Extremist Senators

[bobblehead]

Still waiting for the extremist republicans.

I'm still waiting for a definition....like what policies make one extreme republican, then I can answer it, I'm sure there are some.

What makes an extreme democrat?

My opinion.....Seeing higher taxes and redistribution as the solution to most problems. Wanting to impose extreme environmental philosophies on society despite the cost to society. Thinking that gov't is more efficient than private industry in any more than a few extreme examples. That is the way I define it. Again, you might think most of that sounds good, and if you define extreme republican I might think it sounds good. We agree to disagree.

[HowardRoark]

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

I read Obama’s books: Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope. The first is extremely well-written and offers a very good insight into what makes him tick as a person. The second is an overview of his thoughts and beliefs on major issues. I highly recommend both.

My impression of Obama, for what it’s worth, is that he’s a genuine and sincere altruist. He’s not an ideologue. In fact, he’s more an extreme pragmatist, willing to consider any and all opinions on a particular issue. He is logical and relies on historical experience and his own personal experience to settle his opinion on a particular issue or policy. That his bottom-line opinions generally correspond with leftist ideology is more accidental than purposeful, at least that’s how I believe he sees it. He might say, for instance, that the left’s ideology happens to correspond to his outlook, but it is not the root cause of his outlook.

You know what I mean. We’re all naïve and altruistic when we’re young. We see poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other and say: “Damn, the solution is obvious. Just distribute the wealth more evenly. Take a little from the rich guy and give it to the poor guy!”

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.

The problem is it requires an understanding of economic and social political theory to expose and debunk such social quackery. Unfortunately, Obama’s aversion to political theory and ideology extends to economic theory and social theory as well. The fact of reality he just cannot put aside is: redistribution works, i.e., taking a few thousand dollars from Warren Buffet and buying food for a hungry, single mother and baby solves the problem. From Buffet’s point of view the taking is insignificant and will not be missed, and from the single mom’s point of view the giving is a godsend: it keeps her baby from starving to death. Thus, no amount of economic theorizing will persuade Obama that income redistribution has unintended economic and social consequences that we all might come to regret later on.

To make a long story short, Obama reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who experienced the riots in LA after the OJ Simpson verdict and cried: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Indeed, why can’t we? Why can’t we all just pony up and help those less fortunate who are in need of housing, food, clothing, a job, an education, health care, retirement income, etc. etc. etc.? Geez, probably 50% of us are willing to help each other out voluntarily! Maybe even 75% of us!

Hell, the answer is obvious! The remaining 50% or 25% who are not willing to help each other out voluntarily WILL help each other out if they are forced to help their neighbors out by a good, just, Christian, well-meaning and provident head-altruist in Washington, D.C. who just happens to be a little smarter and more determined than the rest of us, who has the audacity to hope, the gift of gab and an unshakeable belief in change.

Voila! Rodney King’s cry becomes reality. We all get along... and live happily ever after!

Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

[mraynrand]

I truly wonder what Obama’s deal is. Is he just a myopic kid who has set forth the goal of becoming President; once he gets there he will have no idea what to do.

Or, is he died in the wool Socialist who wants to dramatically change things to that idealism. When I read through his website, it certainly appears as though he is a true Socialist. But, he also changes his views/ideas so quick, I wonder if he even knows what he is….other than power hungry.

I read Obama’s books: Dreams from My Father, and The Audacity of Hope. The first is extremely well-written and offers a very good insight into what makes him tick as a person. The second is an overview of his thoughts and beliefs on major issues. I highly recommend both.

My impression of Obama, for what it’s worth, is that he’s a genuine and sincere altruist. He’s not an ideologue. In fact, he’s more an extreme pragmatist, willing to consider any and all opinions on a particular issue. He is logical and relies on historical experience and his own personal experience to settle his opinion on a particular issue or policy. That his bottom-line opinions generally correspond with leftist ideology is more accidental than purposeful, at least that’s how I believe he sees it. He might say, for instance, that the left’s ideology happens to correspond to his outlook, but it is not the root cause of his outlook.

You know what I mean. We’re all naïve and altruistic when we’re young. We see poverty on the one hand and wealth on the other and say: “Damn, the solution is obvious. Just distribute the wealth more evenly. Take a little from the rich guy and give it to the poor guy!”

Fortunately, most of us get wiser as we grow older. We study economics, human behavior and moral, political and social philosophy. We come to understand that the Marxian prescription (From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.) is a medicine worse than the disease when applied to a society.

The problem is it requires an understanding of economic and social political theory to expose and debunk such social quackery. Unfortunately, Obama’s aversion to political theory and ideology extends to economic theory and social theory as well. The fact of reality he just cannot put aside is: redistribution works, i.e., taking a few thousand dollars from Warren Buffet and buying food for a hungry, single mother and baby solves the problem. From Buffet’s point of view the taking is insignificant and will not be missed, and from the single mom’s point of view the giving is a godsend: it keeps her baby from starving to death. Thus, no amount of economic theorizing will persuade Obama that income redistribution has unintended economic and social consequences that we all might come to regret later on.

To make a long story short, Obama reminds me of Rodney King, the guy who experienced the riots in LA after the OJ Simpson verdict and cried: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Indeed, why can’t we? Why can’t we all just pony up and help those less fortunate who are in need of housing, food, clothing, a job, an education, health care, retirement income, etc. etc. etc.? Geez, probably 50% of us are willing to help each other out voluntarily! Maybe even 75% of us!

Hell, the answer is obvious! The remaining 50% or 25% who are not willing to help each other out voluntarily WILL help each other out if they are forced to help their neighbors out by a good, just, Christian, well-meaning and provident head-altruist in Washington, D.C. who just happens to be a little smarter and more determined than the rest of us, who has the audacity to hope, the gift of gab and an unshakeable belief in change.

Voila! Rodney King’s cry becomes reality. We all get along... and live happily ever after!

Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

[HowardRoark]

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

I’m still working my way through Crime and Punishment, but Jonah’s book is definitely on my short list. I have heard from many people that it is an excellent book.

[mraynrand]

Road to Serfdom - a good book. Try Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Fascism' as a follow up

I’m still working my way through Crime and Punishment, but Jonah’s book is definitely on my short list. I have heard from many people that it is an excellent book.

Is that your first trip into Dostoyevsky land? If so, and you like C&P, you have to read them all, especially Brothers Karamazov. That's an all-time must read - possibly the greatest novel, perhaps even the greatest piece of literature - ever. The Devils or The Possessed is a very dark novel, but it has the virtue of examining the effects of the teachings of a radical and his revelation after he views his creations; to paraphrase: "What hath I wrought?" Or if you like shorter stuff, read Friend of the Family or my favorite novella "The Double." Ok, that's enough Fyodor for one post. (I can't help myself, I love the stuff).

[Maxie the Taxi]

HowardRoark wrote:

Barack has to realize the math doesn’t work. There are very few Warren Buffets out there, and there will be a hell of a lot fewer if they realize that their wealth will be taken from them and redistributed once it is earned.

There are plenty of young people who look at a rich person and a poor person and use this to motivate them to NEVER be one of the poor people. If all young people look at that equation and decide to wait for the handout, eventually their will be nobody left to do the handing.

When there is resistance, that’s when the fun begins. Big sticks and whatnot come out to force people to get things done. A guy once called this The Road to Serfdom. THAT IS A BOOK BY FRIEDRICH HAYEK…….I DID NOT MAKE UP THE PHRASE; THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, NOR DID I HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AUTHORING OF THE BOOK.

As a Conservative, I realize and acknowledge that Capitalism is brutal to those on the bottom of the food chain. I just don’t think that redistribution of wealth is the way to deal with this brutalness. Also, I believe that many of the people on the lower ends of food chain are some of the happiest people on earth.

If you keep lowering the threshhold of "richness," the math does work. Eventually you reach the point of equality where there is no significant difference among individual incomes. You eventually reach the point where "rich" and "poor" are the same.

I believe Obama has already lowered the "richness" threshold to something like an annual family income of $250,000 or more per year. This doesn't even factor in other government non-income takings from the "rich," like Social Security, Medicare and other local taxes like real estate taxes.

And nothing says $250,000/year is written in stone. Obama may yet lower that threshold. Consider Sweden where income tax rates approach 100% of income. Yet the Swedes seem to live rather comfortably. And they seem to have eliminated the "brutal" side effects of capitalism as you describe them. So that argument won't work on Obama either.

The liberal attraction to economic egalitarianism is a tough nut to crack. Why? Because most liberals cannot see beneath the surface of things. They see the world in simplistic, linear terms. Wealth exists, so divide it up. It's as simple as that. They give no thought to why wealth exists. The "why" of it is not relevant. And the few who believe it is relevant rely on simplistic, linear theories to explain wealth's existence...like Marxian theory which is about as simplistic as it gets:

Wealth = things workers make. Thus, what makes wealth is workers' labor. Thus, workers who labor deserve to have the product of their labor, i.e., they deserve to be wealthy, or at least as wealthy as everybody else.

It's the same type of reasoning the liberal uses when he demands gun control: "Why gun control? It's obvious, moron! Because guns kill people!"