Palin = Fail
Via Mudflats, this is the person who was almost Vice President:
Republican dogma holds that government spending is bad because, in order to pay for it, you have to raise taxes, and it's generally better and more productive to leave that money in private hands. In other words, even Republicans don't believe that government revenue itself is bad; their issue is with the source of revenue, which is almost always taxation.
But the question that Palin was asked had nothing to do with taxation. If the price of oil goes up, Alaska gets a revenue windfall. Palin could simply pass that extra money directly to the people of Alaska. That's the equivalent of a tax cut for everyone in her state.
By Palin's logic, Alaska should drastically cut back on the production of oil in the state. After all, 85% of the state's revenue comes from oil production and revenue is bad. The fewer dollars the state has, the fewer it will spend and that's apparently "good for our families and good for the private sector."
Remember, this is the person John McCain selected to be Vice President of the United States.
Hannity: …The price of oil is going up again. It’s not quite at $140 a barrel, but it’s on its way up to $70 and $80…This may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard a politician say, and it so beautifully illustrates the level of Republican intellectual decay that Palin represents. You can see what's going on here. She's memorized the talking point (government spending = bad) but doesn't understand the argument underlying it. She knows the punchline but not the joke.
Palin: Yeah, well and I thank God it’s not at $140. You know people say, “Hey, Alaska! 85% of your state budget is based on the price of a barrel of oil. Aren’t you glad the price is going up?” I say, “No!” The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend. And that’s good for our families and for the private sector.
Republican dogma holds that government spending is bad because, in order to pay for it, you have to raise taxes, and it's generally better and more productive to leave that money in private hands. In other words, even Republicans don't believe that government revenue itself is bad; their issue is with the source of revenue, which is almost always taxation.
But the question that Palin was asked had nothing to do with taxation. If the price of oil goes up, Alaska gets a revenue windfall. Palin could simply pass that extra money directly to the people of Alaska. That's the equivalent of a tax cut for everyone in her state.
By Palin's logic, Alaska should drastically cut back on the production of oil in the state. After all, 85% of the state's revenue comes from oil production and revenue is bad. The fewer dollars the state has, the fewer it will spend and that's apparently "good for our families and good for the private sector."
Remember, this is the person John McCain selected to be Vice President of the United States.
posted by A.L. at 9:53 PM
59 Comments:
Man, I was always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intelligence but seriously, is she really that dim? I find it difficult to understand, not to mention disheartening, that someone who seems so stupid managed to win the governorship of one of our states. I know the inevitable comparisons to Bush are coming but I never really thought he was stupid. I just figured he was faking it. But this woman really seems like she doesn't have much going on in her brains. How could she not know the basic political philosophy of the conservative movement? I know it and I am nothing even close to resembling a republican.
That is incredibly disturbing.
I'll paraphrase Glenn Reynolds: "They said if I voted for McCain-Palin, we'd get an utter moron for Vice President. And they were right!"
Bertrand Russell:
"The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment."
I keep wondering how leftists can still consider themselves "liberals". They cling dogmatically to notion that government spending, individuals being dependent on the government, and being paid for doing no work, each item is a great good, that Democrats are good, that Republicans are bad. And that somehow, Sarah Palin is stupid. This dogmatism runs counter to the definition of a "liberal" that I put up above (which I lifted from this site). Of course, denying that they are dogmatic in any way allows them to claim the label of being a "liberal"; it's dishonest, but it explains a lot about what today's "liberals" are.
Yeah, this is the woman that could have been the Vice President. Instead, we have an utter moron for Vice President, and his name is Joe Biden.
Steve, I'm not sure what point you're driving at. 'Liberalism' if strictly defined as in that quote, refers to any party whose views are amenable to reason and evidence. This is obviously something everyone will claim is true of their own beliefs - nobody willingly brands themselves as an automaton.
Now, every political group by definition has a set of general stances on the issues of the day. These are obviously 'persistent' to some degree. Determining whether they are 'dogma' or reasoned observations and judgments is then coloured by the assessor's political stance. Obviously you believe the Left is grounded in dogma, because you have reasoned and reached conclusions about the world that are at odds with it.
It is meaningless, I think, to critique the left (or the right) on whether or not they are 'liberal' in Russel's sense. It is a political question - not one of fact.
as usual stevear, you drive pass the origional point and insert a new premise with an inadequite argument.
we say sarah palin is stupid because she is stupid. this is obvious (except to the stupid).
but you are not trying to argue that she is not stupid, only that us "liberals" are not really liberals because we call her stupid.
fair enough...how about "observant"?
-pl
A.L., I'm a big fan, but I believe you've missed the point. Republicans do believe that government revenue is bad in and of itself. "Government is the problem," I believe is the mantra they attribute to St. Reagan. Thus, Gov. Palin is not wrong, under accepted GOP dogma, to think that lower government revenue is in and of itself a positive good.
No less wrongheaded, but not as airheaded as your post suggests.
Actually, she should have said that, to combat the rising flow of money into the AK govt, she was immediately going to reduce the taxes on oil revenues.
That would increase profits for the oil companies or decrease the price of oil (I bet I know which!) and decrease the money that AK government would have available to spend. All good, according to Saint Ronnie.
Clearly, she's either stupid or hopelessly dishonest. Take your pick. I'm going to pick 40 percent from column A and 60 from column B, myself.
John Eldridge:
Steve, I'm not sure what point you're driving at.
Highway Rob does a good job in his comment:
Thus, Gov. Palin is not wrong, under accepted GOP dogma, to think that lower government revenue is in and of itself a positive good.
No less wrongheaded, but not as airheaded as your post suggests.
A.L. insists in driving home the dogmatic "Palin is stupid" line instead of trying to engage in an actual debate on policy, whereas Highway Rob actually wants to. That's fine; it's A.L.'s blog. I don't believe, however, it helps to change the tone of debate in this country as those who claim to be "liberals" say they want to do. I'm not guiltless in this; but, I don't claim to be a liberal either.
They cling dogmatically to notion that government spending, individuals being dependent on the government, and being paid for doing no work, each item is a great good, that Democrats are good, that Republicans are bad. And that somehow, Sarah Palin is stupid. This dogmatism runs counter to the definition of a "liberal" that I put up above (which I lifted from this site).
Steve, first allow me to assure you that if I'm presented with evidence that Sarah Palin is actually not the ignoramus that all current evidence suggests she is, I'll reassess my opinion in the spirit of liberalism.
More importantly, though, the rest of your rant is pretty silly. I don't know a single liberal who thinks that government spending (in and of itself) is a good or who wants people to be more dependent on government than they need to be. Many of us believe that government has an important role to play in certain areas (education, health care) where a purely private system is simply not feasible. And I'm pretty sure I speak for all liberals in saying that I don't believe "Democrats are good." There are many truly idiotic and feckless Democratic politicians. And there are some intelligent, principled Republicans. Sarah Palin is not one of them.
A.L. insists in driving home the dogmatic "Palin is stupid" line instead of trying to engage in an actual debate on policy
I'm sorry, Steve, but you're really out to lunch on this one. What policy debate? Even Sarah Palin--if she gave it five seconds of thought--is not against windfall revenue to the governmment. As C2 points out, if she thinks it would be better if her state had less revenue, she can easily accomplish that by cutting taxes on oil production or limiting oil production itself.
I can't believe you would actually defend her comment on policy grounds. Alaska sends checks to its people every year giving them a cut of oil revenues. If revenues go up, the people of Alaska get more money. That's exactly what Republicans should want, more money in people's hands.
I take your point, but I think A.L. has not engaged the argument seriously in this case purely because it is very dubious. I would be very surprised if even Reagan himself approved of 'lower government revenue' in the way it is arising here.
C2H50H remarks that if Palin seriously believed falling oil revenues were desirable, she would effect change through legislation, instead of cheerleading the largely capricious market as though this was the sole determinant of revenue.
A.L. rightly points out that rising oil prices need not lead to an increase in state *expenditure* at all. The funds could be passed on in their entirety to the electorate. Surely the G.O.P. would not object to that?
It is a very strange statement that Palin has made, even if you accept the extreme view that minimising government revenue is always beneficial.
Steve, "somehow", those must be among the most moronic comments you've made on this site, and that's saying something.
" Instead, we have an utter moron for Vice President, and his name is Joe Biden."
And your evidence for this is...?
The way I see it, AL described an interview with Sarah Palin, and then made a reasoned argument about what she said. The obvious conclusion is that either she doesn't know what she's talking about, or she does know, but is being disingenuous in the extreme.
You, on the other hand have entirely missed AL's point, launched off into one of your anti-liberal tirades, and punctuated it with one of your usual unsupported ad hominem attacks.
There's a major difference between these approaches, but I'm confident you'll fail to recognize it.
Something has always confused me about the incessant parroting of Reagan's "government is the problem" line. How does once reconcile the position that the government cannot be trusted to implement a single domestic program correctly or competently with the other conservative position that under no circumstances should anyone question the ability of the MILITARY to carry out an operation or attack correctly? The "what could go wrong" attitude that conservative war-hawks have trumpeted has always struck me as ironic in this fashion.
We choose to hyper-vigilantly monitor and deconstruct every last sentence our celebrity pols utter because it's fun.
But the funny soundbites are rarely useful for anything else. She wasn't purposefully engaged in policy debate when she made that statement. And most of us who question her capabilities don't really suspect that's the sort of proposition she'd come up with in a formal debate.
Are we cherry picking opportunities to lacerate political foes? Sure. Like I said, it's fun.
But, Steve, you're doing the same thing. It's absurd to take a snapshot of a blogbyte and declare it fails to meet standards as a plank for an entire political philosophy.
You want to engage in policy debate with liberals? Great! Stop woofin' and come on with it! Give us a proposition, derived from conservative views on taxation, or whatever, and we'll treat it as such. I promise you: provide a compelling argument and we'll recognize it as such. Even if we're not persuaded by it.
Until then, calling A.L. out for sniping?...um...hello, Pot? This is Kettle calling...
Yeah, it's pretty funny how SteveAR objects to "dogmatism"
Yeah, it's pretty funny how SteveAR objects to "dogmatism"
If I understand him, SteveAr doesn't object to dogmatism per se, just what he perceives to be the hypocrisy of liberals who 'dogmatically' assert the superiority of their policies while also claiming the moral high ground of having an open mind. It's the conservative caricature of liberals: that we have no core beliefs or standards, and it angers and confuses them when we show that we do have standards by, say, calling a spade a spade (or a Palin a moron).
Boiled to its essence, his argument here is "Oh yeah? So's your old man!"
rdemay,
She "uttered" this little bon mot on an internationally-televised show watched by millions of people. You made it seem as if this was something she said under her breath as she was getting into her car, picked up by a shotgun mike.
We aren't going to have "debate" for years, so in the meantime, we are to give our politicians a free pass to act like utter nincompoops? Frankly, I'm not impressed with the level of political discourse in this country, and allowing them further latitude without being called on it doesn't seem calculated to elevate it.
I say we should hold them up as objects of scorn if they say stupid things. If nothing else, that would tend to reduce the amount of drivel we are subjected to every day.
Let me preface this comment by noting that I have no particular desire to defend Palin’s intellect, which may be as inferior as you suggest. But if you are going to play the game of taking a particular quote and making it fit into the Palin equals airhead theme (a game, I would note, that can at least as easily be played with the quotes of the actual current VP), you should at least be careful to get the underlying theory right.
It is not the case that Republicans oppose government spending just because it is financed with taxes. That idea itself is a corruption of the limited government principles which ought to be at the core of conservative thinking. Conservatives believe that a larger and more powerful government is, in and of itself, a danger to liberty and the private sphere. Moreover, even just from an economic perspective, government expenditure of resources represents an opportunity cost regardless of how it is financed. The labor and materials that go into a government project are (obviously) unavailable to go into some other enterprise or project. Conservatives believe that, generally speaking, government expenditures will produce less societal value than private sector expenditures. You undoubtedly disagree, but I think (hope) you would concede that this is not a stupid thing to believe.
Now it may very well be that Palin’s understanding of this issue doesn’t go beyond the “government spending is bad” level. But her remark itself was pretty innocuous and hardly worthy to be called the “stupidest thing I've ever heard a politician say.” I bet it won’t even be the stupidest thing a politician says today.
A.L.:
I don't know a single liberal who thinks that government spending (in and of itself) is a good or who wants people to be more dependent on government than they need to be.
Sure you do. You're one of them.
And I'm pretty sure I speak for all liberals in saying that I don't believe "Democrats are good." There are many truly idiotic and feckless Democratic politicians.
You would never know that reading anything here. But that's fine. You support Democratic policies, and will vote for any Democrat over any Republican, except possibly "intelligent, principled Republicans"; that is, one that supports leftist policies.
I can't believe you would actually defend her comment on policy grounds.
I do. I think it's valid on policy grounds. Here's why. You said:
That's exactly what Republicans should want, more money in people's hands.
Republicans should want to make a point of, and often don't (and this is where some members of the GOP act like Democrats), that gaining more money is something to be earned, not given as something the people have a right to. It's one thing to help those out when they are hurting, but when that unearned gift becomes expected, which is what Democratic policies have led so many to believe, then the idea of earning money goes by the wayside. That is the point Palin is making. That is neither stupid nor airheaded.
Fortunately, most of the American people still believe working to earn their money is far better than getting a government handout for doing nothing, despite the fact that Democratic policies continue to push this meme.
Take a look at the policies you mention:
Many of us believe that government has an important role to play in certain areas (education, health care) where a purely private system is simply not feasible.
Government, at various levels, already owns 90% or more of public education in this country. Yet government doesn't seem to have the ability to solve any problems with education with the exception of taking more money away from others and feeding the education bureaucracy, along with expanding government control of education. Which is amazing since government is unable to solve the problems.
Health care has long been half-owned by the government, yet the idea that it is private is pushed endlessly. Like education, government can't solve the problems of health care, yet too many want to expand government control in the false belief that government can fix it, since government is proven to be unable to "fix" anything.
Like I said, Palin's point wasn't stupid, and she isn't stupid. It's a valid conservative policy position. Unfortunately, even when Republicans are in charge, they don't often practice what they say they preach. But Republicans and conservatives are right to point out that a government "fix" defined by the Democrats and the left consistently turn out to be failures, and that Democrats and the left consistently push for more failure as part of their policy.
I've got to agree, in part, with MLS. I wouldn't take a bet that it won't be the stupidest thing a Republican will say today.
For conservatives, it isn't that government spending is bad -- after all, under Reagan at least one government spending project was so noble it was worth violating the law.
It's that any government spending which reinforces the status quo is good. Investment in things which might make things better is automatically bad, because things are perfect as they are, except in so far as they aren't as good as they used to be.
@mls,
Your is one of the better written defenses of what SHOULD be the conservative view on limited governement. Bravo for the clarity. But know that many conservatives don't actually believe that.
Which leads me to a series of questions, or rather a question in a series of points: How do you square your proposed view with the actions of the last Republican President including -
1) the significant increase in contractor providing both civilian and military services to the nation in place of federal employees? Does the size of government (and thus its intrusion) shrink even if more people are involved in the enterprise so long as they are not feds?
2) The massive market inteventions (incorrectly termed bailouts) for the financial sector that had run itself into a wall of its own making?
3) The massive expansion of the federal debt thorugh war financing outside the regular appropriations process?
Answers please . . . .
MLS,
I take your point re: government spending, but what I wrote was that "even Republicans don't think that government revenue itself is bad." It think that's unquestionably true. We're talking here about windfall revenue that can and would be given directly back to the people in the form of a check. More money in people's hands means more consumption, more economic growth, etc. That's not "bad for families and private sector"; it's good. Even under Reagonomics.
Steve, you said "Republicans should want to make a point of, and often don't (and this is where some members of the GOP act like Democrats), that gaining more money is something to be earned, not given as something the people have a right to."
Now, one of the tools Palin used to placate the people of Alaska was a Rebate Check issued to each citizen of the state that was paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil revenues. This way, she could claim with a straight face that she somehow cut taxes and put money in people's pockets, even though the money came from a special tax on one private industry. However, if Republicans believe that money should only be given to those "who earned it", then how do you reconcile that with Palin's redistribution of windfall profits. Unless every Alaskan worked in the oil industry, they sure as hell didn't "earn" that refund check, now did they.
If you had been paying attention to Alaska's recent budget fights (the state is currently running a fairly large deficit due to the drop in the price of oil), Palin's vaunted "fiscal responsibility" was harder to trumpet without the windfall profit tax she is pretending doesn't exist.
Either way, what does Palin care. The people of Alaska could starve to death for all she cares, her full attention has been devoted to relocating her family from there anyway.
Bah. She was being interviewed by Hannity. Arguably, though the medium is different, that's a lot like hanging out in friendly blog space. She was having something much closer to a social conversation with a willing audience than engaging in purposeful political speech.
I live in Minnesota. Michelle Bachmann sometimes makes Governor Palin look pretty composed and thoughtful. Bachmann has taught us that there's limited value to pouncing on each bizarre proclamation if your intent is either to reveal her lunacy (ostensibly for the purpose of influencing her constituency), or to move policy debate forward.
In the first case, the articles of her insanity, self-evident to us, are either unimportant to her constituents, or they resonate. The 6th District want her. Even after quite a while to consider her record. Mocking her next "stupid" statement buys us nothing with them.
In the second case, her outrageous statements may keep her in the press, but they're almost never the subject of actual policy debate. Face it: there's not much argument to be had over the merits of investigating Congress for anti-Americanism. Not on a policy level.
If you really want to engage Bachmann, pay attention to the legislation she is proposing to deny ACORN access to any aspect of stimulus spending. There is policy content there, and rich material for debate, but not much in the way of spectacular soundbites.
Holding pols up to ridicule should be done, by all means! It should be our non-partisan national sport. But it should not be mistaken for policy debate where there isn't any being suggested.
rdemay,
You clearly see Bachmann's re-election differently from what I do. From where I stand I'd say her re-election was the result of a district ruthlessly gerrymandered by a past Republican legislature and governor to be a safe one for the GOP together with a rather weak DFL challenger.
And in spite of that, she very nearly defeated herself.
These things sometimes take time, but, in another couple of years, she'll be history, either redistricted out of existence or defeated, even by the good folk of Stearns County, a little bit of the Ozarks transported to MN.
The spotlight of public evaluation should be constant, and any pronouncements or actions should be delineated, whether the inanity of Bachmann or the underhanded FOIA end-runs by the Obama administration. It's the only way to keep politicians remotely honest.
Erasmus:
Now, one of the tools Palin used to placate the people of Alaska was a Rebate Check issued to each citizen of the state that was paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil revenues. This way, she could claim with a straight face that she somehow cut taxes and put money in people's pockets, even though the money came from a special tax on one private industry.
That's a good point. Except for two things: Alaska has no state-level sales or individual income tax that Palin could cut, and cutting state taxes on oil revenues may not have actually done any good; and, this was a one-time rebate, not something that is endless.
A.L.:
We're talking here about windfall revenue that can and would be given directly back to the people in the form of a check. More money in people's hands means more consumption, more economic growth, etc. That's not "bad for families and private sector"; it's good.
Would you justify taking money directly from someone in the Mafia for the same reason, that more money in people's hands means more consumption, more economic growth, etc.? I would suspect your answer would be no, and for the same reason I would say no; the price of being dependent on money given by a member of the Mafia, not to mention how the wiseguy came by his money, is too high.
While the federal government isn't the Mafia (necessarily), the price for being dependent on government for income is too high, too prone for abuse. Plus, there is too much of a possibility that rights guaranteed by the Constitution would be lessened even further than they already are. The price is too high.
Steve, how can a so-called "fiscal conservative" justify passing a windfall profits tax on a private industry, then give the tax dollars (redistribute if you will) to people who did nothing to actually earn that money? A bribe is a bribe, even when a conservative does it, Steve-O.
A true free-market believer would have eliminated any taxes on said industry, no?
Anonymous (11:30am):
Steve, how can a so-called "fiscal conservative" justify passing a windfall profits tax on a private industry, then give the tax dollars (redistribute if you will) to people who did nothing to actually earn that money?
First, there was no "windfall profits tax", but extra tax revenue that came in from higher oil prices.
Second, I agree with you. But for those who claim to be pragmatists, what was she to do? The money was coming in regardless due to the higher oil prices. She had the option of trying to cut the tax rates of the oil companies, but it is doubtful the legislature would have gone for it, and if they did, it would have put money back into those oil bigwigs the left loves to demonize. The best thing she could have tried was to put the money into some kind of savings fund for use in an emergency; but unfortunately, legislatures (especially those legislatures run by Democrat leaders, as is Alaska's legislature) are notorious for "robbing Peter to pay Paul" (think Social Security) in new permanent "programs" (junk). Or, she could have done what she did as part of a one-time deal, but not something Alaskans should come to expect. Again, that's the point she made to Hannity.
Late to the debate here, but I see that AL really has no idea what he is talking about. I do not oppose government spending because the funds come out of my wallet. That is a secondary consideration.
Government spending is often times undesirable in its own right. Take welfare for example. Even if the money to fund it magically appeared out of thin air I still would have supported reform because the program had such terrible consequences for its recipients, promoting dependence and all manners of social ills.
Similarly with health care reform I think that more government involvement and spending will lead to a worse outcome. Such examples are legion.
I oppose government spending just like I oppose giving car keys and a bottle of Jack to teenagers. It's not the fact that I have to fork over the money to pay for the Jack that bothers me, its what it will lead to.
While you bash Palin for her ignorance and missing logic it is woefully apparent that you are the one who fails to understand the argument.
SteveAR,
The only thing I think when I read that last comment was that you should spend more effort on reading comprehension and less listening to the voices in your head. I, for one, do not believe that those voices accurately tell you what Palin was thinking, no matter what you may believe or pretend to believe.
Do explain, please, how lowering taxes on oil might be harmful? Be careful, you could get yourself in dutch with the other conservatives.
The point of A.L.'s post, which your comments have done nothing to dispel, was that expressing a wish that revenue from oil would decrease "for the good of Alaska" is monumentally stupid, no matter what sophist knots you tie yourself in for the sake of excusing it.
Whether legislatures could not be bullied, by a popular governor, into lowering taxes (which has happened quite a lot, actually), or whether it made as much sense for her to redistribute the oil company profits in the form of a tax rebate to the people (which is income redistribution -- until your comment, I thought that was a big no no) isn't the issue.
Oh, and Colin, you of course mean, "except for the government spending us conservatives like. Welfare = bad. Corporate welfare = good. Money spent on creating opportunity for the poor = very bad. Money spent on creating opportunity for the rich = very good."
Colin,
So you're claiming that even windfall revenue is intrinsically bad? What if you use it to provide tax cuts, or pay back the national debt, or increase defense spending? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that there is no politician in the country, of any political persuasion, who actually believes that windfall revenue is a bad thing. And that includes Palin. She's just wasn't thinking clearly here. She was regurgitating talking points in a situation where they didn't apply.
Oh, and Colin, you of course mean, "except for the government spending us conservatives like. Welfare = bad. Corporate welfare = good. Money spent on creating opportunity for the poor = very bad. Money spent on creating opportunity for the rich = very good.".
Ah, shoving words into my mouth, a tried and true debating tactic.
Sorry to disrupt your cartoon image of conservatives, but actually I oppose corporate welfare just as strenuously as for anyone else. I would love to take an axe to subsidies and tax breaks for corporations. I am smart enough to realize that big government and big business go hand in hand. Business and the rich often love government since they can use it for their own ends and erect barriers to competition. They hate the rough and tumble of the free market. Just look at how thrilled insurance companies are with Obama's proposal for an insurance mandate -- lots of new business for them.
Get back to me when you are ready for an honest debate instead of relying on uninformed stereotypes.
Colin,
Before we can have an "honest debate" I have to know where you stand on government spending for defense. How about the FDA, SEC, and Federal Reserve? And what about public education?
AL,
Plainly in the context of Palin's comments she is assuming that the money is going to be spent by the government. Look at the quote:
"The fewer dollars that the state of Alaska government has, the fewer dollars we spend."
She is making an argument against government expenditures, even when the money doesn't come out of taxpayer wallets.
As for your examples:
* I do not favor increasing the defense budget which I think is gargantuan as it stands.
* I do not favor using oil revenue to fund taxes since I think it is a good thing that government spending is related to what people make. If government could spend money that appeared out of thin air it would be terrible for democracy and would promote corruption (vote buying). Indeed, those countries that rely on natural resource (oil) royalties, rather than direct taxation of their citizens, usually tend to be poorly governed (e.g. Venezuela).
* I would not pay off the debt. That should be done with existing revenue streams. By paying off the debt you are allowing money that would otherwise be spent on either reducing or servicing the debt to be spent elsewhere by the government. If the US national debt were to be suddenly paid off tomorrow you can safely bet that the immediate reaction would be for Congress to go hog wild in its spending.
Palin's logic remains sound and your attack is very much off base.
C2H50H,
My logic on government programs is very simple: it should be left to those areas that only the government can handle, with national defense being a classic example. I simply see no way that a private actor(s) can handle this.
Public education does not fall into this sphere. The government for the most part does not clothe, feed, or house children, so I see little reason why it should educate them. If you want to have kids you should pay for their own education. And no, I don't think privatizing this would result in a country of bumbling morons.
As for the Fed, I'm agnostic as to whether it should be abolished, but I do think that we should be at least open to the idea. This New Republic column is pretty interesting:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=eb4e90b4-c60d-49cd-b16b-9dad23fea33e
I don't see the point in either the FDA or SEC. If people want to put different substances in their bodies they shouldn't need permission from the government. This is especially true for those in terminal condition, who have been denied certain drugs because they have yet to meet with FDA approval. It's their life and their health.
Likewise if you want to invest your money you should be free to do so as you see fit and enter into financial contracts with whoever you want.
And yes, I know that all of this marks me as a barbarian.
Colin,
You're entitled to your views, but you must understand how far outside the mainstream they are, even for Republicans. I highly doubt that Palin or any other prominent Republican subscribes to your extreme libertarian philosophy. I mean, the FDA? Really? Companies should just be able to market any experimental drug they want to anyone without clinical testing or anything? And do you have any idea how quickly our economy would grind to a halt if we didn't have a body like the SEC enforcing at least minimal order? No one would buy securities or invest their money in anything. No one would trust anyone. That's just crazy.
SteveAR I can't believe you take your own words even half seriously. The idea that Democrats - even way-left Liberals like me - want the government to spend 'just to spend' is ludicrous and stupid. Or think that 'all Democrats are good' (utterly absurd statement). What's the point of that??
Why on earth do you bother to hallucinate some fictional lefties and then make inane arguments about what they believe in? What do you get out of it? Of COURSE your straw-men are objectionable - because YOU make them so.
I've suggested many times that if you actually care what Liberals or Democrats or whatever think, then you can simply ask. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
AL,
Yes, they are extreme, but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Yes, you should be able to buy whatever drug you want. It stands to reason that companies would seek outside certification from an outside agency to confirm the safety of their products. We already do this in the electronics sector with Underwriters Laboratories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
Companies, due to their own self-interest, want products that work and are safe.
As for the SEC, do you really believe that? You are operating under the assumption that the SEC is all that stands between the financial sector and anarchy. Was there anarchy before the SEC's creation in, what, 1934? Did nobody trust anybody?
Stock exchanges have a self-interest in smooth and equitable operation. People should be able to engage in voluntary transactions with whoever they want, with the rule of law backing up those transactions.
And no, I doubt Sarah Palin or any other prominent Republican agrees with what I have posted. In the meantime I will just have to content myself with the knowledge that at least she is right on government spending (at least in rhetoric).
Colin,
Why the FDA?
As for the SEC, you may have heard of the Great Depression.
There can be no chance of "honest debate" with someone as ignorant as you. It would be like discussing Quantum Theory with someone innocent of probability theory.
It seems with each post from Colin and Steve and the like, that it becomes clear that conservatives seem to view the 1870's as the ideal model of American society.
I think it is a fallacy that a company if left completely to its own devices, will always do the right thing. I suppose you don't remember the peanut butter company that knowingly shipped out contaminated peanut butter, because it would have been too expensive to issue a recall. And that happened just last year. Suppose if you had no FDA, no oversight on the safety of food and medicine. That would make the peanut butter incident look like, well, peanuts.
Since conservatives ALSO want to remove or severely curtail the right for citizens to seek redress against corporations in court for defective products, removing regulation would invite a free for all. But, in typical conservative asshat logic, the shoulders are shrugged and they say "oh well, I've got mine".
The idea that if you want to educate your kids, pay for it yourself is an invitation to simply turn our country into India. An educated populace is a successful populace, but I guess you don't want our society to really look out for itself.
So, if you clowns got your way, anytime we ate food or took medicine it would be like playing Russian Roulette.
No wonder you guys want everyone armed to the teeth, you're deliberately seeking to burn this country to the ground.
Anonymous@5:09PM,
Actually, India has a pretty robust public education system for most of the population. It's Pakistan that, under the military dictatorship of Zia, gutted the public education system, leaving the education of its young to private schools -- meaning madrasas run by the most virulent of islamist sects for a huge segment of the population today.
We definitely want to model our country after Pakistan, as a model of stability, opportunity, and prosperity.
Maybe I was thinking of India because they clearly are the model of unregulated capitalism, where workers can be paid pennies and children sleep in filth.
The Pakistan analogy is apt, given that conservatives wouldn't mind melding church and state themselves.
Steve, you're a bit off your rocker today. Here's what you said:
The money was coming in regardless due to the higher oil prices. She had the option of trying to cut the tax rates of the oil companies, but it is doubtful the legislature would have gone for it
The link from Bloomberg is at the bottom, but here's a quote:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has joined the Republican national ticket as a tax-cutter, was a driving force in raising a tax on oil companies last year that will help swell the state's budget surplus.
Bwahahahaha. But wait, it gets better. You also said:
Or, she could have done what she did as part of a one-time deal, but not something Alaskans should come to expect. Again, that's the point she made to Hannity.
Again, wrong. Here's another quote from the same article:
Each Alaska resident gets an annual rebate from state oil revenue, and this year Palin added $1,200 more to the $2,100 check each person received.
Key term, "Annual rebate". That's Annual as in yearly.
Your points are based on what you hope to be - not what actually is. You're so wrong it's borderline comical. But thanks for playing.
Here's the link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYdZoyTvFrTc&refer=home
Freddie,
Silly me for using Wikipedia, which normally I hate to do, for some decent information. However, that $2100 rebate Alaskans were getting wasn't implemented by Palin; the annual rebate has been in place since 1982, long before Palin became governor. But the $1200 extra did. I stand corrected.
Palin is right about what she said to Hannity, but it does make her look hypocritical and worth taking a second, more negative, look, at least for conservatives.
But it still doesn't make her stupid, which is the point of this thread.
C2H50H,
Please explain how the lack of an SEC contributed to the Great Depression. Be specific.
Thanks.
Since conservatives ALSO want to remove or severely curtail the right for citizens to seek redress against corporations in court for defective products, removing regulation would invite a free for all.
No, sorry, but that's just not true. I think that the court system is an excellent means for a redress of grievances.
The idea that if you want to educate your kids, pay for it yourself is an invitation to simply turn our country into India. An educated populace is a successful populace, but I guess you don't want our society to really look out for itself.
Illogical. The government also doesn't feed and clothe our kids either -- are all children in this country homeless and starving? Interestingly the Indian government DOES operate food stores in that country while persistent hunger remains a problem.
So, if you clowns got your way, anytime we ate food or took medicine it would be like playing Russian Roulette.
Our of curiosity, why would you buy food from a company with a reputation for making you sick? Are you really that dumb? Do you need the government to protect you from yourself?
Seems to be that if people were constantly getting sick from food that you could get rich fast by selling food that was safe to eat.
Maybe I was thinking of India because they clearly are the model of unregulated capitalism, where workers can be paid pennies and children sleep in filth.
Wrong. India has a reputation for extreme levels of regulation of its economy and has an active communist party with seats in parliament. Ever heard of the license raj?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_Raj
India's economy is so regulated that Wal-Mart is prohibited from selling items to consumers, and is only allowed to sell to businesses.
Ignorance truly does seem to be the fertilizer of left-wing thought.
Colin,
Criticizing someone else for ignorance right after asking someone for an explanation of how the lack of regulation (via the SEC) contributed to the Great Depression is hypocritical and merely highlights your own ignorance and arrogance.
Go forth and educate yourself on the history of how we got this (snark on) magnificent edifice of bureaucracy that we call the "federal government"(snark off). Don't devote all your time to the utterly lame book by Shlaes and the like, who cherry-pick statistics to find evidence.
Criticizing someone else for ignorance right after asking someone for an explanation of how the lack of regulation (via the SEC) contributed to the Great Depression is hypocritical and merely highlights your own ignorance and arrogance.
Then educate me. Go ahead. Show me how the lack of an SEC contributed to the Depression.
I've heard plenty of explanations for why the Great Depression occurred -- including monetary policy, Smoot-Hawley tariffs and Hoover's massive tax increase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Economy) -- but the lack of an SEC is a new one.
Colin,
Ever hear of "buying stock on margin"? As well as shorting the stock of your own company? While the Smoot-Hawley bill may have been the immediate spark, the fuel that made the result a conflagration was the enormous and unregulated debt which had accumulated in the speculative bubble before the crash.
I'm not saying that these were the causes of the Great Depression. It was big. It was complex. There are no simple answers, many things contributed.
Capitalism isn't self-regulating, as even Alan Greenspan was finally compelled to admit. Be brave. If he can admit that a lifelong belief in the "rationality of the market" turned out to be wrong, perhaps so can you.
Ever hear of "buying stock on margin"? As well as shorting the stock of your own company? While the Smoot-Hawley bill may have been the immediate spark, the fuel that made the result a conflagration was the enormous and unregulated debt which had accumulated in the speculative bubble before the crash.
How does the SEC prevent "unregulated debt" -- whatever that is -- from occurring? You still have yet to explain how the lack of an SEC contributed to the Depression. Give me some specifics.
I'm starting to suspect that you don't know the connection either.
But at least it is good that you assign a role to Smoot-Hawley, which implicitly means that you understand the case for free trade.
Colin,
Why not go to the definitive work on the subject and stop asking others to educate you?
But it still doesn't make her stupid, which is the point of this thread.
Is she stupid relative to how i would judge the intelligence of my neighbors, friends, and co-workers? Probably not. Is she stupid relative to how i would judge a Vice President or President of the United States? You betcha!
So i would maybe agree, that sentence alone doesn't render her stupid. It does, however, render her rather silly in that her statement seems to run counter to everything she actually does - including raising taxes on Oil Companies.
this thread got out of control....palin is a fucking idiot, i cant believe its worth arguing about.
so for stevear and colin (i like you mls) and any other self aggrandizing right wing dick who want s to chime in i say:
fuck you, fuck your family, fuck your neighbors, fuck your pets.
i am not into elevating the discourse. now, i ask you, isnt that obvious?
Why not go to the definitive work on the subject and stop asking others to educate you?
Given this weak response it's now safe to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about.
fuck you, fuck your family, fuck your neighbors, fuck your pets
Ah, the tolerance of the left.
Colin,
Ignore insults from cowardly, anonymous nitwits. One commenter does not "the left" make.
I admit it's an appeal to authority, but since Galbraith is the recognized authority on the Great Depression, that's appropriate in this case.
To dismiss it as "weak" is dishonest.
Since I am neither an economist nor interested in some kind of a definitive rehashing of the causes of the GD with you on a comment thread about something else, you'll have to be satisfied with that. You could, of course, explicate the causes yourself -- A.L. is notable for allowing open discussion -- but if it's like the other comments you've made here, don't expect to get a response, let alone to convince anyone.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home