Las Vegas Sun

May 25, 2013

Currently: 90° | Complete forecast | Log in

Letter to the editor:

A conservative who favors government?

It’s always difficult to get through one of conservative commentator David Brooks’ columns, but from a recent commentary I managed to piece together something very interesting from his nearly indecipherable blather: Brooks admits that government is necessary.

To quote him directly, “You can cram all the nongovernmental organizations you want into a country, but if there is no rule of law and if the ruling class is predatory, your achievements won’t add up to much.”

That’s right, all you no-government-is-good-government conservatives, it’s an admission by one of your own that government — and by that, he means good, honest and open government — is the basis for advancing society.

I’m sure Brooks slipped up. He’ll surely deny that was what he meant.

Brooks loves to generalize, and in this generalization he was talking about such nongovernmental organizations as the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders or churches, not private enterprises.

But it’s true, private enterprise depends on government more than any other nongovernmental organization. Without government, there is no system for land ownership, no legally binding contracts, no open trade. Business will stop growing and wither.

Brooks is a big-government conservative. I wonder if he realizes it.

Discussion: 45 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. By boftx
    April 30, 2012
    2:29 a.m.
    Flag

    Mr. Klamann,

    You are obviously confusing the term "conservative" with "anarchist" or even the extreme wing of the Libertarian Party (whose pragmatic wing won out in the 90s saying some government is needed.)

    I am sure you are upset when people assume that all liberals are communists.

    Conservatives (and I presume you mean Republicans by the use of that term) have consistently said they want *small* government, not *no* government.

    The Classical Liberal position is that government should be big enough, but no bigger. (See some of Lincoln's comments on the proper role of government.)

    To say that conservatives desire no government at all is like saying President Obama supports the individual liberty to smoke a joint or marry someone of the same sex.

  2. By Houstonjac (Bob Jack)
    April 30, 2012
    3:09 a.m.
    Flag

    Nice try. .David Brooks tries to be a reasonable guy. and he gets this treatment A good example of the phrase that"no good deed goes unpunished." Brooks is the NY tTimes version of our own Michael Casler .A guy who tries to be fair minded and well balanced in all of his commentary. A respectable person who tries to present a balanced picture and not take sides .As a conservative myself, which Brooks is not, I certainly recognize the need for a central government. Without one there would be no common defense and excessive greed would run wild. The problem today of course is that the central government is invading all manner of private areas of life and embracing policies that are abusive of free enterprise, and thereby undermines the great potential of private initiative to address national challenges and harness the abundant natural resources of America. We see this everyday in respect of energy policy where the central government drives artificial solutions forward in green energy and intentionally undermines the use of abundant and cheap hydrocarbon based energy.
    The problem then rests with the nature and extent of the Fed's intrusion into the private affairs of the citizenry not federal government per se.

  3. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    April 30, 2012
    6:39 a.m.
    Flag

    David Brooks is an intellectual and writes that way. Sometimes, I find it hard to follow his thinking and writing, but if I make the effort I am usually rewarded. In other words, he makes me think and question my reasoning. Higher praise, I could not give.

    I consider Brooks a moderate, like me. Brooks knows government is essential, as most of us do, and isn't afraid to say so. He also sees that too much government is counter productive, something I also believe. He wasn't a big fan of former President Bush and sees alot wrong with President Obama as well. I always appreciated Tim Russert having both Thomas Friedman and David Brooks on as guests, often together. Both are brilliant, in my opinion and fair minded. We need many more Americans who take the time these two gentlemen do to understand the issues.

    Michael

  4. By hookershaky (Michael Kelly)
    April 30, 2012
    6:43 a.m.
    Flag

    "Government should be no smaller than neccessary in order that the selfish rich don't prey on the poor" A.Lincoln- just making it up thats what all you trickle downers do !

  5. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    April 30, 2012
    6:46 a.m.
    Flag

    Bob Jack,

    Thank you for the kind words. Many people that write don't like me much because I won't jump on one bandwagon or the other. I can't because I disagree with quit a bit of what both sides do. I do want less government but not no government. I believe with this debt, taxes must go up on all Americans. We must revamp SS and Medicare for future recipients and we must re-write the income tax code and find ways to reduce spending. There is no party that has all that as its platform which is why I won't jump on one of the two bandwagons.

    Michael

  6. By Roslenda (Roberta Anderson)
    April 30, 2012
    8:01 a.m.
    Flag

    No he's not. Everybody, save anarchists, favors at least constitutional government--ESSENTIAL government services--like police and courts. Many of us don't want "government" doing things they don't know how to: K-12, business and industry, social welfare.

  7. By Roslenda (Roberta Anderson)
    April 30, 2012
    8:02 a.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. - -

  8. By hookershaky (Michael Kelly)
    April 30, 2012
    8:05 a.m.
    Flag

    I agree with Jim Reid there's no defense for conservatism.

  9. By floozy (Willaim Flusek)
    April 30, 2012
    8:27 a.m.
    Flag

    In fact there was an article over at Reason.com that pointed out that a recent survey from Rasmussen, I believe, seems to suggest that conservatives believe less in smaller government than before. They want a more efficient government but not necessarily one that does substantially less than what it does today. Certainly looking at the budgets you can see that if you get past the rhetoric. For the Ryan plan does not have spending ever going down, just growing a little bit slower than otherwise. But where would we be without all the hyperbole from both sides about spending or not spending? Oh, we might actually fix some things.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/29/conser...

  10. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    8:35 a.m.
    Flag

    Liberals don't get what "fiscal responsibility" is so, naturally, they're not going to understand "smaller, more effective government". No surprise there. Obama and liberals are sailing through an election year with nary a word about reining in debt, deficit spending and job growth.

  11. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    8:52 a.m.
    Flag

    LastThroes,

    Romney was for a managed bankruptcy. A straight bailout with no cost structure changes would still lead to GM's demise. GM did re-organize and shed some costs, including unprofitable divisions. GM's domestic share of the market is only 18%. He stated:

    "First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

    That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota's Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product -- it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinio...

  12. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    9:13 a.m.
    Flag

    LastThroes,

    You either don't understand bankruptcy or you're just politicizing the situation. Bush gave the car industry its first bailout. Due to legacy costs, the bailout would only last a certain length of time before the GM's would come back for another bailout. Many companies go through a managed bankruptcy to shed costs and pay creditors. That is what Romney was for. He wasn't wanting the car companies disappear. If that were the case, why did Romney, in his op-ed, state the following:

    "It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research -- on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like -- that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers. But don't ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass -- they bet on management and they lost.

    The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."

  13. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    April 30, 2012
    10:34 a.m.
    Flag

    I'm for a smaller government, and we can start with the military-industrial-complex. David Brooks is not the first and only conservative to write about having a need for government. There are many Republicans who feel the same as he but they have been labeled RINO and banished from the party. The problem is the radical right over reacted and pulled the party to the edge of reason and sanity over issues that were settled years ago.

    "Many conservatives, particularly those who are clearly authoritarians, are not aware of their illogical, contradictory, and hypocritical thinking. If made cognizant of it, they either rationalize it away, neglect to care, or attack those who reveal their human weaknesses. Because such thinking seems to be a reality of contemporary conservatism, anyone operating from a logical mind or has the inclination toward a reasoned judgment will have a problem with this." -John Dean "Conservatives Without Conscience"

  14. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    10:45 a.m.
    Flag

    Here is a link to Romney Op-ed suggesting the car companies go through a managed bankruptcy. Read for yourself. Romney's own words, not the distorted version LastThroes is singing. LOL

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinio...

  15. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    April 30, 2012
    11:18 a.m.
    Flag

    Vernos,

    I am as tired of hearing you generalize about Conservatives as I am about people on the right generalizing about Liberals. Sure, there are radicals on both sides, but the majority of both groups are not radicals.

    Conservatives for the most part do not want no government, anymore than those on the left want all government all the time.

    This demonizing by each side simply prevents any real compromise.

    All this bullcrap about any group being illogical, contradictory or hypocritical does not belong in a 'generalized' discussion. Yes there are people like that, but the whole group IS NOT like that... on either side.

    The military industrial complex, as you call it, does need to be reduced, as does the social contract complex. Both are highly inefficient and wasteful.

    Michael

  16. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    11:36 a.m.
    Flag

    Dennis,

    Here is the definition of a Chapter 11 filing. "Chapter 11 is a chapter of the United States' Bankruptcy Code, which permits reorganization under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is available to every business, whether organized as a corporation or sole proprietorship, and to individuals, although it is most prominently used by corporate entities."

    Dennis, here is the info on GM's Chapter 11 filing:

    "The late-2000s financial crisis and late-2000s recession exacerbated GM's pre-existing financial and corporate culture problems and pushed the corporation into a period of crisis. Two successive U.S. presidential administrations wrestled with the question of what role the U.S. government should or should not play in emergent intervention in the automotive industry, most especially at GM. In December 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush agreed to a $13.4 billion bailout for General Motors; within months, an additional $39 billion was added by the Barack Obama administration.[4][5] Both presidents have stated that despite counterarguments presented to them in which the creative destruction of capitalism should be allowed to run its course, they chose intervention for GM in order to prevent collapse of the North American segment of the automotive industry and the economic sequelae that it was expected to have throughout the supply chain, such as huge job losses, credit market freezing, and loss of industrial base. GM emerged from a Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, with an initial public offering that was one of the world's top 5 largest IPOs to date. GM has returned to profitability, even posting a record annual profit in 2011, although its economic impact and surroundings are different[6] from those in the era when GM was by various measures the largest corporation on earth."

    Romney suggested in his OP-Ed a "managed bankruptcy""

    "A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."

    A bankruptcy includes a Chapter 11 filing which GM completed in 2009. Now, what is it that you LastThroes are saying? Romney was for a chapter 7 bankruptcy? Bull****!! LOL

  17. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    April 30, 2012
    12:04 p.m.
    Flag

    This economy is so intertwined that if big banks or a big corporation like GM were allowed to fail, many innocent Americans would be financially damaged. That is why both were bailed out in ways that minimized the bad effects.

    Dennis doesn't like the bank bailout but likes the GM bailout, but the truth is that if either had been allowed to fail, many Americans who had done nothing wrong would have been hurt financially.

    The problem with this whole scenario is that the government (Taxpayers) have limits to what we can afford. A bad precedent was set with the bailouts under Bush and Obama and we still are not managing the debt and deficits. If we don't get a handle on the debt and deficits, eventually the government won't be able to bail everyone out and then this house of cards will come crashing down. Obama isn't handling it. I don't think Romney will handle it and I know Congress won't.

    Michael

  18. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    12:07 p.m.
    Flag

    Dennis,

    Chapter 11 was the right course for GM. It had to shed it's bloated cost structure in order to survive.

    Off-shore investments are not bad. When liberals choke off business investing here in the U.S. by creating an unfriendly business environment then your only choice is to go to countries that are business and investment friendly. Why fight the labor/environmental regulations and high tax rates here, just invest elsewhere.

  19. By its2hot (Tim Wiggin)
    April 30, 2012
    12:57 p.m.
    Flag

    nice try, not going to work.

    Manchurian Obama!

  20. By ColinFromLasVegas
    April 30, 2012
    1:27 p.m.
    Flag

    One of the main reasons I'm voting for President Obama for another four years is primarily because I don't want Mitt Romney riding in Air Force One with a dog crate strapped to the top of it when he takes off to go on Presidential visits.

    I'm saving Seamus insufferable pain and misery by not voting for his master.....

  21. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    April 30, 2012
    2:08 p.m.
    Flag

    The usual blather from the usual fools.

  22. By JeffFromVegas
    April 30, 2012
    2:16 p.m.
    Flag

    Here is what else Mitt Romney said in that "Let Them Go Bankrupt" editrial he claims to have written:

    "You don't have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture."

    Profit Sharing? Stock Grants? Reduce Management? Is Old Mittens a socialist?

    Here is the opening paragraph from the guy who wants up to let him be in charge of our nuclear weapons:

    "IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed."

    Hmmmmmmmm. Do I want Dudley DooWrong or the guy who took out bin Laden in charge of those weapons?

    If they are casting for a movie, Mitt is your guy, leader of the free world? It could be a decision based upon finances instead of protecting the USA. Heck, he could be in a make-up chair or out on a bike in a white shirt going door to door, who knows? After reading his stuff and watching him for 5 years now, he's knot tew berite.

  23. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    April 30, 2012
    2:24 p.m.
    Flag

    Re Vernos. Another astute and relevant comment. I've decided to keep my comments short, and let informed comments lead the way. Keep it up.

  24. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    April 30, 2012
    3:21 p.m.
    Flag

    Re By Press. Most vehicles "made in the US", are "made", at least partially, in other countries. Deal with it.

  25. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    April 30, 2012
    3:27 p.m.
    Flag

    "I am as tired of hearing you generalize about Conservatives as I am about people on the right generalizing about Liberals."

    Michael,

    You may be tired of generalisms but that doesn't change the fact that mainstream Republicans catered to the far right for votes. We have elected representatives saying the most outrageous things and moderate Republicans are afraid to speak up. Only recently a handful of them did speak about the polarization because they no longer are seeking office. The following is a miniscule list of batcrap comments made by ELECTED representatives, and if the left said these things, I would react the same.

    "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?" -Rep. Michelle Bachmann

    I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums. -Rep. Michelle Bachmann about FEMA Camps

    Rep. Allen West said "he's heard" up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn't name names.

    Rep. Joe Walsh said Obama was elected because he is black.

    Senator Richard Shelby - "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate."

    Congressman Roy Blunt - "What I don't know is why the President can't produce a birth certificate. I don't know anybody else that can't produce one. And I think that's a legitimate question. No health records, no birth certificate.

    Representative Nathan Deal - "I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question."

    Senator David Vitter - "I personally don't have standing to bring litigation in court, but I support conservative legal organizations and others who would bring that to court. I think that is the valid and most possibly effective grounds to do it."

    "This guy appears to be a communist. His beliefs are the liberal of the liberals [sic]. There is no evidence whatsoever that this man was influenced by Sarah Palin or anybody in the Republican Party. This man is not a conservative; he's a fan of communism -- that's the opposite of conservatism." Rep. Virginia Foxx

    Rep. Louie Gohmert - "But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill."

  26. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    3:38 p.m.
    Flag

    Left Wing comments:

    "I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya." -- Charles Karel Bouley

    "If I had my way, I would see Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell strapped down to electric chairs and lit up like Christmas trees. The better to light the way for American Democracy and American Freedom!" -- Democratic Talk Radio's Stephen Crockett

    "Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -- Warren County Community College adjunct English professor, John Daly

    "If I got (Condi Rice) a** on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them." -- Spike Lee

    "Why couldn't, uh, why couldn't have (Rush Limbaugh) croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?" -- Bill Maher

  27. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    April 30, 2012
    3:52 p.m.
    Flag

    Re ALL: Can't we all get along? LOL. This blog is and shall ever be what it is: Right vs Left, with no compromise. It's time to have a real intelligent discussion on this blog: Screw Romney and Screw Obama. Let's agree on the future of this country. It takes revenue and tax cuts to get us, and the future generations, where we/they should be. The same old same old gets boring, and more importantly, does nothing to advance the prospects of the working folks of the US. Let's get over the partisan crap, and think about what's best for this country! And please spare me the nonsense of the "Ryan budget". Simpson/Bowles is the answer, and it always has been. I will gladly pay what's necessary to achieve a balanced budget, but will not support destruction of the "safety net" that has protected and saved those of us who have no other alternative.

  28. By boftx
    April 30, 2012
    4:04 p.m.
    Flag

    ressince73,

    Such a discussion would be good. In my opinion, the starting point should be this quote from Abe Lincoln:

    "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government." ( taken from http://quotationsbook.com/quote/45475/ )

  29. By ressince73 (Gary Lind)
    April 30, 2012
    4:35 p.m.
    Flag

    Re boftx. Lincoln is the prime example of the Republican Party as it used to exist. I thank you for your intelligent post, and agree with it. It's a shame that today's political climate is so toxic, that compromise cannot be achieved, much less passed, by the extremists in both parties in congress. Compromise must be achieved for this country to move forward. COUNTRY BEFORE POLITICS.

  30. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    April 30, 2012
    4:57 p.m.
    Flag

    Vernos,

    Nice list of 7 out of how many R's in Congress? Just to rebutt, but not 'defend' the nucklehead comments made by these folks and others:

    "Well the good news is our emissions are way down because of the recession." -- Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

    "This deal is a sugar coated satan sandwich." -- Rep. Cleaver (D-MO). That's how one Democratic lawmaker described the bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit.

    "We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." -- Rep. Doyle (D-PA); "They have acted like terrorists." -- Vice President Joe Biden.

    "When a woman got raped, blame her because she was wearing a skirt too short, she looked the wrong way or she wasn't home in time to make the dinner. . . "We've gotten by that. But it's amazing how these Republicans, the right wing of this party -- whose philosophy threw us into this God-awful hole we're in, gave us the tremendous deficit we've inherited -- that they're now using, now attempting to use, the very economic condition they have created to blame the victim -- whether it's organized labor or ordinary middle-class working men and women. It's bizarre. It's bizarre." -- Vice President Joe Biden.

    "What we're trying to do here is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today." -- Nancy Pelosi.

    Vernos.... I could find hundreds more and worse. The difference between me and you is that I condemn all these nucklehead comments and the nuckleheads that make them, not just the ones stated by a side I disagree with.

    Come On Vernos! This just isn't one sided...

    Michael

  31. By JeffFromVegas
    April 30, 2012
    4:59 p.m.
    Flag

    Sounds like Lincoln, and me -- would have insisted upon single payer health care -- medicare for all.

  32. By RefNV (Re Freeman)
    April 30, 2012
    6:27 p.m.
    Flag

    Dennis,

    If people want to vote for Obama because of Bin Laden then I say go ahead. :)

  33. By JeffFromVegas
    April 30, 2012
    7:16 p.m.
    Flag

    wtplv (Michael Casler) states that both sides are awful:

    I say:

    There is a strong element of truth in what you say in rank and file everyday Americans that both sides would be willing to sit down and get us going in the right direction.

    Unfortunately these people are represented by 537 elected people. Given that there is a zero point on a scale that has what is right for the country as that zero point.

    I think the dems are willing to go there. I think the teabaggers won't walk in the room. Further I think the left is much closer to the zero point than the right is. I also think this is easily provable with the rights unwillingness to talk. They have become the self proclaimed party of "Hell No"

  34. By JeffFromVegas
    April 30, 2012
    10:14 p.m.
    Flag

    Hey Abbott (refNV) and Costello (Carmine):

    For the overall mission it is the USA that has invested the most, the military that has sacrificed the most, and the Generals who we entrust with our country and our military. The ultimate American general in the USA is the president.

    He dutifully campaigned on bringing bin Laden to the gates of hell. Kept his word, did not squander funds like was done in Iraq, and he entrusted our finest to carry out a maneuver in a country we are not at war with with ZERO American casualties.

    Foreign Policy is now a strength of the Democratic policy and had John McCain not picked a beauty queen to run with him and he had won, and gotten bin Laden you guys would use the example to say you are more equipped to handle foreign policy and military decisions.

    It is bunk. We are better and smarter now than the people running the show under Bush the dumber. I think that Romney has like 17 of 22 foreign policy "expert advisers" who are from Bush the dumber's team.

    This is relevant. And yes, those seals were awesome. So were our generals, so was our President. Hate him all you want. It was his OK that took out bin Laden.

  35. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    May 1, 2012
    4:57 a.m.
    Flag

    JefffromVegas,

    You have every right to favor the D's and vote for them, as does Vernos. However, until more people on both sides are willing to admit that both sides are pandering for popularity instead of doing the work we elected them to do, we will continue to get very little that matters done.

    Michael

  36. By JeffFromVegas
    May 1, 2012
    7:10 a.m.
    Flag

    wtplv (Michael Casler):

    I don't look at it like the dems or repubs are better. I favor who is currently closer to that zero point. Next year it could be repubs. I don't care what they call themselves.

    I get solicitations for money from all of them. No one has received a dime this time. The citizens united money will shut my money up. It has perverted the American election system already. I see little reason to add my contribution this year. Karl Roves group will spend 250 million in ad buys, and I am sure that though far behind in Citizen's united money now, the dems will catch up at some point...

  37. By boftx
    May 1, 2012
    1:45 p.m.
    Flag

    acejoker,

    I guess my example wasn't very clear. My point is that it is as wrong to say the Republicans want no government as it is to say Obama supports gay marriage. Republicans are not anarchists, and Obama does not support gay marriage.

    Neither can one say that Democrats are Communists.

    However, it is a fair statement to say that much of the Democratic platform is socialistic. FDRs "Second Bill of Rights" is an almost exact formulation of what is called for by Social Democracy, which is a widespread form of socialism.

  38. By JeffFromVegas
    May 1, 2012
    2:57 p.m.
    Flag

    boftx & Jim the Joker:

    To claim we are not a semi-socialist country is just not being honest. The internets we are babbling back and forth from have a socialist beginning, middle, and hopefully an end.

    The difference is where we want to draw the line in the sand, You guys, as a whole want little to do with Social Security and Medicare, I want to keep all of the above and add medicare for all and kind of eliminate gimmick investments and gimmick futures trading so mortgages and business loans reflect an investment in local cities and towns.

    The rest I am willing to let the markets be the markets.

    As a former stock broker I think the old line calls and puts were already pushing limits, but at least you had margin calls then. Shipping freighters of mortgages to who knows where does no one but those players any good. They can wait tables again. Real work.

  39. By hookershaky (Michael Kelly)
    May 1, 2012
    3:41 p.m.
    Flag

    No self respecting anachist would hang with the likes of Ron Paul.

  40. By hookershaky (Michael Kelly)
    May 2, 2012
    4:16 a.m.
    Flag

    Sorry I meant anarchist.

  41. By JeffFromVegas
    May 2, 2012
    9:27 a.m.
    Flag

    Jim the Joker:

    Some of your socialism definition appears to be inflexible and rigid in that you will only consider your personal philosophies definition.

    That said here are real numbers:

    Private sector jobs the past several years, red columns Bush, blue columns Obama. http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/im...

    This next chart includes Public sector jobs along with private sector jobs AND the unemployment rate which is in direct relationship to the monthly jobs illustrated on the graph.http://leftcall.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/unemployment-bush-v-obama.jpg

    The turnaround started on Obama's dime.

    The third chart shows a section of the last few years public job decline, currently at about 500k during the Obama years. If he had an R after his name you would think any American voting against him was a communist. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uplo...

    I think Obama has earned every republican and right wingers vote. Romney is just a show dog...

  42. By JeffFromVegas
    May 2, 2012
    9:29 a.m.
    Flag

    This next chart includes Public sector jobs along with private sector jobs AND the unemployment rate which is in direct relationship to the monthly jobs illustrated on the graph. http://leftcall.com/wp-content/uploads/2...

  43. By boftx
    May 2, 2012
    12:25 p.m.
    Flag

    Jeff,

    I won't deny at all that there are socialistic aspects to our government. The Lincoln quote I posted clearly implies that some such are necessary.

    The real question is how much do we need and/or want?

  44. By JeffFromVegas
    May 2, 2012
    1:14 p.m.
    Flag

    Jim the joker:

    I chose to ignore the meaning of the word (we would never agree) and move onto the figures. If you can really look at those graphs and lay these outcomes at the feet of Obama your partisanship has gotten the best of you.

    botfx:

    I wasn't responding to you, but here is my list in less than 60 seconds:

    Police, Jails, Courts, Congress and the President and governors, schools, healthcare (medicare for all), hospitals, trash pickup from residences, ambulances, fire departments, postal services 6 days per week, maintaining social security. Overseeing financial, ethical, food safety, unemployment, mental health.

    Sorry -- gotta fly

  45. By JeffFromVegas
    May 2, 2012
    3 p.m.
    Flag

    Jim the Joker:

    +++
    Socialism:

    So"cial*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

    In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

    [Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . .

    The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics.

    The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . .

    The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy.
    +++

    Under the first definition your side and the other side are both trying to do the same thing (A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.) it is just your idea and my idea of what is an equitable distribution of property and labor would vary at length.

    One example is your wanting to discard medicare, this will have the effect of older people having to work till they die paying for health care, you will be undertaking a complete reconstruction of society, with your "justness" being the rich get to keep more and the old non-rich folks die penniless.

    So, as I said, we will not agree. I think you are a practitioner of socialism, and your end results would be a catastrophe for the country.

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

If you would like to submit your comment as a letter to the editor, you may submit it here.

Most Popular