[Fandrew]

This Title just doesn't fit anymore...

[Ax]

Originally Posted by JayCarrfan

So, McCain and Huckabee, anyone? Anyone want to stay on the original topic?

Too late now I guess...

Btw, this was not just my decision, but the original topic has nothing at all to do with current topic so the Andrew's have fixed the topic. You may resume.

The Andrew's have spoken.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

This one's a doozy. My responses may be brief.

Sorry.. that's why I wrote a follow-up post. Didn't want to make you feel like you should respond to the monster, haha.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

This could be where the third parties get a chance. If the Dems **** up their time in the White House, folks could still have a fresh distaste for the Republicans, and starting voting third party.

I think that would be really interesting. And I think if there is a recession during the President's term (regardless of whether s/he had anything to do with it) it could make the public even angrier at the Democrats. So that might open a tiny hole for a third party to sneak in on. I wouldn't bet any money on it, but I think this is really interesting. And that's why I wrote the second post -- I want you to expand on your thoughts on a third party.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

John, I'm not saying I don't agree with you on a lot here (we clearly both like small government, low taxes, etc. - not sure where you stand on foreign policy or social issues like gay marriage), but I think without meaning this as an insult, that your position is fatalistic. Or rather, it would seem to be until I understand how you intend to vote.

Do you envision yourself as a force for change to create or empower viable third parties? Or rather, to be more blunt, who do you plan to vote for, if anyone?

I'll admit, I have no interest in voting for a Republican, but I fear third party unless I think there's a third party ready to step up.

I intend to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. But yeah, my position probably seems a bit fatalistic because I think the American political system is really bad. I have no faith in it at all. But I think there is a much more important King, and I think that what we do at his Table each Lord's Day is an infinitely more important political act than what happens in any ballot box.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

You're right, I used the wrong word. Substitute my incorrect use of the word "branch" with "department" and you'll find it to be true. The government will have to create new departments in order to expand the health care system, and that is larger government.

That seems an insane standard and one I don't think anyone believes.

Under what you've just said, a government that collects a trillion dollars a year and has a hundred-million employees all in one department is a smaller government than my city, because my city has more departments.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Less actions, less money collected and spent, and less people but bigger?!?

Yes government spending will decrease, nobody is denying that, but government spending is not the same thing as the government size.

Not under your definition... but I don't think "number of departments" is a definition anyone but you has used.

I don't see why you feel the need to be sarcastic about this, you're having an argument about government with somebody whom you don't even know, yet you feel the need to try and insult me. We shouldn't take this so seriously.

With the possible exception of a single sentance, I've been quite straight in my posts. Your posts imply to me that you are not presently taking this seriously. I would not expect such an unortidox redefinition of words used in a serious discussion.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

So, that post was really, really long. Why don't we just forget it? But let's talk about what is the most interesting thing to me -- a new party.

Yes, can we have a mod split this off?

You suggest above that if by voting Democrat you get the Republicans to move toward the Democrats (albeit in all the bad areas of the Democrat party, not the good ones, in all likelihood), this creates room for a third party to emerge.

Well, like me first point out, without malice, that it was you that first suggested that voting Democrat will simply encourage the GOP to move more left. While I think you have good points here, this hasn't been the case with Democrats. Eight years of a Republican, and they still haven't reduced calls for more centralized and subsidized healthcare, higher taxes, etc. They've emphasized the positions they think are attractive to general Republican party-members, but haven't overhauled or shifted substantially right on a number of issues.

So I don't think it's necessarily true that Republicans voting Democrat this time around will cause the GOP to lean further left. It's possible, but not definite.

It will grab a couple of Democrats, a chunk of the Republicans, and a whole bunch of people who are at present too disillusioned to vote. I, for instance, am not necessarily disillusioned, but if there were a viable party that actually supported small government and low taxes then I would definitely go out to vote. I would even give a significant campaign contribution.

So, tell me about your vision for a new party. What could it look like? How would it form? How could it get around the power of the mainstream media? What's it going to do about the existent parties?

The mainstream media would be its greatest opponent. Look at how the mainstream press treats two candidates known both for being mavericks and for doggedly pursuing the core issues that reflect their party's historical values: Kucinich and Paul. The media sure took up Kucinich's UFO claim, but marginalized him and other candidates by giving the majority of debate questions to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Paul was ignored, then ridiculed by Fox commentators. It'll be uphill.

I think if over the next four years a Democrat president not only is unsuccessful in reducing the government trends that have endured the past eight years, but actively props up our current foreign policy and causes a tax burden, many Americans who voted to oust the Republicans will be disgusted, but still have a great deal of distaste for the Bush years. As a result, you will see renewed interest in various third parties. They may not immediately coalesce, but parties have overturned and disappeared in American history, and I could see over the next ten years an emergence of one or two independent parties, perhaps existing ones, that grab national attention (sort of as Perot did), and begin winning local elections.

This could either result in a spectrum of parties that lumps into two coalitions that don't have a strong central power base (so the main liberal party has to guarantee support from the other liberal parties that have strong constituencies), as in various other Western nations, or one of the parties is replaced or marginalized.

I can only speak from the trends among folks I know, but increasingly I'm seeing folks who are interested in maintaining civil rights, in border security, in social privacy, in lower government involvement, in a removal of tax shelters, breaks, and subsidies for corporations.

Being near UT, I saw a number of young Democrats become active if cautious supporters of Ron Paul. I think that there will be a number of moderate liberals who will shift right in terms of economics (left and right here no longer means "Republican" and "Democrat," though I'm sure John understands how I 'm using these) and decentralization of power (not removing the chance of public healthcare, legal abortions, and other things in local areas), and a number of moderate conservatives shifting left in terms of the environment, foreign policy, and social privacy. Or also, diehard economic conservatives abandoning the "family values" side of Republicanism. There are many conservatives who don't think it's the end of the world if two adult males or females want to marry. Also, I think many conservatives are start to realize that environmentalism is a values-based issue, and also reflects passive-aggression against others by misuse of our world.

This doesn't mean a moderate, as in compromise or undecided party. I think it will mean people who want lower taxes, want individual rights in terms of who one marries and who can adopt, want stronger borders, less international involvement, want free trade restricted (this is something diehard liberals like Kucinich talk about as much as Paul).

This party may not fit my ideals, but it may fit the average American better. It may also include "liberal" positions like those our own Jerry Love suggested - a public healthcare system that allows for competition by private firms. I think, whether or not I agree, that many Americans do indeed want a safety net.

But as cliche as this sounds, it really does require the American people to get involved. If I could make one law regarding the political process, it would be that not voting (barring extenuating circumstances) would result in a misdemeanor. Obviously, if someone wants not to vote, there can be online and offline forms to fill out, much as one has to do when objecting during a draft. Or one can show up, and punch "non-voting" on the card. That counts as voting.

That may seem harsh, but it would force people into the political process. I also think the political parties now would fight for such things, because it would mean more scrutiny of their policy if the average American now had to vote.

[grand_master_d]

How can we have universal health care without more money being collected and spent? Jerry, is it possible for you to understand why some of us are opposed to the idea of government subsidized healthcare? Now, I know you enjoy having a little bit of fun with some of us that can't form a decent argument... but I'm just wondering if you can at least understand our concern, because this is more of an intellectual argument (economics) and not a "feelings" argument (say, abortion)...

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

this hasn't been the case with Democrats. Eight years of a Republican, and they still haven't reduced calls for more centralized and subsidized healthcare, higher taxes, etc.

Well, (a) they didn't lose either election by much, (b) they actually were willing to tag along with the worst parts of Republican foreign policy until (c) Bush's rampant unpopularity made it unnecessary to shift. But I'm thinking that if a landslide Democrat victory pushed the GOP to change at all it would be to adopt some of the worst positions of the Democrat party, because the other option is to give up (big government) power and I think they would see that as a last resort. So you'd have to make small government the only viable option, whereas I think a landslide victory for the Democrats would tell them that it's an unwanted option.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The mainstream media would be its greatest opponent. Look at how the mainstream press treats two candidates known both for being mavericks and for doggedly pursuing the core issues that reflect their party's historical values: Kucinich and Paul. The media sure took up Kucinich's UFO claim, but marginalized him and other candidates by giving the majority of debate questions to Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Paul was ignored, then ridiculed by Fox commentators. It'll be uphill.

Very much. So how do you fight this uphill battle? I can see where there are pockets of potential supporters who might be brought together into a motley third group, but without the institutional power of the media how can it become a significant organization?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

parties have overturned and disappeared in American history, and I could see over the next ten years an emergence of one or two independent parties, perhaps existing ones, that grab national attention (sort of as Perot did), and begin winning local elections.

Agreed. So what does it look like to create and build a third party (to repeat my last response, haha)?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I can only speak from the trends among folks I know, but increasingly I'm seeing folks who are interested in maintaining civil rights, in border security, in social privacy, in lower government involvement, in a removal of tax shelters, breaks, and subsidies for corporations.

Being near UT, I saw a number of young Democrats become active if cautious supporters of Ron Paul. I think that there will be a number of moderate liberals who will shift right in terms of economics (left and right here no longer means "Republican" and "Democrat," though I'm sure John understands how I 'm using these) and decentralization of power (not removing the chance of public healthcare, legal abortions, and other things in local areas), and a number of moderate conservatives shifting left in terms of the environment, foreign policy, and social privacy. Or also, diehard economic conservatives abandoning the "family values" side of Republicanism. There are many conservatives who don't think it's the end of the world if two adult males or females want to marry. Also, I think many conservatives are start to realize that environmentalism is a values-based issue, and also reflects passive-aggression against others by misuse of our world.

This doesn't mean a moderate, as in compromise or undecided party. I think it will mean people who want lower taxes, want individual rights in terms of who one marries and who can adopt, want stronger borders, less international involvement, want free trade restricted (this is something diehard liberals like Kucinich talk about as much as Paul).

So I think:
1. Green is definitely in.
2. Universal healthcare is probably in.
3. Economists are still pretty strong on free-market economics (with small govt programs to reduce externalities), but I'm not convinced with you that a large group of people really are.
4. The social conservatives could become the Republicans and the serious socialists and/or immigrants who like amnesty could become the Democrats.
5. Federal vs. State power doesn't click with the majority of (even dissatisfied) people.
6. The War is definitely out. And probably others -- the War on Drugs, for instance.
7. No (serious increase in) gun control, no ban on gay marriage. Individual rights are in, but they'll probably be repackaged a bit.
8. I have no idea what would happen with abortion. Probably the issue would be ignored.
9. Back to economics, I don't think that lowering taxes on businesses is palpable to a large portion of voters (who wouldn't already be committed to the GOP).
10. A move toward isolationism is probable; less foreign wars and policing, back off a little bit on stuff like NAFTA, because I think that a sort of patriotism may (very surprisingly to me) be on the rise.

So:
a. I'm not sure we agree that people are really sold on free-market economics. I've worked in too many jobs where the workers thought the government should step in and either do something for the industry or force employers to do something for the employees. And I think they don't realize that "do little" in the kind of economic situation we're in currently is actually a response; they want the govt to do something.
b. Do you think the issue of Fed vs. State power will fall off the table? Abortion?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

If I could make one law regarding the political process, it would be that not voting (barring extenuating circumstances) would result in a misdemeanor. Obviously, if someone wants not to vote, there can be online and offline forms to fill out, much as one has to do when objecting during a draft. Or one can show up, and punch "non-voting" on the card. That counts as voting.

I admit that I'm afraid of what would happen if everybody voted, haha. The people who actually vote are much more informed than those who don't, and the people who actually vote aren't particularly well-informed in the first place. =/

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

That may seem harsh, but it would force people into the political process. I also think the political parties now would fight for such things, because it would mean more scrutiny of their policy if the average American now had to vote.

Haha, I have an idea: Tax credits for voters. Small tax credits (say, 1%), but tax credits nonetheless. I would show up for that, and the only other thing that's ever made me want to register to vote was Ron Paul.

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

That seems an insane standard and one I don't think anyone believes.

Under what you've just said, a government that collects a trillion dollars a year and has a hundred-million employees all in one department is a smaller government than my city, because my city has more departments.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Less actions, less money collected and spent, and less people but bigger?!?

Not under your definition... but I don't think "number of departments" is a definition anyone but you has used.

With the possible exception of a single sentance, I've been quite straight in my posts. Your posts imply to me that you are not presently taking this seriously. I would not expect such an unortidox redefinition of words used in a serious discussion.

Okay I'm going to spell it out for you; A government grows if there is more regulation on the people, which means more departments and divisions to oversee that regulation. Let's look at two governments:

Government A: Spends 1 Trillion dollars a year due to its ongoing war, but has almost no regulation over businesses in its country. There's no health inspectors, police officers, IRS, state mandated tests, etc.

Government B: Spends only 1 Million dollars a year, but regulates everything. There are health inspectors, police officers, etc.

Government B is clearly the larger government, yet they're spending less money because they aren't in a war. Yes if a government has a hundred-million employees then they are probably the larger government, but not necessarily.

While Reagan was president he shrank the government by cutting out departments that weren't needed and getting rid of many regulations on businesses. Yet government spending was through the ceiling. an obvious example that government spending is unrelated to the size of the government.

Even though Bryan and I have both pointed it out you are ignoring the fact that the government rarely just let's people go. After the war is over there might be less recruiting going on, but all the people in the army currently aren't going to be fired. They still have to serve their time and still get paid. The huge amounts of money spent on war is not from paying people, it's from the production of the weapons, vehicles, transportation, etc.

[JerryLove]

How can we have universal health care without more money being collected and spent?

Because 300,000,000 x $3,000 < 250,000,000 x $5,000

Jerry, is it possible for you to understand why some of us are opposed to the idea of government subsidized healthcare?

Yes, and you are wrong.

Now, I know you enjoy having a little bit of fun with some of us that can't form a decent argument... but I'm just wondering if you can at least understand our concern, because this is more of an intellectual argument (economics) and not a "feelings" argument (say, abortion)...

Yes it is. Socialized healthcare, in every instance I can think of in the western world, yeilds better results for less money than private healthcare.

I'm not sure how much more cut-and-dry the economic case could possibly be. The individual costs are lower, and the overall costs are lower, and the services provided more effective.

Okay I'm going to spell it out for you; A government grows if there is more regulation on the people, which means more departments and divisions to oversee that regulation. Let's look at two governments:

Your conclusion doesn't flow from your premise.

Government B is clearly the larger government, yet they're spending less money because they aren't in a war. Yes if a government has a hundred-million employees then they are probably the larger government, but not necessarily.

Unless they put them al in one department... in which case your assertion is that they are smaller.

Do you count number of people in regulation? Is complete control over 1,000,000 troops bigger or smaller than some control over 2,000,000 civillians?

Still. OK. I'll shrink the government by removing the patriot act, the DCMA, and any reference to "intellectual property". I'll also remove all government involvement in marriage and divorce. While I'm at it, I'll kill Medicare, Medicade, every government program overseeing the health-insurance industry (in any way we don't oversee every industry), STARs, and dozens of other medical related programs.

In their place, I'll create one program, which doesn't regulate anyone, doesn't mandate anything, and offers universal health coverage.

See? Smaller government by far... and more money in our pockets... and better healthcare.

While Reagan was president he shrank the government by cutting out departments that weren't needed and getting rid of many regulations on businesses. Yet government spending was through the ceiling. an obvious example that government spending is unrelated to the size of the government.

Anyone else think Reagan shrunk the government?

Even though Bryan and I have both pointed it out you are ignoring the fact that the government rarely just let's people go. After the war is over there might be less recruiting going on, but all the people in the army currently aren't going to be fired. They still have to serve their time and still get paid. The huge amounts of money spent on war is not from paying people, it's from the production of the weapons, vehicles, transportation, etc.

Well Bryan? Are you asserting that the National Guard will not be returned to civillian life if they are permenantly recalled? Are you asserting that people kept under stop-loss will not generally opt for their overdue honorable discharge? He's claimed you an ally here. are you?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Anyone else think Reagan shrunk the government?

No.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Anyone else think Reagan shrunk the government??

I don't really know. I was just a kid then and cared more about my Saturday morning cartoons than I did what the government does.

of course some might say I still care more about my saturday morning cartoons than what the government does.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well Bryan? Are you asserting that the National Guard will not be returned to civillian life if they are permenantly recalled? Are you asserting that people kept under stop-loss will not generally opt for their overdue honorable discharge? He's claimed you an ally here. are you?

the national guard probably will go back to their normal lives, yes, so that would be less spending

there would probably be more people retiring from military service yes.


my point was that the federal government doesn't generally lay off a large percentage of it's employees, like private corporations do. and that was the point I was getting to.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Anyone else think Reagan shrunk the government?

He shrunk any chances of a budget surplus. Does that count?

Although he did shrink taxes. So I guess that's shrinking the government when compared to Bush? But of course that's like saying Isaac is British when compared to me..