If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[Dragon]

Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.

I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?

 

[code1211]

You're saying that the role of government is to intrude into the interrelationships of the individuals who are citizens to protect the "common people" from the "wealthy and powerful".

You're putting words in my mouth again. Whether the government needs to "intrude into the interrelationships of individuals" depends very much on the material circumstances and the complexity of society.

There are certain things that a government MUST do in a complex, industrial economy, that it does NOT have to do in a simpler agrarian economy. In the simpler arrangement, government intrusion is, more often than not, on behalf of the wealthy and powerful, to uphold the privileges of the landed elite, to enforce laws that provide forced labor of one kind or another, to exclude ordinary people from land ownership or from entry into business. For the most part, in a situation like that, liberalism calls for the government simply to refrain from doing these things. That's an oversimplification, but it's largely true.

In a complex, industrial society, the government MUST set trade policy, labor policy, industrial regulations; taxes are higher because there is more wealth and greater demand for public services, so tax policy is more important in its effect on people's lives; most people make a living working in a paid job rather than owning their own farms or small craft businesses, so regulations affecting labor rights and obligations are more important, too. These are not areas where the government has any option of simply not "intruding." It MUST set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy; it must build infrastructure, fund education, manage health care; there are a great many things that the state must do in an advanced, modern economy that it does not need to do (and often couldn't do even if it wanted to) in a poorer, simpler, more decentralized, agrarian economy.

What matters to a liberal in a situation like that is on whose behalf the government does these things that it MUST AND WILL do, one way or another, regardless.

A liberal wants the government to set all these policies with a view to protecting ordinary people from the rapacity of the rich and powerful. A conservative wants it to set all these policies to benefit the privileged.

I think you really don't see the favoritism that you are endorsing here or the implications of that favoritism.

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives. This belief in the abilities and the competence of the individual is the justification for the equal application of law.

By your words above, you imply that there are a group of individuals that meet this description, but the vast majority of men are witless, inept dupes who cannot adapt to the modern world and who are condemned to a life of misery being perpetually duped by the elite.

By your words above, only the benevolent government can lift up the masses by restraining the activities, physically, philosophically, creatively and financially, of the elite.

I think that we both accept that there are people who are simply smarter, prettier, faster, stronger or more talented than the greater majority. The Conservative feels that those who thus blessed are free to exploit their gifts and enjoy the rewards.

The Liberal feels that those who are thus blessed are to be subjected to punishments in view of their gifts and the rewards necessarily must be stripped from them.

The role of government in your mind is to do this stripping and confiscate for their own purpose the rewards. It is okay to be better, but it is not okay to have more.

The way this works out in the real world is that a great many people who are really not more talented or more prettier or any of the others, but who just have worked and saved will find a penalty waiting at the end of their efforts.

No special gifts to penalize there, just a life of limits as opposed to a life of excesses.

Again, by what measure does a "common people" turn into a "wealthy and powerful"?
Why is a penalty levied by government required?
How much of one's labor must the government confiscate until the government is thought of as benevolent?
Is any individual ever entitled to keep any of his own wealth?
Does any individual have any truly private property?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really, it would seem they have little place in America given that their ideas about big government are the opposite of the basic Constitutional idea of limited central government formalized by our founders.

FDR was really the first liberal Democrat and his New Deal was mostly leftist inspired, not America inspired, as his choice of Henry Wallace, Alger Hiss and the others would indicate. Now they have Obama who had two communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. How can we conclude that Democrats are anything but a genuine Trojan Horse on American soil? I have yet to hear an answer to this.

Jefferson did not found the Republican party. He founded the democratic-republican party which is the now democratic party.

 

[Dragon]

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives

That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.

 

[code1211]

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives

That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.

So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?

What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"? Are these the result of Conservatism, that is to say adherence to the Constitution, or Liberalism which you seem to be saying are based solely in the capricious passions of the moment?

You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application. What of the two people who are arguably equal in all ways who hail from the same neighborhood and arrive at dramatically different financial outcomes? Is one to be penalized for providing for himself while the other is rewarded for failing to make those same provisions?

 

[code1211]

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives

That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.

By today's standards, Jefferson was a Conservative.

 

[code1211]

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives

That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.

The many or the few? Hardly. The disagreement is about the opportunity or the outcome. I think everyone should be given the same chance to direct their own life and achieve the best life they can for themselves.

You seem to be saying that regardless of effort, talent, success or achievement, all need to have the same outcomes. You further seem to be demanding that government enforce and regulate any and all achievement to assure that nobody receives any reward greater than a reward that all will be accorded.

 

[code1211]

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives

That may describe your beliefs. It does not describe those of any conservative with a grasp on reality. "All men are created equal" is a statement of a liberal ideal of what SHOULD be (by a famous agrarian liberal), it is not a realistic statement of what IS. If we set government policy on the premise that all people will be able to compete equally, regardless of their starting points in life, we will ensure a plutocracy and an extreme degree of inequality, with very rich and very poor and very little in between.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are genuinely confused about this reality; there is evidence from prior posts of yours to suggest this is true. For most conservatives, though, that outcome is exactly what is desired. In fact, the evidence for this lies in legislation and court practices that affirmatively FAVOR the rich and powerful.

The many or the few: that's what the disagreement is all about. Anything else is window dressing.

All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.

That you cannot see this is telling. Out of curiosity, do you think this was more true at the time of and in the place of Jefferson with slavery, very limited access to education, rampant sexism and racism, indentured servitude and a landed gentry?

 

[Dragon]

So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?

Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.

What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?

Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.

All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)

You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.

Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.

I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.

 

[Dragon]

All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.

That you cannot see this is telling.

Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.

You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.

 

[code1211]

So is a freedom a concept that applies to individuals or to herds?

Both, but applying it to individuals doesn't lead us to the place I suspect you are trying to go. That requires several more (false) assumptions.

What are the Federal legal decisions or Federally passed laws that you are pointing to "that affirmatively favor the rich and powerful"?

Start with the flattening of the tax code in the 1980s. Go from there to provisions in the tax code and trade agreements that encourage outsourcing. Add in the government policies that fail to enforce workers' rights laws and have resulted in a tremendous increase in illegal firings and other illegal activities by employers in the course of union elections. Plus the tax-code provisions that result in some corporations paying no taxes at all. Then there are the laws and court decisions that treat corporations as persons for all legal purposes benefiting corporate power while still regarding them as non-persons for purposes of criminal liability. There are more, but those will do for a start.

All of them, assuming the result was intended, are the result of conservatism by definition. (That's including the parts that are the work of the Clinton administration. Liberal and Democrat are not synonyms.)

You seem to be saying that outcomes are what need to be made equal regardless of effort or application.

Not really, since I don't have to. I'm just pointing out that "equality of opportunity" is not a reality. People born into wealthy families have enormous advantages over people born into poor circumstances. They can go to the best schools, have networks of helpful, successful people, and have great jobs or financial resources available to help them succeed. Bill Gates could not have built the fortune he did without his own ability, but someone with twice his ability could not have done it without wealthy parents as Gates had, because they would never have had the chance.

I have yet to find anyone who talks about "equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome" and also wants to do jack-diddly about the inequities described above -- which makes the first part of that statement a falsehood.

Allowing all people to keep more of their own money is your example? The cuts applied to all people. The cuts benefitted all people who paid taxes. Fail.

Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet. This is what is chasing business away from our shores. That and the high cost of hiring unionized labor. Fail.

Protecting citizens from the illegal acts of any threatening terrorists be they union thugs or public enemies is hardly catering to the wealthy. Fail.

Tax law is too complex and that is a feature of the social engineering of Liberals. Simplify the tax code as suggested by Ryan in his budget and you'll see all entities paying taxes. Fail.

Conservatism by definition is to have a smaller less intrusive government. You don't seem to understand the the kind of regulation you endorse demands huge government and strangling limitations on personal freedoms.

You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes? Fail.

There literally millions of people who have immigrated here illegally who barely speak English who are seeking the equality of opportunity you say does not exist. Fail.

 

[code1211]

All men are created equal is more true right here and right now than it has ever been at any time in history or at any place in history.

That you cannot see this is telling.

Yeah, it tells us that I'm living in reality instead of a pipe-dream. At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s, to say what you just said is so out-of-touch as to be staggering.

You're simply, factually, demonstrably wrong. End of story.

You are completely devoured by class envy. Why does it matter to you what somebody else has? It has never mattered to me.

I grew up in a family that could not afford opulent vacations. I put braces on my own teeth because this was an extravagance in my youth. I wanted straight teeth later on. There was no money to pay for college so i worked and paid it myself. I was the second person in my extended family to graduate from college.

I don't resent those who had parents paying for them to attend college. i don't care about them. Why do you?

What I care about is that I wanted braces and they were available for me to buy. I wanted to go to college and was able to attend as long as I could pay. In time, i wanted to go to Disneyland, Hawaii, Jamaica and allot of places. I did. Because I could pay for it. There was nobody telling me I could not go or do or buy.

In truth, when I finally went to Disneyland, I was disappointed by it. The Disneyland in my mind was really terrific. The one on this planet was crowded, seemed a little outdated, had long lines and was filled by people that i would not choose to spend time with.

The inequality of Income has nothing to do with anything. Do you have the opportunity to work and to live a good life with a good result as long as you show up and give your employer value? Of course. Do you have the right to keep the fruits of your labor? As long as the Liberals are kept in check, yes.

How many of my possessions and how much of my money do you need to take from me in order that you feel better about yourself?

 

[Dragon]

Allowing all people to keep more of their own money is your example? The cuts applied to all people.

Insofar as there are numbers larger than zero and less than infinity, and how much really does matter, that's not true.

When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When it's more than made up for by tax increases elsewhere, cuts in government services that benefit lower-income people more than those with wealth, and deficit spending which works as a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich over time. The flattening of the tax code in the 1980s was an example of all three.

Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet.

By the time you apply all the deductions and credits, that's not true, either.

Conservatism by definition is to have a smaller less intrusive government.

Wrong. Conservatism includes highly intrusive legal measures trying to police people's private lives, setting aside key features of due process, cutting into free speech on the Internet, and building a huge military machine, and none of that can be described as "smaller less intrusive government." No. Conservatism is government for the few. Liberalism is government for the many. Neither one is for "smaller" government overall. (Nor consistently for "bigger" government overall.)

In fact, there is no political philosophy that's for that, except for libertarianism, which is unworkable.

You hold up Bill Gates who rose from upper middle class to become the richest man in the WORLD as an example of no mobility between classes?

"No mobility between classes" -- again you are putting words in my mouth. Stop doing that, you dishonest fuck!

I said very clearly what I meant by the example of Gates and it wasn't that. Go back, try again, and this time DON'T FUCKING LIE.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

At a time when inequality of income is higher than it's been at any time since the 1920s,

1) of course its higher the liberals created a huge and growing welfare or bottom class.

2) of course its higher, the liberals destroyed the American family so now you have millions of very very poor single mothers creating a huge bottom class.

3) of course its higher the liberals let in 20 million illegals who make up much of the bottom class.

4) of course its higher the unions and idiotic tax laws drove million of jobs offshore.

5) its really not higher when you add the trillions and trillions in welfare entitlements that are not counted as income.

 

[Dragon]

[
You are completely devoured by class envy.

You can't answer my arguments and so you are trying to attack the person making them. Pathetic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong. Conservatism includes highly intrusive legal measures trying to police people's private lives,

of course thats a lie which explains why you were afraid to give your most substantive example. Even BO has kept all of Bush's measures believing too that in war freedom comes from victory over the enemy, not civil liberties at home.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Today we are on the verge of becoming the country internationally that has the highest corporate tax on the planet."

By the time you apply all the deductions and credits, that's not true, either.

Once Japan lowers its tax we will have the highest corporate tax in the world thus encouraging off-shoring of jobs and many other negative things.

Yes, our corporations pay very little in the end, but that is only because they take advantage of loop holes like moving off-shore. Got it now, liberal??? Now you know why even BO supports lowering the tax.

Its a hard sell though because idiotic, treasonous liberals are more anti-business than they are pro jobs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Neither one is for "smaller" government overall.

of course thats idiotic! Republicans since Jefferson have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments. Newts passed the House and failed in the Senate by one vote. Today the debt would be $0 not $16 trillion! Japan and China would have to buy our products not our Treasuries.

Is that really over a liberal's head??

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.

I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?

Yes, but if were enforced there’d be no one left to post.

And ignorance by any other name is just as ignorant.

A Conservative wants all laws to apply to all citizens equally. Period. Hard stop.

Then you have a significant number of conservatives not abiding by that tenet – equal access to marriage laws by same-sex couples being the most prominent example. Period. Hard stop.

A Conservative believes this because he has a strong faith and belief that "All men are created equal" and that all men are competent agents who can direct and control their own lives. This belief in the abilities and the competence of the individual is the justification for the equal application of law.

Liberals simply follow Constitutional case law on the issue: that all persons are entitled to due process of the law, that all persons are allowed equal access to the law,

By your words above, you imply that there are a group of individuals that meet this description, but the vast majority of men are witless, inept dupes who cannot adapt to the modern world and who are condemned to a life of misery being perpetually duped by the elite.

By your words above, only the benevolent government can lift up the masses by restraining the activities, physically, philosophically, creatively and financially, of the elite.

No, again, Liberals simply follow Constitutional case law on the issue where the state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Liberals have no problem with individuals succeeding or failing in accordance with their own abilities, nor do they advocate penalizing a ‘successful elite’ simply as a consequence of their success.

I think that we both accept that there are people who are simply smarter, prettier, faster, stronger or more talented than the greater majority. The Conservative feels that those who thus blessed are free to exploit their gifts and enjoy the rewards.

As do liberals.

The Liberal feels that those who are thus blessed are to be subjected to punishments in view of their gifts and the rewards necessarily must be stripped from them.

Clearly incorrect, as noted above.

The role of government in your mind is to do this stripping and confiscate for their own purpose the rewards. It is okay to be better, but it is not okay to have more.

The role of government for any liberal is to be as limited as possible, particularly state and local governments who have a propensity to violate citizens’ civil liberties.

The way this works out in the real world is that a great many people who are really not more talented or more prettier or any of the others, but who just have worked and saved will find a penalty waiting at the end of their efforts.

No special gifts to penalize there, just a life of limits as opposed to a life of excesses.

Nonsense. What entity would impose such a ‘penalty’? And by what authority?

Again, by what measure does a "common people" turn into a "wealthy and powerful"?
Why is a penalty levied by government required?

This also makes no sense, what ‘penalty’ is being imposed by what government?

How much of one's labor must the government confiscate until the government is thought of as benevolent?
Is any individual ever entitled to keep any of his own wealth?
Does any individual have any truly private property?

Are these rhetorical questions? One would hop so.

Otherwise, this seems one of those inane and ill-informed observations by libertarians and others on the far right who are ignorant of – or simply reject – Constitutional case law on the issues of taxation, market regulation as authorized by the Commerce Clause, and eminent domain issues as authorized by the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hmm. I just developed a suspicion, based on E. Belaimonte's use of the phrase "too stupid," above. That's not a common turn of phrase, and it's one that is habitually used by another poster, Brutus.

I'm suspecting now that Belaimonte and Brutus are the same person logging in on two different accounts. Is there a forum policy against that?
Yes, but if were enforced there’d be no one left to post.

he wants victory with a silly rule because as a liberal he can't defeat libertarianism on substance. Its pathetic.