A FEW DAYS AGO I HEARD a comment from former CBS television reporter Bernie Goldberg, who said, “The people of this country simply want everything free … yet have no desire to pay for anything!” I could not agree more with Mr. Goldberg.
The heart of Barack Obama’s support in the last election came from a segment of the electorate that stood to gain the most from his election. These people, a great many unemployed or unemployable, voted overwhelmingly for the president. This support also included a great many who were on welfare or some other form of assistance. There is no argument with that fact. During the campaign, Mr. Obama promised to provide this group with everything its members desired if they helped elect him to a second term.
Now before you start accusing me of “sour grapes” because my candidate lost the election, let me remind you that I have been beating this drum for a long time.
For four years, a very large percentage of the electorate has been subjected to a hyper-“progressive” propaganda campaign. Let’s face it folks: The media in this country is now functioning as an extension of the White House and has been for as long as Barack Obama has been a resident there.
To believe that any of this is likely to go away is simply wishful thinking. Mr. Obama has created his own personal voting bloc consisting of minorities and other groups that are simply not seeking employment seriously. Look for this to continue as the primary governing plan of this president and his party over the next four years.
These groups will also be integral to the president’s plan to push through some sort of legislation addressing “climate change.” Even here in Benicia, recently, there has been a renewal of the “climate change” controversy as The Herald printed opposing viewpoints by two of our well-known writers and contributors to this newspaper. Unfortunately, one of those writers used some rather tacky wordage to describe the other’s intellect. I am not here to make any judgement on that, only to say that some clarification is in order.
Ronald Reagan used to say of the Soviets that they liked the arms race a whole lot better when they were the only ones in it. The same could be said of Albert Gore Jr. and global warming … excuse me, climate change. Mr. Gore was very happy to dash around the world in his personal jet to preach the green gospel of environmentalism, telling us which truths were “inconvenient” and applauding as dissenters were shouted down as “deniers.” No pope would ever make claims as far-reaching, as extravagant, as all-embracing as Saint Albert.
But then came the push-back. In 2009, the bubble burst for Mr. Gore. The World Summit on Climate Change at Copenhagen turned out to be his Waterloo.
It was at this conference that researchers from Penn State and the University of East Anglia were exposed as frauds. A huge scandal erupted, instantly dubbed “ClimateGate.” At that summit the left was wringing its hands over the failure to approve a binding treaty.
But perhaps they should have thanked God (or Gore) for that fact, because the mere threat of job-killing cap-and-trade legislation has been enough for independent voters in the U.S. to abandon left-leaning politicians in droves over the last three years.
Isn’t it really funny how all the “errors” made by the climate scientists seemed to have fallen on one side of the debate? If the glaciers of the Himalayas are all going to melt by 2035, that is a real problem. But if they are not expected to melt until 2350, it’s another matter. Guess what date the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chose to publish? Just a typo?
Dr. S. Fred Singer has been abused by left-wing bloggers, called a “denier” and denounced as a tool of industry. This is a man who earned his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University, worked with NASA for decades and is thoroughly conversant with satellite measurements of Earth’s climate — and who taught environmental sciences at the University of Virginia for 25 years.
And yet there are those “believers” out there who call Dr. Singer words that can’t be printed here. He may be wrong when he tells us that there have been periods of time over the last 2,000 years when the temperatures on Earth were uniformly much warmer than they are today. He might be seriously in error — but so far no one has demonstrated that his arguments are wrong.
Reviling him, calling him names, trying to shut him up and close him down — none of this reasoned argument. It is nothing more than — in the words of Al Gore — an “assault on reason.”
It is easy to call someone with whom you disagree an “idiot” just because they don’t agree with you. But it does not illustrate an ounce of reasoned intelligence. Reasoned thought is something one expects from intelligent, educated people. It is sad when the opposite is exposed in our community.
Jim Pugh is a Benicia resident.
Sharing is caring!
Hookay…
1. The overwhelming consensus of climate experts is that anthropogenic global warming is real, and really needs to be dealt with. Arguing with this is like saying that space exploration ought to be stopped because some scientist somewhere claims that the Earth is flat, and thus orbiting it is impossible.
2. The Republicans are a (literally) dying party. Everyone except older whites is abandoning the party in droves, and those older whites are (purely as an actuarial matter) becoming fewer and fewer every year.
3. This sentence: “Mr. Obama has created his own personal voting bloc consisting of minorities and other groups that are simply not seeking employment seriously.” …is just… breathtakingly clueless, and is why everyone except older whites is abandoning the GOP. Accusing your opponents of being freeloading moochers (rather than the very diverse bloc of voters that represents the real, actual constituency of the Democratic Party) is insulting and, frankly, ignorant.
Actually, it just occurred to me: please argue for the Republicans, using thew exact arguments you’ve used here, to everyone who will listen. When they look at you like you’re a crazy person, just interpret that as You’re Winning and redouble your efforts.
I think Republican Governor Bobby Jindal said it best yesterday:
“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults,” he said. “We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”
I stated that the heart of this president’s support could be found among a huge number of “unemployed or un- employable. I stated that could not be intelligently argued. I stand by that statement. If you can prove that statement false…then I say go for it Mr. Talbot. Platitudes will not do the trick. Put up or shut up. You are out of your league , get over it.
Jim/conquitadori – you write:
The point being…well, what exactly? That people shouldn’t vote for the candidate who represents their interests? That government benefits were the decisive factor in people’s decision to vote for the president?
Let me try and cut to the chase: a common narrative on the American political right is that the Democrats use government benefits to create a culture of dependency among minorities and others, and ride this to electoral success. Is this what you’re saying?
Give Mr, Talbot a cigar!! If you agree with that sort of “buy and sell” mode of politics, then I suppose you can cannot find problem with “buying the votes you need in order to get elected.” That is just what happeded in November. Placing this country into possible bankruptsy in order to buy votes is absolutely obscene. If you see it any other way then I suggest some serious soul searching .
.
OMG. As a lawyer, you’d better not be arguing in a courtroom against an opponent. You just laid yourself wide open to the whole matter of vote-buying by industrial/commercial lobbyists and sector-support PACs giving under the table for campaigns. That’s okay with you? But serving non-business public interests, hopes and wishes is reprehensible? Jim, I’ve long been aware of the blatant unbalance and unfairness of your outlook, but this takes some kind of cake, with vomitable icing on it!
Jim – I was attempting to summarize your position, not endorsing it in any way. So, that *is* what your arguing – that, “the Democrats use government benefits to create a culture of dependency among minorities and others, and ride this to electoral success”?
Do I have that right? I’m really hoping your answer is going to be “no.”
How incredibly condescending but a perfect example of why Mitt Romney spent Monday riding his car elevator in LaJolla. The hilarious irony is that the majority of the “takers” as I am guessing you’re talking about live in all those Deep South, deep red states who consistently vote against their own best interests. States like Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Alabama all get about $1.60 back in gubmint services for every $1.00 they send to Washington. The blue states like CA, NY, MA, are paying for them. I was seriously hoping they would secede after the election. I’d like to see how Texas, MS, AR, AL handle things with no government assistance. i can assure you that I get nothing from the government, never have, but I proudly voted for President Obama because I believe that we are all in this together. I vehemently hate paying for stupid wars started by stupid people but I have no choice. Obama didn’t “buy” his victory but if you want to keep your blood pressure up for the next 4 years, you keep thinking that.
Right on, dear Mom! Right on, with a left hook to the glassy class jaw.
That “out of your league” marks “conquitadori” (the hunky-dory conquist=ador) as our own, Mr. Jim Pugh! Wow! who’d have thought a Republican would fake up a moniker just to support himself online. Even so, he uses “Joe Pugh” to identify himself in some contexts. Still, I don’t doubt he can figure out who he is from the contents of his billfold ID pack. ;-] He doesn’t really need to know WHO he is, since from his unchanging conceptual structure he can always tell WHAT he is. It’s just sort of too bad, how much he could be helped by a low dose of lysergic acid. Oooh! How colorful! How different my sense of reality now from that stale, old, self-ignorant rubbish that’s been in my head forever.
You will never make it as a stand up comic booby! You know as well as I do that you can’t play with the big boys. Stop trying…you are embarrassing yourself little fella!
Matt the Republican Party is very much alive and well. Sixty one Governors, 234 Republican members in the House of Representative, control over fifty-five percent of the ninty-nine state upper and lower houses. If that is a dying party I am glad I am part of it. Again the Republican Party is alive and well with the exception of the very Liberal/Socialist state of California. By the way I love California and it is about to start on its way to get fixed with some political balance in the next ten years. Think Monterey shale oil field. Lots of dollars to fix this state. Then watch the political turn around.
California is doing just fine without Republicans. Thanks Gov. Brown!
California is doing just fine without Republicans>
Cities that have filed bankruptcy:
Stockton
Half Moon Bay
Vallejo
San Bernardino
Bell
Mammoth Lakes
On the cusp:
San Jose
Los Angeles
San Diego
The state is not far behind. But on the upside, we can build that 30 billion, no 90 billion, no wait,60 billion fast train !
No, the state is in pretty good shape, and with the adults in charge it’s only going to get better. Those bankruptcies are a thing of the past. Watch and learn, if you can.
As long as you are paying attention to trends, you may want to look at the trends shown here from the State Controller.
Not shown (but can be found elsewhere) is one of the few upward trends in state tax revenue: excise taxes, a tax that hits the poorest hardest.
Both businesses and productive people are fleeing California, which ranks amongst the lowest states in being a ‘Business Friendly’ state. That is a trend that is not ending anytime soon
“Both businesses and productive people are fleeing California.”
This has been ridiculously overstated, for obvious political purposes. The fact is, and will remain, that people and businesses want to live here and will continue coming here. California is California and no matter how low the taxes are in Kansas it cannot compete.
Like any big state there will be challenges and bumps in the road, but relegating Republicans to third-party status was the right first step in righting the ship and putting us on the road to prosperity.
Just sit back and enjoy the ride. We’ll drag you and your ilk kicking and screaming into the future, which, yes, will feature wonderful high-speed rail!
Yeah, Dennis. Don’t shut down your conclusion-maker just yet!
What do you mean by “business friendly,” and who is doing the ranking?
California has world-class universities, a diverse and entrepreneurial population, immense natural resources, enormous venture capital depth, incredibly productive farmland, it is a magnet for highly educated immigrants, leads the world in technological innovation, has thriving industrial enterprises, and on and on and on.
Here is one:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-374026-california-state.html
Seriously?
From the article you linked to, about their “source”:
So, a conservative activist organization ranks California as The Most Horrible Place Ever? I’m just…shocked.
Quoted in one of the state’s most conservative newspapers
Argue against the facts, not the source of the facts and you will be more persuasive.
This is an issue that is ongoing in this forum:
Facts are discounted, because the source of those facts is not acceptable, primarily because the facts run counter to desired information.
You’ve never been guilty of this practice. Never ever ever.
And you can keep your lessons on being persuasive. One must learn something before teaching it.
I’m saying the “fact” that a conservative organization ranks California near last place on their list, and California was so ranked because California has higher taxes than they’d like, only “proves” that conservatives hate taxes, which I already knew.
Hmmm, sorta like the climate change deniers!
500 CEO’s rank California number 50
Now rip that one apart.
Quoting from the above piece:
Although California is not unique in pursuing policies that prompt wealth and job creators to expand elsewhere, (New York being a good example), the Golden State seems uniquely oblivious to the effect its labor and other regulations are having on its innovative and growth-oriented Silicon Valley. Job growth in the Valley has flatlined. Firms keep their HQs there, but pursue growth in friendlier states. Google, Intel, Cisco and other companies locate new plants in states such as Arizona, Utah, Texas, Virginia or North Dakota.
Sacramento seems to take perverse delight in job-killing legislation, of which the pair of bills known as California’s “Green Chemistry Initiative” that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law in September 2008 serve as an example. The regulations mandated that “manufacturers seek safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in their products, and create tough governmental responses for lack of compliance.” When the 92-page final set of commands was issued, the “green community” demanded a rewrite with even tougher requirements. Writing in the Washington Examiner, Chapman University Law professor Hugh Hewitt said that the new rules will mandate testing and labeling changes on tens of thousands of products, likely triggering product recalls. “Take whatever you think is the worst regulatory regime out there, and expand it exponentially.”
Easy: Quoting Mr. Talbot above: “California has world-class universities, a diverse and entrepreneurial population, immense natural resources, enormous venture capital depth, incredibly productive farmland, it is a magnet for highly educated immigrants, leads the world in technological innovation, has thriving industrial enterprises, and on and on and on.”
Keep trying to sound the death knell of your home state. We’re doing just fine without you.
Ha! Hugh Hewitt! In the Examiner!
DDL – OK, so now I know that CEOs hate any regulation that costs them money. I think I knew that already, too.
There has not been a mass exodus of businesses from California. When assessing the “business friendliness” of a state, look at what CEOs do, not what they say
OMG! Orange County Register and Taxpayer Foundation? How impressively unimpressive a pair. Facts? Get a focus outside the wing-nut echo-chamber of the disinformation-bubble.
Significantly more people voted for Democratic congress members than voted for Republicans in 2012. Republicans retained their House majority in large part due to gerrymandering.
Liberal/Socialist state of California
What does that even mean? I think Republicans like calling Democrats “Socialist” because the Soviets described themselves that way, and they were evil and Won’t You Think Of The Children??
Here’s the thing, though: within 15 years, Texas is going to be a swing state, and within 20 it will be solid blue. Or, it will be unless the Republican Party can become something other than the White People’s Last Stand Party.
I speak as a former Republican: Stop with the crazy, ok?
Matt, are you also a “former White Person?”
Matt stated:Significantly more people voted for Democratic congress members than voted for Republicans in 2012.
I am reminded of Aaron Levinstein’s quote on statistics and a woman’s bikini, so we need to take a closer look at those numbers for Congressional voting in Presidential years:
2012
Democrats – 54,301,095
Republicans – 53,822,442
A difference of less than 480,000 out of over 107 million votes.
To some 500,000 may be a ‘significant’ number, but the difference vs. the total is less than 0.5%
The Dims should be more concerned about these numbers:
2008
D’s – 64,888,090 (decreased by 16% in 2012)
R’s – 51,952,981 (increased by 3.6% in 2012)
So in an election that the Republican’s lost, they gained a higher percentage of Congressional votes from the previous Presidential election, while the Dims, lost 16%
Jeez! Dennis, you gerrymander the count even after the votes are in, and you lost. A trend is underway from which the RP will never recover unless they become the “GOD” party and absorb all the superstitious, split-metaphysics people in the country. WOW. No overcoming that aggregation of heartfelt ignorance, not ever!
Robert
Your ocular clarity seems to be obscured, quite likely due to proximity to your upper GI tract, as I have merely presented the actual numbers of the past two Congressional elections which occurred during Presidential election cycles.
Those who are elated and odiously gloating over what they see as an over whelming victory over the much hated, oft maligned forces of the right by the Godless combined with the diverse factions of the Uber Rich (Kerry-Pelosi-Feinstein-Soros and more plus friends), as well as the exploited masses of the poor and the self proclaimed unionist ‘proletariat’, are as misinformed as they are oblivious to looking at any facts which do not suit their collective purposes.
The pendulum swings, now favoring your side, it will swing back, more so as the damage is wreaked to the state and the nation in the name of progress, by those who ignore the impact of past failures, while simultaneously invalidating the Constitution.
Hahahahaha … Yes, the Constitution is only safe in Republican hands … A suggestion that leads me to believe its source is “as misinformed as they are oblivious to looking at any facts which do not suit their collective purposes.”
Enjoy Peace and Freedom Party status. While you’re in the self-marginalized minority, do yourself and Herald readers a favor:
http://extension.berkeley.edu/cert/writing.html?gclid=CNLPrrrEhrUCFWaoPAodjSwAug
If that is where Real American and Shelby got their writing certificates I now have all the answers I need. I did not know all it took was an expired fishing licence to get certified.. I also find out that if you did not have the fishing licence an expired drivers licence would also be excepted.. You two had some nice options.
Anything would be better than whatever elementary school you flunked out of. Just trying to give DDL some hope of improvement. A faint hope but hope nonetheless
How does the GOP have 61 governors? Did we add a bunch of states when I wasn’t looking?
How does the GOP have 61 governors?
Correct. Can’t be more than 57.
DDL you got them on that one.
Bob you and Dennis are losing this one pretty badly. Better retreat now while you can.
Real American all we ask is for your info. Attack comments do not give info. The big issue will be oil in the future. The Monterey shale oil field will put this state back in business for many years. Better schools, Silicon Valley will be so big because of Monterey that they me even expand to the central valley. .Monterey oil swhale field is the answer. Just watch. But you Liberals may not want California to prosper. You love fees and taxes. You see Real American us very bright Conservatives invest our money so we can provide the night life for these wonder4ful Patriotic Americans and personally only live their as the weather changes to our liking. A great privilege of understanding finance aqnd opportunity. You may want to come along for the ride.
We’re in charge, and it’s going to stay that way. Enjoy the ride.
Just what are you in charge of?
You and your future, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Except move away. Great tax situations in Kansas and North Dakota, I hear.
B.L., when you get out of city finances, you’re totally lost. “Out of your depth” is no idle figure of speech.
Jeb Bush’s son and Cruz. Get with the program. Texas is moving forward. My error. Typo. Should have been 31. Thanks for pointing that out. Yes Real American is was close to over 1 mil. Real American follow my comments. I said the California huge Dem vote plus. That alone caused the skewed total. So do not get confused on totals.
The Republican Party is “dead man walking,” until it gets a majority of states to disenfranchise enough Democratic voters by gerrymandered congressional districts and bring down electoral representation by county-defined areas. They are working a strategy now too obvious not to fail by rousing immense opposition.
We have long been aware that the GOP (Greedy Oil Prevaricators) is a minority party that cannot win save by dirty tricks, slick shenanigans and plain chicanery, all of which they project blame for on their opponents with the most egregiously invidious ingenuousness, with bland protestations of innocence. Rotten fakers.
Yes more Dems voted for Dem house members. It was skewed by one state. California. Texas is already on the way to fix that crazy statement you made. It will not happen. Gerrymandering in California did give the Dems a super majority in the state houses and the House of Reps. But for sure not enough to control the House. Better go back and review the numbers state by state. You will then understand what happened and why the Dems are not in control of the House. Also review the Presidential election. The only thing you will see is that President Obama was re-elected and by a small margin in the swing states. Yes he did win and that does count if you are a Liberal. Hillary just feaked out her chance for 2016. That scene will be run over and over again. Remember the Dem that had a freak out moment and has never been heard from again. Remember it does matter.
No, Bob. More voters – significantly more – voted for Democratic congressional candidates than for Republicans. Nationwide. If you like, I can provide a link to the data backing this up – and the data indicates that this trend will continue.
Texas is already on the way to fix that crazy statement you made. It will not happen.
And how is Texas going to “fix” the fact that it is becoming younger and browner? Will it forcibly deport young and non-white people? I mean, walk me through this.
significantly more – voted for Democratic congressional candidates than for Republicans. Nationwide
When a comment like that is made I am always reminded of the 1960 World Series – NY vs. Pittsburgh. New York scored 53 runs in seven games to the Pirates mere 27, almost half that number.
Guess who won the series? (Thanks Maz!)
Point is, it does not matter how many votes you get, it is where you get the most votes.
Just ask President Gore
The point is the trend. For you, down, down, down. But you knew that.
What trend. State your facts.
This kind of obliviousness can only hurt you and your cause. Please continue.
Pirates mere 27, almost half that number.
More precisely stated: ‘just over half that number’. (Don’t want the grammar nazi coming after me.)
The point is, in a non-gerrymandered country, Democratic reps would outnumber Republicans, and (unless the Republicans stop talking like crazy people) the gap is only going to widen as time goes on.
The United States actually needs a functioning opposition party, for the health of its polity. I hope the Republicans can restore themselves to something resembling reasonable opponents.
And remember your hogwash about state legislatures is skewed by states like Wyoming where no one lives.
What was that total vote count from House races last year? I seem to recall you were confused on this point a while back …
If you are talking to me, I was not confused at all, but merely distracted by a minor superfluous point, one which was served up as an obfuscation by someone, I forget who, that was merely trying to deflect the argument away from the valid points that were made.
It is an argumentative method made often by childish people holding a weak hand.
I was not talking to you, just as surely as you are not directing your childish comment at me.
Real American not confused. Was waiting for final vote. Yes it was 1mil in favor of Dems. All you have to do is look at one state. That is California. Skewed the total. A huge victory for Republicans and a on going move to continue to keep the house in Republican hands. Remember Real American there are not many house seats left in the west and northeast for Dems to take. The South will add more than is necessary to keep control. It may not work out that way. But the path does look very good. The Dems are running out of seats to take away from Republicans. As I said that is where the Dem problem is. Did you get that Poet Laureate. If you need more lessons I am available for a fee.
Totally wrong, Bobbie. California UN-gerrymandered its districts and reflects popular vote more nearly than it would have, formerly, when the countryside rednecks had more power than deserved. Democrats, BTW, will regain the House at midterm. Take it to the bank. OKAY, what in hell Hillary “freak-out” moment ARE you talking about? What scene was that?
Robert I guess MSNBC did not show the freak out. Get up-to-date Robert. Robert California set up district to put Dem against Dem and Rep against Rep. The only purpose for that was to gain the 8 or 9 seatsd the Dems wanted. Yes they did get four more seats but not what the expected. If you think any chosen group in this state is non partisan you had better get a better understanding of how it works Robert. I have read your articles and comments for three years. The only conclusion I can come to is the Liberal/Socialist have a ring in your nose to lead you around. Nothing wrong with that. But your personal attacks on folks that do not agree is taking a toll on your credibility. You know how that goes Robert. Here comes the Poet Laureate again. You are no longer fun to read.
Again with the “Liberal/Socialist” conflation.
The Extremes are: 1. The Government doing absolutely nothing (see the desolate, wooden writing of Ayn Rand) and 2. The Government doing absolutely everything (see long, boring Brezhnev speeches from the 1970s.) The great, big, wide, diverse land between these two extremes has lots and lots and lots of stuff in it that is not “socialism.”
“Liberalism” as that term is used in the United States, describes an economic approach that strives to correct imbalances between capital and labor – progressive income taxes, support for labor, guaranteed income and health care for old folks, and so on.
The New Dealers (from whence much of “liberal” economics comes) had a central insight: unregulated capitalism tends to concentrate wealth, and thus power, in a smaller and smaller slice of people at the top of the economic pile. This eventually leads to crisis, because so much wealth is concentrated at the top that the rest of society does not have enough money to buy the products the elites are producing. Of course, elites can respond by loosening credit so that their workers can go into debt to buy their stuff, but eventually the credit cards are maxed, and then everything grinds to a halt. And by “grinds to a halt,” I mean, “people stop buying things, and then everyone – including the elites – stares terrified into the economic abyss.” See 1929 and 2008 for some sense of what that experience is like.
Liberalism is designed to prevent capitalism from self-destructing by supporting the bargaining power of workers, restraining the myopic and ultimately self-destructive greed of the rich through progressive income taxes, and so on. It came to save capitalism, not to destroy it.
Has not worked.
But it has, Bob. The time in this country’s history when the New Dealers’ approach was most thoroughly part of our national policy approach (roughly 1940 to 1980) featured steady-to-booming growth, rapid and widely-shared gains in income, and a distinct lack of financial crises. It is only with the ascent of Reaganism and the shift back toward Laissez-faire, unregulated capitalism that economic stability eroded and capitalism revived its tendency to self-destruct.
Remember 1952, 56, 68, 72, 80, 84 and 88 were Republican Presidents. It was only under Dems that the country sliped back. Also under FDR. Clinton started the slide and President Obama does not know what to do. Sorry to let you in on the secret.
Bob – the Republicans in those years – unlike Reagan and post-Reagan republicans – were far to the left of today’s Republicans Party. Nixon, remember, began the Environmental Protestion agency. The top marginal tax rate under Republican president Eisenhower was 91.5% – almost three times what it is today – and Ike never uttered a peep about it. Ike warned of the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex; I can’t imagine any current Republican giving an equivalent address.
And if you’re claiming that the economy is worse under Democrats and Republicans, the data doesn’t support that.
Matt stated: (roughly 1940 to 1980) featured steady-to-booming growth, rapid and widely-shared gains in income, and a distinct lack of financial crises
That is perhaps the first time I have ever seen anyone long for glorious years of Jimmy Carter.
Where did I say that? what I said was: “The time in this country’s history when the New Dealers’ approach was most thoroughly part of our national policy approach (roughly 1940 to 1980) featured steady-to-booming growth, rapid and widely-shared gains in income, and a distinct lack of financial crises.”
Carter was President from 1977 to 1981, apparently you did not realize that as you counted his years in the glory days of 1940-1980.
Well, there was “steady-to-booming growth” during most of his presidency, and no financial crisis, so his administration still meets two of my criteria.
But I’m not saying that every single year from 1940 to 1980 was wonderful; what I am saying is that that was the era when the New Deal approach to public policy was generally accepted, and there was, over that period, unprecedented, and (here’s the thing) widely-shared prosperity.
Remember during that time we were also rebuilding Europe and Japan. Huge amounts of money leaving this country as our manufacturing facilities crumbled. S/S was changing and expanding rapidly. Medicare has changed since 1965 from its original intent. We were on our way to a mild Socialized country. Doing our best to catch the present EU. We know what has happened their. We were during that period the leader in oil, auto and many other items that are now being manufactured by foriegn countries. In doing all of this we forgot about our homeland. Jobs disappeared and Socialism arrived in a very suttle way. All of that paved the way for our present situation. We turned our producing workers into a Government supported country. Remember unions priced our workers out of good paying jobs. I support union workers and union jobs. But it without a doubt got out of hand. It drove our manufacturing companyies to off shore production. This country has paved the way for the world in those very productive years. So what happens to our workers? They have changed from being our producing workers to now believing it is the governments responsibilty to take care of them. That is not what the folks want. We must take care of our citizens and at the same time relax some regulations. I do believe Bakken is a very good example. The Enviro Greenies are going crazy because it is working and folks are happy to have a very well paying job. Monterey shale oil field in California could be even bigger. California Enviro Greenies will do everything they can to stop this. At the same time doing what Matt said was productive years. Stopping it. No they want to regulate, tax and charge fees. This all came about Matt because of the very suttle approach to Socialism during the 1940/1980 period. Coal produces 50% of our energy. So what do the Enviro Greenies do start to close some down. Only to promote their own agenda. We have the most brilliant people in the world. Turn them loose to make the coal plants cleaner.. Instead what do we do in very difficult times? Turn our resources to wind and solar subsidised energy. Which is not even in the picture. Coal, natural gas and oil are. They are the future of this country. So spend the money there and make it work to everyones advantage. Happy working citizens are very important to this country., Lets get back to that. Driving our country into further debt without solving the problem is not the answer. A strong manufacturing and export country is. We must get back to our roots.
Liberalism is designed to prevent capitalism from self-destructing … It came to save capitalism, not to destroy it.
You object to Mr. Livesay’s use of the word ‘socialism’ to describe the political actions and philosophy of the progressive movement, yet you show no reluctance to misuse the word “capitalism” as applying to the Free Enterprise system which we have in America today.
I find that to be a tad disingenuous.
DDL – What is the distinction between capitalism and the “free enterprise system,” in your view?
There has not been a mass exodus of businesses from California.
Read the report:
Firms keep their HQs there, but pursue growth in friendlier states. Google, Intel, Cisco and other companies locate new plants in states such as Arizona, Utah, Texas, Virginia or North Dakota.
I hear North Dakota has a thriving economy. You should move there. Report back and tell us how the winters are. And the nightlife.
Yeah, “bottom line-only” businesses drift into favorable “red” state economies, states that draw out more federal taxes than they pay in. There’s a handsome benefit for you, from the “blue” states! No wonder they’re blue. Pretty sad “redistribution” of national income, RIGHT? Helpful to shareholders & management. ONLY, little benefit to anyone else, since the upper-crust isn’t passing proportionate gain back to consumers and buyers. There’s your wing-nut economics, in its nut-shell. Expropriative as usual
“The regulations mandated that “manufacturers seek safer alternatives to toxic chemicals in their products, and create tough governmental responses for lack of compliance.”
Perhaps this is why:
http://bit.ly/10KO0jt
Good link, Thomas. Thanks.
“’The people of this country simply want everything free … yet have no desire to pay for anything!’ I could not agree more with Mr. Goldberg.” Of course, you agree with Mister Goldberg. His “take” fits your “data-warp.” The spade I call a spade is needed to shovel away such bullshit. Oh, get really offended. It’s your trademark. Nobody can accuse you of sour grapes, you’re the fox-in-the-vineyard who can’t jump high enough to taste ’em.
Your climate denialism is beneath notice, so I won’t comment, except to say your attitude toward Gore keeps kicking a man who’s down because your ilk brought him down with illegitimate legalisms in 2000. It could never be, could it, that someone under your hobnailed sole had the facts on his side? Would that you could clean the discredited rubbish out of your attack-arsenal, such as the “scandal” raised from the Copenhagen “revelation” of “climate-gate.” Again, where’s my shovel?
Ah, poor mistreated Dr. S. Fred Singer, the famous, climatology contra-tenor, intoning in the wilderness of liberal disregard. You ought to check in with Jerome Page on this one. But, you’re happy blasting off into space with no air supply. We ought to do a complete thread on Dr. Singer. That’d be fair.
Robert………….you were more tolerable when you were just writing poetry. You have tendency to commment on matters on which you know little or nothing. I suggest that you correct Dr. Singer with facts regarding climate change instead of mouthing leftist BS. The fact is Mr. Shelby, you know very little about anything of importance. You would embarrass yourself far less if you simply kept your mouth shut about things about which you have no education and know little or nothing about. Just a suggestion Bobby.
Yes Robert! You should also be checking in with Richard Muller, as well.
http://bit.ly/RfdSPJ
Political parties will be the death of this nation