The lie we’re being told about government
This morning I sent around via my e-mail list the text of a blog at that liberal rag The Nation that talks about globalization, Bush, etc., and uses as its jumping-off point the curious presence on the president’s iPod of one James McMurtry, a musician who has been brutally critical of the president and his No Millionaire Left Behind politics.
I got the usual array of positive responses, and then I got kind of a critical take back from my buddy Sam (no relation), a man who I suppose I’d describe as an old-style Libertarian leaning conservative (as opposed to one of your new-style, not even remotely conservative neo-cons). And I thought I’d address his thoughtful comments here.
That was a well written piece. Too bad he cannot tell the difference between a normal bureaucratic response to something large, fast and new and malice or indifference. One may say that there should have been contingency plans in place, and they did. No matter how good plans may be, whatever comes up is different in some way, which calls for a change, which large organizations are not good at. When they included FEMA with the even larger DHS – a bad idea – they just compounded the problem. There was an editorial in the 9/14 issue of the Wall Street Journal by Jack Welch – former head of GE – on the 5 stages of crisis management. I do not know if it is online, but it is good reading, especially considering that it was written by someone who has walked the walk, not just talked the talk.
As for globalization, don’t blame the politicians. They are doing what their constituencys told them to, namely insuring the right to go to Wal-Mart and paying the least possible for pants and whatever. If the public really wants to get the low skill manufacturing jobs back it would be possible. Mill towns were delightful places to live, so I’m told. Prices would go up and exports would go down, and 100’s of thousands of people could spend their lives at sewing machines, but it could be done.
There are too many other mischaracterizations here to spend time on, but pieces written like this are a bit conterproductive when read by those who are off differenent opinions but who are willing to listen to the other side of the question or position. The overall tone of this piece is rather snarky and with an air that the factors that the author is writing about are the only ones that exist, let alone matter.
To which I replied:
It’s true that big bureaucracies are lumbering behemoths and hard to get pointed in the right direction. That’s true of any big org, but we know the history of govt. orgs all too well. That said:
- A small org can’t deal with a Katrina-sized nightmare. A well coordinated network of smaller orgs might in theory, but the logistics of coordinating said orgs pretty much offsets the benefits of that kind of structure in practice.
- So you have to rely on gummit in a case like 9/11 or Katrina.
- All the problems you have with a govt. agency are compounded when you undercut, via under-resourcing, underfinancing, or just generally undercutting its value, is that you wind up destroying its ability to do what it’s supposed to do. In essence, you have no real impact on the bad of the org and you kill the good. And yeah, lumping FEMA in with the Ministry of Homeland Security isn’t looking like such a great idea right now. But this is what happens when your avowed purpose is to destroy government (or drag it into the bathroom and drown it).
As for globalization, you’re right about it not necessarily being all the pols’ fault – Robert Reich’s book The Future of Success does a great job simply describing these dynamics in a fairly apolitical fashion – but it’s a fallacy to think that economic realities aren’t powerfully shaped by political and economic policies. Further, when you get to the point where you’re saying that there’s just nothing we can do about it, you’re saying something important about where America has arrived, aren’t you?
We have hutzed outselves by buying into the line that government is the enemy of business and personal success. We have used that mantra to get gummit “off the backs” of our gazillionaires, and as predicted, they have responded by creating jobs. Millions of them. In China. In Korea. In Bangalore. In Latin America. Etc. And in the process of becoming the world’s leading exporter of jobs, we have severely hamstrung the ability of so many of our citizens to even fantasize about pursuit of the American Dream. Hint – despite all those commercials that would have you believe Wal-Mart is just like feckin’ Disneyland, people don’t necessarily shop there because it’s the store they’ve always dreamed of. They shop there because it’s all they can afford. Nasty spiral, that.
What’s odd about all this is that the countries that are now eating our lunch have done it not through the miracle of unfettered free enterprise, not through some idealized manifestation of pure market dyanmics and entrepreneurship, but as a function of powerful partnerships with….that’s right – governments. Aggressive government policies and programs designed to help folks in Nation X poach business from the US. Governmental action that’s aggressive to the point of corporate espionage, in fact. And in this case we’re not just talking about those we think of as our enemies, but about strategic allies like Germany, Japan, and Israel.
Ironic, idn’it?
I’m not preaching for the return of Big Labor or anything, and I’m just like everybody else when I take a look at the tax bill. On last year’s returns I took a massive 50% hit on all my consulting work from 2004, and at the moment I saw those numbers there was something inside me that felt very, well, Republican. But governments are institutions in which reside incredible amounts of power. They’re organizations where our collective resources coalesce into a vision of what we are and, ideally, what we want to be. When you kill something with that kind of power, you’re killing off an ally with unfathomable potential. An ally that can be shaped into a tool that can be used to strike back against our international competitors. An ally that can help us stand on a level footing with the good, hard-working folks of Bangalore.
In order for any of this to happen, though, we have to first unhitch some “ideas.” Let’s start with the notion that what is bad for George, Dick, and their billionaire club buds is bad for “business.” My guess is if we do that, a lot of other things will start falling into place….
lullaby pit 
I’ll bet when you got that 50% tax, you were wishing for a tax cut.
I wish for a tax cut every year, as I think the government’s scoup is too large already.
That’s the old fashoned Libertarian in me just seeping out.
Aloha,
Jeff
I’ll bet when you got that 50% tax, you were wishing for a tax cut.
I wish for a tax cut every year, as I think the government’s scoup is too large already.
That’s the old fashoned Libertarian in me just seeping out.
Aloha,
Jeff
A few gentle remarks:
As for globalization, don’t blame the politicians. They are doing what their constituencys told them to… [from your quoted source]
This is one of those issues that just makes all my innards pucker. I read “constituencys” [sic] as “lobbies.” Somewhere in the not so dark recesses of recent history, some bright business execs, Congress, and a president all decided that treating corporations largely like citizens. I can’t help but to feel that our current state of affairs is the logical result.
Yet I can’t just blame the gov’t for perpetuating this reality. It’s still a gov’t of, for, and by the people. Unfortunately, “people” now includes more sheets of paper and less flesh and blood. Instead of blaming gov’t, I blame the flesh and blood kind of people for not demanding some revolutionary reforms. Sure, Congress is beholden to People, Inc., and maybe it’s naive to think that any particular Congressperson is going to stick their neck out against an obscenely wealthy corporate constituency, but if the flesh and blood variety of constituent were to send a consistent message by way of repeated recall elections every time a newly elected representative failed to get the job done by proposing and pushing legislation to roll back this treatment of people/People, maybe the job would get done.
Of course there would be repercussions. It’s an ugly reality. But if we’re ever going to get back to a time when our gov’t fulfills the promises in the preamble to the Constitution, a nobly conservative agenda, I would think, some generation or other is going to have to get their hands dirty.
As for the creeping crud that is Wal-Mart, I again blame the people at least as much as People, Inc. Time and again, Wal-Mart muscles its way into a community the resists kicking and screaming. Time and again, Wal-Mart bulldozes their way over their future customers and their future part-time, underemployed, under-compensated, exploited, abused, and under-insured employees. Time and again the people cave and there’s a ground-breaking. Maybe, even if every single local resisted the urge to take a construction job at the Wal-Mart site (counting not taking the job as no worse as never having had the job offer to begin with) Wal-Mart would just import laborers. But when Grand Opening day comes along, do the people have to be such sheep as to shop there, knowing full well from the evidence the price their pinched pennies will exact in the foreseeable future? The day I hear of a Wal-Mart where nobody shows up to buy their bill of goods, I’ll regain my faith in people with a lower-case c.
Till then, we all get the government they deserve. Till then, I’ll keep my faith in individuals. The people are the problem.
A few gentle remarks:
As for globalization, don’t blame the politicians. They are doing what their constituencys told them to… [from your quoted source]
This is one of those issues that just makes all my innards pucker. I read “constituencys” [sic] as “lobbies.” Somewhere in the not so dark recesses of recent history, some bright business execs, Congress, and a president all decided that treating corporations largely like citizens. I can’t help but to feel that our current state of affairs is the logical result.
Yet I can’t just blame the gov’t for perpetuating this reality. It’s still a gov’t of, for, and by the people. Unfortunately, “people” now includes more sheets of paper and less flesh and blood. Instead of blaming gov’t, I blame the flesh and blood kind of people for not demanding some revolutionary reforms. Sure, Congress is beholden to People, Inc., and maybe it’s naive to think that any particular Congressperson is going to stick their neck out against an obscenely wealthy corporate constituency, but if the flesh and blood variety of constituent were to send a consistent message by way of repeated recall elections every time a newly elected representative failed to get the job done by proposing and pushing legislation to roll back this treatment of people/People, maybe the job would get done.
Of course there would be repercussions. It’s an ugly reality. But if we’re ever going to get back to a time when our gov’t fulfills the promises in the preamble to the Constitution, a nobly conservative agenda, I would think, some generation or other is going to have to get their hands dirty.
As for the creeping crud that is Wal-Mart, I again blame the people at least as much as People, Inc. Time and again, Wal-Mart muscles its way into a community the resists kicking and screaming. Time and again, Wal-Mart bulldozes their way over their future customers and their future part-time, underemployed, under-compensated, exploited, abused, and under-insured employees. Time and again the people cave and there’s a ground-breaking. Maybe, even if every single local resisted the urge to take a construction job at the Wal-Mart site (counting not taking the job as no worse as never having had the job offer to begin with) Wal-Mart would just import laborers. But when Grand Opening day comes along, do the people have to be such sheep as to shop there, knowing full well from the evidence the price their pinched pennies will exact in the foreseeable future? The day I hear of a Wal-Mart where nobody shows up to buy their bill of goods, I’ll regain my faith in people with a lower-case c.
Till then, we all get the government they deserve. Till then, I’ll keep my faith in individuals. The people are the problem.
errata
largely like citizens…was a good idea.
errata
largely like citizens…was a good idea.
>>I’ll bet when you got that 50% tax, you were wishing for a tax cut.<
Bet your sweet ass I was. Problem – the tax cuts these days are reserved for the people who need them least, not people like me. This is where that policy thing I’m talking about comes in.
When I have a billion dollars, you won’t hear me crying over my taxes. Unlike a lot of our rich brethren, I do feel like there is such a thing as enough money.
>>I’ll bet when you got that 50% tax, you were wishing for a tax cut.<
Bet your sweet ass I was. Problem – the tax cuts these days are reserved for the people who need them least, not people like me. This is where that policy thing I’m talking about comes in.
When I have a billion dollars, you won’t hear me crying over my taxes. Unlike a lot of our rich brethren, I do feel like there is such a thing as enough money.
I’m not going to argue tax policy as I want it to go away. I wish we would adopt the Singapore model; Cut spending to the bone, and do away with federal income taxes altogether. Disposing of the income tax wouldn’t make the accountants lobbies very happy, but they would just have to adjust to the new paradigm shift.
Aloha,
Jeff
I’m not going to argue tax policy as I want it to go away. I wish we would adopt the Singapore model; Cut spending to the bone, and do away with federal income taxes altogether. Disposing of the income tax wouldn’t make the accountants lobbies very happy, but they would just have to adjust to the new paradigm shift.
Aloha,
Jeff
If we did what you say, how would we respond to a Katrina or a 9/11?
If we did what you say, how would we respond to a Katrina or a 9/11?
If you noticed, the bulk of the scut work on 9/11 was handled by the Boroughs, with help from Jersey.
In Katrina, like any hurricane, the work on the ground for law enforcement is mainly local, National Guard, and other area law enforcement agencies. The electrical grid is always restored with help from all of the electrical companies nationwide.
The feds just hand out a lot of checks.
After Andrew, which personally wiped us out, we got some assistance from the Salvation Army and the Baptist Mission. The feds didn’t give us any help, nor did we ask them for anything.
I guess to answer your question, I think we should handle things locally, do whatever has to be done, and worry about how much it will cost later. If the feds don’t pay, then that’s the cost of following the golden rule. If we pay to help our neighbors, it will come around eventually. I think disaster relief should be a “National response” rather than a “Federal response.”
Aloha,
Jeff
If you noticed, the bulk of the scut work on 9/11 was handled by the Boroughs, with help from Jersey.
In Katrina, like any hurricane, the work on the ground for law enforcement is mainly local, National Guard, and other area law enforcement agencies. The electrical grid is always restored with help from all of the electrical companies nationwide.
The feds just hand out a lot of checks.
After Andrew, which personally wiped us out, we got some assistance from the Salvation Army and the Baptist Mission. The feds didn’t give us any help, nor did we ask them for anything.
I guess to answer your question, I think we should handle things locally, do whatever has to be done, and worry about how much it will cost later. If the feds don’t pay, then that’s the cost of following the golden rule. If we pay to help our neighbors, it will come around eventually. I think disaster relief should be a “National response” rather than a “Federal response.”
Aloha,
Jeff
Okay, say I’m good with this. You’re still paying taxes, right? I mean, disaster X requires Y level of response, and Y is a dollar amount coming out of Z number of pockets, right? So while you’re advocating a decentralization (pretty solid constructionism there), you’re not necessarily paying less. And private charity work is great and noble and worthwhile, but it’s not something you can really build crisis response around, is it? Because giving and contribution to private charities and the disbursement of those funds is subject to a variety of problematic factors, including the possibility that cause A is simply PERCEIVED as being more worthy as a result of, say, bad reporting (and surely political conservatives are sensitive to the risks associated with media). While I readily grant that current policies are anything but well run and equitable, that private angle really lends itself to a world where the amount of justice you receive has way too much to do with discretionary factors. That is, some animals are more equal than others.
You can’t really expect to run a state or country where the policy base isn’t at least nominally intended to be fair and equitable, can you?
Okay, say I’m good with this. You’re still paying taxes, right? I mean, disaster X requires Y level of response, and Y is a dollar amount coming out of Z number of pockets, right? So while you’re advocating a decentralization (pretty solid constructionism there), you’re not necessarily paying less. And private charity work is great and noble and worthwhile, but it’s not something you can really build crisis response around, is it? Because giving and contribution to private charities and the disbursement of those funds is subject to a variety of problematic factors, including the possibility that cause A is simply PERCEIVED as being more worthy as a result of, say, bad reporting (and surely political conservatives are sensitive to the risks associated with media). While I readily grant that current policies are anything but well run and equitable, that private angle really lends itself to a world where the amount of justice you receive has way too much to do with discretionary factors. That is, some animals are more equal than others.
You can’t really expect to run a state or country where the policy base isn’t at least nominally intended to be fair and equitable, can you?
You missed the biggest part of what I said…Cut federal spending massively. Get rid of the services totally. Do away with 10 executive level departments. If there is a void in services, let the private sector fill in the void at a lower cost, and more reliably.
Private charities are much faster responders to disaster than the government. I’ve personally been there and can say with 100% certainty that the private charities do such a better job than government, it’s not funny. Private charities put the government assistance role to shame in response time, product assortment, and merciful treatment. Private charities, especially the faith based, don’t have any red tape. I’m suprised that the media only speaks about the Red Cross, when in fact you have the Salvation Army, United Way agencies, Catholic, Baptist, and Methodist charities and among 100 or more others. My mother in law’s church alone raised 70K and sent 35 volunteers to Biloxi to help out. My lovely wife is up there working for the next month. Businesses, she said, are already gearing up for the crush of sales that inevitably come after a disaster. Her particular store has quadrupuled in sales volume.
The faith based charities don’t discriminate against anyone, plain and simple.
There are no discretionary factors with the private charities, instead, all people in need get help….. if the charities don’t come to them first, all they have to do is ask.
The Bush haters have said for 5 years that the policy base isn’t fair and equitable already. It went from fair and equitable under Clinton, to unfair and unequitable the day Bush took office. This country has been running along just fine, even with catastrophic events, despite what the naysayers preach. Home ownership is at the highest levels ever, the interest rates are down, and the unemployment rate is very low. The economy is doing fine, showing great strength.
There are a lot of good things about this country, it’s a shame that the NY Times never mentions them.
Aloha,
Jeff
You missed the biggest part of what I said…Cut federal spending massively. Get rid of the services totally. Do away with 10 executive level departments. If there is a void in services, let the private sector fill in the void at a lower cost, and more reliably.
Private charities are much faster responders to disaster than the government. I’ve personally been there and can say with 100% certainty that the private charities do such a better job than government, it’s not funny. Private charities put the government assistance role to shame in response time, product assortment, and merciful treatment. Private charities, especially the faith based, don’t have any red tape. I’m suprised that the media only speaks about the Red Cross, when in fact you have the Salvation Army, United Way agencies, Catholic, Baptist, and Methodist charities and among 100 or more others. My mother in law’s church alone raised 70K and sent 35 volunteers to Biloxi to help out. My lovely wife is up there working for the next month. Businesses, she said, are already gearing up for the crush of sales that inevitably come after a disaster. Her particular store has quadrupuled in sales volume.
The faith based charities don’t discriminate against anyone, plain and simple.
There are no discretionary factors with the private charities, instead, all people in need get help….. if the charities don’t come to them first, all they have to do is ask.
The Bush haters have said for 5 years that the policy base isn’t fair and equitable already. It went from fair and equitable under Clinton, to unfair and unequitable the day Bush took office. This country has been running along just fine, even with catastrophic events, despite what the naysayers preach. Home ownership is at the highest levels ever, the interest rates are down, and the unemployment rate is very low. The economy is doing fine, showing great strength.
There are a lot of good things about this country, it’s a shame that the NY Times never mentions them.
Aloha,
Jeff
>>>Private charities are much faster responders to disaster than the government. I’ve personally been there and can say with 100% certainty that the private charities do such a better job than government, it’s not funny.<<<
Which leads us to the obvious question – if private charities are so capable, why didn’t they manage Katrina to the point where nobody was talking about it?
>>>The faith based charities don’t discriminate against anyone, plain and simple.<<<
This is a sweeping generalization that is simply not as 100% true as we’d both like it to be. Fact is, there are plenty of “faith-based” types out there who have made certain forms of discrimination the centerpiece of their religious mission. So we’d have to go group by group to know what percentage we’re talking about. In any case, I can imagine that I wouldn’t want the best interests of my neighborhood in the aftermath of a disaster left to the goodwill of certain Christian groups if I were, say, gay. And since I AM pagan, and have been told in no uncertain terms by Christians that I ought to be killed like it says in the Bible, you can imagine how I’d be uneasy laying there with my pentagram around my neck hoping that I get lucky with who shows up to help me.
And I know enough pagans with issues to say for certain that they might not be 100% trustworthy if you had a cross around your neck, either. In short, while I’m not a Big Gummit guy, I agree with George Will’s latest Newsweek editorial – “the first business of government, on which everything depends, is security.”
>>>Home ownership is at the highest levels ever, the interest rates are down, and the unemployment rate is very low. The economy is doing fine, showing great strength.<<<
Home ownership is fine, except for one thing – those numbers are being sustained by no-down payment, interest-only loans. And if you aren’t scared by that, you live in a lot better neighborhood than I can afford. Truth is, that’s one of the reasons my wife and I are going to sit out the housing market for a couple years – I want to wait and see if this goes to hell on us, and if it does, I don’t want to be in a neighborhood surrounded by interest-only foreclosures watching my property values tank.
As for that great economy, it’s like Krugman says. Govt. economics types keep telling us we’re doing great, but dammit, I KNOW how great I’m not doing. The numbers are illusory – yeah, it’s great for some people, but there’s no rising tide here.
Krugman takes some of these numbers apart here, and does a better job than I can on short notice.
>>>Private charities are much faster responders to disaster than the government. I’ve personally been there and can say with 100% certainty that the private charities do such a better job than government, it’s not funny.<<<
Which leads us to the obvious question – if private charities are so capable, why didn’t they manage Katrina to the point where nobody was talking about it?
>>>The faith based charities don’t discriminate against anyone, plain and simple.<<<
This is a sweeping generalization that is simply not as 100% true as we’d both like it to be. Fact is, there are plenty of “faith-based” types out there who have made certain forms of discrimination the centerpiece of their religious mission. So we’d have to go group by group to know what percentage we’re talking about. In any case, I can imagine that I wouldn’t want the best interests of my neighborhood in the aftermath of a disaster left to the goodwill of certain Christian groups if I were, say, gay. And since I AM pagan, and have been told in no uncertain terms by Christians that I ought to be killed like it says in the Bible, you can imagine how I’d be uneasy laying there with my pentagram around my neck hoping that I get lucky with who shows up to help me.
And I know enough pagans with issues to say for certain that they might not be 100% trustworthy if you had a cross around your neck, either. In short, while I’m not a Big Gummit guy, I agree with George Will’s latest Newsweek editorial – “the first business of government, on which everything depends, is security.”
>>>Home ownership is at the highest levels ever, the interest rates are down, and the unemployment rate is very low. The economy is doing fine, showing great strength.<<<
Home ownership is fine, except for one thing – those numbers are being sustained by no-down payment, interest-only loans. And if you aren’t scared by that, you live in a lot better neighborhood than I can afford. Truth is, that’s one of the reasons my wife and I are going to sit out the housing market for a couple years – I want to wait and see if this goes to hell on us, and if it does, I don’t want to be in a neighborhood surrounded by interest-only foreclosures watching my property values tank.
As for that great economy, it’s like Krugman says. Govt. economics types keep telling us we’re doing great, but dammit, I KNOW how great I’m not doing. The numbers are illusory – yeah, it’s great for some people, but there’s no rising tide here.
Krugman takes some of these numbers apart here, and does a better job than I can on short notice.
You and I can go around for hours on end, tit for tat, and never change each others minds. It’s really an exercise in futility to try and convince each other of who’s right and who’s wrong.
I’ve noticed a cognitive dissonance between the liberal and conservative mind. How else could people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore convince vast segments of society that their views are correct.
Krugman knows how great he’s not doing? I think his nice salary and six figure book deals will keep him out of the poor house for awhile. I find him to be a modern day muckraker, and a bit boring with his continuous pseudointellectual rants and hand handwringing.
The economy is doing fine. People need to take ownership of their affairs and use good judgement while making financial decisions. If someone’s stupid enough to purchase interest only morgages, I feel no pity for them. If the housing market tanks, markets are cyclic in nature, and there should be no guarantee that it’s an American right to find a greater fool to buy your house for a price higher than you paid.
My church would welcome you, as a pagan, to accept our charity. Most Christians aren’t the racist, intolerant, idiots that the liberal popular media portrays us to be.
The Christians who said you ought to be killed are a very minute percentage of the total Christian population. Mostof the finest people I know are devout Christians, and don’t have a bit of intolerance.
Here on LJ, I’ve lost at least 20 liberal friends because of my beliefs. So much for liberal tolerance, I guess.
I guessd we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Aloha,
Jeff
You and I can go around for hours on end, tit for tat, and never change each others minds. It’s really an exercise in futility to try and convince each other of who’s right and who’s wrong.
I’ve noticed a cognitive dissonance between the liberal and conservative mind. How else could people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore convince vast segments of society that their views are correct.
Krugman knows how great he’s not doing? I think his nice salary and six figure book deals will keep him out of the poor house for awhile. I find him to be a modern day muckraker, and a bit boring with his continuous pseudointellectual rants and hand handwringing.
The economy is doing fine. People need to take ownership of their affairs and use good judgement while making financial decisions. If someone’s stupid enough to purchase interest only morgages, I feel no pity for them. If the housing market tanks, markets are cyclic in nature, and there should be no guarantee that it’s an American right to find a greater fool to buy your house for a price higher than you paid.
My church would welcome you, as a pagan, to accept our charity. Most Christians aren’t the racist, intolerant, idiots that the liberal popular media portrays us to be.
The Christians who said you ought to be killed are a very minute percentage of the total Christian population. Mostof the finest people I know are devout Christians, and don’t have a bit of intolerance.
Here on LJ, I’ve lost at least 20 liberal friends because of my beliefs. So much for liberal tolerance, I guess.
I guessd we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Aloha,
Jeff
>>It’s really an exercise in futility to try and convince each other of who’s right and who’s wrong.<<
I don’t see a need to convince each other. Truth isn’t a destination, it’s a road, and if two smart guys talk to each other in good faith, the rest will take care of itself.
>>Krugman knows how great he’s not doing?…<<
No no – Krugman’s doing fine. He’s talking about the American public. Government and business leaders tell us we’re doing great, but we know better. Like he says, when the numbers say you’re feeling great but you know you aren’t, then you’re using the wrong numbers.
I’ve been fascinated by how he’s viewed as a liberal. If you read enough of his stuff you discover that he’s a fairly hard-nosed economic analyst and his ideas about economic policy are quite pro-biz. He’s perceived as something he isn’t because of how he pounds Bush, and I’ve been arguing for a long time that you don’t have to be liberal to hate Bush. In fact, the conservative in me (former moderate GOP, local convention delegate, voted for Reagan twice and Bush I once, don’t forget) detests W and his cronies as much as my progressive side. I simply don’t see Bush as a partisan issue, if you get what I mean.
>>The economy is doing fine.<<
For some, yes. For way too many, no. The ability of the working classes to contribute to a real market boom is weaker than it’s been in my lifetime. Read Krugman’s article with an open mind and look at how he explains the data. He makes a good faith argument about what the data really say.
>>People need to take ownership of their affairs and use good judgement while making financial decisions. <<
Couldn’t agree more. But that nature of the data thing I’m talking about is driving bad decision making and those loans are enabling it. I’d LIKE to see legislation addressing this, because we have private institutions doing something that I’m afraid is fueling a crash. I hate to hear myself nagging for govt. reg. like this, but while I believe you have a right to go down in flames, I DON’T believe you have a right to take me with you.
>>My church would welcome you, as a pagan, to accept our charity. Most Christians aren’t the racist, intolerant, idiots that the liberal popular media portrays us to be.<<
1: I know I’m talking about a minority, not the majority. I have a lot of Christian friends – including you, I hope. Also, note that I said pagans are prone to the same things in spots.
2: That “media portrays” thing is ideology and paranoia that doesn’t reflect the fact of media coverage in 2005. I sit around and MARVEL at how pro-“faith” media has become. Some days I think ABC has been bought by Pat Robertson, given how much positive coverage Christianity gets. Now, I don’t know that I think it’s necessarily genuine. I think they’ve all realized that there’s a huge pro-Christian swell in the US, and they see money in it. But it all LOOKS the same.
>>The Christians who said you ought to be killed are a very minute percentage of the total Christian population. Most of the finest people I know are devout Christians, and don’t have a bit of intolerance.<<
Yup. But we were talking about entrusting the charity mission to faith orgs. And while we both know about the majority of Christians out there, you would not stand behind all of them, would you? And when talking about policy like this, you have to account for the exceptions as well as the rules. This wasn’t an attack on Christians – it was merely a statement that I see things like disaster recovery as secular issues that our shared voice – the government – needs to manage. And do hunt up that George Will article, too. I don’t recommend him often….
>>Here on LJ, I’ve lost at least 20 liberal friends because of my beliefs. So much for liberal tolerance, I guess.<<
Neither tolerance nor intolerance are virtues unique to any political party. And you aren’t going to lose me as a friend over your beliefs unless you believe some wack stuff that I haven’t seen yet.
>>I guessd we’ll have to agree to disagree.<<
As I say, that doesn’t bother me. Disagreement isn’t a reason to stop talking. On the contrary.
>>It’s really an exercise in futility to try and convince each other of who’s right and who’s wrong.<<
I don’t see a need to convince each other. Truth isn’t a destination, it’s a road, and if two smart guys talk to each other in good faith, the rest will take care of itself.
>>Krugman knows how great he’s not doing?…<<
No no – Krugman’s doing fine. He’s talking about the American public. Government and business leaders tell us we’re doing great, but we know better. Like he says, when the numbers say you’re feeling great but you know you aren’t, then you’re using the wrong numbers.
I’ve been fascinated by how he’s viewed as a liberal. If you read enough of his stuff you discover that he’s a fairly hard-nosed economic analyst and his ideas about economic policy are quite pro-biz. He’s perceived as something he isn’t because of how he pounds Bush, and I’ve been arguing for a long time that you don’t have to be liberal to hate Bush. In fact, the conservative in me (former moderate GOP, local convention delegate, voted for Reagan twice and Bush I once, don’t forget) detests W and his cronies as much as my progressive side. I simply don’t see Bush as a partisan issue, if you get what I mean.
>>The economy is doing fine.<<
For some, yes. For way too many, no. The ability of the working classes to contribute to a real market boom is weaker than it’s been in my lifetime. Read Krugman’s article with an open mind and look at how he explains the data. He makes a good faith argument about what the data really say.
>>People need to take ownership of their affairs and use good judgement while making financial decisions. <<
Couldn’t agree more. But that nature of the data thing I’m talking about is driving bad decision making and those loans are enabling it. I’d LIKE to see legislation addressing this, because we have private institutions doing something that I’m afraid is fueling a crash. I hate to hear myself nagging for govt. reg. like this, but while I believe you have a right to go down in flames, I DON’T believe you have a right to take me with you.
>>My church would welcome you, as a pagan, to accept our charity. Most Christians aren’t the racist, intolerant, idiots that the liberal popular media portrays us to be.<<
1: I know I’m talking about a minority, not the majority. I have a lot of Christian friends – including you, I hope. Also, note that I said pagans are prone to the same things in spots.
2: That “media portrays” thing is ideology and paranoia that doesn’t reflect the fact of media coverage in 2005. I sit around and MARVEL at how pro-“faith” media has become. Some days I think ABC has been bought by Pat Robertson, given how much positive coverage Christianity gets. Now, I don’t know that I think it’s necessarily genuine. I think they’ve all realized that there’s a huge pro-Christian swell in the US, and they see money in it. But it all LOOKS the same.
>>The Christians who said you ought to be killed are a very minute percentage of the total Christian population. Most of the finest people I know are devout Christians, and don’t have a bit of intolerance.<<
Yup. But we were talking about entrusting the charity mission to faith orgs. And while we both know about the majority of Christians out there, you would not stand behind all of them, would you? And when talking about policy like this, you have to account for the exceptions as well as the rules. This wasn’t an attack on Christians – it was merely a statement that I see things like disaster recovery as secular issues that our shared voice – the government – needs to manage. And do hunt up that George Will article, too. I don’t recommend him often….
>>Here on LJ, I’ve lost at least 20 liberal friends because of my beliefs. So much for liberal tolerance, I guess.<<
Neither tolerance nor intolerance are virtues unique to any political party. And you aren’t going to lose me as a friend over your beliefs unless you believe some wack stuff that I haven’t seen yet.
>>I guessd we’ll have to agree to disagree.<<
As I say, that doesn’t bother me. Disagreement isn’t a reason to stop talking. On the contrary.
>>It’s really an exercise in futility to try and convince each other of who’s right and who’s wrong.>Krugman knows how great he’s not doing?…>The economy is doing fine.>People need to take ownership of their affairs and use good judgement while making financial decisions. >My church would welcome you, as a pagan, to accept our charity. Most Christians aren’t the racist, intolerant, idiots that the liberal popular media portrays us to be.>The Christians who said you ought to be killed are a very minute percentage of the total Christian population. Most of the finest people I know are devout Christians, and don’t have a bit of intolerance.>Here on LJ, I’ve lost at least 20 liberal friends because of my beliefs. So much for liberal tolerance, I guess.>I guessd we’ll have to agree to disagree.