There’s nothing immoral about wanting to spend money on social programs. You can have high moral character and at the same time “cheer for Robin Hood”.
If by “this tactic” you mean redistricting in non-census-adjustment years, in (arguable) violation of the 1965 Civil Rights Act, then you should acknowledge that only the Republicans have, in fact, done it.
It’s bad enough to hear *tu quoques * from GOP members - spectators like you don’t have to join in.
Take a closer look at just which party is closer to representing those ideals of yours.
When the CEOs of electronic voting machines start hosting Democratic fundraisers, then I’ll get worried.
Yes, and IMO that’s what’s wrong with the GOP these days – loyalty to the party comes before loyalty to the nation.
If I want to spend my money, that’s one thing; but if I want to spend yours, then you really should object.
Robin Hood was a thief.
Meh. Census year shmensus year. A redistricting to consilidate power is a redistricting to consolidate power regardless of when it’s done.
Umm… If someone says that Republicans are more immoral than Democrats because of “X” and you say, no they aren’t since Democrats do “X”, too, then how is that a tu quoque? It’s the ONLY way to argue against the proposition.
I’m not a Republican, if that is what you think. I vote for people in both parties, as well as for some Libertarians.
I do, every election.
Of course you are correct. I should have said “those of the poor who see the government as their primary support group”.
God knows, except it is probably something on the intellectual and emotional level of professional wrestling. I thought Ventura was a buffoon before he took office, and see no reason to change my opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
So much for facts, huh?
It only counts if it’s based on facts. Tu quoque first, make up some shit to support it later is not an effective approach, on this board anyway.
That’s why I called you a “spectator”.
Shodan, yet you keep voting the other way, huh? Amazing.
Not if you can spend my money better than I can.
Sure, but so were the people he stole from, and the difference is, he used what he stole to help other people…the people he stole from just used what they stole to benefit themselves. Robin Hood still comes out as the hero in the stories.
Way I see Robin Hood is, he demonstrates that private property isn’t the highest good, that when enforcement of private property constructs is causing human suffering, the ethical person places greater value on ending the suffering than on enforcing private property constructs.
Daniel
The way I see Robin Hood, that property he redistributed wasn’t “owned” by the rich in the first place, since the right of the poor to continue living was compromised by the feudal lords declared “ownership” of the land and the food and riches derived from it.
We must each pay rent to everyone else for the privilege of declaring “ownership” of land or things: taxation. Considering those taxes as “yours”, and their collection as “theft”, is inaccurate. On the contrary - just try witholding that portion, and you will find that it is you who is stealing from everyone else according to the law of the land. Taxes are not “your property” in the first place: they are the rent you pay everyone else for the right to call what’s left over ‘your property’.
I never said it wasn’t a fact, just that it was a fact of no consequence wrt the morality question. If you want to argue that the Republicans are more clever than the Democrats because of the Texas redistricting, then that fact would be of some consequence.
Made up what? Is it your contention that the Democrats have never engineered a redistricting in order to consolidate their hold on power in a state?
What, I don’t get to be a participant unless I’m a partisan? If so, I’ll keep my spectator role, thank-you.
Couldn’t find the whole speech online but I think Liberal was (perhaps tongue in cheek) refering to the passage in Atlas Shrugged that describes Robin Hood when he said ‘Robin Hood was a thief’. If not, appologies.
BTW, as I said I couldn’t find the whole thing, but Rand wasn’t refering to the historical Robin Hood (who stole from the theiving rich to give to the productive and robbed poor) but to the modern (well, her modern) re-interperatation (i.e. taking from the productive rich and giving to the worthless poor…as opposed to folks who work hard by have small means who she always thought highly of).
-XT
Yes, the Robin Hood question is simply not relavent to this thread. He lived in feudal times when property was consolidated in the hands of the nobility. Besides, is anyone going to argue that the Democrats’ Contract with America should include a promise to stop spending tax monies on all social programs? Let’s be serioius…
Unlike our socialist bretheren and sisteren, most of even the hardest line libertarian and even Republican types on this board HAVE compromised our ideals to a greater extent. While some folks draw a hard line and don’t want to compromise (see various howls about ‘Republican Lite!’) I know that social programs, reguardless of how stupid, counter productive (in some cases) and certainly inefficiently and poorly run, are here to stay. I don’t even bother trying to fight that fight…even if I wanted too, which I don’t for the most part. I actually DO think a small safety net is a good thing.
My wish is, if we have to spend all that frickin money, why can’t we expect a good return on our investment? Why does our healthcare need to cost so frickin much and do such a shitty job? Why does the Department of Education suck up so much and spit out such a poor product (i.e. our semi-educated youth of today)? Why do we spend so much on all these programs…and get so little from them? Well, I have my own ideas as to the ‘why’ but won’t go into them here.
All I ask from the Democrats is to get realistic…and make that stuff WORK. BEFORE asking me for more fucking money to pay for another round of failing or failed programs. If it doesn’t work, make it work or get rid of it, sacred cow or no sacred cow.
-XT
:eek: What on earth are you talking about here? I voted for Kerry, didn’t I? I voted for Clinton, didn’t I? Plenty of us are all too familiar with the need to compromise our ideals, and I’ve stressed the need to do so more than once in this thread. However, I’ve said that certain things are so central to my view of the way things ought to be that sacrificing them would lead to a Pyrrhic victory.
You and I have different stuff that’s central to us. It’s incorrect for you to suggest that, because I won’t sacrifice something you see as peripheral, I won’t make any sacrifices at all.
Daniel
I agree with you that we need to be harsh critics of programs. However, we need to be realistic.
- A program’s success may be ameliorative rather than transformative. We continue to support police departments, despite the fact that crime still exists. The continued existence of poverty does not mean that we should stop supporting anti-poverty measures. If the programs are lessening the problems of poverty, then they may be successful.
- We need to be looking at best practices. If a program is lessening the problems of poverty, but there is a better way to achieve this goal, we need to consider the better way.
- If a program is failing to accomplish a vital goal, then we should get rid of it, but that doesn’t mean the goal is any less vital. As we get rid of it, we need to have an alternate proposal in the wings to try out.
- This probably goes without saying, but I trust that you’ll apply the same standards to the military, where we could really cut some fat.
Daniel
Well Left Hand of Dorkness, I wasn’t really talking to you there…you don’t SEEM to want to push a left wing socialist agenda, do or die, but seem willing to compromise on some things while holding the line on others. Just my general impression of you…could be wrong of course. I didn’t mention specific names. There are plenty of folks who would be proud to tell you that the Democrat party should not compromise, shouldn’t become ‘Republican Lite’, shouldn’t even attempt to cater to the center because of their principals. I’ve seen it in past threads of this sort plenty of times.
I’m sorry you took my vague statement as directed at you…it wasn’t. More of a ‘if the shoe fits’ kind of deal.
-XT
I never said either of these things, though I have to say that the last sentence is one I’d take exception too depending on the circumstances. If a program seems to lessen poverty but costs excessively, and that money could be spent in better ways to achieve the same goals… well, I’m sure you see what I’m getting at here. I doubt that many folks can look at the various social programs in the US and say with a straight face that they are working ‘well’ or ‘good’. The problem has been that the Democrats have historically looked at these programs and their ‘solution’ was to ask for MORE money…as if that will simply solve everything. Sort of like that IBM commercial where the kings consultant wants to throw large bags of money at the problem to make it go away
I agree. Make that the central tennet of your new deal, make sure your programs are revenue neutral or have a VERY good justification for increasing taxes for them, make fiscal responsibility your goal and balancing the budget your theme…and you will have me voting for you in lock step every year.
I agree…I didn’t say get rid of a program and never do it again. I said actually look at the things with an open mind, junk the programs that just aren’t working and propose something that does. Be realistic.
How so? Do you think the US needs a military at all? If so, whats it role? Just a small local defense force for the US only a la Europe? Do we have global responsibilities?
As I’m sure you are aware, most of the Defense budget goes to paying personnel and benifits and such…not to fancy new toys. Also, vast as the defense budge is, its smaller than most of the social programs we are talking about…smaller than the budget for education, for medical care, smaller than for the aggregate for all those wonderful social programs we were discussing. Oh, there is certainly some fat there…I’d like to see a leaner and meaner military myself. But there isn’t a huge amount of fat that you are implying by your ‘where we could really cut some fat’ comment.
Plus, bottom line is…our military WORKS. It does the job we need it to do. It doesn’t do it in a half assed or mediocre way…its the finest military in the world. The American people are willing to pay for the best. Can you make a similar statement that our education, social programs, medical care, etc are the finest in the world? Well…they COST more. Other than that though…
-XT
You mean, social libertarianism/fiscal conservatism is “on the intellectual and emotional level of professional wrestling”? 
I mentioned Ventura because his Independence Party* of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_Minnesota) appears to be committed to those things. It’s like a more moderate version of the Libertarian Party.
*When the Reform Party finally self-destructed in 2000, Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservative-populist faction formed Pat Buchanan’s America First Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002)), and the John Anderson progressive (in the older, early-20th-century sense of the word) faction formed, or reverted to, the Independence Party.
:dubious: How many non-Americans in the world do you think would be willing to defend the proposition that the U.S. has “global responsibilities”?