Dumb And Dumber - Your Congress At work

[Long Run]

For Dales:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9ls ... ture=share

And a pretty good song for the rest.

[Andrew D]

Oddly, I read your last paragraph above and find that I am basically in agreement. Progressives see the "common good" as a munificent Government-sponsored safety net that protects all citizens from severe want from cradle to grave - such as the ones that exist in Germany, France, and Scandanavia. Conservatives see the common good as a minimal safety net reserved for those who are truly in need (for reasons not of their own making), with the maximum opportunity for everyone else brought about by low taxes, and minimal Government oppression and interference. "Good" manifests itself in optimized individual opportunity for success, with mindless government regulation and "progressive" taxation being impediments to success.

And that's what November's election is all about: two different visions of America's "greatness."

God, what a bucketload. If one looks at actual right-wing policies, one readily observes that "good" manifests itself in minimizing the great majority of people's opportunities for success.

If one wants to see mindlessness, one can readily observe the right-wingers' viciously stupid anti-regulatory policies. If one wants to see a true impediment to success, one can readily observe the right-wingers' devotion to regressive taxation. The right-wingers support the Ryan pseudo-budget, which would raise taxes on almost everyone while lowering taxes on the richest Americans -- most of whom, like George W. Romney, contribute nothing to the society on which they feed -- because the ideal Republican economy is feudalism.

If you want to see wealth concentrated in the fewest hands possible, if you want to see poverty spread as widely as possible, then you should vote Republican. The leaders of the Republican party have devoted themselves to sabotaging all attempts at economic recovery, because an economic recovery would be good for most people, and what is good for most people is inherently bad from the Republican pseudo-ideological point of view.

If you want to see most Americans prosper -- if you really want to see an end to the misery brought about by the Great Republican Recession -- then vote to stop the Republicans. They oppose the things that made the American middle class prosperous: organized labor (one of the best things that ever came along for ordinary Americans), regulation of capitaL (another great thing for ordinary Americans), etc.

That is what the November election will be all about: Making America a really good place for the tiny few and a miserable place for everyone else (the Republicans) vs. making America a really good place for most Americans (the thinking Americans).

[MajGenl.Meade]

Making America a really good place for the tiny few and a miserable place for everyone else (the Republicans) vs. making America a really good place for most Americans (the thinking Americans).

A bit odd Andrew that you're concerned about making America a miserable place for the Republicans....

Also odd is the assertion that most Americans are thinking. Or did you mean that only a few very special and privileged thinking Americans will get the really good place? It will certainly reduce expenditures on government programmes.

Meade

[Gob]

A fine example of the polarisation of American politics.

The other guys, despite just being ordinary Joe working Americans like me, are evil, stupid, vicious, scum who want nothing less than the downfall of America.

Sad, and rather juvenile.

[Lord Jim]

The other guys, despite just being ordinary Joe working Americans like me, are evil, stupid, vicious, scum who want nothing less than the downfall of America.

Sad, and rather juvenile.

I couldn't agree more....

We've seen this more and more on both sides of the aisle...

When you view the people who disagree with you as "traitors" "evil" , etc., what hope is there for ever reaching any common ground, or even civil debate? Who would ever think of compromising with or listening to the arguments of an evil traitor?

We've got people on the left who think that the Republicans want to impose feudalism, and people on the right who think the Democrats want to impose communism....

[dgs49]

How odd that Andrew seems to think that "organized labor" is the key to prosperity, despite the cornucopia of examples of businesses and entire industries that have been either brought to their knees or decimated because of the excesses of unions. Apparently, he is unaware that the workers lose their jobs when this happens. Is he aware that NOT A SINGLE ONE of the transplant auto makers in the U.S. (Honda, Nissan, Toyota, M-B, BMW, Hyundai/Kia, etc.) has voted for a union, despite scores of "organizing" campaigns by the UAW. Guess those workers are just stupid. In Andrew's mind.

I wonder if he could point out a few American industries (NOT government, NOT regulated utilities), in which unions have brought about widespread prosperity, and not been huge job-killers.

And LJ, it serves no purpose to mis-state the largely-held view on the Right that Barry and the Progressives pine for EUROPEAN STYLE SOCIALISM. The one Republican rep who used the "C" word was roundly criticized from both sides.

[dgs49]

Clarification, re: "socialism":

"[Barry] certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

Government ownership of the means of production means that politicians also own the consequences of their policies, and have to face responsibility when those consequences are disastrous -- something that Barack Obama avoids like the plague.

Thus the Obama administration can arbitrarily force insurance companies to cover the children of their customers until the children are 26 years old. Obviously, this creates favorable publicity for President Obama. But if this and other government edicts cause insurance premiums to rise, then that is something that can be blamed on the "greed" of the insurance companies."

--T. Sowell

[Scooter]

But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism

So what he wants (or rather, what it is claimed that he wants) does not meet the definition of socialism, but we'll call it that anyway, just because it makes it sound bad.

[Andrew D]

Yes, the leaders of the Republican party have engaged in a sad and rather juvenile polarization of American politics.

But let's stop with the silliness of equating the two major U.S. parties.

The leaders of the Republican party have spent years deliberately obstructing attempts at economic recovery. The leaders of the Democratic party have not.

The leaders of the Democratic party have been willing -- all too willing -- to compromise. The leaders of the Republican party have not.

[Andrew D]

--T. Sowell

Who has raised stupidity to an art form.

[dgs49]

Quoting Andrew: "...obstructing atempts (sic) at economic recovery..."

Care to cite a few examples?

I can't wait.

[Andrew D]

The jobs bill. The transportation bill. The housing bill. The stimulus (which Republican leaders, against the bipartisan advice of economists, halved in order to prevent its success).

Have you paid even the slightest attention to the behavior of Republican legislators?

Probably not.