User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 84

  1. #61
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Master legislators often have legacies that aren't worth mentioning.
    Maybe. But lone wolves are nothing more than back-benchers with favorable headlines. I'll take a mixed legacy over none at all.

    By the way, I'm starting to doubt my earlier benefit of the doubt that you did not belong in the Cult of Paul...

    I think that majority rule comes dangerously close to mob rule. The U.S. government isn't supposed to do much "ruling" in the first place.
    OK. That's why you're a libertarian and I'm a populist.

    Why is that? Just because someone gets elected doesn't mean what they do is right. It doesn't even mean that what they do is excusable on the grounds that many or most Americans desired the action.
    Straw man argument. Never said everything elected officials do is right. I took exception to your "Americans..." "... in spite of their government" line. Government is not an entity separate from the people. It is actually made up of American citizens elected by other American citizens to represent their interests. What happens from that point on can be supported or opposed, and I've certainly done my fair share of both.

    Except libertarian ones? Or ones who want to express their beliefs through the ballot box with candidates you don't respect?
    Heh, you don't know me at all. I go after my own side for this MUCH more than I go after Libbies. (sorry, guess "for the love of Friedman" isn't the best way to get me to stop doing something)...

    So you want people to have political beliefs that have nothing to do with their personal identity? Or are you trying to say that you are against political peacocking? I am against that, but because you end up with what most liberals and conservatives do; i.e., "I disagree with this, so it should be illegal."
    Correct. I don't see what political beliefs have to do with personal identity. Personal values, absolutely. Personal opinion, A-OK by me. But personal identity? And I don't understand the second half of your point.


    All those people were American, and all had spotty records at best. Woodrow Wilson was particularly terrible.
    Everyone has a spotty record! So did the founders, I remind you. What is this... if ya can't beat 'em, call yourself a cosmotarian and complain about everyone else (Ron Paul being the shining exception)?

    I actually have completely mixed feelings on Wilson. I like a number of measures championed by the progressive movement that became law under his watch, but I think most of them had more to do with the moment than the man. I personally go back and forth over Wilsonian internationalism. I tend to be more pragmatic than ideological on international policy and consider most international issues on a case-by-case basis.

  2. #62
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    I like a number of measures championed by the progressive movement
    You never did say whether you liked the primary system or not....

  3. #63
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Absolutely. I'm a supporter of the primary system, and more specifically, a supporter of closed primaries. If you want to vote for my party's nominee, you better be a registered member of my party. Why is it the one progressive era reform that you support and what criticism have you heard about it from progressives?

  4. #64
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    I have a question regarding the bailouts:

    During the Great Depression 9 million people lost their personal savings when the banks went under. Half of American home owners were default on their mortgages within a year. The unemployment rate reached 25%.

    The New Deal turned the economy around and created jobs. Huge swaths of rural areas joined the 20th century because of public projects under the new deal creating dams, providing electricity, etc.

    The Depression ended in 1942 because of the war effort.

    In short, government intervention is the only thing that got this country back on track.

    Would you guys prefer that millions of people lost their personal savings and wandered the streets homeless and starving with a 25% unemployment rate (vs. the current 8%) as in pre New Deal times?

    What is your justification for the government NOT getting involved? Do you sincerely believe that the banks were the only entities "bailed out"? Do you not see the far-reaching effects?

  5. #65
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I have a question regarding the bailouts:

    During the Great Depression 9 million people lost their personal savings when the banks went under. Half of American home owners were default on their mortgages within a year. The unemployment rate reached 25%.

    The New Deal turned the economy around and created jobs. Huge swaths of rural areas joined the 20th century because of public projects under the new deal creating dams, providing electricity, etc.

    The Depression ended in 1942 because of the war effort.

    In short, government intervention is the only thing that got this country back on track.

    Would you guys prefer that millions of people lost their personal savings and wandered the streets homeless and starving with a 25% unemployment rate (vs. the current 8%) as in pre New Deal times?

    What is your justification for the government NOT getting involved? Do you sincerely believe that the banks were the only entities "bailed out"? Do you not see the far-reaching effects?
    Actually historians now note that the New Deal did very little to turn the economy around.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Actually, marmalade said it turned around in 1942 because of the war effort. The war effort being massive government spending...

  7. #67
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    And many historians believe that the New Deal was successful in turning the economy around until 1936, when Congress forced FDR to pull back on the most ambitious spending programs. That's when the turnaround dipped, and it took the war effort to get things back on track.

  8. #68
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Actually historians now note that the New Deal did very little to turn the economy around.
    The war effort, as Ruthie said, is what actually ended the Depression.

    However, I would like a reply to the sheer numbers of people who lost their life's savings - savings which would now be bonded, at least in part, by the federal government if the bank failed - and the 25% unemployment.

    Those are real numbers. Those were real people's lives. And now we live in times where it is not happening to that extreme directly because of government intervention.

    I'd like a detailed response - and I'm not necessarily targeting you, Peguy.

  9. #69
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    Absolutely. I'm a supporter of the primary system, and more specifically, a supporter of closed primaries. If you want to vote for my party's nominee, you better be a registered member of my party. Why is it the one progressive era reform that you support and what criticism have you heard about it from progressives?
    To clarify, it's one of two progressive era reforms I support without reservation (the other being women's suffrage). I support it for the reasons I outlined in my previous post, and the criticism from modern progressives is along the same lines as your criticism regarding the weakness of the American party system in general, and the inability to force dissenting party members to go along with the rest of the party in particular. My entire point is that support for the primary system (even closed primaries) is diametrically opposed to the formation of "strong party" systems. I support open primaries, personally-the closer representatives come to actually representing the constituents (whose preferences will likely differ from constituents in other districts), the better. On that subject, "gridlock" is the inevitable result when large numbers of people agree that "something should be done!" but are empowered (or threatened) by their constituents to vote in accordance with their professed conscience -its much easier to agree on the means than it is to agree on the ends. This is a huge potential advantage for political coalitions that agree upon federalism (in the modern sense of that term) as a means to their various ends.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 11-06-2009 at 01:10 AM. Reason: redundant word spelling

  10. #70
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    The war effort, as Ruthie said, is what actually ended the Depression.

    However, I would like a reply to the sheer numbers of people who lost their life's savings - savings which would now be bonded, at least in part, by the federal government if the bank failed - and the 25% unemployment.

    Those are real numbers. Those were real people's lives. And now we live in times where it is not happening to that extreme directly because of government intervention.

    I'd like a detailed response - and I'm not necessarily targeting you, Peguy.
    Well I'll have to go dig up my copy of FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression if you want raw numbers. Unemployment and such are indeed legitimate issues, the issue is whether or not direct government intervention is the best solution to it. I don't agree that it is, although laissez-faire is not the solution either. The state's mission is to provide for the common good, and that does include economic well-being on some levels.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] Ask an INTJ
    By logan235711 in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 870
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 05:04 AM
  2. [ISTJ] Ask the ISTJ
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 02:01 AM
  3. Engaging Economica on Libertarian Ideology
    By reason in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-25-2007, 08:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO