All about Mitt
I know, I know, it’s piling on, but I can’t help sharing a thought or two about Mitt Romney, and I’m guessing In Boxers have a thought or two as well.
Here’s the irony of 2012: This campaign was supposed to be all about President Barack Obama. A referendum. An election defined by unemployment skyward of 8% and behemoth debt.
The Obama campaign was already well on its way to redefining the terms of engagement, making the debate much more of a “you have to pick one of us” challenge for disgruntled voters.
Then Romney stepped in (or stepped in it, rather) and took the whole paradigm one degree further:
Somehow, the former Bain Capital tycoon managed to make the election a referendum on himself, and on guys like him.
Let me pause for a moment and nod at a couple of realities: Political campaigns at some point reduce politicians to caricatures. Barack Obama was never the “hope-change” messiah that some of his followers wanted to believe in.
And Mitt Romney isn’t the Thurston Howell plutocrat that even some conservatives are now lampooning. But when you’re selling a set of ideas and leadership to hundreds of millions of people, in a short period of time, branding matters.
Right now, Mitt Romney’s brand is all about “47%” and those fancy horses of his that competed in the London Olympics and the car elevator and the $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, and the casual dismissal of “victims.”
He’s the “New Coke” of conservative politics. Really, it doesn’t get much worse, unless you’re Todd Akin. So the question now is, what next?
The bad news for Republicans is that there is no evidence — none, zero — that Team Romney has the mojo to turn this around.
Democrats had the Come Back Kid. Remember that? Bill Clinton knew that when his side was on the ropes politically, he had to storm back with big rallies, big ideas. You couldn’t help feeling that he was having fun, fighting for his life with a grin on his face.
But the GOP is stuck with the grinchy guy who insults his hosts in London, muffs the crisis in the Middle East, and (still) won’t release his taxes.
Oh yeah, and the guy who gave the green light to Clint Eastwood’s infamous “chair” speech, which became the symbol of this year’s Republican National Convention. Oh yeah, and the guy who insulted the cookies of a supporter who had invited him into her home.
“I’m not sure about these cookies,” Romney said during an April campaign stop. “They don’t look like you made them. Did you make those cookies? No, no. They came from the local 7/11…bakery…or whatever.”
So it’s not about one “gaffe” or awkward moment. It’s turning into a question about leadership, about basic skill as a messenger of political ideas, about the ability to connect.
(One of the ironies of modern politics is that it’s still a flesh-and-blood, human contact, one-on-one, let me look into your eye and kiss your baby business. Romney just doesn’t seem comfortable with that stuff, by which I mean comfortable with, you know, people.)
Some Republicans are urging Romney to resurrect his campaign by giving some big, hefty policy speeches, really digging into the challenges that face the American people. I’m all for it. But if Romney had that kind of stuff up his sleeve, wouldn’t we have heard about it by now?
This is a mature, experienced and intelligent politician who still — years after he started running for president – can’t figure out how to talk about his own impressive record tackling healthcare reform.
There’s one other reason for pessimism. While Romney’s campaign has been astonishingly inept, the Democrats have been almost scarily effective this year.
And they’ve been “oppo” researching the Republican — a man who is still not well known by the public — for months.
Even if he doesn’t hand Barack Obama more gift moments, like the one we saw this week, and last week, and the week before, you can bet that Romney will find himself in the hot seat at least a couple more times.
That may be an ugly side of American politics, but it’s been that way since about 1776 and it’s not about to change in 2012. Is Romney ready for the final gauntlet? Let me put it this way: He’ll have to surprise us.
Tags: election12
Kathy, at 9:30 you wrote: “If pooling resources means money, then you are legislating something and there goes our free society.”
Then at 10:53 you write: “Seriously, I don’t place your list [roads, bridges, the military] in the same category of pooling money (redistributing the wealth).
We already pool our money in the form of taxes and I have no problem helping people who need it.”
I can only conclude that you believe that “our free society” is done for whenever one spends taxpayer money on things you don’t approve of. Maybe you could be more clear on exactly when our free society becomes toast?
The 1% don’t need any help.
“The 1% don’t need any help.”
No, but they sure do want more, more, more.
Walker: “No, but they sure do want more, more, more.”
Tell me again how your life is improved by thinking about such things.
“Romney is running to help the 1%. It’s as simple as that.”
I don’t really thinks so. But that is what the spin doctors would like you to think. Just the term “1%” is part of the spin. That is just propaganda. The left and the right are equally guilty of that kind of stuff.
Paul, actually I have been a long time advocate of financing schools and local governments more through the income tax than through property tax. But that is how it is and until it is changed, deal with it.
My problem is not with someone who has a different opinion, my problem is with people who are insensitive and ignorant jerks. Nor am I being paid to listen to someone complain about their taxes. Let’s see, I buy an old fashioned three season camp on a lake and proceed to dump millions of dollars of improvements into the property and expect that I’m not going to see an immense increase in my property taxes? Duh! If you want to avoid property taxes don’t buy expensive property.
People who buy up lakefront property thereby denying access to everyone else to the recreational opportunity should have to pay more for that exclusivity. Don’t like it, don’t buy it.
As for the customers in question I will never work for them again. I work for myself and I want to work for people I like, and most of my customers are gracious people who wouldn’t bitch about their taxes to a tradesman.
And Paul, a word of advice, don’t talk about your financial problems with people who work for you. They very likely have their own financial problems to deal with and they don’t want to hear about how hard you have it.
But I don’t expect you are so clueless that you would.
What is your belief on the core nature of civil society?
I have a biblical world view. Therefore, I believe there are principles to live by which are as sure as the law of gravity. “Give and it shall be given” works for anyone who gives – Christian or not.
One of my favorite documents is the Mayflower Compact. A group of people who, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
Laws and ordinances, and a desire to submit and obey them – recognizing the reality of man’s inclination toward lawlessness.
Speaking of 47%
GALLUP: O 47% R 47%…
So much for the convention bounce.
Obama is down from what? 53%
Romney is up from what? 41%
Yep. 47%.
Obama:
When you express a position like the one Romney did in that leaked video, said Obama, “my thinking is maybe you haven’t gotten around a lot. Because I travel around the country all the time and the American people are the hardest working people there are.”
“Their problem isn’t that they aren’t working hard enough … or they are being taxed too little or they just want to loaf around and gather government checks,” he added. “Americans work hard, and if they’re not working right now, I promise you they want to get back to work.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/obama-romney-47-percent-millionaires-taxes_n_1901217.html
Kathy, so basically you agree with me?
I can only conclude that you believe that “our free society” is done for whenever one spends taxpayer money on things you don’t approve of. Maybe you could be more clear on exactly when our free society becomes toast?
Walker, I am talking about pooling money in order for the government to redistribute private wealth – and no, I don’t approve of it and neither should you. Name a country that practices income redistribution and is successful. And it better not be the US because we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit among other things. That’s not success.
Our free society becomes toast when in the name of progress, our unalienable rights are taken away to make things fair for everyone.
KHL, ummm, not sure if we are in agreement. I would have to go back and re-read your comments.
Bottom line is it’s one thing to want to do what is right because is living a principled life based on the Golden Rule – and another thing to do what is right because you might get punished.
I think the Mayflower Compact reflects a group that had it in their hearts and minds to covenant together for one purpose, with God as the supreme authority.
So Knuck what if you bought a lake front property 50 years ago and did not improve it but your neighbors did improve theirs. You do not want roads or services and you are not getting any anyway. Should your taxes go up?
Kathy, OUR country has practiced income redistribution for more than a century, which is why it’s in the terlet. I just wish JDM and Larry could run things.
Best thing about the Mayflower Compact folks was they were a bunch of drunks. Saw it on History Channel last night.
Mitt is done. By his own hand. Couldn’t be happier!
“So Knuck what if you bought a lake front property 50 years ago and did not improve it but your neighbors did improve theirs.”
Zeke, the assessed value of lakefront property is going up because people are willing to pay more for it. If you don’t want to pay the taxes on it, sell it. You’ll get a nice fat price for it. You can buy a modest place with low taxes, and spend the difference on whatever you like.
But it’s not like some evil local people sat around saying “Let’s suck some more money out of the flatlanders so we can buy platinum desks for the school.” Your fellow lakefronters drove up the price of lakefront property by paying higher prices for it, and the assessments followed, end of story.
“Name a country that practices income redistribution and is successful.”
Germany, France, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway… and the U.S. They’re all doing OK, though they were doing a lot better before the worldwide housing/banking bubble: that’s what’s hurting us now, not the debt itself so much as the bubble-caused recession.
Look, after WW II, U.S. debt stood at 120% of GDP. (zfacts) You wouldn’t say the economy did so badly in the fifties and sixties, would you? Right now, U.S. debt stands at about 100% of GDP. We’ll get over it, as we did in the fifties, if the Republicans in Congress ever get out of the way of what needs to be done. With a little luck, this election will get the Republicans in Congress out of the way. Otherwise, we’re in for some rough sledding.
Walker I disagree. people drove up the price of property they bought. not all lake front property is created equal. But townships act like it is. Take the tri-lakes area. The locals can not afford their schools or the roads on their own. So do not complain when nursing homes are no longer viable and people have to move their elders hundreds of miles away. It is a sad situation being created. I Can afford my taxes, not a problem. but I’m paying your way.
Kathy, when you fund a public school or college with taxpayer dollars, that is a form of income redistribution: using some of your tax dollars to operate a school for everyone’s children.
When you fund a public highway with taxpayer dollars, that is a form of income redistribution: using some of your tax dollars to build or maintain a highway for everyone’s cars.
And when you use some of your tax dollars to pay a subsidy to an oil company, what do you call that?
I would be in favor of taxing the living crap out of all second home properties to support local schools. I would be on the side of the evil plot to do so.
If you can afford these prices you have to pay for schools for some of the poorest children in NYS, its the way it goes.
Again, I do not have any problem with the property taxes(school or land) However I think it is unfair to raise the value beyond what you pay for it until you sell it or the deed transfers. then fine the seller pays on the profit to the locality and the new owner pays tax on the paid price. Otherwise you will force unable to pay(not me) people out of their homes.
Walker, what you say is true.
My question is: how much farther? The incremental changes that have been made is like the proverbial frog in the boiling water.
Our country is either leaning toward socialism or it’s not. Can you say that we are not? And are you okay with that?
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. – Norman Matoon Thomas
“People who buy up lakefront property thereby denying access to everyone else to the recreational opportunity should have to pay more for that exclusivity. Don’t like it, don’t buy it.”
I guess I agree? But I don’t quite get it? What do you mean denying access to everyone else? I assume you live somewhere. Do you have the general public walking through?? I have been by some of even the most expensive places on some of the lakes and I was never denied the “recreational oppertunity”. What do you mean?
“But that is how it is and until it is changed, deal with it.”. Like I said I do “deal with it”. In fact like you probably did I just paid some property tax bills. Just like I assume the “jerk” you referred to did.
“Let’s see, I buy an old fashioned three season camp on a lake and proceed to dump millions of dollars of improvements into the property and expect that I’m not going to see an immense increase in my property taxes?”
Oh no. Here we go, more proof that the 1% do more than sit on all that money. Be careful. Don’t help Romney.
Zeke I guess I would be in favor of equality and uniformity in assessments. If you use market value as your assessment basis than this should be applied across the board regardless of when you bought your property. What I see in my village is that new home buyers get stuck with a huge increase based on the market price; while their neighbor with the same value house, may be paying 50% of what that person is paying. Taxes should be applied consistently. In addition I think in some of our villages it still is based on family relations, personal contacts etc, and yes out of town people who come in and buy property have none of those things. It is an unfair system in that regard. I can certainly understand the frustrations.
Of course waterfront in the Adirondacks is simply expensive and property taxes should be based on the value of the land so a person who owns this property is going to pay more.
zeke, I’m with you and in fact I charge right on past you. I don’t think it is fair to raise taxes to any significant degree on property that hasn’t been improved and hasn’t changed hands. I might be convinced that an increase reflecting some degree of inflation is fair.
Un like you, I DO have a problem with property tax as a means to finance schools. Poor areas end up with less money for schools and rich areas end up with more money. I think schools should be funded more equitably through the statewide income tax. I also think that the state should fund the mandates that are imposed on schools and local governments.
But the way it is now, and the way the game is currently played the people at the top keep accumulating more and everyone below them loses a little bit more each time they pass GO. The guy whose income, by which I mean all the money he makes every year – not the technical definition, is taxed at a maximum of 15% keeps accumulating more money which he uses to buy lakefront property from the guy who makes far less per year but pays 20 or 30% in taxes. And that difference in wealth is never going to be taxed because the very wealthy are working to get rid of the Estate Tax. So Mitt Romney gets to accumulate the extra 5% – 15% over Joe Blow every year and that money keeps compounding and will NEVER be taxed at the rate Zeke Blow pays.
Never mind that Mitt can create trusts and LLP’s and such to be able to transfer his wealth to his heirs in ways to prevent most of his money from ever being taxed.
There is a reason someone once said “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”
Paul, I never said the rich don’t spend money. Building a house does create a few jobs in the short term. Building many houses creates lots of jobs in the short term. We saw that kind of boom for a few years between about 2002 and 2007 in the “desirable” portions of the Adirondacks. But once a seasonal home is built the jobs end and the increase in economic benefit drops to little more than what it was before. In fact some people who over extended themselves during the boom may end up in bankruptcy when a housing and development boom ends and their income drops at the same time that the value of their investment in property declines.
Building owner occupied homes within a hamlet is a different story entirely. Then the home owners become a part of the community and the money they earn helps drive the local economy.
Walker: “When you fund a public highway with taxpayer dollars, that is a form of income redistribution”
Yes. And not all of the construction companies that build highways are municipal. Some are private enterprise.
I’m not saying I’m in favor of all gas subsidies, but it is no different that funding highways. Some of the money goes back into the private sector in both cases.
As usual about the polls, what JDM said upthread. Here’s yet more polling evidence: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/two_new_strong_polls_for_obama.php?ref=fpblg
Obama has fallen from above 49 percent into the 48 percent range, and is heading to 47!
Conservatives love to complain about “income redistribution.” However, they never want to talk about income distribution. The sum of economic activity in the US results in a total amount of available income before taxes. How that income is distributed is determined by many factors, including such things as the minimum wage rate, the presence of unions, regulations that favor certain industries, monopolies, etc. Then the government collects taxes on income, again subject to various exemptions, credits and rates. All of which are affected by political lobbying and contributions by and for the rich and powerful.
Studies show during the past 30 years most factors affecting income distribution have skewed the distribution of income in favor of the wealthy, as have our tax policies. As a result, we now have the greatest disparity of income and wealth in the US since 1929. In the past we have recognized that this disparity is not good for economic growth or social stability and we have made adjustments. (unfortunately it usually requires a huge depression or big recession to take action).
And here is an interesting study that shows we were a much more egalitarian society in 1774 with income distribution more equally divided:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/us-income-inequality-its-worse-today-than-it-was-in-1774/262537/
Liberals take a collectivist approach to everything, although it escapes me why they think everyone should be pleased to pay for an agenda not their own. And don’t give me the “it’s the right thing to do” argument. That’s very much a matter of opinion despite the liberal proclivity for confusing opinion with fact. Neither liberals nor conservatives own the moral high ground even though liberals often speak as if they do. Most conservatives believe in the rugged individualism that built America and made it great.
OK, Larry, but here’s the other side of the coin:
Nineteen states have adopted a program for specific large companies that cause their workers’ state payroll withholding to be kept by the company. These are deals established by large nationwide companies essentially as bribes: give us this deal or we won’t locate in your state (or if we’re already here, we’ll leave).
The result is that such companies are given a major advantage over competing small, local companies, and taxpayers taxes go up to make up for the subsidies to the company. Of course it also makes the giant company even more profitable, allowing them to pay their CEOs ever higher salaries.
The segment is at 12:23 of this link: Fresh Air. The whole show is interesting, but this segment is just five minutes.
This is corporate socialism at its worst, and it’s bad for everyone who doesn’t happen to be a high level executive at a national company. It is one of god knows how many tools that big business has developed to suck money out of the pockets of the American people.
So if “most conservatives believe in the rugged individualism that built America and made it great,” they should be firmly against programs like this. Now the program doesn’t make it clear where these laws came from, but I’d bet they were a product of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which is very much a product of the “conservative” movement.
Check it out. See what you think.
And in what seems a likely example of this sort of behavior, there’s this from the Enterprise:
Anyone care to speculate why they are going to hold off until the lame duck session? Brian, how about a piece on this story?
Sorry, I retract that. This CNN piece covers it in more detail, and makes me somewhat less cynical about the motives. Sounds like a fairly simple case of gridlock, though an interesting one in that it sounds like Republicans are split.
“Liberals take a collectivist approach to everything…”
Larry, let’s try something. Let’s talk about public spending of tax money without code words like “collectivism” for a minute, and see if we can figure out where we really agree and disagree. If I use a term you consider a code word, please call me on it.
OK basics:
I believe that taxes should be collected by appropriate governmental units to pay for:
Road and bridge building and maintenance.
Police and fire protection.
The court system.
Free public education through high school.
Support for public colleges and universities to provide reduced cost to in-state students.
The military.
Diplomatic services.
Necessary government agencies (though we could spend a lot of time arguing about which ones, we’d agree that a basic framework is necessary).
I’m guessing we’re good so far? I’m sure we’d have some disagreements over details, but not regarding the necessary existence of some level of these functions?
I imagine we’ll get into more serious differences over the following:
Regulation of banking, markets and business practices.
Regulation of public utilities.
Regulation of labor practices.
Health care.
Aid to the poor.
So what do you think? Are we in agreement on the necessity of the first set, leaving aside the extent of some of the elements? What have I left out?
Are we really mostly arguing about the last two items? How much publicly funded aid to the poor would you support? Health care?
Walker,
An interesting piece to listen to, for sure, but it contained one assertion I disagree with: a corporate tax credit is not the same thing as a corporation keeping its employees’ payroll taxes. Those credits may be equal to the payroll taxes and they may be funded by the payroll taxes but that’s not the same as the corporation “keeping” the taxes. If my neighbor is eligible for a tax credit and I am not, does that mean he gets my tax payments? Certainly not.
In any case, there’s nothing new or sinister about corporate tax credits; they are regularly doled out by government to “create” jobs. There’s also nothing new or sinister about special interest groups working to advance their agendas through the legislative process. If the Koch brothers want to promote a legislative agenda, so be it. Liberals can, and do, do the same.
I’m sure there are millions of people (liberals and conservatives alike) who disagree with your view that “corporate socialism” benefits only CEOs. In fact, I am certain that there are thousands in the Capital Region who are happy with the “corporate socialism” that brought Globalfoundries to Malta.
So, you think my statement “most conservatives believe in the rugged individualism that built America and made it great,” is false because “you bet” that the American Legislative Exchange Council sponsored corporate tax credits? I’ll bet they were not the first to do that.
Mervel,
You said: “I would be in favor of taxing the living crap out of all second home properties to support local schools. I would be on the side of the evil plot to do so.
If you can afford these prices you have to pay for schools for some of the poorest children in NYS, its the way it goes.”
The evil plot is already fully operational. Do you want to compare, for example, the money spent per student in Newcomb with that spent in “affluent” communities like Scarsdale? You should; and then, instead of biting the hand that already feeds you, you might show some gratitude and keep quiet before people realize what’s actually going on. I’ve always kept my mouth shut about educating other people’s children. I know when I’ve got a pretty good deal.
Walker, I don’t really disagree with any of the “functions” you listed, including the last five. What I disagree with is the liberal view of, and approach to, all of them. For example, the argument isn’t about funding primary and secondary education, it’s about wasteful and extravagant spending. New York State regularly leads the nation in spending per student and I don’t think anyone thinks we are getting good value for our money. Why then do the liberals howl about “our children” every time someone suggests holding the line (forget about actually lowering) on school taxes?
About the acceptable functions of government: Interesting. I wonder if Kathy and JDM would agree with that list.
“Why then do the liberals howl about “our children” every time someone suggests holding the line (forget about actually lowering) on school taxes?”
Let me preface this by saying that I have no children. But I do see education, at all levels, as an investment in the nation, like road building. And I’m sure that there is some waste and extravagance in education in all levels, and if someone could come up with a solution to waste that didn’t reduce educational outcomes, I’d be all for it. But I think we often lose important stuff when education funding is cut– I think a good deal of meat gets cut along with the fat, and sometimes cuts result in more meat than fat being cut. This is bad, bad for the nation as a whole.
Also, it seems clear to me that military spending is replete with waste and extravagance, and that cutting military waste could likely be done without cutting into the meat. Why can’t we attack that waste and extravagance first, or at least simultaneously? Conservatives never seem to get excited about military waste. Why?
“…there’s nothing new or sinister about corporate tax credits…”
How does a corporate tax credit differ from “income redistribution”? It takes money from one citizen and gives it to a corporate citizen. In the process, it interferes with the “magic of the market”. If you owned a small business that was put out of business by a nationwide firm who was able to undercut you as a result of such a deal, would you still see noting sinister about it? What if you found that large campaign contributions went from the national corporation to the politicians who pushed the deal through? Do you really think this doesn’t happen?
And doesn’t this whole idea fly in the face of the “rugged individualism that built America and made it great”?
By the way, I didn’t say that your statement about conservatives’ belief in rugged individualism was false, whether or not ALEC was involved in the spread of such legislation. What I believe is that there is a huge disconnect between what many individual conservatives believe in and what organizations like ALEC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce actually do.
Walker, I agree (how do you like that!?!) that waste in multiple areas should be approached simultaneously. The difference between defense spending and education is that education can be addressed at the local level. Education is indeed a wise investment in our future, that’s why right-thinking people of all political persuasions agree that we should continue to take a collective approach to it. The problem is exemplified by comments like Mervel’s about “taxing the living crap out of all second home properties”. What an obnoxious demonstration of entitlement mentality it is that he expects some to pay twice, and at a higher rate as well!
Walker: “Conservatives never seem to get excited about military waste. ”
Incorrect. Conservatives never seem to get excited about military spending. Because it’s in the Constitution. Waste is bad.
“How does a corporate tax credit differ from “income redistribution”? ”
Corporate tax credit needs not to happen. What needs to happen is lower the tax rate so corporations never give the money to the government to begin with.
In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
I wonder if Harry Reid will apologize.
No, I don’t wonder. I already know the answer.
It is simply a myth that “rugged individuals” built this country. As Kathy points out the Pilgrims sat in their boat and wrote the Mayflower Compact, a set of rules for the collective. The Constitution starts out “We the People”. “We” is not an individual.
Sure there were some real rugged individuals out on the fringes of the frontier, guys like John Colter, and Jim Bridger, and countless trappers and Indian traders, and you could spend a lifetime reading their stories. But the people who built this country were the farmers and town-folk, the penny-change general store owners, the loggers and miners who worked like mules in great groups of men, the Irish and Chinese railroad laborers. And let’s not forget the plantation owners and their millions of slaves, nor should we give short shrift to the cavalrymen on their Steel Dust horses pushing the aboriginal tribes off of their lands so that the Railroad Barons could sell barren land to Swedes and Norwegians, and buffalo hunters could nearly exterminate the American Bison so that ranchers could introduce cattle that weren’t a proper fit for the lands they grazed.
It is too big a story for the idea of rugged individuals to float.
It’s not rugged individuals, it’s “rugged individualism” and it is a reference to a campaign speech Herbert Hoover made in 1928 in which he argued that unrestrained government involvement in American business and life would destroy what he called the American System (rugged individualism). He argued that the government involvement that had been necessary during WW I was not only not needed in the late 20s but dangerous to the American way if life as well. Hoover was prophetic, as the New Deal, arguably necessary during the Depression, was never turned off and began the deluge of unrestrained government spending and intrusion that has systematically crippled America over the last 80 years and now threatens to destroy it forever. We’ll never know if he was right since the American people opted for Rooseveltian socialism in 1932 and have never turned back. The Reagan economy provided a tantalizing glimpse of the alternative. Reagan was a self-described “New Deal Democrat” who came to understand the dangers of socialism and eventually turned his back on it.
Larry, it would be interesting to have a place where a half a dozen of us of different views could try to come together to reach common ground. I don’t think this forum will work, but maybe we’ll figure out what would.
Anyway, to take one piece: “…the New Deal, arguably necessary during the Depression, was never turned off and began the deluge of unrestrained government spending and intrusion that has systematically crippled America over the last 80 years…”
The last eighty years includes the fifties and sixties. It is hard to see those decades as crippling to the nation. And yet those years spring directly from the high-spending war years. I have trouble making that story fit the conservative version of history.
An interesting idea, Walker. I like it.
About history: there’s never just one version. There’s a whole school of thought that thinks the post WW II economic boom was fueled by pent-up consumer demand after a long Depression and war, along with a conservative congress that rejected Keynesian economic policies and cut taxes. Of course, there are opposing positions with equal legitimacy. No one disagrees that the boom ended in the late 60s – early 70s.
Walker, It would be more interesting if everybody just did what JDM and Larry thought was best for America!
Its interesting Walker. The things that bother so many Liberals and myself, the massive homes, the materialism, the idea that families should all own two or three cars, suburbs, the ME generation, divorce, violence, porn and drugs, wars of choice (Vietnam, Iraq, etc) are all products of the 60’s. Plus there were some good things particularly about equality and human rights. But to say that somehow the 60’s were a “good” thing is a real reach. But if you look at us at a nation prior to the 1960’s, in many ways we were much healthier.
Larry, you’re right, pent up demand certainly jump-started the post war era. But you’d have to credit the G.I. Bill and the building of the Interstates, too.
And Mervel, you’re right, the economic boom of the fifties and sixties took us pretty quickly from an idealistic, patriotic, largely egalitarian society (if you look only at whites!) to the materialistic, rights obsessed, fragmented culture of the last four decades. It looks real good if your yardstick is marked in dollar signs (as ours increasingly is) but not so good by other measures.
I think a lot of it has to do with the perfection of the science of marketing. Marketers have our number. They can make us want whatever they like, and they like whatever will rake in the biggest profit.
See, Larry, here is where we probably part ways: I suppose that your faith in the marketplace leads you to believe that whatever consumers choose must be right? And yet, look where that takes us.
At the same time, I’m not about to propose a governmental solution to materialism: God forbid! No, the only appealing answer would be cultural– people turning away from excess. But how do you get there?
In my twenties, I remember thinking I would like to live forever. Now, I’m not so sure I want to see where we’ll be forty years from now.