Who are American politicians beholden to? The People? The Constitution?

[regexcellent]

You realize that Reagan also raised taxes in the middle of his term right?

He had a Democratic congress to contend with. And it's not like tax rates are some kind of ratchet; it doesn't mean that he doesn't generally believe in the idea of small government. Don't be stupid and dishonest.

Anyway, the main bone of contention with tax rates isn't necessarily that total government receipts are too high. The problem with tax rates identified by people like Paul Ryan is that marginal rates are too high and the base needs to be broadened with fewer exceptions. Current government receipts are something like 18-20% of GDP which is about the point Paul Ryan says he wants it at.

[Sava]

Paul Ryan is a nitwit.

[Straybow]

Such as the last couple of years when Democrats have had to compromise constantly on spending?

Where? When? They're rolling in $1.4T+ deficit spending, that's over half the entire UK GDP! Obama and the Dumbocrats are whining about a 2% reduction in budget growth in two spending categories that combined total less than half the budget.

It's extremely funny that you can't see the obvious irony in insisting Liberals never compromise on anything, yet you raging at having to even listen to 'liberal crap'.

You aren't exposed to the US media the way Americans are. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that the liberals have made. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that Boehnor actually tried to get from them.

Personally I hold personal freedoms quite highly, but I don't expect you to understand that it doesn't have to be a black and white thing.

In other words, not as highly as you hold your "crimes against humanity" standard. And only when "personal freedoms" is a vague concept. Then you mock when conservatives in this country say that liberalism erodes those freedoms.

Tell you what skippy, just think of all Europeans as liberals. It's not actually true but as you're clearly incapable of seeing nuance in anything, it's probably going to be easier.

No, they are mostly moderates who kinda like conservative positions in the abstract but value consensus above all. You should know what Thatcher said about consensus.

Ok, let's clarify this, so you're arguing that the current GOP are fully supportive of Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and Unemployment benefits?

If "fully supportive" means "spend all that the Dumbocrats want, and more," no. Even the current crop of leaders aren't that stupid. The Dumbocrats extended unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. That is clearly unreasonable. I guarantee you a whole lot of fraud could be weeded out. Obama has expanded food stamps to almost 50 million people. We should be motivating people to get off the dole while providing limited, minimal support where needed.

I was quite a big Reagan fan back in the day actually.

Yet here you are, completely unable to voice anything resembling conservatism. Did you like his movies? Or maybe just his folksy, genial demeanor?

The reason I loved Thatcher, was because she was a genuinely strong leader who governed on principle rather than polling. Possibly the last UK Prime Minister to do so. She took on and destroyed a union structure that was genuinely crippling our country (which is why I laugh at you American conservatives when you claim the unions there are such a threat), restored the UK economy and had policies that actually moved to encourage people to better themselves, rather than just dumping people on the side of the road like your current sick GOP bastards want to do.

Once again you can't produce a single bit of evidence that supports the liberal propaganda of conservatives "dumping people on the side of the road." You mock when conservatives say people need limits on government handouts to help motivate them to better themselves. You mock when conservatives hold the same positions Thatcher did.

The pinnacle of her government for me was probably when she sold off the council house stock, giving people who'd never even had a vague possibility of home ownership the opportunity to step onto the housing ladder and aspire to more. That is true conservatism to me, inspiring people to achieve, giving them a helping hand to get there, and yet still being there to catch them if they fall.

Here we've been debating for weeks and this is the first conservative thing you've actually said, and everything else you've said echoing liberal propaganda contradicts your claim to value these things. You continually come across as yet another liberal internet wanker.

[Alexander's Horse]

Paul Ryan is a nitwit.

Watching Paul Krugman debunk and expose Ryan has been pretty entertaining over the past few months.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20420/paul-ryan-budget-problems-ryan-budget-is-fake-says-paul-krugman

Ryan seems to have no answer.

Krugman is quite brilliant at exposing what the debate is really about

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/opinion/krugman-class-wars-of-2012.html?_r=0

[kentonio]

[QUOTE=Straybow;6205606]Where? When? They're rolling in $1.4T+ deficit spending, that's over half the entire UK GDP! Obama and the Dumbocrats are whining about a 2% reduction in budget growth in two spending categories that combined total less than half the budget.

You aren't exposed to the US media the way Americans are. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that the liberals have made. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that Boehnor actually tried to get from them.

You ask a question and then insist I've been unable to answer it, all in a single post?

Try reading back over every round of deficit reduction talks for the last year or two. The dems have compromised in every one.

In other words, not as highly as you hold your "crimes against humanity" standard. And only when "personal freedoms" is a vague concept. Then you mock when conservatives in this country say that liberalism erodes those freedoms.

Personal freedoms are extremely important, but setting up thick red lines that can never be crossed under any circumstances is stupid and counter productive. It's funny that you mention conservatives being the ones to defend personal freedoms however, given that the biggest surrender of personal freedom in recent American history came under a Republican president post 9/11.

Yet here you are, completely unable to voice anything resembling conservatism. Did you like his movies? Or maybe just his folksy, genial demeanor?

It's been repeated many times now, but Reagan would be considered a RINO in the current GOP. Absolutely no question about it.

Once again you can't produce a single bit of evidence that supports the liberal propaganda of conservatives "dumping people on the side of the road." You mock when conservatives say people need limits on government handouts to help motivate them to better themselves. You mock when conservatives hold the same positions Thatcher did.

Bull****, the GOP are not interested in finding better schemes to create more productive results, it's all about ideological objections to the wealthy paying for the poor, and it's always painted in those terms. Please explain how a Ryan budget which simply removes vast amounts of funding from the system but introduces no sensible alternatives for solving the social issues is supposed to help? One of my main points of fury against the GOP currently is that it has become utterly stupid and mindless. In the name of blunt force ideology it has stopped even pretending that it has any rational policy initiatives, and instead relies on dog whistle politics, simple but stupid folksy solutions that appeal to the uneducated but make no sense at a national level, and dogmatic insistence on ideological positions like not raising taxes, which as already pointed out would have seen Reagan branded a RINO.

Here we've been debating for weeks and this is the first conservative thing you've actually said, and everything else you've said echoing liberal propaganda contradicts your claim to value these things. You continually come across as yet another liberal internet wanker.

Obviously, because like so many of you new conservative idiots, you don't actually listen to what people say. You just hear something you disagree with and assume that you can stick a simple label on someone. It's that 'You're either with us or against us' schoolyard bull****, it's counterproductive, stupid and incredibly lazy.

Answer me this clever guy, your ideological playmates do not have anything like the numbers required to get a national mandate for your politics, and the demographics are starkly against you. When you refuse to compromise on anything, and spend your time attacking moderate conservatives as 'liberal wankers', how long do you think it will be before your tainted form of conservatism dies the miserable death it so richly deserves?

[kentonio]

Where? When? They're rolling in $1.4T+ deficit spending, that's over half the entire UK GDP! Obama and the Dumbocrats are whining about a 2% reduction in budget growth in two spending categories that combined total less than half the budget.

You aren't exposed to the US media the way Americans are. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that the liberals have made. Notice that you can't produce a single compromise that Boehnor actually tried to get from them.

You ask a question and then insist I've been unable to answer it, all in a single post?

Try reading back over every round of deficit reduction talks for the last year or two. The dems have compromised in every one.

In other words, not as highly as you hold your "crimes against humanity" standard. And only when "personal freedoms" is a vague concept. Then you mock when conservatives in this country say that liberalism erodes those freedoms.

Personal freedoms are extremely important, but setting up thick red lines that can never be crossed under any circumstances is stupid and counter productive. It's funny that you mention conservatives being the ones to defend personal freedoms however, given that the biggest surrender of personal freedom in recent American history came under a Republican president post 9/11.

Yet here you are, completely unable to voice anything resembling conservatism. Did you like his movies? Or maybe just his folksy, genial demeanor?

It's been repeated many times now, but Reagan would be considered a RINO in the current GOP. Absolutely no question about it.

Once again you can't produce a single bit of evidence that supports the liberal propaganda of conservatives "dumping people on the side of the road." You mock when conservatives say people need limits on government handouts to help motivate them to better themselves. You mock when conservatives hold the same positions Thatcher did.

Bull****, the GOP are not interested in finding better schemes to create more productive results, it's all about ideological objections to the wealthy paying for the poor, and it's always painted in those terms. Please explain how a Ryan budget which simply removes vast amounts of funding from the system but introduces no sensible alternatives for solving the social issues is supposed to help? One of my main points of fury against the GOP currently is that it has become utterly stupid and mindless. In the name of blunt force ideology it has stopped even pretending that it has any rational policy initiatives, and instead relies on dog whistle politics, simple but stupid folksy solutions that appeal to the uneducated but make no sense at a national level, and dogmatic insistence on ideological positions like not raising taxes, which as already pointed out would have seen Reagan branded a RINO.

Here we've been debating for weeks and this is the first conservative thing you've actually said, and everything else you've said echoing liberal propaganda contradicts your claim to value these things. You continually come across as yet another liberal internet wanker.

Obviously, because like so many of you new conservative idiots, you don't actually listen to what people say. You just hear something you disagree with and assume that you can stick a simple label on someone. It's that 'You're either with us or against us' schoolyard bull****, it's counterproductive, stupid and incredibly lazy.

Answer me this clever guy, your ideological playmates do not have anything like the numbers required to get a national mandate for your politics, and the demographics are starkly against you. When you refuse to compromise on anything, and spend your time attacking moderate conservatives as 'liberal wankers', how long do you think it will be before your tainted form of conservatism dies the miserable death it so richly deserves?

[molly bloom]

.

Thanks for the links, they were a good read. In the US we had mill owners building schools and hospitals in the early 1800s. That ultimate robber baron, Carnegie, used his hundreds of millions to build hundreds of public libraries and a university you might have heard about. That eeevil capitalist Ford cut his workers hours and doubled their already above industry average pay.

I knew sooner or later you'd bring up Andrew Carnegie- yes, later on in life he went some way towards making up for all the lives he'd ruined, and the attempts to unionize he'd stymied, and the strikes he paid to break up, often with the loss of life- it's called expiation of guilt. But hey, what's a few lives, especially of low paid workers, especially when there's always more immigrants to take up the vacancies ?

As Jay Gould memorably encapsulated decades of open shop agreements, yellow dog contracts, company spies, private detectives, union busting, strike breaking and the killing of strikers and the unemployed:

I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

No doubt you'd see this as simply proof of there being job opportunities out there, if only they'd look for 'em....

Schools only show one side of intelligence.

That'd be one more than you're showing, arguing about historical events and personages and organisations who seem to be entirely unknown to you.

That they continually play the part of Lenin's Useful Idiots shows they don't use it all too well.

'They' who ? 'They' the schools ? Your command of English is slipping. Perhaps the Workers Educational Association could help you out...

So the compassion of the European progressives only extendeds to their own poor, and not to the Greek refugees of the junta?

I don't even know how you arrived at that out from my reply.

Sorry, I forget how ethnically insular and prejudiced Europe can be, since they're always talking about how much better they are than blah blah blah

The connection between the C.I.A. and the illegal military regimes in Greece is well-known and documented- as was the fallout from that support. Don't excuse your ignorance of history (especially when you're attempting to discuss it) by rambling dross like that.

People who escaped from the Eastern Bloc often had nothing but the clothes on their back

Of course being friends with a Czech refugee from the failure of Dubcek's Prague Spring I wouldn't know that would I ?

But somehow you think this guy had it worse because he was escaping from a right wing military junta you hate instead of commies you love.

Incorrect and unfounded. See reply above...

Well, not being a leftist I never studied up on the details of labor movements.

I'm not a conservative, fascist or Viet Namese, but can tell Churchill from Balfour, the Greek junta from Karamanlis, and know a fair bit about Viet Nam's wars against France & the U.S.

Ignorance is no excuse.

[DaShi]

Watching Paul Krugman debunk and expose Ryan has been pretty entertaining over the past few months.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20420/paul-ryan-budget-problems-ryan-budget-is-fake-says-paul-krugman

Ryan seems to have no answer.

Krugman is quite brilliant at exposing what the debate is really about

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/op...2012.html?_r=0

I want to have Paul Krugman's bearded babies.

[Jon Miller]

He had a Democratic congress to contend with. And it's not like tax rates are some kind of ratchet; it doesn't mean that he doesn't generally believe in the idea of small government. Don't be stupid and dishonest.

Anyway, the main bone of contention with tax rates isn't necessarily that total government receipts are too high. The problem with tax rates identified by people like Paul Ryan is that marginal rates are too high and the base needs to be broadened with fewer exceptions. Current government receipts are something like 18-20% of GDP which is about the point Paul Ryan says he wants it at.

So Paul Ryan wants to decrease taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes ont he poor. I am sure if he spoke plainly people would support him!

JM

[Jon Miller]

He had a Democratic congress to contend with. And it's not like tax rates are some kind of ratchet; it doesn't mean that he doesn't generally believe in the idea of small government. Don't be stupid and dishonest.

Anyway, the main bone of contention with tax rates isn't necessarily that total government receipts are too high. The problem with tax rates identified by people like Paul Ryan is that marginal rates are too high and the base needs to be broadened with fewer exceptions. Current government receipts are something like 18-20% of GDP which is about the point Paul Ryan says he wants it at.

So Paul Ryan wants to decrease taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes ont he poor. I am sure if he spoke plainly people would support him!

JM

[MrFun]

[MrFun]

[MrFun]

[molly bloom]

Speaking of European history, who started the Greek Civil War? Oh, it was the Greek Communist Party against the freely elected and recognized coalition government. .

Do you mean the same (Royalist) government which had been in power before the Nazi invasion of Greece ? It was more or less airlifted in by the British after the withdrawal of the German forces. Not quite the same thing as you are suggesting.

There could have been peace and prosperity after the Germans were kicked out

Or not. Portugal and Spain also stagnated- as one writer (whom you probably won't have read or heard of, but I'll quote him anyway) put it:

In 1949, Greece emerged from its bitter civil war economically weak, politically divided and spiritually exhausted. Persistently assulted from left and right, democratic institutions were further undermined by a series of scandals invlving leading politicians.

In April 1967, a military coup established a squalid, unpopular regime that imperfectly concealed its reliance on terror and intimidation behind the threadbare veil of anti-communism. In 1973, the chief of the military police, General Demetrios Ioannides, formed a new, equally brutal, but singularly incompetent government.

Economic expansion was connected to a massive movement of Greek, Portuguese and Spanish workers abroad, mostly to Western Europe, and an equally massive influx of foreign tourists.

from: 'The Rise Of The Civilian State' in 'The Monopoly Of Violence' by James Sheehan

Relying on remittances from low paid workers abroad and income from tourists- not exactly a sound basis for a thriving economy- especially if you're stupid enough to attempt the destabilization of a democratic state, the assasination of its prime minister, and its subsequent invasion and segregation into two hostile statelets.

Still, at least it proved the end of the junta, although they did try another coup in 1975....

[molly bloom]

No, the early 20th c Liberals were not Marxist.

So why did you bizarrely suggest that the Liberals were leaning towards Marxist theories ?

Labor leaders in general were the biggest supporters of the Communist Revolution.

My, how nice and vague of you. Why not put it into a proper context ? You could talk about the failure of the nationalist/bourgeois revolutions of 1848 across Europe, you could mention how little representation the peasant/labouring classes had in the governments of the European states- instead you just vaguely mention 'labour' and 'Marxism'.

In the United Kingdom for instance, there were to be a succession of acts to reform the franchise and the electoral system in the 19th Century- even the fossils in the House Of Lords could tell that society was changing and that they'd better show a willingness to share power unless they wanted it taken from them. Thanks to agitation by trade unions, the first members of Parliament from the labouring classes were elected in 1874- the Reform Acts being dated 1832, 1867, and 1884.

Previous to the reform of the franchise, the only ways for the working classes to put grievances to Parliament were by petition, lobbying, mass demonstration, pamphleteering and ultimately, disturbance of the peace. I know you keep harping on about the Lords and M.P.s and how kind they were to allow votes for the lower classes and women, but since the Peasants' Revolt there had been a different way of looking at things:

When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?

And if that isn't clear enough for you, I'll cite someone viewed as one of the great Englishmen of the 17th Century:

The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he, and therefore truly, sir, I think it is clear to every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government

Thomas Rainborough


You might recognise the same sentiment in that later Atlantic revolution :

No taxation without representation.

Women's Suffrage wouldn't have passed in 1918 if it weren't for votes cast in favor by wealthy MPs and Lords.

How do you know ? Your knowledge of British social and political history being what it is, I'm afraid I'm not inclined to give your alternate history scenarios much creedence- especially given the existence of votes for women in white Dominions like Australia and New Zealand.