Friday, October 3, 2014

Liberals are Never Happy

I am so tired of Liberals saying that the Conservatives are changing and becoming irrationally Conservative, when it is pretty obvious that it is the Liberals who are never satisfied in their effort to pull this country towards becoming a "Social Democracy" like the folks in Northern Europe.
 
~100 years ago people got to use 95% of the GDP as they wished, now people are down to having 62% of the GDP to use as they wish.  And if the Left has it's way that will be reduced even further.
 
So in reality, Conservatives have likely become more Liberal than their predecessors as they tried to "negotiate" with the Liberals and meet them half way.  However enough is never enough for the Social Democracy folks, so when them Conservatives finally say enough is enough...  The Liberals have the nerve to call the Conservatives Extremists who are unwilling to "negotiate". 
 

Thoughts?

33 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

Interesting that current entitlement spending is almost equal to the entire budget in 1930. Infrastructure is about the same, defense is shrinking (since the war), and interest has gone nuts. ALL liberal policies, succeeding to the point where "stopping the madness" becomes an extreme conservative position.

Sean said...

The reality is that it is the "conservative" party in this country that has done much of the heavy lifting in making the graph appear the way it does.

For instance, the last "conservative" Administration added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that is on track to add over $100 billion per year to the deficit once we hit peak Baby Boomer retirement.

That goes without mentioning the fact that the "conservative" party has offered no concrete course to correct these trends that it claims to decry, either.

And, of course, your "analysis" ignores the myriad of issues where the "conservative" party has moved noticeably to the right, including, bit not exclusive to:

* tax policy (would Ronald Reagan's tax policies fly in today's GOP? No way!)
* health care reform (The ACA is built on the same foundation as the 1994 Republican alternative to Bill Clinton)
* use of torture (self-explanatory)





John said...

Sean,
I whole heartedly agree that the GOP did give and give and give... Now I think they are starting to understand that a full fledged Social Democracy is the only thing that will satisfy the Liberals. And they are starting to stop giving in. (thank fully)

Forbes Spending Problem

John said...

I think even Reagan would do things differently.

Reagan's Regrets

John said...

Other than the big subsidies (ie wealth transfer) and expensive exchanges, ACA seems fairly reasonable to me.

Sean said...

"And they are starting to stop giving in."

No, they're not. They're patently unserious about it all. If they were serious about it, they would offer cuts to programs that would impact their core constituencies.

If they were serious about it, they would say be willing to cut SS and Medicare not just in the future (on people who don't vote for them), but right now.

If they were serious about it, they wouldn't have run ads against President Obama when he proposed moving to chained CPI for calculation of Social Security benefits.

If they were serious about it, the House Republicans would have passed appropriation bills that met the framework of the Paul Ryan budget that they all fawned over.

If they were serious about it, they would have developed an actual alternative to the ACA that met the goals they claim to have, instead of offering a plan that covered fewer people and was worse for the deficit than the ACA.

If they were serious about it, they would introduce real tax reform (which means -- gasp! -- that some of the wasteful tax credits and deductions need to go). They haven't.

They're not serious about it. It's all cynical and it's all politics.

Sean said...

"I think even Reagan would do things differently."

Reagan had six years after the passage of TEFRA to take action to hold Democrats responsible, and he failed to do so. Despite that betrayal, he still negotiated with them in 1986 to do the largest and most substantial tax reform in decades. So perhaps he wasn't that upset about it after all.

John said...

It looks like the USA has been becoming much kinder, gentler and more civilized over time. Maybe the peaceful folk won't be happy until we stop even asking enemy combatants questions. "It's okay that you are planning to kill our innocent civilians, we will feed you and keep you safe until you are ready to share." Wiki Torture

The Left sure thought the GOP "cutting food stamps", threatening default and negotiating the sequestration were the GOP being serious.

One would have thought the GOP was killing small babies, and not just trying to slow the government's spending growth rate by all the comments from Liberals.

Sean said...

"Maybe the peaceful folk won't be happy until we stop even asking enemy combatants questions."

Who has said that, specifically? Nice strawman there, pal.

People have objected to us engaging in conduct that is below our moral standards. Being merely somewhat less repugnant than Al-Qaeda is not the goal we should be striving for. And that doesn't even touch the fact that torture isn't effective as an intelligence tool.

"The Left sure thought the GOP "cutting food stamps", threatening default and negotiating the sequestration were the GOP being serious."

No, we thought it was suicidal.

John said...

Good thing we all lived through it.

So where in your opinion is the line between agressive questioning and torture?

Does intent and goal matter?

If civilians are under threat of injury and death, does it justify different behaviors in order to save them?

Sean said...

"So where in your opinion is the line between agressive questioning and torture?"

That's already rather clearly defined in law and the numerous treaties we have signed.

"If civilians are under threat of injury and death, does it justify different behaviors in order to save them?"

The real world isn't an episode of "24".


John said...

"The real world isn't an episode of "24"."

Not for us coddled and safe civilians that are far from the battle. I am guessing it is very "24" like in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc right now.

I do find it easy to judge people and techniques from my the comfort of my lazy boy...

Sean said...

"I do find it easy to judge people and techniques from my the comfort of my lazy boy..."

Again, the person who thinks government can't arrange a one-car parade is willing to let the government torture at their whim. Liberty!

Sean said...

To expound on my point, if we allow the government to set its own terms on these sorts of things, we lose our control over what is done in our name. We hear government officials talk about "imminent threats" all the time, right? Here's how "imminent threat" is currently defined:

[A]n “imminent” threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140924/17360528630/obama-administration-learns-if-you-redefine-every-word-dictionary-you-can-get-away-with-just-about-anything.shtml

The lines on these sorts of issues need to be bright and immutable.

John said...

Redefine Words

The challenge is that I am not only concerned about American civilians. While we were/are at war in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, etc, there are millions of civilians at severe risk. Not to mention our service people and diplomats in those countries.

That is what I meant by other people are living "24" everyday.

Sean said...

So, what's your answer, then?

Laurie said...

I am curious if your most annoyed with the few liberal commentators here on your blog or with the liberals who comment over at Minnpost. Or are we equally annoying? I will acknowledge that being annoying is what sometimes makes commenting more fun.

Sean said...

If you'd like some evidence regarding how the parties have moved (or haven't), here's a good website:

http://voteview.com/political_polarization.asp

This site looks at the votes of Congress and places them on the continuum based on their relative positioning to each other.

Of particular note are the last four graphs (particularly the first two of that group), in which you can see that today's Republican's are further away from the political center than today's Democrats -- thanks to a 30-year sharp migration away from the middle.

John said...

Vote View

Laurie,
Just when they say.
"And, of course, your "analysis" ignores the myriad of issues where the "conservative" party has moved noticeably to the right."

John said...

How Extreme

I tried to research the methodology, though I am not sure I have it yet. From my initial understanding, it seems that these types of tools only compare variances at any point in time.

So I am not sure how one would determine changes over time in absolute terms. What am I missing?

Anonymous said...

You see this in the arguments and concepts people choose to find convincing. Conservatives believe in the concept of "enough" or at least say they do. They really believe "How much is enough?" is a convincing rhetorical question. Soucheray, on the radio, seems to believe he has won any argument once he speaks those decisive words.

--Hiram

John said...

I love making my daughters happy by providing them with stuff, experiences, etc. I enjoy their smiles, their hugs, the look of wonder, etc.

However there are good reasons to constrain what is given to them or spent on them.
- ensure the families financial stability and growth.
- help them learn to be self reliant and independent.
- encourage them to work for themselves.

So yes "enough is enough" at times. Especially when we are having the government deciding where people must spend $38 of every $100.

Anonymous said...

I think there are good reasons to constrain what we give to corporate executives, but hat never seems to be enough.

It's not as if conservatives believed in the concept of "enough". They don't, for example, want to put limits on second amendment rights. "Whatever it takes", the antithesis of "enough" is also a popular catch phrase with them. It's simply a matter of what arguments we choose to be convinced by at any given time.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

The two sides to every question are what is the RIGHT solution, and what the LEFT can successfully impose through political intimidation and propaganda.

John said...

What are those reasons? I am curious.

"reasons to constrain what we give to corporate executives,"

Laurie said...

let's imagine 50 years from now that CEO's make 1000 times more than their employees, that the annual pay is now $50,000,000 for CEO's and workers continue to make $50,000. Is there any limit to your worship of the outcomes or our current form of capitalism?

jerrye92002 said...

PMFBI, but what matters about "constraining CEO pay" is the HOW and the WHY. If government constrains CEO pay by any means, companies will simply find other means of paying whatever is required to get "good" CEOs, things like "deferred compensation" or perqs like free housing, limos, or "vacation buybacks." As for the why, somebody else will have to answer that one, and then explain why we don't cut the fantastic salaries being paid to top pro athletes, because that's obviously not fair to the stadium groundskeepers, who make much less.

Anonymous said...

"reasons to constrain what we give to corporate executives,"


The problem is that executives make too much, have allocated too much of the corporate pie to themselves. The result is stagnant incomes for most of us, and a stagnant economy as a whole. Even Republicans claim this. I have been seeing a lot of complaints from them arguing that recent favorable economic numbers aren't really that favorable because wages aren't rising, something with with I tend to agree. Curiously, these days, Republicans and Democrats share many of the same goals. The difference is that, unlike Republicans, Democrats believe to doing things that would tend to achieve them.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Almost correct. Democrats believe in "doing something" that they SAY will address the problem, but usually is ineffective or makes matters worse. For example, the current income inequality is a result of Democrat policy.

jerrye92002 said...

By the way, General Electric profits were $36 Billion last year, and overpaid CEO Jeff Immelt took total compensation of $19 Million, or 0.05%. Yep, too big of a slice of "pie." :-^

Laurie said...

just in case anyone is near the tipping point and will have their eyes opened and their viewpoint transformed by one more article about about the enormity of inequality in the USA here is another link:

The Walmart Heirs Are Worth More Than Everyone in Your City Combined

and about GE, how much has the median or lowest paid employee at GE seen their salary increase in the last 5 years. Did anybody in the lowest rungs at GE receive a crumb from that $36 billion? Based on a CEO to worker pay ratio of 491:1 , I don't think so.

jerrye92002 said...

That $36 Billion is AFTER all of the employees have been paid, whatever they were paid. The $36 B got divvied up amongst the shareholders, many of which were also employees (if they're smart).

According to you, the average employee makes about 38 grand per year. That's middle class. Average family income, of course, has fallen under Obama, but that's not GE's fault.

Here's a better question: How much of the $20 Billion GE got from the federal government did the employees get?

John said...

When I used to work for a Fortune 100 company, they took really good care of their employees on the benefit side. Including stock purchase plans, profit sharing, etc.
GE Benefits