Krugman v. Everybody, Take 2

This is not, sadly, going to stop the Bush-bashers (including Dem party hack Krugman) insofar as our economy currently is concerned (both fact and hype).

Pete, slightly off your topic, but

you may well be a moderate Republican, but if you can't put Reagan in the 'one of the best of the 20th century', you gotta tell me what drives you to admit the R column in the first place.

Laissez-faire, minimizing government, tax cutting, strong defense are some pretty strong R calling cards, my friend!

The lefties here can revile me all they want, but I made money all on my own and did just fine.......and RR allowed me to keep more of it. That works for me. I consider myself a "moderate" in that I'm happy for anyone to do want they want (abortion, sexual preference, smoking pot, thinking John Edwards is not out for himself, etc.).......just keep your grubby hands out of my pocket. I'll decide who to give my money to.

That's why Obama's "flair" can be genuine, but I'm not enamored at all of his likely economic policies.

As for Krugman, you know the saying about those who can, do, and those who can't,....that's why I think he's worthless when espousing on economics. To my knowledge, he has never actually been "in the economy". Do it first, teach later.

The 2 arguments one can make for Reagan being 'good' devolve to a) being in the top 5% of the economic heap and b) believing he won the Cold War (dismissing all Prezes, D&R, from Truman to Carter.

Name any other good things he did. He endangered Am. safety by destroying PATCO- the 80s were more dangerous to fly in than any decade of the last 60 years. He ignored AIDS, cut economic programs that decimated poor folk, put the nation in hock w the deficit, the S&L scandal, Iran-Contra, caused the 87-92 recession, started the downward trend of Am buying power and family income. He tried to ax women's rights over their bodies, stack the Supreme Court w out of touch Right Wingers, and on and on.

As for the 2 positives- screwing the many for the benefit of the few is not a good thing. And only the most insane Reagan worshippers have taken the Kool-Aid on the Cold Warrior nonsense.

So, other than feelin' good in the 80s, is there any substance for you're claims on Reagan?

Pete:

Thanks for mentioning that I said I'm not a Krugman-apostle! Clearly his name is anathema to some who read my piece.

That said, I do feel it's possible to draw a line between Krugman when he is talking generally about his politics and Krugman when he is talking about economics. I respect his opinion as an economist---he often seems to get things right, e.g., in predicting the housing bubble.

THAT said, a very interesting piece (on which I need to further reflect...)

So, Pete, I take it your feelin' good is the only thing that mad eReagan a good Prez?

Had a date with my wife last night, so my apologies for the delay in responding ...

"... you may well be a moderate Republican, but if you can't put Reagan in the 'one of the best of the 20th century', you gotta tell me what drives you to admit the R column in the first place."

Good point, casualobserver, and my bad. I've re-phrased the text to what I had originally intended to write: "since the founding of the country." That said, in the last century, I'd definitely put Reagan at the top or damn close to it, although he might have some serious competition in the form of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt (yes, I think FDR was a very good president).

" ... other than feelin' good in the 80s, is there any substance for you're claims on Reagan?"

It was more than feeling good, cosmoetica, it was Reagan's overall leadership that helped the country overcome the funk of the 70's. Additionally, I concur with casualobserver's list: minimizing government, tax cutting, strong defense, etc. Granted, Reagan may have been the luckiest President of all time as Shaun suggested this morning. But I could make the same argument about Clinton, whom I also respect.

In the end, we can argue this all we want, but the fact is Reagan is consistently viewed in poll after poll as one of the greatest presidents of our time. And if you utlimately believe in the wisdom of crowds (like I do), then I think that wisdom has spoken, loud and clear. My two cents, man. Happy to agree to disagree, but that's how I see it.

'minimizing government, tax cutting, strong defense'

Actually, government grew on Reagan's watch- both in terms of size and spending, the tax cuts favored the rich- so I can take it you're in the top 5%. And the defense was loaded with bloated programs that did not get updfated until the 90s when they were needed in Bosnia.

Again, other than reading from a hagiography, is there anything of substance?

'And if you utlimately believe in the wisdom of crowds (like I do), then I think that wisdom has spoken, loud and clear'

In some polls, in others he's mid to bottom half. But, realize that the masses have also given us Oprah, Jerry Springer, Reality TV, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Moyers, and countless other examples that validate the old Newt Minnow claim that it's a vast wasteland.

Here is a good reason why America is off track. Pete has no real reason for his beliefs save he felt good. In other posts, Michael Stickings is literally begging for the two party stsus quo to remain, as if that's a good thing: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/third-part..., and in yet another post http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/17247/obama-... Jill MZ says she trusted Al Gore- the ecologist who was VP under a Prez w a worse ecological record than Reagan, and does not feel good about Edwards- the most substantive and passionate candidate for Prez.

Herein a microcosm of what is absolutely wrong with the electorate today. One person who is blissfully apathetic, another who wallows in the muck of today and refuses change, and a third with no clue as to why she feels a thing.

It ain't the pols, folk, it's you!

Cosmo ...

First, the Government grew slower under Reagan's watch than preceding administrations. That's a key point. It might have had more to do with divided government (as MW frequently claims) but it also had something to do with Reagan's insistance on towing a tough line.

Second, on the defense point, I'm sorry -- you just can't pretend that defense was not improved under Reagan. Credit the fall of the Soviet Union to whatever you wish, but the fact is the Russians had good reason to believe we were stronger under Reagan, and that grounded perception of strength was one factor among others contributing to the USSR's collapse.

Third, while I never take criticism personally, it's still good to know that you're an equal opportunity critic and have discovered in multiple writers why "America is off track." In some ways, I regret that my window on the world is not as clean and clear as yours. But in other ways, I'm glad my window is slightly muddied; I'd rather walk through life concerned that I might be wrong than convinced I'm right.

Amazing. Ronald Reagan sold weapons to our sworn enemy, the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had already declared us "the great Satan" and was holding our embassy staff hostage. He used the Ayatollah's money to illegally support an insurgency against the elected government of Nicaragua. Congress had passed a law specifically forbidding that funding. Remember?

A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.   Ronald Reagan March 4, 1987

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States as "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort." This offense is punishable by death. Ronald Reagan is, plain and simple, a confessed traitor to the United States. Well? Am I wrong? He directly and knowingly gave aid to the enemy. And, after signing the Boland amendment (forbidding funding of the Contras), he knowingly and willfully violated it. He considered the President, as Bush does, to be above the law. (not Bush-bashing, DLS, W has openly stated in dozens of signing statements that he is not bound by any law he signs.)

As for his "minimizing government, tax cutting, strong defense" Reagan proved to the GOP that Americans will mortgage their kids' future to artificially pump up the economy and out of fear of a perceived threat (from the Soviets). He also showed how you can massively increase government spending and still appear to be for "small government." This appears now to be the Republican way. Since 1950 every president has reduced the national debt as a percentage of GDP. Except Reagan, Bush Sr. and Junior (according to White House figures). HERE

We all love heroes. But are we so desperate that we have to make pretend heroes out of merely uncommon criminals like Reagan?

First, the Government grew slower under Reagan's watch

I don't think so. Government spending as a % of GDP was higher under Reagan than Carter or Clinton. SEE? Federal spending climbed immediately when Reagan took office and was always higher than Carter's. It was higher than at any other time since WWII (higher than current spending). It fell under Clinton and is up again under Bush.

Second, on the defense point, I'm sorry -- you just can't pretend that defense was not improved under Reagan.

Reagan pumped billions into the military, but we already had, and had for decades, more than enough weapons to lay waste to the planet. Defense spending declined steadily after the Korean war until Reagan. SO? You think the Soviets were quaking in fear because we raised from 8 to 11 the number of times we could destroy them? They knew we weren't going to push the button. We knew they weren't. We pissed away billions to build them, and are now spending billions to destroy them.

Pete:

On the budget, well Green beat me to it.

Re: the Soviets. Most experts on the USSR, plus docs released after the fall of Communism show that the Soviets were heading toward disaster in the mid-70s, and only the 'threat' of Reagan kept them in power another decade. Recall the doddering old men before Gorby? The foolhardy invasion of Afghanistan did more to end the USSR than anything Reagan did.

'In some ways, I regret that my window on the world is not as clean and clear as yours. But in other ways, I'm glad my window is slightly muddied; I'd rather walk through life concerned that I might be wrong than convinced I'm right.'

It has nothing to do with mud, it has to do with living in reality, and the Left and Right are as guilty of that sin as any other. As I stated, look at Stickings- so desirous of Hillary in power that, Heaven forfend we shd not allow Nader in, for the .3% of the vote he'd get. Look at Jill, praising a myth she's made of Al Gore- a hack every much as Hillary.

Every time the chance real change comes along, the electorate passes on it, even as they claim to want it. And it stems from attitudes like yours- not even questioning the assumptions you base your opinions on. Mud is one thing, but sanctifying blindness is quite another.

Reagan was not evil, the way a Stalin or Hitler was, just as W is not. Reagan was a senile puppet and W a clueless wonder. But, as for defense spending, Green is correct. The build up was a waste which decimated a generation of Americans w cuts in social programs, education, healthcare, etc. It is not active evil, ala shoving Jews into ovens, but stepping over black and brown faces on the way to the top is hardly good behavior.

All I ask is that you and others think. THINK. It's not a Left and Right issue, but a good and bad issue. The R's running, and Hillary are BAD. Nothing will change if they get in. We will be in Iraq and hunkered down in 2012. Look at Edwards and Obama, or failing them, Bloomberg.

Alack, though, if one thinks Reagan and Clinto were good Presidents, I'm more liable to get a stone to plotz.




But no, that would mean leaving the safe womb of the Party, rather than putting Country first.

GreenDreams -- Each to his own view, I guess, on the defense question.

On the gov't growth question, note the chart on this page. Granted, this chart makes Clinton look better than all recent administrations, and in terms of fiscal responsiblity, the Clinton/Gingrich years were wonderful. But it's still notable, I think, that Reagan reversed by almost a half-percentage point the upward trend from the Carter years. Did Reagan accomplish all he wanted? No. But he set things up in the right direction, enabling (in part) the GOP revolution of the 90's which finally accomplished (with Bill Clinton) what Reagan started. Unfortunately, GWB and the most recent GOP majority ruined it -- which goes back to MW's point about divided government being good government.

cosmoetica -- I am open-minded on these matters. You have challenged me -- as has Green Dreams -- to review some of my prior assumptions about Reagan, which I will do ... and I hope you'll do the same in considering the balance of Reagan's accomplishments, including the overall leadership and oratory qualities he brought to the table, which I don't consider insignificant.

Also, for the record, I'm not wedded to either party to the point of blindly accepting party lines. That's why I have aggressively challenged the Republican establishment on many points and will continue to do so. It's also why I would be wonderfully open to an Obama presidency and am (as you seem to be) excited about the real change Obama could bring to the nation's highest office.

In summary: Yes, I believe there was more good than bad during Reagan's presidency, and history will be the final test of that belief; regardless, I don't hold up Reagan as the mythical figure others do, nor will I dismiss him as simply "less evil" than Hitler, as you seem to suggest. Those points notwithstanding, I think we might actually agree on more than this exchange indicates.

Here, John O'Sullivan says it much better than I do.

Here ... John O'Sullivan makes the case much better than I do.

'Reagan's accomplishments, including the overall leadership and oratory qualities he brought to the table, which I don't consider insignificant.'

Well, re: the economy, etc., we'll never agree, because I was not in the top 5%. But look at your claim- you are basically praising style. His oratory qualities are what any passable, aka B, actor could muster.

Y'know, I read that book a few years back, on Reagan's letters, and, despite the hagiographer's claims, they were nothing but empty cliches, and quotes from others. The man literally did not have a deep nor original thought in his mind. He was a puppet, and not even that good a writer of missives.

And, I still have yet to hear a single substantive accomplishment, save some disputed facts re: government growth. Move over Teddy R., here comes The Gipper!

Pete, I can't find a graph on that page. Got another link? As for the O'Sullivan article, where's the beef?

in Margaret Thatcher's words, [Reagan] "won the Cold War without firing a shot". But such an argument would not have made all the useful political points implicit in his quote, notably that (a) Reagan changed America for the better; (b) his changes limited government and liberated private entrepreneurship; (c) these changes were necessary and reflected what Americans wanted; and, above all, (d) president Clinton really hadn't altered the trajectory that Reagan launched any more than Nixon had altered the liberal trajectory of FDR and LBJ.

This list amounts to a comprehensive dissing of Democratic pieties and recent Democratic history. Obama's rivals were virtually compelled to attack it.

Oh please! a comprehensive dissing? It's all sloganeering. Thatcher's quote is BS. Reagan didn't defeat the Soviets. The rest of the "list" contains no specifics at all. How did he "change America for the better"? How did he "limit government" or "liberate private entrepreneurship"? As to "constraining government," the GOP deregulation accomplishments have been fully consistent with elevating private gain over the public good, while protecting companies from liability for their actions.

Oh yes, and your "Clinton/Gingrich" quip cleverly attempts to hand credit to the GOP, but they fought tooth and nail against Clinton's economic policy. Reagan's "trickle-down" economics didn't work. Well, for most of us. As Iowa Sen Harkin put it Reaganomics is where "you give oats to the horses so the grass roots are fed". It failed. Its successor, Bushenomics has failed worse. Debt soared, jobs plummeted, the dollar crashed and now we have economic crisis because real income is down, jobs are outsourced overseas and consumers can't afford the foreign-produced offerings that American companies now sell.

Cosmo and GreenDreams,

I'm not conceding the debate, but with all due respect, I have grown weary of it. As a parting shot, for the record, during Reagan's years, I was not in the top 5% of wage earners (I was in high school and college) nor were my parents in that bracket, nor (to the best of my knowledge) are any of us in that bracket now.

And yet, miraculously, our lives -- and the lives of the other middle-class Americans we knew then and know now -- improved under Reagan's tenure as well as Clinton's ... which points back to my original argument before this exchange became a debate about Reagan's legacy, i.e., a President's domestic policies have (in the last 20-plus years at least) had very little to do with our respective states of well being. Perhaps, then, it's true for most Americans, not just a privileged few, that Reagan's and Clinton's greatest legacies were that they generally stayed out of the way and (as Obama suggested) encouraged the entrepreneurial nature of this country to thrive.

I'm sorry that you're so fixed on dismissing Reagan that you miss the larger point: His (and Clinton's and others') legacies are based not on theories or ideologies, but on majority experience, and as polls and anecdotes confirm, your mythical 5% is just that: mythical.

Well, it's not mythical. Most economists point to the Reagan era as when the haves and have nots started dividing, The tax bracket, as example, was as high as 90% for the richest Am's until Reagan. By cutting that we lost alot of tax revenue and voila- deficit city, with less $ to help the needy, not to mention infrastructure, etc.

But, the easy way which you dismiss others suffering vis-a-vis you and your homey's better lives, says alot as to why you, or any Reagan supporter supported him

Which gets back to my point- that only those who benefited from Reagan's policies think well of him. Hello 5%, real as ever.

Green is right, most of the Reagan accomplishments seem illusory because they were.

Clinton, too, but we'll save that for another thread. One boner a thread is enough for you, or any man.

"The tax bracket, as example, was as high as 90% for the richest Am's until Reagan."

And you think 90% taxation is right? I don't care how much someone makes -- that's criminal and it should have been stopped.

It's 90% above and beyond certain figures. Its called a graduated tax system.

And you think the poor should pay the same percentage as the rich- that's criminal and shd be stopped!

Glad to see this thread served one purpose- outing Pete as an elitist, out of touch with the masses.

I don't necessarily oppose a graduated tax system, and I certainly don't mind paying more in taxes out of my income than someone of lesser income. Furthermore, even if 90% taxation were in place for the highest wage earners, I wouldn't be in that bracket, but I would still oppose any government taking 90% of anybody's wages. To do so is antithetical to our government. Maybe I'm out of touch with the masses, but you, my friend, are out of touch with American history.

Pete, do you know what graduated means?

It means not that 90% of the rich's income is taken. It means, Say some rich biz owner earned 10 mill last year. Well, he would be taxed at whatever the going rate was- say 20% for the first 50-60k, then 25-30% for the next 100k, 340-50% for the next bracket, up to a half mill, or whatever it is now, then 90% of the rest over that.

From the 1930s to 1970s this was the basic tax structure, and we had a great middle class and economic growth unparalleled in our history. When incomes are squeezed to the middle, everyone benefits.

The rich are rich because the system we have allows some folk to become and stay rich- it is not a natural law. They should not have the means, aided by gov't, of having the poor and working class bail them out- see Corporate welfare.

It's a concept known as the public commons.

In short, if you give a buck to a million people all of that will flow back into the economy. If you give a mill to one person, most of that will be out of the economy.

It's economics 101.

'Maybe I'm out of touch with the masses, but you, my friend, are out of touch with American history.'

Given you seem to not even know the basics of US tax history, you are out of touch w both!

"It's a concept known as the public commons."

What about individual liberty? What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The founders didn't set up this nation to advance the "public commons" or "common good." They set it up to advance individual liberty -- including liberty from confiscatory taxation.

I understand what graduated taxation means perfectly well. But I still argue that nobody should have to pay 90% taxes on any level or portion of income, whether it's $1 billion or $1. You certainly can force the rich to pay for the poor if they don't want to, but only at the risk of removing their liberties in favor of others' liberties. That's not what our founding fathers intended.

I'm very generous with what I earn, and once again, I'm very willing to pay more taxes than those less fortunate, but if I'm ever fortunate enough to earn more than a half mill in a year, it's simply wrong and antithetical to this country's founding/purpose to ask me or anyone for that matter to give up 90% of that incremental portion of my income.

If someone like Warren Buffett wants to voluntarily give away their fortune, hoorah. But in a free society they cannot and should not be required to do so. Economics 101 says that if you encourage entrepreneurial spirit by allowing people to keep more of their wealth, they build businesses that provide jobs and other benefits. We've seen that work well repeatedly for hundreds of years. What part of this are you blind to? Why do you insist on a return to socialism/communism, experiments proven to fail, over and over again.

We can agree to disagree, but you are flagrantly ignoring the well-proven foundations of a free-market economy, the greatest hope for any individual to live free and live well.

Am I arguing for no taxation? No. I'm arguing for reasonable taxation. The government cannot -- especially not the federal government -- be the end-all solution to what ails us, not without making the state so powerful that liberty disappears.

I'm more than willing to have a reasonable discussion with anyone about the right balance between taxation and wealth, and I believe there is a balance to be found. I also believe there is a role for the feds to play in addressing serious national issues and inequalities, from health to education. But I cannot and no longer will have this particular discussion with someone who clearly refuses to acknowledge the need for balance, who instead believes that 90% taxation on any bracket of income, total or incremental, is fair and just. It's not and never will be.

Finally, I'm sorry if I've lost my cool on this exchange, my ability to be "moderate," but I'm sincerely baffled with your refusal to acknowledge even the most basic tenets of a free society.

'What about individual liberty? What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The founders didn't set up this nation to advance the "public commons" or "common good." They set it up to advance individual liberty -- including liberty from confiscatory taxation.'

And what about basic fairness? What of life, liberty & pursuit? Do you think that a system as currently set up, where the rich and corps (legal fictions wholly dependent upon the state's sanction, and public entities) get subsidized by the poor and working class, is fair? And what do you call programs that offer corp welfare? If that's not confiscatory, what is?

'You certainly can force the rich to pay for the poor if they don't want to, but only at the risk of removing their liberties in favor of others' liberties.'

Their is no right against taxation in the Constitution, as long as one gets political representation in return. The system of public commons allows the rich to get rich. On TMV I posted this review of a Libertarian book: http://themoderatevoice.com/entertainment/revie...

Here is what I wrote (part of it): 'The civil libertarian arguments about taxation are thus not applicable to a legal fiction, for the government is literally the Dr. Frankenstein to the corporate Monster, and wholly responsible for the framework it creates to allow corporations to exist. They are also wholly dependent upon the public commons to exist.

Even a behemoth like Wal-Mart needs the roads that the public commons provides- for its own shipping of products, and for the customers it hopes to sell to. Therefore, any corporation has an obligation to the state to help provide for the commonweal of the very entity that created it and allows it to operate. If not, the government has every right to revoke its legal status, if the corporation violates that other tenet of the public commons- the regulations for safety and competitive balance, even if it legally requires a corporation to provide free and public information to its investors, state sanctioned minimum wages, or even health insurance to employees.

Libertarians always forget one crucial fact about corporations; well, many, but this one is cogent to the matter at hand. Corporations are not individuals, and not natural free market phenomena.

The first corporations, in fact, were state chartered enterprises. Only later did governments allow individuals and groups to create their own corporations, provided they play within a given set of rules, and be answerable to the government via regulating agencies. These rules- part of the public commons, are put in place so that the folks running these legal fictions do not run roughshod over smaller non-corporate businesses with monopolistic and predatory business practices which their very size- created, allowed and sanctioned by the state, allows them to attain, well beyond the limits of any individual or partnership.

Without the state, Sam Walton could never have created Wal-Mart- for good or ill, John D. Rockefeller could never have forged the modern oil industry, J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie could never have created U.S. Steel, and Bill Gates could never have made the Internet accessible to the masses via Windows and Internet Explorer.

In short, Libertarians make a false distinction when they credit ‘private enterprise’ with innovation and government with stifling it. Most advances in the free market come through the government- only one step removed, via their sanctioned Golems- the ‘public corporations,’ and not from a bunch of Thomas Edisons backed by a few investors. Corporations are in no sense an example of the free market, but a perfect (or imperfect) realization of the state’s indirect intervention in the so-called ‘free market.’ Thank you, Mr. Keynes.'

'I'm very generous with what I earn, and once again, I'm very willing to pay more taxes than those less fortunate, but if I'm ever fortunate enough to earn more than a half mill in a year, it's simply wrong and antithetical to this country's founding/purpose to ask me or anyone for that matter to give up 90% of that incremental portion of my income.'

Show me in the Constitution. That's BS, and one of the reasons why Capitalism failed in the 1930s. The Const, BTW, starts 'We the people,' in the plural, not 'WE the selfish individuals, for a reason.

Note, too, 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense'. Words like Union and Common are at the very top of this document, for a reason.

'But in a free society they cannot and should not be required to do so. Economics 101 says that if you encourage entrepreneurial spirit by allowing people to keep more of their wealth, they build businesses that provide jobs and other benefits. We've seen that work well repeatedly for hundreds of years. What part of this are you blind to? Why do you insist on a return to socialism/communism, experiments proven to fail, over and over again.'

Now you are being pathological. No one is talking Communism- that's a canard. All you do is set an upper and lower limit to individual power and wealth. Question, with a 90% tax rate at top, would you still rather earn $10 mill a year or $10k and pay no taxes?

And, as trickle down showed, wealth at the top does not flow to the lower classes. $ always works its way upward. This is precisely why the US was most prosperous economically w higher tax rates.

'We can agree to disagree, but you are flagrantly ignoring the well-proven foundations of a free-market economy, the greatest hope for any individual to live free and live well.'

Free markets do not have the Fed regulating them, they do not have huge corps micromanaging the rates of interest, nor the prices of commodities to their benefit- see Enron, etc. Have you ever heard of John Maynard Keynes? Or are you still living in the Victorian fantasy world of Adam Smith?

'Am I arguing for no taxation? No. I'm arguing for reasonable taxation. The government cannot -- especially not the federal government -- be the end-all solution to what ails us, not without making the state so powerful that liberty disappears.'

Actually, I'm arguing for reasonable taxation, those with more means helping out those with less, because they got their means do the the way the system is set up. Societies fray when there is huge disparity in wealth and rights. And 'the state' is far more powerful today, in the post-Patriot Act hysteria, than at any time since the suspension of certain rights in the Civil War. And this with huge giveaways to corps.

'But I cannot and no longer will have this particular discussion with someone who clearly refuses to acknowledge the need for balance, who instead believes that 90% taxation on any bracket of income, total or incremental, is fair and just. It's not and never will be.'

Then stop the convo in your head and join the real world. You have shown, in this thread, an alarming elitism, a snobbish condescension against those w less than you, as well as fundamental lack of knowledge about taxation and the way government works, and has worked.

'Finally, I'm sorry if I've lost my cool on this exchange, my ability to be "moderate," but I'm sincerely baffled with your refusal to acknowledge even the most basic tenets of a free society.'

I have, stop channeling Jay Gould & co. I have taken the moderate position. You have not. That explains well your admiration for Ronald Reagan.

I just love it when people hang themselves with their own strings.

I'll say this much: As frustrated and intemperate as I've grown during this exchange, you've made me work for what I believe and have introduced concepts that I have clearly not studied enough to debunk as intelligently or competently as I should be able to -- and I respect your effort and appreciate it, believe it or not.

Will I ultimately change my mind? Maybe, maybe not. But I do want to thank you -- and I mean that sincerely -- for not giving up on this exchange.

After all, despite your sense that I'm an elitist jerk, I'm actually much more compassionate today at 43 with some disposable income than I was at 23 with none. I do believe in government assistance to the unfortunate, and as I've tried to make clear, I'm willing to pay my part of it. No, I'm not willing -- yet -- to give up more than I'm paying now, but I am open to being convinced I perhaps should, voluntarily or otherwise.

And no, I'm not caving, but I am calling a temporary truce, until I can review more about these topics and have something to offer that does not descend into a purely emotional argument, as I've allowed myself in these latest comments to do.

Until then, I hope you will at least concede that a human heart might still beat in the chest of someone like me.

Also, cosmoetica, perhaps we could exchange email addresses to further any future conversation on this subject via a more convenient forum?

Mine is abel-DOT-reply-AT-gmail-DOT-com.

Pete:

I don't think you are a jerk any more than any one else I argue with.

I am an agnostic, my best friend is an atheist, and I routinely harangue him for his arrogance, which is as bad as Pat Robertson's.

I'll be 43 in a couple of weeks, BTW.

And I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm pro death penalty, against gun control, and many other things. But I believe in basic fairness, and when folk start talking of Reaganomics or the like, I have little patience.

My dad was similar in views on Nixon. My view is that those who supported Reagan, for the most part, live in bubbles, and generally accept that the things they have are all fairly earned. Not that some are not, but we do live in a zero sum world. Until we can get off this planet, all capital and all things are zero sum.

I don't begrudge the rich, but add something to the society. CEOs add nothing. Tom Edison did, and deserved hi spoils. If you have an idea or invention and can sell it for profit great. But, the retailer, the usurers who add nothing to the system but leeching off others ideas area big problem- this would include agents in assorted fields.

But, the worst offenders are corporations, which are, as I state in the linked post, 'Golems'. They are public entities and should not, as Ambrose Bierce said, be used to enhance individual wealth at the expense of individual responsibility.

No one has ever gotten rich alone. Even Edison needed glass factories to make his light bulbs and steel mills to make his incandescent wires.

We are all intimately tied to one another, like it or not. This is not Communism- a view which diagnosed Capitalism's ills, but provided even worse solutions, but reality. What Reagan tried to do was cut off the well off from any responsibility to those that allowed them to be well off. Fairly giving back does not mean equal distribution, but it does, or should mean, that your third car or first yacht takes lower precedence over homeless families and children who need to see a Dr.

I'm not rich, but likely pay more in taxes, as % of my income (last year about 22%) than Bill Gates did. That's simply wrong.

BTW- if I say something negative I try to keep it to the action not the person. I take nothing personally.