Offbeat

Rant

Here I stand.

Posted 26 months ago|39 comments|730 views
Written by
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
Here is what I believe:

I find Marxism compelling to the point that I believe class differences are a driving factor of many of the issues that we face as a nation and a world.

I find liberalism compelling to the point that I believe in personal freedoms and liberties.

I find Liberalism compelling to the point that I think the government should provide basic human needs to the people through social programs such as Health Care (Medicare, Medicaid and the new health care act), education, transportation, shelter for the poor, food, etc.

I find modern Conservatism compelling to the point that I think private industry should be allowed to compete so long as it does not harm the people, unions should be illegal and gun controls should be lose.

Other things that I find interesting:

Conservatives who are both pro-life and pro-death penalty. At least the Catholics are consistent...no abortion and no death penalty...makes more sense at least.

I find it obnoxious when people demonize education because they either had a bad experience or have never experienced it at all.

Conservatives who get mad when informed that they are in fact classical liberals.

Liberals who won't admit that they favor large government involvement in social welfare.

People who don't realize that the United States is a welfare state: 50% of our budget is welfare to the elderly.

People who don't realize that both Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans all love this country.

It is upsetting to see that the United States has become a laughing stock for the world. Our bureaucracies are out of touch with reality. We would be better served if they would admit what they want so that the people at least could understand what it is they are talking about.

EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Content Removed by redstateguy
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
26 months ago: Wow, well put Perfect, well put indeed. You sound like... A Traditional Liberal!

This is great, you understand liberalism, true liberalism better than anyone one I know. I have always held myself a conservative but the more I study current issues the more I move towards a traditional conservative or liberal stance on issues, which were not all that different from each other during many periods of American history.

I agree with you on our bureaucracy being out of touch that is why I have been a big fan of states and local economies taking more responsibility of social services. However, I do believe in a safety net for citizens of this country which can only be funded by the federal government.

That said, I believe in health-care reform, but I have been bitterly disappointed in this reform because it only aids to the red tape which will in crease the costs. Let me be clear, this cost will not be footed by individuals, but the government debt will get much bigger.

Your views on Marxism are great. Only a fool would deny that most of history has centered around class struggle. I do not hold to any Marxist values due to the fact that many of labor issues he addressed have since been fixed by the United States Federal Government which is a good thing.

Good post and a great balanced stance on issues.

Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: The key is to be pragmatic in the analysis of complex issues. I think this is why we always had such lively debate over a cup of coffee or a game of pool. We both took a pragmatic approach to our analysis, and while our own personal opinions often varied we at least always had an understanding of each others viewpoints. This was also helped largely by the fact that we were both students of politics and economics which gave us both a similar factual background on which to form opinions...and while they were different in the end we both were clear on how we go there.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: "People who don't realize that the United States is a welfare state: 50% of our budget is welfare to the elderly."

That is because the conservatives don't want to admit that we are already largely a socialist nation in practice, and the liberals don't want to admit that our budget problems aren't the direct result of Republican policies and massive military expenditures.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
26 months ago: Good point. I feel we have to fulfill our promises to people that have paid into social security. However, this nations biggest debt source is pension payment and bloated public workers salaries. Let me be clear, I still want the safety net especially for people that paid into social security for their whole lives and have no other option. But we cannot afford people's fat retirement plans that work for the government.

The fiscal problems for the US are huge, but they are easy to manage at this point. I have some faith that after health care is over, Obama will address the debt and retirement problems.

We will save a lot of money in the next few years when Obama brings our troops home. We can finally stop two wars that are very expensive.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ...the liberals don't want to admit that our budget problems aren't the direct result of Republican policies and massive military expenditures..

I'll have to call you on that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._F...

Perhaps in a peacetime non-cold war scenario, the defense budget might not be as significant a contributor but let's not understate it's current impact as 1/4th of the budget, especially considering the costs of overseas war operations. If you recall after Clinton came in and the cold war ended, the defense budgets were reduced under the so called peace dividend campaign. Be interesting to see what the pie chart looked back in the mid-90's.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Military expenditures are number 3 right behind welfare to the elderly. Our military budget in 2008 was $666bn. That is more than every other nation on earth combined.
26 months ago: Fair enough. Let's require a trial with a jury before executing a fetus.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Not exactly sure how that applies to 1st trimester abortion. Perhaps you could elaborate.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: Good Post and good comments.

A lot of people think that many of the military costs are hidden. See: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piecha...

Bush kept the two wars off budget. Obama is finally incorporating the wars into the budget. (Which is why it looks scarier than Bush's budgets).

What about all of the costs of the people who came back from the wars with their legs blown off and the lifelong care for all of our injured?

Many costs like all of our nuclear weapons and much of the costs of getting rid of waste, are hidden in the dept. of Energy Budget. Also the superfund and EPA (trying to clean up the radioactive research sites)
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Thanks Al. Yes there are many other expenditures hidden in other budget areas but the actual reported defense budget (not including the other hidden ones) was $666bn in 2008...its roughly $610bn in 2009. It is just insane.
26 months ago: Good post. Not in agreement with the terminology for social security payments as welfare is something you/we/I never had to pay into (as in there is no line item on your paycheck stub that says "welfare") and social security was/is always considered insurance that you HAVE to pay for.

Good luck getting that first trimester thing worked out.....

I know the military budget is way out there, just want to remind you that not all of it is for bullets and bombs.... and I haven't looked this up but isn't our nations GNP also the biggest by many times and our Federal Budget the biggest by many times so wouldn't that carry over to all our separate budget items? Not saying it isn't too big, just that comparing it to other countries is kind of useless since their budgets are already many times lower than ours. Got some numbers to help me on that one?

As for care for the wounded, going by the above definitions, wouldn't that be more welfare? I'll give them all they need, as long as they aren't malingerers.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: I consider any entitlement program to be welfare and that is how I define SS as welfare.

Yes our GNP is greater than any other nation. However we spend 38-42% of our GNP on Defense. Every other industrialized "western" nation spends less than 5% (with the exception of China which spends 5.6%).
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: And again...larger than any other nation in terms of GNP is true...but that does not justify having a military budget that is greater than every other nation in the world combined.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: And further still. Our total GNP is not greater than the GNP of every other nation on earth combined so the justification from this angle would be tricky.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Not only are we protecting ourselves with our military, we are protecting the economies of out sister nations with our military bases overseas. We have seen what can happen when a weaker nation has assets that a stronger, more aggressive nation wants. We have had two World Wars already. Isn't that enough? Or has our selfishness grown to the point that we can now conscience pulling out and leaving them to their own defenses?

We have to maintain a strong presence in the world. Even though many of our spoiled populace consider the US as the laughingstock of the rest of the world, and don't think living in the US as any great shakes, rest assured, as was said in a previous post, there are many men circling in the darkness, who would love to take our place. If they can't take our place, they would be just as happy to bring us down, and destroy that which they want so badly.
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
26 months ago: Good point. I would like to have a strong military, however, these wars need to stop. We are not the world police and we do not want to be an empire although we are moving in that direction.

I do not think any of us want to see the budget cut to 5% but 30 to 40% is crazy and most of the cost is from the two wars we are fighting. I would like to have presence, but not be engaged. The money we save from not fighting can start to payoff the debt and handle other domestic obligations like education, infrastructure and even out social security.
26 months ago: As OOTB said, we are protecting more than our fair share of the worlds countries, small and large, and for good reason. If we pull our troops back to our borders, we become a country with no presence outside our borders, with no teeth in our bite, no meat behind our swing, a paper tiger. Small, rich countries will become prey to large poor countries with plenty of foot soldiers to throw at the meat grinder that will eventually wear the rich countries defenses down to nothing, that or there will be a lot of glass parking lots out there.

Yes, the military budget is too high, didn't say it wasn't. Maybe you would prefer the alternative, another world war or two, this time with nukes or on our soil?

Other nations in the past have closed their borders and hid behind their walls and refused to render aid to other countries or "show the flag" by having outposts in other nations, they are all gone now, swallowed up by more aggressive and more open societies. I prefer to not see our nation eaten away by hiding behind our ever shrinking borders.

Sure it will and does cost a lot. The alternative is very possibly your/my very life, at the least it will be our freedom and having to learn a new language, maybe not in our lifetime, but in our children's.

I would like nothing better than to see the wars end and my son-in-law and nephew return home, but until there is an end to aggression against our way of life (it's not so much against us a people as our way of life, free from religious control) we need to keep the pressure on. All that has to happen is they stop attacking us and their fellow countrymen and we will pull back to a less aggressive stance, it will be cheaper too.

Sorry Colorado, even though we don't claim the position, nor want it, we are the worlds police force. Just watch or read the news and see how many times someone cries "Why didn't they do something!!?" and then points their finger at us. Rwanda, Darfur, etc.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: I'm not one for resuming a pre-wwII isolationist policy but there has to be some balance, and technology has changed to the point where we can project power rapidly.

WWII ended in 1945 and we still have troops garrisoned in Germany and Japan. The Armistice with North Korea was signed in 1953 and we still have 25000 troops in South Korea. Isn't it about time to let South Korea take care of their own business, and we can 'diplomatically' let Kim Jong-il that we retain the option to destroy Pyongyang if the Dear One crosses the line. Focus in on the war in Afghanistan with a exit strategy for ground military operations - nation building doesn't work when there's no nation to rebuild and the focus should be on our defense not building phony governments that will evaporate the minute we leave. Weed whacking terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere can be done unconventionally and with the support the Navy.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago:

Well articulated! I don't like the term welfare state. How much do we spend on national defense? Are we a WarStaste second then? Still very well articulated. Thanks!
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Thank you.

"I don't like the term welfare state"

How would you define a state that spends roughly 58% of its budget on welfare programs? I understand that the idea of a welfare state is one that has a negative connotation but in my opinion it isn't a bad thing.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: I don't believe it's inacurate considering the facts. I just don't like the term. It has negative conotations. If we can afford it then I believe most of it is waranted. However some of it could be done better in private hands, such as housing.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: You're welcome!
26 months ago: being a recipient and all....
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: I don't receive Medicare or Social Security...I pay for them but do not receive them.

My student loans are all privately held.

I am on academic scholarship.

I know you hate education because you don't understand what it really is.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: It only has negative connotations amongst conservatives. I personally don't think providing for the well being/welfare of the people is a bad thing. It is a human thing to do to care for others.

Many municipalities have private companies that attempt to cover some of these areas, especially housing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
26 months ago: ...I don't receive Medicare or Social Security...I pay for them but do not receive them...

But your for government healthcare??? Really... Is to use Hypocrite again out of context?

You pay for medicare and social security? I doubt it. It might be withheld but I'm sure you get it all plus more back when you file. I hate education? funny coming for someone that I'm paying for to stay in school. Don't think so? Who loaned you the money your about to default on?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Hmmm, "on welfare", "welfare moms" "welfare baby" . Eddie Murphy singing "I got some ice cream, and you can't have none, cause yo daddy's on the welfare." That all sounds pretty negative to me. There was a time when people had enough pride to take of their own needs.

Social Security is not welfare, even if you try to lump it into the welfare category. I know that one way to change peoples attitudes is to start changing definitions.

Social Security is retirement insurance, and the amount you contribute determines how much you draw after retirement. Look at how well the government handled that insurance program. I know it has grown into a bastardized behemoth, where children and families of deceased workers are receiving 3000.00 per month, but that's what socialism does. It starts out small with a great plan that people can get behind, and then slowly chips away until you are relying on the government for everything.

Government and Military pensions are what? Pensions. Not welfare. It's part of the deal they made when agreeing to work for the government, same as railroad workers, automobile factory workers, and anyone else who receives a pension.

Medicare? That's a tough one. Welfare or not? It was not part of the original agreement with Social Security, but the bureaucrats managed to link them by denying our elderly their Social Security if they opted out of SS.

Medicaid. Strictly welfare.

School grants. Welfare.

Giving a larger tax rebate than one paid in taxes. Welfare.

Any other examples?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: correction should read "....but the bureaucrats managed to link them by denying our elderly their Social Security if they opted out of Medicare."
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: I do not meet the requirements to receive those entitlements.

Not sure how this is hypocritical.

Once again...since you are incapable of reading. ALL of my debt from my education is held by a private bank, not government loans.

The academic tuition waiver I receive is funded by the State of Illinois...which you do not live in. So no, your tax dollars have not funded a penny of my education.

How is it you say I am going to default? Have you managed to find my financial information? Does it appear as if I am going to default?
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Once again...entitlement programs are welfare.

So Medicaid is health insurance to the poor...this is welfare

Medicare and SS are health and retirement insurance to the elderly but this is not welfare? Sounds to me like you are the one being selective with your definitions.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: So you are saying that Markbyrn, retired Military, is on welfare, all the retired presidents and judges are on welfare. All the seniors citizens who poured their hard earned money into a broken system for 40+ years to get a below poverty level retirement check are on welfare.

So then what you are also saying is that the government has no regard for the dignity of its citizens, and considers the moneys paid in as mandatory taxes, and the moneys paid back out as a privilege, and welfare.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Technically yes. Keep in mind that welfare to me has no negative connotation. I define welfare as entitlement programs. Mark served in the military and is therefore entitled to certain benefits that provide for his welfare (wellbeing). It is conservatives who put the stamp of negativity on welfare/entitlement programs out of a desire to provide only for the elite and put a stigma on being underprivileged and/or impoverished. Not everyone who receives entitlements to ensure their welfare is a poor person despite what conservatives want the people to think.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Hopefully this doesn't offend you Mark as it is not intended to. I am trying to point out that the negative connotation associated with "welfare" is fabricated.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Well the government calls it "earned" benefits and earned means performance of service, labor, or work - military service in my case. If you want to call my benefits earned welfare or earned benefits, mox nix to me (the words are synonyms) as long as we understand the 'earned' distinction.

In another topic, somebody implied that I didn't earn the benefits or that I might be getting too much if I live too long. From my observation, flag lapel wearing Republicans love to jingoistically fawn over veterans while yet stealing away their earned benefits and breaking promises. We're kind of like tissue paper and if we live too long, they tend to murmur about the burden we're causing. I think they'd prefer we die on duty or very shortly after retirement. By the way, my retirement pay is actually a retainer because I can be involuntarily recalled to duty at anytime and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the rest of my life. That's why were called G.I's - Government Issue.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Earned is perfectly acceptable. I never said you couldn't earn welfare benefits. I simply was stating that the benefits you receive, and the benefits old people receive from SS and Medicare and the benefits poor people receive from food stamps and Medicaid are all entitlement programs. You have to meet certain criteria. When you meet them you are then entitled to those benefits; benefits that are designed to protect the entitled persons welfare.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: In terms of the defense budget and the budget of the wars that we are currently involved in I suppose an argument could be made for a "warstate"; especially considering the number of wars we have been involved in given our relatively short existence. AggressiveState perhaps could be a term for the current situation.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: I was being facetious but hearing it from someone else does make it sound like us. It sounds ugly. I don't think I like that term either, now.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: There have been several comments to the effect that yes we spend too much on the military but our military presence is protecting nations from another world war.

The nature of war has changed quite a bit and there is not and will not be for quite a while any nation that could stand against us in a conventional war.

So they have figured out that guerrilla warfare and terrorism is much more cost effective. A handful of terrorists willing to blow themselves up is very difficult to stop.

So the real war is not over real estate as in past wars. The wars of the future are going to be wars for hearts and minds.

In that aspect conventional warfare, superior airpower, and bombing our enemies, are all counterproductive because in conventional warfare the majority of people killed are innocent civilians (the folk we are trying to win over to our side). These civilians always have friends or relatives that vow vengeance.

Our trying to be the policemen of the world is also counterproductive. Even if we no longer have imperialist ambitions the world resents us and often hates us for our power over them.

The best way to win hearts and minds is to help local governments provide infrastructure (Clean water, sanitation, power and education) This can be done for a tiny fraction of military action and will help save millions of lives and provide jobs for the locals.

Greg Mortenson can build 43 schools in Pakistan for the cost of one soldier in the field for a year ($1 million)

Terrorism and things like genocide are best done by international agencies, so lets pull out our bases and give the UN some teeth.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: China could kick our butt right now. The only thing holding them back is a reluctance to get into a nuclear world war, and the fact that we have allies around the world that owe us a debt of gratitude.

True, there are those that resent the US. There are many times more than are grateful to the US for being there, helping with economies, and providing a line of defense against their neighbors.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.