Obama's Real War

[Lobowolf]

In america...everyone for helping the starving poor

what? was this sarcasm?

mike can speak for himself, but i think he was serious... i don't know anybody who is *not* for helping the starving poor (or young, or old, or anyone else)

You mean, as long as it doesn't cost money? Or are you in favor of raising taxes?

I hear tell that some folks give money directly to organizations that help the starving poor, without the government's involvement at all.

And yet there are still lots of starving and poor around. I guess if a problem is more than 0% solved the government should stay out of it?

I didn't suggest anything of the sort. The comment I was responding directly to split the question of helping the starving and poor into two:

 

1) Don't do it if it costs money; or

2) Raise taxes.

 

There's plenty of room to support spending money to help the starving and poor, including primarily

3) Private charitable contributions; and

4) Supporting the existing levels of government spending.

 

In particular, 4), above, doesn't involve the government staying out of it.

 

Although helping the starving and poor without spending money (directly) on it has some merit as well, i.e. reducing unemployment.

[awm]

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

 

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

[Lobowolf]

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

 

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

And, conversely, some people of all wings and the middle talk a great game when it comes to helping the starving poor, but don't contribute any of their own money to doing so.

 

Rand is a bit extreme as an example, though; I think that most peope who aren't a part of the "everyone" aren't opposed to it, per se, but are apathetic. Sounds like a nice idea, but they don't actually do anything to effectuate it.

[luke warm]

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

 

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

that isn't necessarily true... rand's philosophy was based on making decisions based on your own objective self-interest, which is an individual thing... is it in your best interest to promote higher taxes for social services? if so, do it... is it in your best interest to give of your time and money locally? then do so

 

rand was against, not unlike the founders of this country, a central gov't so strong that it could override individual liberties... that's why she had a hatred for communism

[luke warm]

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?

big screen hd government

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

 

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

 

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

 

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

[Lobowolf]

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?

big screen hd government

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

 

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

 

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

 

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

THanks for reminding me...I have to get to Best Buy soon.

[hrothgar]

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?

big screen hd government

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

 

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

 

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

 

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

False dichotomy:

 

I'm opposed to taxes on television sets. It seems rather silly...

I favor a carbon tax (which is a much broader way to accomplish the same end)

 

So far, the federal government hasn't been willing to implement a carbon tax. California isn't in a good position to pass one since power grids don't respect state lines.

 

I'm not going to get bent out of shape if the CA legislature decides to pass this specific type of sin tax.

[Lobowolf]

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

[jdonn]

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

[Lobowolf]

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

Agreed; I'm just saying that unlike a sin tax, they're not charging a prohibitive amount to discourage the purchase of certain items, or to offset the societal costs associated with them; they're prohibiting their sale outright.

[Winstonm]

They're not trying to pass a sin tax; they're trying to pass a sin ban.

They are trying to set a maximum energy consumption level. Just like there are maximum or minimum standards for gas mileage in cars, lead in paint, nicotine in cigarettes (I think?), and probably lots of other things. It's not like this is unheard of is all I'm saying.

Agreed; I'm just saying that unlike a sin tax, they're not charging a prohibitive amount to discourage the purchase of certain items, or to offset the societal costs associated with them; they're prohibiting their sale outright.

Of course society has the right to ban sales of these products. The question is whether or not the government is acting in concert with the wishes of its ruling society.

 

That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents.

 

This doesn't seem to occur at the federal level.

[mike777]

::) That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents."

 

 

I disagree strongly....

 

 

I think this is a great discussion point...is the point of our representatives to act in concert or to lead?

 

In any event I think Winston and most would agree it is perfectly legal to not act in concert.....

 

 

btw as far as the tv tax...one more reason I am glad to move out of calif. the state simply became unlivable for the nonrich.

[Winstonm]

::ph34r:  That is the point of government of the people - to have its representative government act in concert with the wishes of the society if represents."

 

 

I disagree strongly....

 

 

I think this is a great discussion point...is the point of our representatives to act in concert or to lead?

 

In any event I think Winston and most would agree it is perfectly legal to not act in concert.....

 

 

btw as far as the tv tax...one more reason I am glad to move out of calif. the state simply became unlivable for the nonrich.

So your position is we elect a ruling class and a monarch? And, no, it is not illegal for the rulers to ignore the will of the people, but there are supposed to be consequences for doing so.

 

And I guess there are.....Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam....

[Hanoi5]

After reading the OP I thought of this conversation between the highest ranking Republicans:

 

- So the media is interfering with our war and interests, what shall we do about it?

- Hm, we should probably close some news channels like CNN.

- Come on! That's outrageous, they'd say we're like Chavez or something.

- You're right, I'll tell you what, why don't we make the Democrats do it for us.

- Hm, that's very interesting, how'd we do that.

- Well first of all we let the black guy win the election...

 

And I guess you can complete the conversation from that point.

[hrothgar]

i ran across this recently... is it better to let the people decide (with their pocketbooks) or the gov't?

big screen hd government

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

 

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

 

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

 

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

hard to believe calif is in financial trouble, eh? why not just allow the consumer to choose?

Just to be clear, California is not banning large screen TVs

 

The bill in question would

 

1. Extend existing energy consumption standards to TV sets (there are already similar standards in place for refridgerators and air conditioners)

 

2. The restrictions would be phased in over the course of two years

[luke warm]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

[jdonn]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

The consumers don't care about the impact on the environment on future generations, or for that matters current generations. It's a well known fact taught in any introductory economics class that people behaving rationally are likely to choose an auction even when has a net loss, if the individual gain is higher than that person's individual loss (gain for person of having a nice tv is lower than loss for humanity of the damage to the environment).

 

Essentially, people know what's good for them and they don't care if it's worse for everyone else. That's why I would consider a completely free consumer market 'wrong' in many cases such as this one. I have no problem with the government intervening in such a case.

[luke warm]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

The consumers don't care about the impact on the environment on future generations, or for that matters current generations. It's a well known fact taught in any introductory economics class that people behaving rationally are likely to choose an auction even when has a net loss, if the individual gain is higher than that person's individual loss (gain for person of having a nice tv is lower than loss for humanity of the damage to the environment).

 

Essentially, people know what's good for them and they don't care if it's worse for everyone else. That's why I would consider a completely free consumer market 'wrong' in many cases such as this one. I have no problem with the government intervening in such a case.

so if you had a choice between two products of similar quality, say big screen tv sets, you'd choose the one that cost more to operate?

[jdonn]

so if you had a choice between two products of similar quality, say big screen tv sets, you'd choose the one that cost more to operate?

Um, what? I have no idea where you got that from.

[Winstonm]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

I don't think anyone said it is "wrong". The concept is that free markets are ineffective in self-regulating for the greater public good.

[kenberg]

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

 

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

I read a little Ayn Rand many (like fifty) years ago. I am not prepared for a quiz, but I am pretty sure that she did not oppose helping the poor. I recall her writing approvingly of something akin to the joy of giving. Not a centerpiece of her philosophy I am sure, but it is not crazy to think that a person would take pleasure in helping another human being, and I think that met with her approval. The objection was to the government making this decision for us.

Don't take me too much to task for this, I am definitely no follower of Ayn Rand. When you are twenty you read such things along with Sartre and Kerouac. Existence precedes essence and all that jazz. I can't really tell you much about that one either.

[cherdanno]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

I agree. We should just make sure that the market actually sees all the hidden costs. E.g. a carbon tax would be ideal for that.

[Winstonm]

The brilliance of Patraeus - How "the surge" really worked. From TimesOnline:

 

September 9, 2007

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

 

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

 

It now appears the Surging Sunni are demanding a cost of living raise:

 

Oct 25, 2009 09:00 EST

 

Two suicide car bombs exploded in downtown Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 136 people and delivering a powerful blow to the heart of the fragile city's government in the worst attack of the year, officials said

 

(We never should have let them have that collective bargaining agreement.)

[PassedOut]

The US cannot occupy Iraq forever. When the US withdraws, the Iraqis will arrange matters among themselves.

[Winstonm]

The brilliance of Patraeus - How "the surge" really worked.  From TimesOnline:

 

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

 

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

 

It now appears the Surging Sunni are demanding a cost of living raise:

 

Oct 25, 2009 09:00 EST

 

Two suicide car bombs exploded in downtown Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 136 people and delivering a powerful blow to the heart of the fragile city's government in the worst attack of the year, officials said

 

(We never should have let them have that collective bargaining agreement.)

The US cannot occupy Iraq forever. When the US withdraws, the Iraqis will arrange matters to suit themselves.

Although I agree with you that the U.S. cannot stay forever in Iraq, it is not so clear that the Military-Industrial complex agrees:

 

Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen all spoke out against Obama’s campaign pledge to get U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Gen. Ray Odierno, now commander in Iraq, went on record with Tom Ricks as wanting to keep 30,000 or so troops in Iraq until 2015, years after the 2011 withdrawal deadline called for in the Status of Forces Agreement. He did so in March 2009, after Obama had taken office.  Only recently, Odierno noted that the insurgency in Iraq might drag on for another five, ten or fifteen years.

 

In an Oct. 20 story in Rupert Murdoch’s TimesOnline, Odierno said he might not be able to live up to Obama’s withdrawal pledges due to increasing levels of violence in Iraq. This pronouncement came out the same day Obama promised Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that he would pull troops out on schedule.

 

The "long-war" faction will not yield easily - since the end of the cold war, the Military-Industrial complex has had no common enemy - but now "terrorsim" is being fitted with that moniker, and thus is now the basis for fighting the "long war".