Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
the link in seretogis's post is from an article by the "heir" to Ayn Rand's estate and to her simplistic and incomplete "objectivism"..
|
I'll get to this bit of distraction later on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
the sentiments in seretogis's post, IMO, do not take into account the fiscal discipline and reversal of federal deficit spending in the 1993 to 2001 period, a time when the growth of the non-military portion of the federal government was actually reversed...the non-military government employment total grew smaller, in addition to a reduction of 284,000 mostly civilian DOD positions. Annual federal debt increases were reduced from $360 billion, in the fiscal year ending on Setp. 30, 1993, to just $18 billion in the Oct. 1, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2000 budget period.
|
Wow. In seven years the federal debt increases (the amount that we pile on the debt) was lowered, and that is an accomplishment? Progress, perhaps, but not what we should be expecting from seven-plus years. Add to this the gross over-spending endorsed by both parties involved since 2000 and any temporary gain is negated completely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The actual record that I just described, vs. the last four years of "one party" rule, seems to me a total contradiction of the "broad brush" of dimissal and the lumping of both major politcal parties' flaws, together in seretogis's article. There is enough of a difference in the records of the two major parties' "accomplishments" to justify voting for immediate transfer of control from "one party" that is responsible for a sudden fiscal reversal into disaster, of at least one house of the federal legislature. Following the themes in seretogis's articles would justify leaving the political imbalance in place for at least two more, predictably disasterous years.....because "one party is the same as the other". The record of budget, taxation, and spending management of the last 25 years proves the core point of seretogis's article is wrong.
|
Since when has our government employed the use of budget, taxation, and spending management? (Before you copy/paste, the previous was tongue-in-cheek.) You are missing the point completely, imo, that being that the government has overstepped its bounds and is no longer serving its primary need of defending its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals but is instead injecting itself into nearly every facet of our daily lives. Democrats AND Republicans encourage this, either "for our own good" or to embolden or justify the "American Way™." Both parties are ideologically antagonistic to the very principles this country was founded on, particularly individual rights, and have been for decades.
As for the "disaster" of leaving Republicans in office for two more years rather than voting Democrats into their place, that is laughable. I myself am prepared for a struggle of 20+ years to restore this country to what it should be -- a nation concerned with the safety and success of its free citizens, not emptying its pockets to foreign dictatorships or treating its people like cattle while granting political favors which lead those cattle to a slaughterhouse. The problem with this country goes far beyond the range of the moment, far beyond the last five to seven years or the next two years. Step back and take a look at what we have become and how terribly we have allowed our individual rights to be violated for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
seretogis's article is largely influenced by the "work" of Leonard Peikoff...his article is the only linked item in seretogis's post. I do not agree with most of the ideas of Peikoff, as this example of his overly simplistic, militaristic and self centered, "work", clearly is the opposite of my understanding of the political challenges of the post 2001 period:
|
You seem infatuated with my linking to Peikoff's article which -- you fail to notice -- I disagreed with. His suggestion is for conservatives to vote Democrat, something which is not a long-term solution for our needs as a country. I certainly do agree with many of his less-recent essays, but not the one I linked which is why I felt it necessary to link in the first place. Nice try though.
As far as "overly simplistic" views in general, freedom and dedication to espousing its virtues is very simple indeed. It is when issues are clouded with unnecessary [and ultimately immoral] complexity that freedoms are taken away and replaced with conditional "freedoms." Taking earned property (taxing) one group in order to provide for the well-being of another is immoral, and a very simple issue. It is only when the issue is muddled with ridiculous rhetoric ("What about the one-legged pregnant single mother who can't provide for herself?") and induction of guilt (Christianity and other self-destroying ideologies) that those in favor of the infinite ballooning of government can hope to win.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
A vote based on the advice and the thinking of Peikoff is a vote wasted. The two major American political parties have nearly opposite fiscal management credentials, and change...away from Peikoff's, and republicans failed and bankrupting foreign policy and restoration of at least some.....any...checks and balances in government must happen now.....not in some undetermined future..... certainly not one that will ever be effected from the signifigantly less compelling, pompous, myopic, anti-intellectual "spin" of the dean of the failed school of objectivism. Rand offered no solutions for "the rest of us", and Peikoff offers no solutions at all.....
|
For once, I agree with you. Voting for a Democrat in hopes of avoiding a Republican theocracy is a vote wasted. The next two years in the grand scheme of things means little, and so should be used to speak out as individuals interested in true liberty.
Also, we DO need checks and balances, however that balance will not be the "national healthcare" Democratic party, but a third party which has serious intentions to eliminate government waste and simplify its purpose to the most essential services, primary security of our nation and its citizens. That balance must be a party which is opposed to war for war's sake, and opposed to any "military actions" which do not primarily benefit the United States. It must be a party which believes in free, unregulated, trade and not be a slave to various special interest groups. For the above reasons and more, this party of balance can no longer be the Republican or Democratic parties.