It's Fixed!!!Follow

"The clouds were a nice touch. They're, like, a metaphor."
"No, they *are* a metaphor. If they were "like" a metaphor they'd be, like, a simile."

Last I checked, the better subsidies are for farmers to NOT grow foods (or, wait til later in the season to plant).

Likewise, the need for government intervention in industry derives from the unwillingness of industry to police itself for the benefit of the public. If industry wasn't out to ***** the public over for a buck, we wouldn't have seen anti-trust legislation, the FDA, FTC, EPA, etc.

And if it stopped at that point, there wouldn't be much problem. But farming subsidies (beyond the "prevent a dustbowl" type) go well beyond just preventing market failures. They're about controlling the market itself. And certainly things like the HMO Act had nothing at all to do with preventing industries from ******** the public for a buck, Those things are specifically done to create a desired social result by imposing mandates on various industries.


Outside of some really hard core libertarians, conservatives aren't saying "no government" (who's playing the excluded middle now Joph?). We're saying we should have the minimum amount of government needed to prevent problems. The left wants as much government as is needed to create the social changes and benefits they want. Which often seems to mean unlimited government since those needs never seem to be completely met.


I guess the point here is that nearly every conservative can tell you the point at which government has gone past the point of "necessary government" to "too much government". But very very few liberals can tell us the point at which government has become too large. That alone should make us realize that there's a problem with liberal political ideology. And it absolutely makes the concept of "compromise" a bit problematic.

I disagree. I think we're well towards "too much government" from that middle point. I guess the problem is where to define "middle". I honestly think that's a fallacious approach to the issue. If I'm trying to stay in one spot, but you're trying to move farther away, then the "middle" keeps moving in your direction. IMO, that's an inherently unfair dynamic. Insisting that I meet you in the middle as though that's a fair compromise is equally unfair.

This is why the point I made earlier is relevant. There's a pretty clear point at which you've gone from government regulation designed to prevent harmful activities and into regulation designed to produce positive outcomes. Anti trust and anti pollution laws are the former. Subsidies to increase food production beyond domestic needs and mandates on coverage for health care providers is the latter.


If, as a conservative, my objective is simply to have enough government to accomplish the former set of requirements, I'm going to always advocate for a set position in terms of government involvement. But if as a liberal you want government to actively involve itself in industry to produce positive social outcomes (more people with health coverage, cheaper and more available food, mandates to help low income people buy homes, etc), you are going to push your position farther and farther away. There is no clear point at which you are "done", and there's no reason to expect that once you accomplish the things you think are reasonable, that the next generations of liberals wont think it's just as reasonable to go a even further. Thus, the "middle" continually moves leftward towards bigger and bigger government.


That's what's coming to a head right now. What most liberals don't understand is that conservatives are not just looking at the far right positions and thinking that they're nutty, but are looking at what is increasingly being argued is the "compromise" position and thinking that's too far left, too much government, and is also nutty. All one has to do to move the middle is to keep stretching the left end farther and farther. Which is what seems to have happened.



No, it really doesn't. Because there's an endpoint at one side. There is no endpoint at the other. There's "no government involvement at all". Then there's "just enough to prevent market failures and abuses". And then there's "Endless range of things which government could get involved in". You're trying to equate the range of things on the "big government" side of the scale to the range of things on the "small government" side. They're just not comparable though. One is an infinite range. The other is finite. The math isn't hard.



I suspect you assume wrong. I've asked questions of that nature to this board before Joph. I've never gotten a consistent answer (when I get one at all). And when someone on this board can state where an endpoint should exist, it's trivially easy to find examples of actual elected Democrats arguing for things past that point. Remember. Another aspect of this is that what you think is reasonable today, will be seen as the "middle" by the next generation of liberals. They'll demand even more government.


Slippery Slope? Sure. But it's an historically demonstrable one. Medicare leads to HMO act. HMO act leads to existing Health Care bill. Existing Health care bill will lead to even more socialized health care. Heck, Obama said so. He said that they can't get single payer today, but this bill is a "step in the right direction". On the whole, wouldn't you agree that over the last century government has gotten involved in *more* of our business, and not less. I can't think of an area in which they've ever gone in the other direction. Can you?


I don't buy the "we should compromise in the middle" argument. It's fraught with peril! ;)

Hook, meet line & sinker.

Canada has far more government intervention than the US and we're not even at the 50% mark yet.

We didn't all have you as our lolfailteacher. Given how retarded your students no doubt turned out, you can be excused for assuming that all educators are as poor at their job as you were.

If I thought Virgina was located in South America, I'd probably completely fail out as a teacher too! Just because VA is in "the south" doesn't mean it's in South America. That's a whole separate continent. They probably should have taught you that before letting you near kids.

This ignores the money comment which is funny on its own

Edited, Oct 1st 2010 1:29pm by Jophiel

Ugly,

Better that my money go to truly conservative company than the union thugs that run the american auto industry.



Edited, Oct 1st 2010 3:09pm by varusword75