it's not about liberal vs. conservative; it's not about left vs. right

it's about whether you believe in the ideal of democracy, or just in the word.
it's about whether you believe in the ideal of capitalism, or just in the word.
it's about whether you believe in the ideal of liberty or just in the word.

try as they might to cast the next several elections as the same old battle between liberals and conservatives, or between left and right, the bush administration and today's banana republican party have moved this country in a direction that is no longer properly categorized along the left-right spectrum.

it is neither liberal nor conservative to refuse to help victims of one of the worse natural disasters to ever hit this country.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to pass off partisan propaganda as news stories.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to rack up staggering deficits for limited societal benefit.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to value loyalty over competence in appointees.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to claim executive powers cleary not belonging to the executive branch.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to offend long-standing allies.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to steer public funds away from states that voted for the other guy.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to hide behind a false "need" for secrecy
it is neither liberal nor conservative to treat campaign contributions as payment for government action.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to speak nearly exclusively to partisan audiences.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to rig elections
it is neither liberal nor conservative to name legislation counter to its intent
it is neither liberal nor conservative to refuse to honor fallen soldiers with public ceremony.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to deprive soldiers of sufficient armor.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to invade a sovereign country on a false pretense.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to use a bogus, overseas war as an excuse for all manner of nefarious activities.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to fudge economic statistics.
it is neither liberal nor conservative to pass off an irresponsible frat-boy alcoholic and failed businessman as a capable leader.

it is not for me to label what their party has become, because in the end, the label is not important. what is important is that we the people choose to either continue down the path that a few ultra-rich people who don't believe in democracy have secretly decided is profitable for them, or to return to the kind of government that brought this country from its infancy to its height as the greatest country on earth.

if you like secrecy in government, vote for the banana republicans.
if you like incompetence in key government positions, vote for the banana republicans.
if you like seeeing your tax dollars vanish into the pockets of ultra-rich cronies, vote for the banana republicans.

me, i've had enough.

i'm voting for the democrats.

It IS "liberal" to help others.

It's Christian to do so as well, though the rightwing hijackers of Christianity don't agree with that premise.

Redstone

they just have a different approach to it. liberals like the idea of the federal government helping; conservatives prefer the help to come from state or local governments, or through private charities.

if shrub were a genuine conservative, he could have spearheaded a private charity drive, or assisted the state government. the point is, both liberals and conservatives recognize natural disasters as something demanding an organized response. shrub saw it as something he didn't think he could politically profit from, and so essentially ignored it.

I grew up in a tiny town in northern Vermont. I know from REAL conservatives.

And they do help others. We still had a "town farm" and a budget item in the town report for people named as being "on the town" when I was a kid.

The people who call themselves "conservatives" these day, they really aren't.

Redstone

That it should be basic HUMAN values to be kind, do the right thing, help others, etc., and that all parties should have those basic HUMAN values. I think that's what he means.

my aim was more simply to dissociate the terms "conservative" and "right" from the banana republicans. a lot of people identify themselves as conservative, and when the parties are framed along those lines, they vote republican.

the bottom line is that, these days, true conservatives should be democrats. if people really knew what was going on inside the shrub administration, the only votes they would get would be from those who want their bribes to work.

:puke:

where suppliers can't conspire against consumers;
where consumers have a good understanding of the actual product, not just the image the seller wants to project;
where companies making excess profits quickly see competitors popping up to bring prices down to a fair level;
where corporations act in the best interest of all constituents, not just senior management; and
where government plays the role of uncorrupted referee, rather than so often taking the side of the largers political donor.

own the government.

It would be great to have that, wouldn't it?

Redstone

political spectrum it has come to mean what ever the prefer. I disagree with you on two of you notions. I believe that while consumers having a good understanding of the products they purchase is beneficial to the economic wellbeing of society they only way that this can happen is through intervention thus it is not capitalistic. I completely disagree with you belief that excess profits necessarily creates entry. When there are large economies of scale entrance could still be impossible even with large profits. There are also situations where it is beneficial for society to place barriers which create excess profits. The main situation for which this is true is patents. Patents work to create an incentive to invest in technology which often will not become available as quickly (or at all) in the absence of a patent system. Thus hurrying along the process is beneficial to society even though it entails what could be seen as excess profits.

you point out one example of such intervention, namely, the granting of a temporary monopoly for inventions via the granting of a patent. more generally, government is needed to internalize externalities, i.e., to ensure that all participants in an economic transaction are appropriately compensated.

in the case of invention, without government intervention, competitors would benefit from any invention, and inventors would not benefit enough. one solution is the patent, whereby the inventor can be compensated by realizing monopolistic profits during the life of the patent. this internalizes the externalities as far as the competitors and the inventor go, but it introduces a new externality: consumers are have to pay monopolistic prices and are deprived of the benefits of a competitive market. this may be somewhat overcome if the inventor licenses the patent to competitors, thus reintroducing competition.

patents are probably the best way to deal with this problem. however, patents aren't the only way government could solve this problem. best for consumers would be to make the invention public knowledge and compensate the inventor some other way, e.g., by a simple payment from the government. one way would be to have a licensing fee on the sale of each widget, that goes to compensate the inventor. that way, the inventor is compensate, consumers get the benefit of a competitive market, and competitors are from to innovate without benefitting unnecessarily from the invention.

there are problems with this approach, too, and i'm not necessarily advocating it. i just wanted to point out that patents are merely one of many ways government could resolve the externalities that arise from invention.


i agree with your point about barriers to entry. however, as long as barriers to entry prevent competitors from removing excess profits from an industry, the market is not allocating resources efficiently. in the infamous long run, those excess profits will provide the incentive to overcome those barriers to entry. but in the short run, the market is inefficient, and government can theoretically help correct this, perhaps by taxing the excess profits or maybe providing assistance in removing the barriers to entry.

another place for government intervention is in the case of natural monopolies. it would not do to require competitors to all provide their own pipes or cables directly to your house, so it's not unreasonable to permit a regulated monopoly in the case of utilities. scarce, common resources are another example. competitors are real good at using up resources fast. but if the goal is to conserve that resource, a monopoly does that best. an example might be peak oil. as we run out of oil, competition might keep the prices low and further deplete our limited supply. monopolies are better at husbanding limited resources by keeping prices higher.

one thing for sure, a laissez-faire, unregulated, let-corporations-do-whatever-they-can-get-away-with market is NOT genuine capitalism. economic anarchy would be a better term.

Rec # 5

recently claimed he's now an independent conservative. He's seeing the writing on the wall, but isn't there yet (or is but likes to bust my chops). Thanks!

Repubs need to ask themselves if they want all the **Urinary Authoritarian Executive power these neo-fascists have illegally grabbed to be turned over to Hillary?

It's their choice: Pres. Hastert now, or Pres. Pelosi later.

--
**Based on the newly-discovered, "inherent" (i.e., faith-based) Constitutional Authority for an appointed ruler (as opposed to elected leader) to piss down the back of the American People and tell them it's raining.

--

:kick:

It is not about party anymore. It is about freedom and truth and justice.