Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

In neither a free system nor a welfare state do you sell your free choice. You pick whether and where to work, you pick where you're going to live and where you're going to move, and even if you let someone take over those rights in exchange for money, you cannot permanently surrender them. Whatever the tax burdens may be, labour is (in the main) free.

What you say here is true, however, the systems in the US and Europe allow for a meager existence for those who cannot, or will not work. And, on the top end, it may be impossible to work enough, or save enough to ever climb out of "vassalage". Also, the system might be rigged whereby those positions in the top 10% are reserved for the elite few who happen to inherit the ability to attend the best schools. Yes, there are exceptions which cast that glimmer of hope for the 90% trapped in generational servitude, just like the occasional jackpot at the casino. For every "Bill Gates", there are thousands of "Philo T Farnsworths", and hundreds of thousands not smart enough to do what he or Gary Kildall did. Kildall at least got to be rich for a few years before he died in a freak accident.:shuriken:

Vassalage, indenture, slavery, peonage, serfdom, thralldom, corvee, etc... do not have these qualities. In those systems, you have lost your free choice. You do not get to pick your job, you cannot quit, you cannot stop working. Someone else makes these choices for you; you are unfree labour.

True again. So, almost like servitude, but you get to choose the nature of your service. You get to choose whether you live in government supplied housing (usually in a crime ridden area), jump through the governments hoops to collect your subsistence money, and as far as choices, it is up to the government to decide what you get. I don't see that escape from this system is possible. Where can you go? Seriously, what would happen to a family of four in your nation if both parents are out of work for a year or two? Here in the US, first they would tap all their savings, then destroy their retirement savings to continue make their monthly payments. Eventually, they would default on their mortgage, and the bank would foreclose. They might be able, depending on circumstances to delay eviction if they declare bankruptcy. The result of this brief interruption in their servitude is that they slide to the bottom and start over trying to climb out of the bowl again. For most working people in the US, the ultimate goal is to reach age 65 or 70 so that they can begin to receive Social Security income, which will essentially allow them to live at just a subsistence level. If they haven't paid off their house, or debts, then good luck trying to retire. Most seniors with no retirement income beyond SSI have a pretty tough retirement.

The other point, of course, is democracy. In Europe as in America, you can vote for change if you don't like the tax regime, or leave the country if you can't put up with it. The government is by, of, and for the people. Whether taxes are high or low, they are not that way because an arbitrary Monarch is expropriating your wealth, but because the elected government has decided it that way. Some countries may choose to tax themselves heavily, but they choose it freely.

Again, on the face of it, appears to be true. I'm not sure what the perceptions of the people towards their government are in the UK, Canada, or the rest of Europe, but here in the US, it seems that the career track for serving in national public office begins with an Ivy League law school education, then establishing yourself with the party elite within your state, usually by serving in some appointed government jobs for a few years to establish your party credibility.

Or, as it is in my state, money speaks loudest. If you have enough money, you can finance your own campaign and eventually buy the position. I would say in the US, the system is again rigged for the ruling class (e.g. Bush, Kennedy, Daley, Long, etc.).

It would take an amazing wake up call to jolt the populace from their apathy and complacency to participate at the level needed at the state caucuses, at the primaries, and within the national parties to effect an "of the people" level of control to shake things up, and even then, the commoners might not be able to generate the mountain of cash needed to wrest power from our ruling elite. It is in the interest of both political parties to maintain the status quo, make false promises to the people, and do what they need to do to remain in their elected seat for as long as possible.

Also, the 4th estate, the media, are used by both parties creating negative campaigns which are specifically designed to "turn off" participation. Since they are owned by the ruling class, they might not be objective in their reporting of the interests of the common person to re-establish a truly representative democracy.

Finally, there is the education system itself, which barely teaches an understanding of civics, including "rights", "voting", "citizenship", "bills" or the basic fundamentals of how government works. It may be by design, or by ineptitude, but the result is obvious. We have an electorate that is barely able to understand the process, let alone make rational decisions about candidates. Look at who we elect! Jesse Ventura? Al Franken? Mark Dayton? I could go on and on...

It can be done, but it might be easier to establish a colony on Mars and start all over.

[kandrathe]

To him, that meant being ruled by a Monarch, in whose government you had no voice. To you, it apparently means taxes.

Not taxes. It means that I have the freedom to live my life with a minimum of interference by the government, be it State or Federal. But, the way things are today, almost everything from education, to employment, to retirement, to health care, to transportation, to property use (such as this case) are concerns of the government .

I also question whether "the people" really have a voice in government anymore (see my other post). Also, not Monarch, tyrant or tyranny. A tyranny can also be oligarchy.

[Crusader]

And, then, you answered your own question.Which you estimate is 60% of your earning power. Subtract what you need to actually live, and that gives you an idea of your ability to elevate your position through investment. So, they rob you of your money before you would get to invest it, thus robbing you also of the compounding that you might achieve by saving or investing it as well.

As an experiment; Say you earned $1 million over ten years. Your annual cost of living expenses were say $40,000, leaving $60,000 for investment. If the government taxes 60%, you have zero remaining. Whereas, here in the USA, the level is just a little less (considering taxes from all sources). Under the current system, the only way to invest, or save, is to command a salary well above the cost of living, and then with progressive taxation, you fight an uphill battle trying to do so. I would say it is obvious that you would be much better off by being able to keep your money and invest it. You are saying you are better off with the government taking all your investment power away, but guaranteeing you safety should you someday be unable to work for them anymore.

It appears that you work for the State (60%), and they allow you enough to provide for your own housing, food, and transportation. How are you not a vassal of the State?

mmmmmm.... no, because here you assume I earn the same as an American and thus, have less left compared to said American. Not true. I earn a lot more then an American in the same role and level of experience. We Dutchies are expensive employees. As a result I still can do rougly the same things an American in my position can do.

So why bother working then?

Excellent point. Firstly if you can work but don't you get very little money, hardly enough to get by on, and you have to go by the food bank for free food, etc. And people look down on you. Plainly put, if you work, you can afford luxery. If you don't, you can survive, but that's it.

Hi,
I can think of two reasons. The first is that even 40% can be the difference between state supported subsidence living and a few luxuries. The second is that doing nothing is boring.

--Pete

Pete came close. And the social stigma is a big downer. If you live like a parasite of society, you can expect people paying for your food to look down on you.

There is another big plus side to the Dutch system that isn't mentioned. Less poverty. No tent cities when some banks do an oopsie or things like that. And because there's less poverty, there's less criminality.

[kandrathe]

There is another big plus side to the Dutch system that isn't mentioned. Less poverty. No tent cities when some banks do an oopsie or things like that. And because there's less poverty, there's less criminality.

... and having removed religion as the opiate of the masses, you allow for actual opium.

Be a good citizen and take your Soma.

"... And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
-- The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling.

[roguebanshee]

... and having removed religion as the opiate of the masses, you allow for actual opium.

People in Europe get to choose whether they want to worship some other guys imaginary friend or not, and if they do they even get to pick which one to worship. Seriously, stop channeling McCarthy and Hoover, this isn't Stalinist Soviet we're talking about here.

[Jester]

On the whole, there is plenty of truth in your bleak assessment of the ways in which the wealth and power (or lack thereof) in one generation is passed down to the next, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you do in saying that these are absolute shackles. I see progressive taxation and social programs as a major help towards minimizing these problems. Kids from poor families are never going to be on equal ground with rich kids, but at least if they get public school, health care, and enough money to survive on, they're going to be a whole lot more competitive than if their parents have to yank them out of school and cancel their medical insurance just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!

I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.

-Jester

[Crusader]

... and having removed religion as the opiate of the masses, you allow for actual opium.

Be a good citizen and take your Soma.

"... And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
-- The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling.

No idea what that quote was about (though I have read brave new world). And we don't allow opium. We tolerate some softdrugs. Technically they're still illegal. You just don't get punished for having small ammounts of them. Steals the market from the dealers. Less criminality. Yay! Harddrugs still land you in the slammer no matter what. And for the record, we're not ALL potheads around here. Nor do we all visit the prostitutes every sunday when grandma is in church. Nor do we all live in windmills with tulips in our gardens. Just clearing that up for you.

People in Europe get to choose whether they want to worship some other guys imaginary friend or not, and if they do they even get to pick which one to worship. Seriously, stop channeling McCarthy and Hoover, this isn't Stalinist Soviet we're talking about here.

Zank you comrad Roguebanzhee.

On the whole, there is plenty of truth in your bleak assessment of the ways in which the wealth and power (or lack thereof) in one generation is passed down to the next, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you do in saying that these are absolute shackles. I see progressive taxation and social programs as a major help towards minimizing these problems. Kids from poor families are never going to be on equal ground with rich kids, but at least if they get public school, health care, and enough money to survive on, they're going to be a whole lot more competitive than if their parents have to yank them out of school and cancel their medical insurance just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!

I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.

-Jester

Yea... I'm not gonna bother explaining the odd mixture of systems that make up the Dutch government system and how it inheritly solves the 'popular politician who wins, but turns out to be a jerk' problem *coughdubyahcough*. It just... works. Somewhat. Kind of. Sorta.

[kandrathe]

On the whole, there is plenty of truth in your bleak assessment of the ways in which the wealth and power (or lack thereof) in one generation is passed down to the next, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you do in saying that these are absolute shackles.

Then there is a glimmer of hope.

I see progressive taxation and social programs as a major help towards minimizing these problems. Kids from poor families are never going to be on equal ground with rich kids, but at least if they get public school, health care, and enough money to survive on, they're going to be a whole lot more competitive than if their parents have to yank them out of school and cancel their medical insurance just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Then, again, you are still exhibiting your socialist side. :) I can be FOR free education, affordable health care, and social safety nets, without being FOR excessive or progressive taxation.

Education: First, and most important for me would be to clearly define what the desired outcome should be. Otherwise, as we have seen, education is a black hole into which you can pour ever increasing amounts of money with nary a blip in measured results. So, for public education, I would trim it back to the bland basics that would qualify any graduate placement into the college of university of their choice. At the Federal or State level everything else must go. Let localities decide on their schools which is generally paid with property tax money. Yes, poor schools will look at the rich schools and see a discrepancy. This is the basic problems with wealth disparity. I believe the solution is not to burden the working people with 60% tax burden, but rather to elevate the workers such that they can afford the same amenities. One way to do that is to reduce the tax burden on the workers.

Health Care: First, and most important for me would be to again clearly define what the desired outcome should be, and the government would supply very basic health care services to only those who cannot otherwise be insured. The whole insurance racket, when in bed with government makes for bad bed fellows. So, A) government becomes the insurer of last resort,B)health care needs to be portable and not tied to employers, C) all the programs need to seamlessly fit together, and D) most of this needs to be coordinated in the private sector, and regulated by the government.

Safety Nets: Need to focus on a process which helps people get back into a mode where they can take care of themselves.

However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!

Anecdotally, there are obvious cases where the general rule does not appear to apply, but an examination of where the bulk of $656,357,572 came from shows that it is not the common people. By the way, Pres. Obama was in Las Vegas and Los Angeles the past few days at democratic fund raising $16,000 per plate dinners for the high rollers and Hollywood elite. Do you really believe the fairy tale of the poor Chicago boy who was elected by the collective $200 donations of an adoring nation? I see that the glamor has not yet worn off, but then Pres. Obama has not ended his popularity campaign either.

I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.

Alan and Steve are two very bad examples of people who do not understand how to play the game. They are quixotic in their approach, and I think like Mr. Jesse Jackson, Ann Coulter, or any number of talking heads, they use the political stage as the theater of self promotion or at least providing them a national soap box from which they can preach their ideas. Unfortunately, such people may never see through their veil of narcissism to realize they are actually not that appealing to other than a dedicated fringe. You are getting close though with the "popular" notion, and then consider that in order to "get popular" one needs positively spun national media exposure.

[kandrathe]

No idea what that quote was about (though I have read brave new world). And we don't allow opium. We tolerate some soft drugs. Technically they're still illegal. You just don't get punished for having small amounts of them. Steals the market from the dealers. Less criminality. Yay! Hard drugs still land you in the slammer no matter what. And for the record, we're not ALL potheads around here. Nor do we all visit the prostitutes every Sunday when grandma is in church. Nor do we all live in windmills with tulips in our gardens. Just clearing that up for you.

Thank you for the clarifications. So, then, when I travel to Holland I should not wear my wooden shoes? :) I did know those facts, but took some literary license to fit with my implications. I also understand the nature of religious freedom your land, but I suspect that much of modern Europe is jaded by the wars spawned by the Reformation and more fully embraced the Enlightenment movement.

Yea... I'm not gonna bother explaining the odd mixture of systems that make up the Dutch government system and how it inherently solves the 'popular politician who wins, but turns out to be a jerk' problem *coughdubyahcough*. It just... works. Somewhat. Kind of. Sorta.

Well, Baron Acton said it best, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Which is why our great public servants should have a limited tenure.

As for Kipling, it deserves more than a quip I guess.

The full poem is;

<blockquote>The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!</blockquote>According to Wikipedia, "The central message of the poem is that basic and unvarying aspects of human nature will always re-emerge in every society."

My reading would be that whether it be market, religion, society, there will always be "smooth-tongued wizards" who "promised these beautiful things", but thousands of years of history reveals that each successive era is ultimately about who controls your life. I also claim my bonus brownie points for moving from a discussion of pacification policies (in this case Hollands open drug use), which leads to my reference of Soma, the mandatory drug of choice in Aldus Huxley's novel titled "Brave New World", and then tying it off with the political poem by Rudyard Kipling which includes the reference to a "brave new world". My suggestion was that your populist government could be viewed as offering up "Soma" to keep you pacified, while robbing you of 60% of your income.

[Jester]

Anecdotally, there are obvious cases where the general rule does not appear to apply, but an examination of where the bulk of $656,357,572 came from shows that it is not the common people. By the way, Pres. Obama was in Las Vegas and Los Angeles the past few days at democratic fund raising $16,000 per plate dinners for the high rollers and Hollywood elite. Do you really believe the fairy tale of the poor Chicago boy who was elected by the collective $200 donations of an adoring nation? I see that the glamor has not yet worn off, but then Pres. Obama has not ended his popularity campaign either.

I believe the "fairy tale" (if by "fairy tale" you mean "fact") that Obama raised historically unprecedented amounts of money ($200,000,000-plus) from very small donations. According to your own link, the "bundlers", while raising the majority of the McCain war chest, raised not even a tenth of Obama's total campaign money, and perhaps a quarter of the quantity he got from $200-or-less donations *alone*. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves. I don't know where your special animus about Obama came from, but you've been throwing everything you've got at him since day one. It hasn't stuck with me, and it certainly hasn't stuck with America: "adoring" is a pretty good description of his 60%-plus approval ratings in the midst of the biggest economic clusterfrack since the great depression.

And he wasn't a poor Chicago boy. He was a middle-class Hawaii boy, with a little Indonesia thrown in for good measure. He didn't move to Chicago until he was 24 and already through his first degree. But, in any case, he has sweet nothing to do with old money.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

According to your own link, the "bundlers", while raising the majority of the McCain war chest, raised barely an eighth of Obama's total campaign money, and perhaps a quarter of the quantity he got from $200-or-less donations *alone*. Those numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

McCain was limited in his fund raising efforts by taking public campaign finance money, which both candidates agreed to do, which then candidate Obama reneged upon because he would be able to raise much more when not encumbered by Campaign Finance Reform laws. (e.g. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act)

I don't know where your special animus about Obama came from, but you've been throwing everything you've got at him since day one. It hasn't stuck with me, and it certainly hasn't stuck with America: "adoring" is a pretty good description of his 60%-plus approval ratings in the midst of the biggest economic clusterfrack since the great depression.

My animus comes from my proximity to Chicago. I have very good friends who've lived their entire lives there, and I do quite a bit of business there. Trust me, the glamor will fade. I stand by my earliest statement, that Barrak Obama is a very poor choice to be POTUS, but now that he is, I will respect his office and support him when I agree with him.

And he wasn't a poor Chicago boy. He was a middle-class Hawaii boy, with a little Indonesia thrown in for good measure. He didn't move to Chicago until he was 24 and already through his first degree. But, in any case, he has sweet nothing to do with old money.

What do you mean by "old"? He is well connected to the Chicago political "mafia", Richard M. Daley, as is Raum Emmanual. William M. Daley (Richard's brother), is probably the designated replacement for the seat vacated by Barrak Obama. There are ways to ingratiate yourself within the ruling class.

[Jester]

McCain was limited in his fund raising efforts by taking public campaign finance money, which both candidates agreed to do, which then candidate Obama reneged upon because he would be able to raise much more when not encumbered by Campaign Finance Reform laws. (e.g. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act)

Uh hunh. And yet, if millions of people had decided to give him anywhere from a handful of bucks to a few hundred dollars, as they did with Obama, he could have just followed Obama's lead and turned down federal funding himself. Actually, he even tried, despite the fact that it would have been illegal, just as he was openly accusing Obama of being a rat. But it still doesn't alter the basic statistics of the donations: Obama got huge chunks of his money from under-$200 donations, and repeat donors who gave under $1000 total. McCain got the vast majority of his money from bundlers, plus federal funds. You can try to explain it all away, but there's just too much of it. Obama made gigantic tons of money from a very wide base of very ordinary people, in complete contradiction of your first statement, that this is impossible. Look at the size and enthusiasm of his rallies, the massive volunteer base that worked his ground game. This is not implausible at all.

Your argument was that I am believing a fairy tale; now that the evidence you yourself provided contradicts your point, you've changed it to "Obama broke his promise!" which is true, but not at all the same issue.

My animus comes from my proximity to Chicago. I have very good friends who've lived their entire lives there, and I do quite a bit of business there.

The geographical argument doesn't go very far. Chicago is hardly *that* bad, that any politician who's ever lived there at all is prima facie unfit to be President. At the very least, that would be to underestimate the corruption that goes on in every major city.

Trust me, the glamor will fade.

If I trusted your opinion on these matters, I think I would need severe psychiatric treatment. Nobody could take that much self-contradiction.

Even if you are absolutely correct about the "glamor" fading, there is a world of difference between the end of the honeymoon and revealing Obama to be neck-deep in political corruption. You aren't just saying he's more popular than he should be; you're saying that if people knew the "truth", they'd never have elected him.

What do you mean by "old"? He is well connected to the Chicago political "mafia", Richard M. Daley, as is Raum Emmanual. William M. Daley (Richard's brother), is probably the designated replacement for the seat vacated by Barrak Obama. There are ways to ingratiate yourself within the ruling class.

How very vague. Wave some hands, summon some boogeymen, mention "there are ways," that he is "connected" with a guy... do you actually have any dirt on the man? Or still just throwing out whatever you can to discredit Obama, whether it has any basis or not? I mean, really. William Daley was US Secretary of Commerce; it's hardly as if he's some bizarre nepotism pick. He's a democrat with a strong record, in a solidly democratic area. Why would picking him indicate anything out of the ordinary?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

He was a middle-class Hawaii boy, with a little Indonesia thrown in for good measure.

Well, technically he is breadbasket-American and Kenyan. His mother's family was not from Hawaii, they just ended up moving there. And the Indonesian is just from having lived there for a while.

The funniest part is that, since he is the son of a white American woman and a native of Kenya, he is literally 'African-American' and yet completely not at all what that term implies. He is not the product of the descendants of slavery and generations of oppression.

I highly recommend his two books. Whatever the spin, the facts are fascinating.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Your argument was that I am believing a fairy tale; now that the evidence you yourself provided contradicts your point, you've changed it to "Obama broke his promise!" which is true, but not at all the same issue.

I just don't buy the argument that since he got some thousands of $200 dollar donors, that it refutes my statement (i.e. redirecting the country to individual liberty is nigh impossible). All the scales tipped in his favor, the press, popular opinion, and a huge party machine including unions, celebrities, academia, the financial sector, and the lawyers. You couldn't design a more perfect storm. All he promised was nebulous "change", and what every one heard was that he was going to fix their problem. No, he is a part of the corruption of Chicago, and it may or may not surface during his tenure but when you dig into some of Obama's "bundlers" you find people like Salman Ibrahim.

I don't like to disparage any sitting President, so I won't. It's there if you look for it, but nobody cares to look, or they have their Obama goggles on and everything looks just peachy.

[Jester]

(Earlier post deleted. Too many words.)

Whatever people thought they heard from Obama, there is no denying his mass popular appeal, his enormous small-donations base, or his stunning ability to draw colossal crowds, both at home and abroad.

You might consider that people don't actually *want* a program of libertarian renewal, and that this, rather than structural problems with elitism, media dominance, and so on, explains the failure of this kind of program to win elections.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Whatever people thought they heard from Obama... appeal... enormous... stunning... colossal...

Judging by your effusive superlatives, it is clear what you heard.

You might consider that people don't actually *want* ...

I think they *want* everything for free, and *want* to pay nothing for it. Ergo, California. Perhaps the people *want* something that is unsustainable, or extremely bad for future generations.

What I believe is that someday, some politicians are going to have to do things that are unpopular when the ponzi scheme we call our national budget comes crashing down. I believe that day is rapidly approaching.

[Jester]

Judging by your effusive superlatives, it is clear what you heard.

When one is judging height, the guy with the largest distance from the soles of his feet to the tip of his head is the "tallest", not because you really like him, but because he is empirically the most in terms of height.

Referring to a politician who has blown away every previous record for fundraising, crowd size, volunteer base, small-scale donations (and so forth) as being superlative at these things is hardly unreasonable. He won the election by as large a margin as anyone since Reagan, and has maintained 60%+ approval ratings, despite having to tackle some gigantic problems. Is it fair to say he has "appeal"? Yes, obviously. He drew crowds in the tens-to-hundreds of thousands (occasionally over a million) on a regular basis, pretty much everywhere he went, including abroad. Those are *very* large crowds, I don't think "colossal" is overly effusive. No politician in recent memory has been able to do that, in a democracy; is that not "stunning"? He pulled in 2.5 times as much money as anyone, ever. Does that not maybe deserve mention as a superlative?

These are just factual descriptions. I'm not spinning mediocre numbers into fantasies. If the words I'm using are superlatives, but that's because, by the metrics I'm using, Obama is superlative: nobody has ever come close to his numbers. I'm not out to worship Obama, I think he's a centrist technocrat whose caution outweighs his leadership. But I can see with my own eyes that the movement behind him was something remarkable, something *popular*, as in "of the people". When the people want something enough, they push for it, with their money, their time, their votes, and their enthusiasm. Established interests can try to ride along, but they aren't in the driver's seat.

What I believe is that someday, some politicians are going to have to do things that are unpopular when the ponzi scheme we call our national budget comes crashing down. I believe that day is rapidly approaching.

We'll see what happens when the Ron-Paul-calypse comes. I'm not holding my breath.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Does that not maybe deserve mention as a superlative?

I guess I'm not very impressed by popinjays or their adoring fans. I was never bowled over by Reagan's grandiosity, or seduced by Clinton's charm. With Obama, I continually find that I'm trying to see beyond his rhetoric to deduce what tangible actions might result. And, generally, I agree with you, he talks a talk that he cannot walk, either because it is not thought through, or that either his or the opposition party will kill it before it leaves infancy. Change sounds good, until you get to the details when the devil pops out.

Like with sports, I follow my favorite baseball team whether they are winning or losing. Btw, I'm not actually a huge Ron Paul fan. His positions align with mine in many cases, but his delivery is a bit to much "in your face", and he is burdened with having to side with the Republicans. Put some of Ron Paul's philosophies into an Obama delivery vehicle, and things might get more interesting.

[Jester]

I guess I'm not very impressed by popinjays or their adoring fans.

You don't have to be impressed on a personal level to understand the magnitude of what took place, and what it means for arguments that the little guy's voice is simply not heard in politics. I wasn't impressed at all by Clinton, and I'm still not. I outright despise Reagan, and his theatrics disgust me. Kennedy underwhelms me, and Carter impresses me. Go figure.

And, generally, I agree with you, he talks a talk that he cannot walk, either because it is not thought through, or that either his or the opposition party will kill it before it leaves infancy. Change sounds good, until you get to the details when the devil pops out.

Obama hasn't put too many feet wrong yet, the only question is whether he is going to spend the rest of his presidency tiptoeing. He talks big change, but seems generally satisfied with a change in style, or small tweaks, rather than a major overahaul. Of course, anyone familiar with his record, rather than the fantasies of one side (He's going to bring the change we've been waiting for to Washington!) or the other (He's going to push forward a Marxio-Fasciso-Islamo-Hippie agenda!) would have expected nothing else. He is, and pretty much always has been, a careful centrist with a Reaganesque gift for inspiration.

Btw, I'm not actually a huge Ron Paul fan.

Not necessarily saying you are, but he is the big public prophet of the fiscal disaster you're warning about.

Put some of Ron Paul's philosophies into an Obama delivery vehicle, and things might get more interesting.

I think it was called "Ross Perot." ;)

-Jester

... yes, that was a joke.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think it was called "Ross Perot." ;)

Obama with pie charts :w00t:

--Pete