard of the Republican party's 'Southern Strategy'? All the racists you're referring to in the "democratic party" of the 19th century switched over to the modern Republican party during the Civil Rights movement. Did you forget about that? So now it's the modern Republican party that contains all these racists such as yourself. Where did you think they went? lol

Do you know many skin heads or KKK members in the Democratic party today? I doubt it lol. But hey, fuck it. Let's just make shit up. Oh yea the KKK was a humanitarian organization too right? And the Earth is 6,000 years old. Why do I bother? /facepalm

P.S. "what's" "with" "all" "the" "unnecessary" "quotations" "in" "the" "video" "?"

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

And after he is in power, do you really think that it will be equality and fairness for all? Or do you think that some are more equal that others? They have been working hard over recent years to put controls in place (get people on food stamps, welfare, etc...) so that way they can continue to ration to the the people while they party it up. And like I said, if you want your rations to continue to come to you, you better vote for the right party....

If you really believe this stuff, I suggest you take a step back and try to look at it with new eyes. Obama is not evil. He has no nefarious plan to control the masses, make the US communist, or take your women. Neither does Romney. They are both flawed men who will and are trying their best. They have slightly different ideas about taxes and government spending. Their views on abortion, gay rights, and immigration are different. Their ideas about foreign policy are the same but with some rhetorical tweaks. Otherwise, like most of the people in the US, they are essentially identical.

it is not that Obama is evil, his ideals of a world with no war, medical for all, no one is hungry are all admiral qualities, it is how he wants to get there is the issue. By Making people dependant on a government instead of being dependant on their own skills and abilities is actually robbing those that do provide for themselves of the ability to provide for themselves. A good paying job and self confidence is what people need not a handout from the government. taking from the producers of the world is wrong. dividing the people on the grounds of race, religion, sex, and nationality is wrong. Instead of leading people into hatred of another class he should be bringing the groups together to get the prodecers to help others.

What we have now is the havenots trying to take from the haves and using things like race sex and nationality as excuses to make it ok. The utopiun world when everyone has everything is a great ideal to work towards, but you have to work to get there, not steal it from others.

[StreetScooby 5]

You're making far too much sense here. That's not going to accomplish anything, so just stop it.

We are all engines of karma

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Civil War era political parties have very little to do with the political parties of today. You clearly know next to nothing about history if you agree with this video.

If you're interested in the subject you should read an actual history book not written by Focus on the Family. It's not as simple as looking at the names of the parties.

I can't even laugh about the stupidity displayed in that video because the level of ignorance is just sad and scary.

Have you ever heard of the Republican party's 'Southern Strategy'? All the racists you're referring to in the "democratic party" of the 19th century switched over to the modern Republican party during the Civil Rights movement. Did you forget about that? So now it's the modern Republican party that contains all these racists such as yourself. Where did you think they went? lol

Do you know many skin heads or KKK members in the Democratic party today? I doubt it lol. But hey, fuck it. Let's just make shit up. Oh yea the KKK was a humanitarian organization too right? And the Earth is 6,000 years old. Why do I bother? /facepalm

P.S. "what's" "with" "all" "the" "unnecessary" "quotations" "in" "the" "video" "?"

I feel your pain and I understand your anger.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

Markets only work when there is mobility and competition.

And well informed consumers. The less accurate the information, the less ideal consumers' decisions will be. The less information available, the more random (or perhaps chaotic) consumers' decisions will be.

Ah, yes!.. And so everyone who disagrees with the liberals, is obviously not a 'well-informed consumer' -- therefore liberals are right to make his (or her) decisions FOR him!

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[RonD1120 58]

I agree with StreetScooby above. That kind of talk has little significance or acceptance here in SC.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

I admit it's not a perfect analogy, but I think people tend to forget that both government and markets are made up of people. People generally look out for their perceived self-interest, so absolute trust in either one is foolish.

As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.

Of course in many of these situations, we see markets fragmenting into megalopolies because of specific government regulations making it hard or impossible for small companies to compete, or regulating particular products out of the market for ideological reasons, etc...

Whereas if gov't stayed out of it, more players would be able to partake...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Ah, yes!.. And so everyone who disagrees with the liberals, is obviously not a 'well-informed consumer' -- therefore liberals are right to make his (or her) decisions FOR him!

Several years back, a New York State Democratic Senator effectively said just those words. I was simply appalled. The US public education system is an abject failure, and it's because of government policies, IMO.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Of course in many of these situations, we see markets fragmenting into megalopolies because of specific government regulations making it hard or impossible for small companies to compete, or regulating particular products out of the market for ideological reasons, etc...

Whereas if gov't stayed out of it, more players would be able to partake...

I believe an essential role for government in our society is maintaining functioning markets. As part of that, entry barriers must be kept low, otherwise sellers will be kept out of the market, and single-seller markets are not really markets (...one can always argue how the buyers are hurt in this situation, but that's for another discussion).

Considering our government seems to be increasingly populated by people who do not believe in markets, much less understand markets, expecting my current government to meet that expectation is beginning to seem unrealistic.

We are all engines of karma

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

I admit it's not a perfect analogy, but I think people tend to forget that both government and markets are made up of people. People generally look out for their perceived self-interest, so absolute trust in either one is foolish.

As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.

Of course in many of these situations, we see markets fragmenting into megalopolies because of specific government regulations making it hard or impossible for small companies to compete, or regulating particular products out of the market for ideological reasons, etc...

Whereas if gov't stayed out of it, more players would be able to partake...

I thought government was suppoesd to stop monopolies, but what I see is them creating them with all the costly regulations and taxes.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I admit it's not a perfect analogy, but I think people tend to forget that both government and markets are made up of people. People generally look out for their perceived self-interest, so absolute trust in either one is foolish.

As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.

Of course in many of these situations, we see markets fragmenting into megalopolies because of specific government regulations making it hard or impossible for small companies to compete, or regulating particular products out of the market for ideological reasons, etc...

Whereas if gov't stayed out of it, more players would be able to partake...

I thought government was suppoesd to stop monopolies, but what I see is them creating them with all the costly regulations and taxes.

One good example of this is local butcher shops in Iowa

There used to be one in almost every town (in Iowa)
The meat and products were excellent
Many had been in the same place for decades

For decades with no illnesses ever attributed to them

FDA regualations have effectively regulated/cost the business out of existance

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

By Making people dependant on a government instead of being dependant on their own skills and abilities is actually robbing those that do provide for themselves of the ability to provide for themselves.

What has Obama does in this vein? I'm sure some will say the ACA, but that's not at all what it does. It forces people to buy private health insurance if they can afford it, and subsidizes private health insurance for those who can't. I fail to see how that is making anyone dependant on government.

I suppose the other thing conservatives may point out is the HHS proposal to allow waivers for some work requirements to receive welfare. Please keep in mind, all this proposal does is allow state governments to apply for specific waivers, it does not remove the federal work requirement. Please also keep in mind, Romney was in favor of such waivers before he was against them.

Quote

dividing the people on the grounds of race, religion, sex, and nationality is wrong.

I see more of that from the conservative side than from Obama. I agree it is wrong.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

By Making people dependant on a government instead of being dependant on their own skills and abilities is actually robbing those that do provide for themselves of the ability to provide for themselves.

What has Obama does in this vein? I'm sure some will say the ACA, but that's not at all what it does. It forces people to buy private health insurance if they can afford it, and subsidizes private health insurance for those who can't. I fail to see how that is making anyone dependant on government.

I suppose the other thing conservatives may point out is the HHS proposal to allow waivers for some work requirements to receive welfare. Please keep in mind, all this proposal does is allow state governments to apply for specific waivers, it does not remove the federal work requirement. Please also keep in mind, Romney was in favor of such waivers before he was against them.

Quote

dividing the people on the grounds of race, religion, sex, and nationality is wrong.

I see more of that from the conservative side than from Obama. I agree it is wrong.

See this is the problem with this administration and his followers, the problem wasn't that americans couldn't get health care, it is that we cannot afford health care. The ACA does not make health care more affordable it makes it more expensive. The people need jobs that pay well enough to afford health care and we need ways to reduce the cost of health care. The ACA does niether, it takes from those that have health care to pay for those that can't afford health care, nothing more nothing less.

[billvon 2,400]

> The ACA does not make health care more affordable it makes it more expensive.

It makes it both more and less expensive. Specifically it makes it less expensive for people who currently cannot afford it.

>The ACA does niether, it takes from those that have health care to pay for those that
>can't afford health care, nothing more nothing less.

You just contradicted yourself there.