Re: Silence on the right

The Trucker wrote:

<snip>
The one thing the Neocons got right is: you are
either for constitutional rule of law, or you are not.



This last statement is totally out to lunch. You are either very
confused as to what is currently thought of when the word
"neocon" is used

See also the PNAC, and the sort of theory of history espoused by
Wolfowitz.

or you are totally wrong in claiming some
sort of support from these people for constitutional law,
or you have a very strange definition for the word "right".
It may be that all of these distortions are part of your
makeup.


If you are talking about comedy like "it's just a peice of paper",
I wouldn't give that too much shelf space. The Bush Administration,
ultimately, doesn't much beleive in what it spouts. It
beleives in winning elections, and that's about it.

Behind that, though, - beyond those particular players - is
some substance.


depending on growth to shrink the proportion of GDP it represents.


Or increase if the economy collapse.


Seriously? "so far, so good...".


Yes. We march inexorably toward the Republican heaven where the
only function of government is to collect interest on the debt from the
United States producing class and give this money to the wealthy class.
And, yes, it will tale a very strong military (and homeland security) to
keep this slavery system in place.





Yet the evidence of WMDs continues to pile up. Yet the map
of the counter-motives of Hans Blix and other Euro folks
to actually find them continues to be refined.


The notion that the particular WMD's which everyone agreed MIGHT
in the hands of Saddam Hussein made him a treat to anyone other than
his own people is total horsecrap and always has been.

Fine. Ignore the evidence to the contrary.

And the idea that
"terrorists" are going to ride their camels through the capitol building
and displace our form of government is equally rubbish.

Now *that*, I'll agree with.

And all of this
is the backbone of the fraud being perpetrated on the American
middle class in order to achieve a Republican nirvana where the nobility
totally controls the masses and democracy is buried in the prancing
pig *** of continuing "war".


No, really... the limiting metric WART this sort of debt is
the interest rate. What will really happen is that the rates will be adjusted to create demand for the instruments. Actually,
should those instruments become supremely Boring, then
the only problem left is to figure out how to apply the untapped productive capacity in the US towards serving those markets. Nice
problem to have.


IOW, how do we force the labor of the children along with the
labor of the adults.


Those do not represent labor.


Labor is the effort of humans.


Whatever. The untapped productive capacity has nothing to
do with child labor.


So, what is *your* proscription for
bootstrapping a productive industrial base in , say China?


What makes you think that I am overly concerned with the success
of the Red Chinese or the India Indians or anyone else when it
costs me my standard of living?

Why do you think it must? I'd think quite the
opposite. In fact, I do. It's partly humanitarian,
but partly just what I think is in my own
self interest.

I have humanitarian aspirations
as do all honest and caring persons. I have religious leanings toward
the ascent of the entire species as defining righteousness. But I
do not credit any sort of trickle down tax break Republican
thievery as being necessary to the increased standards of living
in China or India or anywhere else. If all investment income is
taxed equally or all assets are taxed equally then investments
will still flow to the area of least labor costs. We need not
shelter the rent income being realized in the USA and we need
not totally abandon tariffs to have these things happen.


Tarriffs might make sense - I haven't looked at them in a while. I
know that the tarrifs enacted to defend us from the previous
"yellow peril" ( of Japanese cars ) backfired handsomely.


You'd
prefer the sort that Empire Britain used - leading
to the Boxer Rebellion?


I think I have made myself pretty clear on what sort of "aid"
I am willing to stand for.


Those instruments do not represent labor *at all*. We continue
to prove this. And never mind that this process
was well underway during the Clinton Administration... after
all, where exactly is WalMart headquarters? Oh yes - it's in
Arkansas, isn't it?


And now you are twirling around in the middle of the room
not tethered to any reality whatsoever. A very progressive income
tax and minimal import duties are in order. The income
tax will hasten the investment of other nations in their own
countries and in ours and it can be used to alleviate the
problem offshore investment by our own people is having
on the producing sector of our own economy.


Don't do all that - just wait for the offshore
bubble to burst.


But even more seriously - SFAIK, other than say, greenmailers or
Buffet, or hard money people - nobody serious ever goes short on America.


There are more than a few who will be leaving this country to you
and your jack booted Republican pals. Other nations will welcome
the intelligent people. You can stay here with the morons.



Them ain't my pals. Using that false analogy, that puts you in with
the Green party or some other inadequate mechanism. I, at least,
know better than to resort to *that* level of comedy.

I've never registered as anything but Democrat or Libertarian,
dependent on who was available to vote for. I've just
done the legwork to disentangle their convoluted
position. And I cannot tell you how utterly disgusting
the performance of *both* parties is. They refuse to
do what is necessary to win, and we can only
shake our heads.

The neocons represent another failed experiment, one
that will yeild some sort of incremental improvement
whenever the right person can be found to improve on it.


It isn't the job of a PERSON. It is the job of all of us.


I think you are right, there. But for whatever reason, we
tend not to see change until we have the leadership for it.

And if
the Democratic Party was true to its namesake and was actually
about empowering the middle class by doubling the membership
of the House, then I would have a party to vote for. As it is,
you are minimally correct: I will vote Democratic because it is
the best I can do to remove the lying filth Republicans.


Consider this: Even the makers of IEDs in Iraq have faith in America, else why would they? I wish this were jingoistic,
but it is simply... not. Phrases like "last best hope" come
to mind.


Les always degenerates into a form of poetry that does not
make any sense at all to any logical person.


Why, thanks on the phraseology compliment, but it's
hardly poetry. Now, here's a question for you: can
you seperate the present situation from the
long trend line of Western Civlization itself?


It will depend on what you are plotting.


Thought not. Guess it's imperfect, too.

Even if we grant that something like Georgism is
the superior form of taxation, I do not see how we
get there from here, so it's pointless to argue. The
roots of failure in the present administration go
back to Teddy Roosevelt. All administrations
make this stuff up as they go along; there are no
scrolls with perfect instructions on them.


That is why the seat of power in this nation is designed to be
the House of Representatives as opposed to the (P)resident.

Yeah, but the House is populated by failed insurance salesmen. I
mean, them fellers ain;t too swooft these days.

It was a very good plan. But the House of Representatives
was hijacked by the TwoParty in 1911 when the membership
of the House by vote of the majority (party men all) set the
number of representatives at 435.

I agree with 'em - 435 is still a lot.

The huge numbers of people
encompassed by the resulting large district (was 200K now
600K) has resulted in an inordinate amount of control by big
money and a lot less opportunity for good truthful people to
be elected to represent their neighbors.


And we've established repeatedly thet "money doesn't
buy elections". It's necessary, but not sufficient.



If not, then what? Nobody even wants to *ask* that question.

That is the elephant in the room.



The "elephant" in the room is exactly the debt and the question
I have asked. I have yet to get anything but denial and
hyperbole.


You refuse to accept the (apparent) fact that government
debt is rather hazardous to retire in full. I qualify
with "apparent" because the data base for this conclusion
isn't by any stretch complete. Hence "so far, so good".

I mean, the present alternatives are *breathtaking* in
how well they illustrate the falseness of your position.


Fasten seat belt (and who the hell ever proposed retiring
the entire debt or even half of it????)


Well, what's the point of measuring it against GDP? And I'm glad
I got you wrong on that - most people think we should pay it all
off.


The Hugo Chavez kleptocracy will lead to the general populist
meltdown;


Lie number one.



Hide and watch, bubba. First, goes the currency...


Iran's Ahmadinejad will reinvent some tragic
Napoleonic/Stalinist disaster (assuming he does not end
up beheaded in the public square )


Totally off topic.


and the Populist
movement in the US will bury itself in well-earned
failure.


What "populist movement"?


And in closing it should be apparent that you have no idea what
my position might be and most certainly do not want anyone to be
able to ascertain my position(s) on all of these matters.


You're clearly a Populist.

--
Les Cargill
.

Loading