Government Anesthesia

brokenmoney.serendipityThumb Government AnesthesiaNobody likes pain, but we need it. This may sound counterintuitive or cruel when you are suffering with an injury or illness, but severe dangers accompany a life without pain. A rare genetic disorder renders some people incapable of feeling pain, heat, or cold. Life for them is full of unexpected dangers, particularly for children, who frequently injure themselves, even biting through their own lips or tongues. More than we appreciate, pain protects us. It teaches us to avoid harmful behaviors and to pursue beneficial ones. Avoiding future pain is an incentive to be hardworking, frugal, kind to our family and neighbors, and even to maintain good health.

While policymakers and politicians may mean well, government programs like ill-conceived entitlements, tax breaks, and mandates wrought with perverse incentives numb the beneficiaries against pain, working against healthy incentives. Consider the most recent economic crises. Why would companies that received massive government bailouts choose to avoid the bad practices that got them into trouble in the first place? What incentive do they have to change if government guarantees a painless outcome?

Pain is an important part of life that should work to correct some of our most harmful behaviors. But if we’re too numb to feel the consequences of our decisions, then like those children, we may find we have seriously damaged our lives, our economy, and our society before we recognize the need to change what we are doing.


Christina Martin is a policy analyst and project director at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

tt twitter big4 Government Anesthesia tt digg big4 Government Anesthesia tt facebook big4 Government Anesthesia tt reddit big4 Government Anesthesia

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Economy, Federal Budget, Food Stamps, Government Regulation, Health & Human Services, Health Care Reform, Individual Responsiblity, Unemployment | Tagged , , , | 81 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bobr

    But they don’t mean well. That is what you miss. It is all intentional, wrong, and purposeful.
    Get real.

    • 3H

      Really?   Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance – politicians didn’t “mean well” when they passed that legislation?  They weren’t concerned about the plight of the elderly or those who had just lost a job?  

      • Bobr

        Exactly what I meant, yes. Exactly.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Do you see how you have fallen for your own press. Of course they didn’t mean well. That’s why SS originally had the retirement age set past the point of life expectancy. Im sure some thought they were doing good, but this was a vote buying mechanism first and foremost.

        After all, LBJ, the founder of Medicare, was hardly a nice guy. His first concern with the civil rights act was not “this is the right thing to do and we shall do so regardless of political expediency”. No, the quote he is remembered for is “we have lost the south for a generation” It was all about the vote calculus to him.

        • 3H

          And, Lincoln only freed the slaves once the South had seceded.  If the South hadn’t, in his own words, he would not have addressed the slavery issue.  He felt maintaining the Union was more important than ending slavery. 

          And, in your mind, LBJ only proposed, and adopted, Medicare for votes?  Not because the elderly truly needed help in buying prescriptions?  Or, perhaps, a combination of both?

          WARNING  WARNING   WARNING   RUPERT’S EXAMPLE DOESN’T PROVE HIS POINT.  IN FACT, IT PROVES THE OPPOSITE

          If his concern had been only about votes, he would not have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  His quote came, reportedly, right after he signed the act.  Acknowledging the Act would cost votes in the South.  If he signed the Act, knowing it would cost votes, doesn’t that seem to imply he did so because it was the right thing to do, not the expedient thing to do?

          Nixon proved him right — Nixon’s Southern strategy deliberately tapped into the simmering resentment of the segregationists.

          No, he was not a nice man.  He managed to do the right thing despite his flaws.  And, evidently, for the right reasons.

          • valley person

            Rupert’s Johnson example is about the dumbest thing he has ever written, and that is saying something.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Coming from you, thats a complement!

          • 3H

            So, how was it about the vote calculus if he was acknowledging that it would cost them votes?   What did you think he was saying?  Maybe I should throw in some classically Ruperterian comment about how I’ve warned you not to display your ignorance of history?  Flip it around.  Pretend Dean or I had made that gaffe.. and apply your petty vitriol to yourself.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Bobr beat me to the punch. Conservatives need to learn a trick from the left – if you lose control of the language you make it all the more difficult to control the debate.

    Politicians don’t mean well with a lot of the nonsense they pass. What they mean to do is buy votes. That is the way this needs to be looked at as well as phrased. Stop tippy toeing around on this lest feathers be ruffled.

    Does anyone think that when Salem passed some of its more choice legislation it wasn’t because they were buying votes with our money? What do you think the 8% PERS guarantee was for? Was the interest there in buying votes or doing what was best for the citizens of Oregon?

    How about amnesty for illegal aliens? Is anyone going to maintain the biggest incentive in that argument doesn’t boil down to vote buying?

    We need to stop with this nonsense of acceding to patently ridiculous denial of basic logic and reality.

    Stop treating liberal mantras as if they were written in stone and can never be challanged lest the feathers of left wing orthodoxy be ruffled and a verbal scuffle ensue.

    Step on:

    Eliminate the phrase “unintended or unforeseen consequences”. Half the time the “unintended consequences” are in fact the main intention. The other half of the time the unforeseen consequences was not unforeseen at all, but rather deliberatly ignored or completely missed because someone was an absolute idiot.

    Do you see the left running around saying “While Reagan might have meant well when simplifying the tax code and building up the military…”. Did you hear a single liberal ever say “while George Bush might have meant well in invading Iraq….”?

    No, you don’t.

    You don’t because every liberal out there knows that a conservative wont freak out when they prattle on like this. Now 30 years later they have people convinced that the top incomes actually were paying 70% tax rates and Reagan cut their taxes in half because he hated poor people.

    Out of control government, both in its reach, and most especially its spending is the single biggest problem facing this country right now. It has brought us to financial ruin. If we cannot change the language on this, how the hell are we ever going to solve the problem?

    • 3H


      Now 30 years later they have people convinced that the top incomes actually were paying 70% tax rates and Reagan cut their taxes in half because he hated poor people. ”

      He was doing it so he could buy campaign contributions?  So that the wealthy would continue fund the Republican Party?  Cut taxes, but don’t cut the budget.  Isn’t that just another way to buy votes?  Put more money into the pockets of the middle class, but don’t cut any services they might like.  

      That’s kind of how Republicans buy votes.   Deliver the same services, while not paying for them.  At least Liberals want to pay for those services.

      And, isn’t that how elections and politicians all work?  Promise your base to either cut programs and laws, or enact laws that they favor?   When you get down to it?

      I guess it just boils down to whose vote, power, influcence and contributions you want to buy?

      I think most politicians mean well, or feel they are doing what is best for the country.  Yes, even Reagan and George W. Bush.  I think their views might have been hideously flawed, that they are out of touch, but I do think they believed they were doing what was best for the country. 

       
       

      • Ardbeg

        “Cut taxes, but don’t cut the budget.”  That’s been the Republicans number one play for years! They run it left, run it right and then run it up the middle.  When will people figure out Republicans say one thing when it’s election time then do what the heck they like once elected.  I think things are about to change though.  The Occupy folks have it right in one sense, it’s time for a revolution.  Things have to change.  Business as usual won’t work anymore.  The debt has reached critical mass, the economy is in shambles and the gov can get any tax revenues from all the minimum wage workers.  People have less money to spend at local business, the dominoes are toppling one by one.

        • 3H

          The problem is, money still buys influence.  Big money still buys Big influence, and the decision in Citizens United made sure that Big money will continue to dominate.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            > Big money still buys Big influence

            Obviously not.

            WARNING – I AM SETTING YOU UP HERE. YOU WILL LOSE IN TWO ITERATIONS UNLESS YOU RESEARCH YOUR ANSWER

            Question – Do you presume that if money buys influence, that the 1% have more influence than the 99% (that percentage as catagorized by income) ?

            I will warn you again, I am setting you up and you will lose in two. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Think about and research your answer before typing.

          • Ardbeg

            Gee, thanks for the warning.  But your not as smart as you think. You are telling me the Koch brothers haven’t bought access and influence?  You are kidding, right?  Maybe you need to do the research.

          • Ardbeg

            By the way.  The Koch boys spent less than 1 million in 2004 on lobbyists, but 20 million in 2008.  I wonder how much in actual campaign contributions?  You think they are spending that kind of money for nothing?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Nope, and I have no idea where it popped into your head that I ever made such a claim.

            Please read what you are replying to before prattling on like this.

          • Ardbeg

            What!? 
            Scroll up half a page.
            > Big money still buys Big influence>

            Your response:

            Obviously not. Now your just babbling, good bye!

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Nope, I never said the rich do
            not have influence. I made a comparison to money versus numbers buying
            influence.
            Please read what somebody says before making remarks about
            their intelligence while lowering the perception of your own in the process.
            Thanks

          • 3H

            Why yes, I do presume they have more influence.

            (I can’t wait for this)

          • Rupert in Springfield

            So if the money of the 1% buys more influence than the sheer numbers of the 99% do then we would expected to see this reflected in government policy wouldnt we?

            In other words, government policy would tend to favor the 1% and be biased against the 99% as that is what we mean by influence politically, being able to shift policy to favor the influencers group over other groups.

            Again, read carefully. I am setting you up so as to demonstrate the logical fallacy of your argument.

            You will lose on the next iteration if you maintain your position.  

          • 3H

            I’m talking about individuals Rupert.  Obviously the Koch Brothers, George Soros, the CEO of Goldman Sachs gain access and influence through their donations, funding of campaigns, attending the same dinners, etc…

            Government policy frequently does benefit the 1%.  Policies benefit particular industries, regulations are written by the lobbyists of those industries – and those industries are controlled and run by.. the 1%.  But the one saving grace is, the 1% are not in lock-step agreement.  George Soros and the Koch brothers are both of the 1% but have very different perspectives and political leanings.  They just get listened to more than you or I because of the money they can throw around.Can you drop the whole Warning crap?  It’s petty and juvenile.  If you have questions, and you want to prove me wrong, then just do it instead of constantly yammering. You sound like a precocious 12 year old who is afraid that no one will notice how smart he is.  You’re not 12, right?  You just act like it?And whats the worst that can happen?  I’m wrong?  Big whoop.  You’re wrong all the time and it doesn’t seem to slow you down.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Ahh, ok, so at least you figured it out. As individuals, the average 1%er might have more influence than the average 99%er. However as a group, the 99% clearly have more influence on policy than the 1%. This is why tax policy is so skewed against the 1% for example. I think the warnings are a good thing so I will keep them. It forced you to re-think your point a little, and thats a good thing.

            Glad you thought about it a bit more – cheers!

          • 3H

            Figured it out?  LOL.. I guess.  Some time ago.  Your warnings didn’t make me re-think anything.  I’m not sure why you believe that. What an odd thing to think.

            But as to taxes… you would say that the tax laws favor income over wealth?

          • valley person

            Tax policy is skewed against the 1%? That must be why Romney can claim income from non investments as investment income, and pay taxes at 15% instead of 35%?

            You really are naive Rupert.

          • valley person

            Person for person, yes, the 1% has far more influence than the 99%. That is so obvious it shouldn’t be subject to debate.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            And it is also not under contention, so your comment is fairly irrelivent. You are trying Dean Weasel #1, topic shift. Not much of a suprise. Why dont you just let 3H see if he can figure out where he is going down on his own ok?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >”Cut taxes, but don’t cut the budget.”  That’s been the Republicans number one play for years!

          Probably because cutting tax rates has zero meaning logically on whether or not the budget should be cut.

          Could you please do us a favor and educate yourself. Cutting tax rates has no direct correlation to a decline in revenue.

          You guys are exhibiting exactly what I was talking about. You have changed the language so much you arent even aware of it. Cutting a tax rate is not the same as cutting revenue.

          Cutting rates can and has led to increased revenue. Just look at Kennedy and Reagan.

          For the love of God, would you just go and look at the US Treasury web site and see the numbers. I mean this is scary you dont even understand your own language change. You think tax rate and tax revenue are the same thing. They aren’t!

          • Ardbeg

            Relax big guy, we are just having a discussion.  I’ve replied to you (in fact) that cutting taxes (rates) can have a temporary increase in tax revenue.  Show the research that say’s it will ever be anything long term.  And for what taxes?  All?  Personal income, corporate? Are there any other factors involved or is it simply: cut taxes (rates)=increased revenue?  Always and forever. Nothing is done in a vacuum.

             Also with the Mellon cuts in the 1920 the top bracket dropped from 73-25 (BIG drop) and there was immediately a jump of 400 million in receipts.  Why? Wealthy people sheltered (hid) less of their money, took more risky investments and grew businesses. Also I would argue your wrong about Kennedy. From a Congressional Budget Office analysis: “Instead, the study showed a net increase in the federal deficit, after
            three years, of $5 billion to $13 billion,” versus models where the tax
            cuts never took effect.

            “Just as when a store cuts prices, revenue can rise,” I realize you did say ‘can’.  If Subway lowered the price of a footlong from $5-$2.50, they would probably see an increase in revenue as there would be a huge increase in business.  That bubble would burst.  No matter what the price drops too some people (after the bubble) won’t eat anymore often than before the price cut.  I don’t care if they give em’ away for free, I’ll only eat Subway every month or two as would a lot of people.

            Rupert-there are economist on both sides of the “supply side” or “not supply side” debate.  You have your opinion, I have mine.  You have a tendency to imply people are ignorant if they don’t see it your way.  I don’t think your ignorant, just sometimes wrong.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Relax big guy, we are just having a discussion.

            It’s difficult to understand what you mean by this statement. You start off your post with an exclamation point in your second sentence, and then go on to say that because some people demonstrated exceptional urban camping skills a revolution is in order, yet you are saying I am the one who needs to relax.

            I frankly don’t think you think I am agitated at all. What I think is you are attempting to use condescension to make your point. I see it as an extremely poor strategy in that regard.

            >Show the research that say’s it will ever be anything long term.

            Actually since you are making the argument that it doesn’t, you would be the one to have to show the research to support your claim.

            The facts simply don’t support your contention. Federal revenues show a steady rise over the past 50 years, other than decreases due to 9/11 and the recent economic down turn. They show no plateau, as they would have to, to support your contention that a reduction in rates results in a bubble rather than long term growth.

            Again, where is your research to support your bubble contention?

            >You have a tendency to imply people are ignorant if they don’t see it your way.

            Actually I don’t. I see people as ignorant when they make statements that are factually untrue, or have an illogical implication. That’s very different.

            Case and point here is this nonsense that a lowering of tax rates implies a lowering of federal revenue. It simply is not a fact born out by historical experience. That’s not a matter of opinion, its simply the basic truth and someone is indeed ignorant if they are unaware of that.

            >I don’t think your ignorant, just sometimes wrong.

            Well, then make your case why I am wrong.

            You have not done it here, as Federal revenues for the past 50 years show absolutely nothing of the “bubble” you insist is there.

            Show I am wrong in this case by giving some evidence of this bubble in federal revenue you insist is there due to rate cuts.

          • valley person

            “Case and point here is this nonsense that a lowering of tax rates
            implies a lowering of federal revenue. It simply is not a fact born out
            by historical experience.”

            Less revenue all things equal. If you also close a bunch of loopholes, you can gain revenue which is what the Packwood tax rate cuts did.

            Plus, in the 1 year after you lower a capital gains rate you get a bunch of people cashing in while the getting is good, which raises revenues for a short period of time. But you lose revenues in the longer run.

            Your core problem Rupert, is your cherry picking of data to support a conclusion you stick to no matter what.  

          • Ardbeg

            “Federal revenues show a steady rise over the past 50 years”-so as tax rates have gone up and down over those same 50 years is your point it makes no difference what the tax rate is, revenues will continue to increase?  Again you make no sense.  What could possibly explain why revenues rise every year despite the rates changing?

            Go back and read my post. I believe I did sight a CBO study to counter your US Treasury web site reference.  Where is your proof?  I didn’t realize this blog required APA format. I also believe I explained the concept of a bubble.  Your statement that a store or business can increase revenue by lowering the price is lame.  If that were true, why aren’t they?  Because cutting prices in the fashion you suggested is a short term PROMOTIONAL strategy.

            You site Reagan tax cuts as increasing revenue.  That maybe true, revenue may have risen (I’ll take your word on it) But a more meaningful example might be that the Federal revenue share or percentage of GDP declined after tax those cuts and never rebounded until Reagan was out of office.

            “Could you please do us a favor and educate yourself”-and you called me condescending?

          • valley person

            You have it about right. Reagan maintained federal spending at about 21% of GDP and cut the revenue intake to about 18% of GDP. The total tax take went up after the deep recession in his first term, but not nearly to its previous level as a percent of GDP.

            On error Rupert constantly makes, whether deliberately or not I don’t know, is to lok at federal budgets and revenue as fixed dollar amounts rather than as percent of GDP. Economists don’t make that mistake because a dollar today is not the same as a dollar 10 or 20 years ago.

          • Ardbeg

            I’m not even sure I agree Reagan cut takes, maybe he did a little.  More importantly he shifted who was paying them.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Why is it I have a feeling you dont even have a clue as to who those taxes shifted to?

          • Ardbeg

            trying to figure out what your “feeling” is of no interest to me.  Obviously nobody is on your intellectual level.

          • 3H

            Nope.. we all pale before the genius of Rupert. Which is why he feels he can treat most everyone who disagree with him like shit.   

          • Rupert in Springfield

            We are talking about revenue, not revenue in relation to GDP. Total revenue. Please, this is a lame topic shift you try constantly, it never works.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            One error Dean constantly makes, and I have no idea why this is, is he has no concept that when we look at revenues over the years, the tables are almost always done in constant dollars. Why this has to be pointed out to him endlessly is fairly clear. Dean trys what is known on this blog as the “Dean Weasel”.

            The Dea Weasel is basically an attempt to tpoic shift from in an attempt to win a point no one was making.

            Of course one could also point out the obvious, that compairing revenues as a percent of GDP is a totally invalid way to compensate for inflation. The better way is to simplly do the tables in constant dollars, which is what the US Treasury does.

            Obviously Dean is unaware of that. Will he learn from this endless mistake? Nope, Dean cant learn, because he can never admit when he is wrong.

          • valley person

            The reason percent of GDP is a better measure Rupert, is because of population growth occurring after the tax cut. If the number of people grows by 10%, then one can expect an increase in tax revenue and expenditures. If you just use dollars, even with inflation factored in, you miss population growth.

            But you knew that right?

          • Ardbeg

            The  CBO, the Office of Management and Budget and your beloved US Treasury ALL use GDP.  Maybe you need to look at more than one chart before prattling on and on and on and on.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            My proof is any look at federal revenues. I seriously have to hold your hand and help you look that one up? Good lord, just google US Treasury and look at revenues, they show no bubble, they show steadily rising revenues other than I noticed previously.

          • Ardbeg
          • Ardbeg
      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Cut taxes, but don’t cut the budget.

        This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Do you see what you are doing here?

        You are making the fundamental error, which I have warned you were making in the past by the way, of confusing the tax rate with tax revenue. Just as when a store cuts prices, revenue can rise, cutting rates under Reagan caused revenue to nearly double.

        I will give you a chance at a save.

        Can you please explain to us the logic by which you arrive at the conclusion why it is necessary to cut spending when your revenue has doubled? I’m not saying cutting spending wouldn’t have been good. However I want to hear your logic why a near doubling of revenue necessitates spending cuts. Please explain that, I doubt very much you can.

        • 3H

          You’re right, receipts did increase.  You have a minor point, but it just hurts Reagan even more.   Deficits increased under him — despite an increase in receipts.  Perhaps if he hadn’t decreased tax rates, he might not have run as large of deficit: think Clinton. 

          My point is this:  Reagan did not keep spending under control.   He allowed deficits to increase beyond what they had been before.   And my point stands: he cut tax rates, yes?  He did not cut spending, yes?  In fact, he increased spending way beyond receipts.  Again, yes?

          Do you consider Reagan a conservative?   Even though it would appear that he established the current MO for Republicans/Conservatives – cut tax rates, and increase spending?

          I guess, if you aren’t taking in enough money to pay for the items in the budget, then your budget needs to be cut if you don’t want to run a deficit.  Is that logical enough, and clear enough for you?  And that is what Republicans have done — they have signed off on tax cuts, and they have also signed off on budgets that spend more than the country take in.  
            

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >You’re right, receipts did increase.  You have a minor point

            No, it not a minor point, the fact that revenue doubled when rates were cut totally destroys your argument. The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. Reagan did that with the cut. So why in the world do you assert a tax rate reduction neccesitates a decrease in spending. What is your logic on that? Can you explain it at all, because I am sure it is a fascinating tale?

          • 3H

            My point was, and perhaps you should re-read it, that he cut taxes, and didn’t do anything to control spending.  He bought votes too.  He bought the votes of those that wanted lower taxes, and bought votes through increased spending.  If he had kept the budget in line with receipts, he would not have been as popular (in my opinion).  Especially if he had major major cuts in spending on various social services.  

            You’re right, I phrased it wrong. Mea Culpa.  I knew what I meant, I just didn’t say it well.

            What I should have said is that Republicans are all about cutting taxes and increasing spending and making larger deficits.  

            I stand corrected. 

            But, you do consider Reagan a Conservative, right?  Despite spending like a drunken sailor?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Reagan didnt do anything to control spending?

            Look up TEFRA. Reagan struck an agreement with the Democratic congress, $2 in spending cuts for every $1 increase in taxes.

            I am stunned you are ignorant of that. I mean that is real real basic stuff. In fact it was a famous line of Reagans. In retirement he would ask “did I get my $2 yet” when a member of congress would visit.

            Absolutly stunning you were unaware of this.

          • 3H

            LOL.. so…  why did he run such large deficits?   Just because he didn’t spend as much as he could have doesn’t mean he practiced restraint.

            Take a class in logic Rupert  ;)

          • valley person

            I didn’t know Congress could pass spending bills without the president’s signature.

          • valley person

            I should have said “enact.” THey can “pass,” but need a presidential signature unless they can override.

    • 3H

      While we’re dropping phrases, can we also drop “Everybody knows….”?  Usually not everybody knows, nor do they necessarily agree.  It’s used as “This is what I believe and I don’t want to appear to be the only one.”   If everybody knows, why state the obvious?

    • Ardbeg

      Rupert-yes it’s almost always about buying votes.  Maybe if the government “appropriated” less money there would be fewer “deals”, and fewer lobbyists, AND LESS CORPORATE MONEY!  I still fault your thinking about it being a liberals only thing. Regan raised the debt 17 times!! Gave amnesty, cut taxes and ran a HUGE DEBT!!   Bush I and Bush II also ran huge debts, weren’t they conservatives?  Bush II cut revenue, spent trillions on wars, continued to raise the debt ceiling and borrow from China.  You think it’s only the “liberals” who screw things up?  C’mon WAKE UP DUDE!!  Do you really think it matters who gets elected?  It’s the same game, only the jersey changes from red to blue or blue to red.  Romney, Perry, Santorum, will be just as bad as Obama.  I’m thinking at least Paul or Johnson might be something different but neither will get nominated.

      • 3H

        Even when Government was much smaller, those with wealth used it to influence government; the size of government doesn’t determine whether or not the rich will use their wealth to gain influence.   

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >the size of government doesn’t determine whether or not the rich will use their wealth to gain influence.

          An interesting note, but since it has nothing to do with what I said it will remain a mystery as to the relevance of your reply.

          • 3H

            Since I was responding to Ardberg, I can understand your confusion.  Perhaps if you read what I was responding to, the relevance will become clear.  (Please note at the end of my post: “in reply to Ardberg”)

        • Ardbeg

          3H-I disagree. Yes, there are certain thing the government needs to raise taxes for but there is a lot more ‘collect taxes and dole it back out’ than there needs to be.  Reduce the amount of money the gov collect and then hands back and you will cut lobbyists and corporate money in politics in half.

          • 3H

            I was talking about the influence of money on politics and government.  Even when government was demonstrably smaller, people with money still spent it to influence government.  

          • Ardbeg

            Your right, we may never be able to get $$ totally out of the equation.  I still think we are better off doing what we can to minimize it.  The less the government ‘doles’ out. the less money spent by special interest.

          • 3H

            Only if you decrease the size of corporations.   

      • Rupert in Springfield

        > I still fault your thinking about it being a liberals only thing.

        I didnt say only liberals do this. I am sure conservatives do as well. However I cannot think of any real examples. I would say liberals do it better.

        Can you think of anything on the conservative side that equates to either the preponderance of viciousness of this sort of thing on the left? In other words – If a conservative says he stands by the tenth ammendment,there is the immediate conjecture that that person is in favor of bringing back segregation. Being for states rights means someone is a racist. Can you give examples the other way around? I actually am very curious as I am sure there are some.

        >Bush I and Bush II also ran huge debts, weren’t they conservatives?

        No, they werent. They were Republicans, very different thing.

        >Bush II cut revenue, spent trillions on wars, continued to raise the debt ceiling and borrow from China.

        Actually revenue under Bush remained fairly steady as an average. Not surprising considering he came in with a recession. However poor performance on growth compared to Reagan who came close to doubling revenues. Better performance than Obama however.

        >You think it’s only the “liberals” who screw things up?

        Nope. I think you are mapping your partisanship on to me. I believe both parties screw things up. Its just a question of rapidity.

        >C’mon WAKE UP DUDE!!

        I can think of no less effective manner to get your point across than to combine the word “dude” with the random capitalization the left always seems wont to do.

        > It’s the same game, only the jersey changes from red to blue or blue to red.

        To some extent I agree with this, see above. However no one spends like the left, and that’s whats got everyone in trouble both here and in Europe. You simply cannot have most of the population riding in the boat while only a few row. Obama beat Bush 2 out of the gate on spending with the failed stimulus. With Obamacare, he sailed over the finish line. Medicare? Its eating us alive. SS will shortly follow. You simply cannot maintain that Republicans spend the same as Democrats. 

        >Romney, Perry, Santorum, will be just as bad as Obama.

        I doubt it. frankly I think an underdone cheesecake running the country would have done better than Obama. Sure, unemployment would still suck, but a cheesecake would have just sat there and not spent us into oblivion.

        >I’m thinking at least Paul or Johnson might be something different but neither will get nominated.

        True, they wont get nominated. Paul lost me on the Iran thing. I’m not saying I have the solution to Iran, but one thing is for sure, saying it doesn’t matter if they have the bomb is pure lunacy.

        • valley person

          Bush 2 was not a conservative? Funny. He sure claimed to be a conservative, over and over and over. Conservatives voted for him. Conservatives supported his unfunded war. Conservatives voted for his deficits. Now you want to throw him under the bus.

          Sorry dude. If Jimmy Carter was a liberal, Bush was certainly a conservative. 

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Bush 2 was not a conservative? Funny. He sure claimed to be a conservative, over and over and over.

            If you hadn’t noticed, most Republicans claim to be a conservative, that doesnt mean they are. Sorry, this has been poited out to you time and time again, conservatives railed against both Bush’s endlessly. Rush crucified him for a solid month during the prescription drug process. National Revue regularly pilloried both Bush’s.

            Bush 2 saw to the greatest entitlement program since the great society. He was a republican, but only a fool would try and make the case he was a conservative.

            As I said, all of this has been pointed out to you so many times its absurd.

            Since you are the astonishing man who can never admit when he is wrong, you can also never learn from your mistakes. This is why you continue to make the same errors over and over again.

            The use of “unfunded war” is another example of that. Yet you continue to make this same mistake as if a war being funded by deficit spending was in some way remarkable.

            It isn’t remarkable in the least as virtually all wars are funded in exactly the same way Iraq was, deficit spending.

            Again, this has been pointed out to you, but since you can never admit you are wrong, you continue to make the same mistake over and over.

          • valley person

            “If you hadn’t noticed, most Republicans claim to be a conservative, that doesn’t mean they are.”

            So who gets to define who is really a “conservative” and who isn’t? What is the test? Bush was pro tax cuts for the rich, pro aggressive military intervention, anti doing anything about global warming, pro oil drilling, anti-abortion, and pro phasing out social security. These are all boiler plate conservative positions.

            He moderated on giving drug coverage for free to geezers (clearly buying votes), a limited amnesty for illegal aliens (which Regan also supported,) and he increased federal involvement in education.

            He did these things and lost zero support from conservatives.  Yes, Rush whined a bit, then supported him 100% for re-election. There was no primary challenge to Bush, and no real advocacy for a primary challenge.

            “but only a fool would try and make the case he was a conservative.”

            Then Bush himself was a fool, and every conservative that backed him was a fool.

            “The use of “unfunded war” is another example of that. Yet you continue
            to make this same mistake as if a war being funded by deficit spending
            was in some way remarkable.”

            To my knowledge, no previous president pushed a massive tax cut at the front end of a war. Yes, its “normal” to sell bonds to help finance a war. Its also perfectly normal to run budget deficits period. THe us budget has only rarely been in surplus.

          • valley person

            “If you hadn’t noticed, most Republicans claim to be a conservative, that doesn’t mean they are.”

            So who gets to define who is really a “conservative” and who isn’t? What is the test? Bush was pro tax cuts for the rich, pro aggressive military intervention, anti doing anything about global warming, pro oil drilling, anti-abortion, and pro phasing out social security. These are all boiler plate conservative positions.

            He moderated on giving drug coverage for free to geezers (clearly buying votes), a limited amnesty for illegal aliens (which Regan also supported,) and he increased federal involvement in education.

            He did these things and lost zero support from conservatives.  Yes, Rush whined a bit, then supported him 100% for re-election. There was no primary challenge to Bush, and no real advocacy for a primary challenge.

            “but only a fool would try and make the case he was a conservative.”

            Then Bush himself was a fool, and every conservative that backed him was a fool.

            “The use of “unfunded war” is another example of that. Yet you continue
            to make this same mistake as if a war being funded by deficit spending
            was in some way remarkable.”

            To my knowledge, no previous president pushed a massive tax cut at the front end of a war. Yes, its “normal” to sell bonds to help finance a war. Its also perfectly normal to run budget deficits period. THe us budget has only rarely been in surplus.

        • Ardbeg

          Sorry Rupert, it’s just that you seem to lay blame on the left.  You certainly use ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ a lot in your posts.  My point has always been that I think it’s a mistake to pick a side as both sides screw you just in different ways.  As far as an “example”, I thought we were talking about how politicians “buy” votes.  That’s not something just liberal do.  I do understand you differentiating between Conservative and Republican, but I think most people see those words meaning the same thing.  P.S. I’ll try not to use Dude anymore, way out of my age appropriate vernacular.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Sorry Rupert, it’s just that you seem to lay blame on the left.  You certainly use ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ a lot in your posts.

            In terms of changing the language, I do say the left has way more of a tendency towards this than the right.

            > T As far as an “example”, I thought we were talking about how politicians “buy” votes.  That’s not something just liberal do. 

            No, that was not at all the point of the post, that was the point of your reply. My post was about the language. Politicians do buy votes, however I don’t think the language gets changed nearly as much when the right does it as when the left does.

            For example, if the right gives a tax break to an oil company, there is hardly the outrage about starving families of oil workers when the suggestion is made to eliminate it.

            For a counter example – when the left gives an extension of welfare benefits, such as the recent SCHIP expansion, and the suggestion is made to eliminate it, the is astonishment that the suggestion is even made that it is a vote buying mechanism, and if you say it is, you will be called a racist who wants to kill poor people.

            >I’ll try not to use Dude anymore, way out of my age appropriate vernacular.

            Sorry to give you a hard time on that one, I came to the same conclusion regarding my use of it several years ago as well.

          • None

            “In terms of changing the language, I do say the left has way more of a tendency towards this than the right.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz :

            “Luntz’s description of his job revolves around exploiting the emotional content of language. ‘It’s all emotion. But there’s nothing wrong with emotion. When we are in love, we are not rational; we are emotional.’ ‘…my job is to look for the words that trigger the emotion.’ ‘We know that words and emotion together are the most powerful force known to mankind..’”

          • 3H

            How about whenever the Left suggests something, the right reflexively responds with “Communists”

          • 3H

            Are you this unpleasant, arrogant and petty in real life too?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Sorry Rupert, it’s just that you seem to lay blame on the left.  You certainly use ‘left’ and ‘liberal’ a lot in your posts.

            In terms of changing the language, I do say the left has way more of a tendency towards this than the right.

            > T As far as an “example”, I thought we were talking about how politicians “buy” votes.  That’s not something just liberal do. 

            No, that was not at all the point of the post, that was the point of your reply. My post was about the language. Politicians do buy votes, however I don’t think the language gets changed nearly as much when the right does it as when the left does.

            For example, if the right gives a tax break to an oil company, there is hardly the outrage about starving families of oil workers when the suggestion is made to eliminate it.

            For a counter example – when the left gives an extension of welfare benefits, such as the recent SCHIP expansion, and the suggestion is made to eliminate it, the is astonishment that the suggestion is even made that it is a vote buying mechanism, and if you say it is, you will be called a racist who wants to kill poor people.

            >I’ll try not to use Dude anymore, way out of my age appropriate vernacular.

            Sorry to give you a hard time on that one, I came to the same conclusion regarding my use of it several years ago as well.

        • 3H


          I can think of no less effective manner to get your point across than to combine the word “dude” with the random capitalization the left always seems wont to do.”

          How about  WARNING  and then some silly straw-man “warning”?  Or some other “warning” because you think you’re clever?  Frequently, all in caps. 

          Would you characterize that as something that is endemic to the right?  Or do you prefer to only over-generalize about the left?

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Actually giving a warning of that nature is not a straw man as it is directly germaine to the point you are making.

            Do you understand what a straw man argument is? Because the way you are using the term I dont think you do.

          • 3H

            It is if your warning is made up in your head –that you pretend that we’re thinking.

          • 3H

            LOL.. that you pretend we’re thinking what you’re warning us about.

  • valley person

    Following this logic, we should just beat the poor, lame, and elderly until they learn to fend for themselves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/christinam Christina Martin

      That’s just silly. Don’t stretch the analogy beyond recognition or logic, please. The source of pain in your example is not a detrimental kind of painkiller, but someone invading your personal right to not be physically abused. The political analogy to your example of beating people to get them to comply with whatever you want, I suppose, would be more akin to policies that actually attack certain groups of people with sanctions, imprisonment, beatings or fines for arbitrary reasons.  

  • 3H

    Pain tells us when something is wrong.  Perhaps the pain many people are feeling is telling us that our current economic system is wrong. 

    Would you tell your doctor to not prescribe pain medications and rather you’d prefer her to simply deal with the disease?   In most cases, doctors either engage in pain management first, or at the same time they start addressing the cause.  Would you go to a doctor who told you they weren’t willing to help the pain because the injury was your own fault?   Would you go to that doctor again?

    What if the injury isn’t caused by your own actions, but are the result of actions you have no control over.  Then it’s O.K. to numb the pain, yes?

    • valley person

      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/christinam Christina Martin

      3H, obviously there are appropriate times for painkillers. But my argument is not that all painkillers are bad. My argument is that some pain is good. 

      • 3H

        Pain is necessary to alert you to a problem.  Beyond that, the stress of pain can make you more ill.  

        I’m pretty sure someone who has lost a job has felt the necessary pain.  Allowing the pain to continue to either teach them a lesson or to spur them on is just needlessly cruel and probably counter-productive.  Same goes with the poor.  

        I think the solutions you propose fall more in the category of faith healing than it does in actual medicine.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)