Recently I posted on a Facebook thread about this picture. The OP said, “When will the stereotypes end?” In response someone else then stereotyped “The Left” as people who stereotype Tea Party Conservatives as the different types of people that MSM regularly stereotypes Tea Party Conservatives as. So I responded;
“I stereotype tea party members and conservatives as fervent supporters of, and targets for, Cato institute style libertarian economic propaganda that has a very serious history of recent failure. They mean well, they want less "BIG" control in their life, less government, more personal freedom. All of which are well justified desires IMO. I think that's a pretty fair description of the Tea party and most conservatives. Not everything is a stereotype. Some things are definitions.”
At which point I got this response from a good friend and fellow musician who I have played with many times;
“Kelly I'm trying to figure out what "Cato institute style libertarian economic propaganda" failure that you are talking about the last time that taxes were lowered and we had less government spending was the Clinton admin. and the only reason we had a so called golden age then was because the house and the senate were controlled by republicans. alot of people like to say it was because clinton raised taxes but the tax revinue he raised only accounted for 12% of the income the rest was from spending cuts. if you are refering to bush i would have to disagree with you there because bush was a dem with a republican label he did the same thing that obama is doing more goverment spending wich to me means BIG goverment so as far as i can see the only failure in the last 20 years has been the opposite of "Cato institute style libertarian economic propaganda"
Like most deeply philosophical political and economic opinions, there was really no easy reply for my friend if I wanted to actually address his opinion. We’re pretty good friends, so I went ahead and did just that. I agree to a degree with his opinions, and I disagree with them to a degree.
The following is a point by point redress of my friends original statements to me. Like I said, We’re pretty good friends, I figured I would take the time for him. I usually have respect for his opinions even if I disagree with them sometimes. Sometimes I think his opinions are completely ridiculous, but I keep it friendly and civil in these circumstances. I specifically cut out, deleted, edited, and rewrote anywhere I thought I was coming off as a biased asshole. WOW, THIS HAS TAKEN ALL DAY. It’s a lot harder for me to not come off as an asshole than I thought!
“Kelly I'm trying to figure out what "Cato institute style libertarian economic propaganda" failure that you are talking about.” Reagan introduced these concepts to America and they were practiced by 3 out of the 4 presidents from 1980 to 2008. (#Supply, #Trickle ) Also during the majority of the period I stated, Alan Greenspan practiced very libertarian economic policies. He was listed by Time Magazine as 3rd most responsible on a list of 25 people responsible for setting us up for the housing market bubble crash. (#Greenspan01)
“The last time that taxes were lowered and we had less government spending was the Clinton administration.” True, the US had much lower government spending during the years of the Clinton Administration, especially at the very end of his term. ( #Spending01)
“The only reason we had a so called golden age then was because the house and the senate were controlled by Republicans.” They were in the majority then, you’re right. I guess this explains the Golden age of 2003 to 2007 with Republican controlled everything. (#Senate01, #Congress01)
“A lot of people like to say it was because Clinton raised taxes but the tax revenue he raised only accounted for 12% of the income the rest was from spending cuts.” I am at a loss here as to how you are saying that spending cuts are income. Spending cuts are spending that doesn’t happen. They aren’t income, it’s a null state.
I consider this kind of talk about who gets “the credit for the awesome” to be out of bounds. We get nowhere at all when we fall into the trap of taking sides on these issues as if it’s Sunday Football instead of our Government that we are discussing. People feel empowered to say:
“Everything was awesome because, MY SIDE. MY SIDE WINS.”
Well, no. There’s not really any legitimacy to these types of claims. They are a point of division. Let’s just set aside the divisions. No matter how much hot air we want to huff and puff about how big our side’s dick is, that behavior doesn’t get us anywhere. I think we can all agree that there are massive changes that need to be made and that there is an established feeling nationwide that our 200 year old fail parade of a Government model isn’t adequate to regulate itself and fix these pressing issues at this point.
“If you are referring to Bush I, i would have to disagree with you there because Bush I was a dem with a republican label.” Bush 1 was about as far from being a Dem with a Republican label as it gets, but this whole point is ridiculous to debate. Obama is basically a Republican in my eyes. They are both Redempublicraticans (Re-dem-pub-li-crat-i-cans) the lot of them IMO. Like I just wrote, statements like this are unresolvable opinions, that cannot be accurately determined one way or the other, that only serve as points of contention and division. This stuff is the whip on the back of modern economic debt slavery.
“He did the same thing that Obama is doing, more government spending. Which to me means BIG government. So as far as i can see, the only failure in the last 20 years has been the opposite of "Cato institute style libertarian economic propaganda". I did indeed address this at the outset. I will credit Obama in this sense though, to break a recession we need spending. This is no time for Austerity. that time was in 2008 when the majority of Americans said, SAY NO TO THE BAILOUT! Big Gov was needed to come to the rescue the last time the 1% screwed the public via Wall St and the man at the helm then, FDR, was elected a record 3 times. (#FDR) THAT is a majority win. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
“The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is, Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.” (#NewDeal)
Some research done by researchers at UCLA does seem to indicate however that the impact of the depression was actually drawn out in length due to the New Deal. It did in fact serve to initially soften the impact, but then caused the effects to be persistent longer than they should have been. I would suggest a good hard look at both accounts. (#Rawdeal?)
Some research done by researchers at UCLA does seem to indicate however that the impact of the depression was actually drawn out in length due to the New Deal. It did in fact serve to initially soften the impact, but then caused the effects to be persistent longer than they should have been. I would suggest a good hard look at both accounts. (#Rawdeal?)
Honestly I see most of this focus on these topics as a result the 1%’s constant media manipulation campaign we call “Main Stream Media, or MSM.” I’m watching them yell down to us, “Look here 99%! Look at this, MSM is showering you with talking points and philosophical differences you can traditionally be easily divided on! Racism! 2 party politics! Religious differences!! Divide Sheeple! Divide! Please! For the love of unchecked wealth building, and my next 17 Bentleys this year, and my 15 movie- plexes I was going to build full of shitty worthless jobs, DIVI-HI-HI-HI-HIDE-Uh… :falls to knees, Shakes fists at sky: “Whyyy- hi- hi hi hi…” :sobbing trails off and transitions to head inhands, still on knees: “Why are they Unite-ing? WHY!?!?! :Face up. Fists at sky again. RAGE emphasis on “why”:
I see libertarian economic practices as tools of the Rich to take advantage of people that care, but work too much to have the time and desire to do any real research into it. It’s pretty easy to just turn on the radio in the car or kitchen and hear extremely Right wing conservative propaganda from Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, etc any time you’re in the car or doing dishes and feel like you are developing a well informed and caring political opinion. But that’s not the fact, it’s not that easy. I used to listen to Limbaugh, and Beck, and Savage, regularly. And then I learned about fact checking and how to find proper grounds for unbiased opinion. These guys are just opinion salesman trying to maintain their radio-share. The political opinions you get today from op ed shows and call in programs on TV and radio are fan targeted call screened bullshit. Very rarely do you get any real facts free of bias or any honest and fair discussion. I still listen to them once in a while when I feel like threatening myself with a coronary heart attack. The hatred and the vitriol these clowns spew doesn’t help anyone. I end up screaming back at the radio more often than not. I know it can’t hear me, but I can’t just sit there and listen to some of the bold lies these fuckers spit out. It’s genuinely disturbing. Not even entertaining if you fall into one of the categories of their targeted hate rants, but genuinely disturbing.
We need government to a much greater degree than Libertarian economics would ever admit in order to break up monopolies, and level the playing field between unchecked corporate greed and human rights. I hate big government as much as the next guy, but a world where the tea-party movement is successful is a government that does nothing for the people, still is at war on multiple fronts, and still regulates the airwaves, medicine, and food. Yup, you still get all the shit you hate about big G, but guess what? None of the help that most countries consider basic Human rights and most of which FDR put INTO A 2nd BILL OF RIGHTS. (#2nd US Bill of Rights) This is what I commonly refer to as “Libertarian Rainbow Wonderland”. Where we would all obviously be skipping across the sky on freedom rainbows that shoot directly out of Ron Paul and American’s for Prosperity’s asses with how great everything will be.
No one other than the very rich who can move a business outside of Labor expensive USA and people who don’t understand free trade want a truly unregulated free trade market. Ask yourself, Do you want to CONTINUE to compete with Communist Chinese Labor? They pay 50$ per 50-60 hour work week. Unregulated free trade would put us in direct competition with China. (#ChineseMinWage) Kind of like NAFTA put us in direct competition with Canada and Mexico. (#MexicanMinWage) Go look at the Canadian Dollar. It was ALWAYS worth 70 to 75 cents on the US dollar my whole childhood. It’s not anymore. It equalized. Now it’s worth a US Dollar.
We NEED regulation of the market to keep jobs here. And all we have done for the last 30 years is deregulate. These are the libertarian practices I’m talking about. Jobs leaving the US doesn’t have shit to do with the tax burden on an industry in a given country, it has to do with competing with cheaper, shittier paid laborers, with less workers rights to worry about; for example, communist Chinese and Mexican labor.
#Supply, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Reaganomics
#Senate01, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate#List_of_party_leaders
#Congress01, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
#MexicanMinWage, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico#Economy
#Greenspan01, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Criticism
#2nd US Bill of Rights, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
#NewDeal, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
