Are You a Moderate/Centrist?

I'm a centrist by division. Add up those Con and lib things, and most things in the middle, and I'm centrist/moderate.

However, the tax issue has always been a canard. Those who scream for less taxes are generally not those paying the highest %. As a married man, my wife and I paid a higher % of taxes than most Fortune 500 companies. But, mention that and you get the BSers with the phony stats or those who talk about businesses needing $ more than individuals.

Also, most people forget that the most basic sorts of commerce could not go on w/o gov't taxes. Where would all the goods end up w/o railroads and roads to deliver them?

Those who whine of our tax rate live in a fantasy world. Euros pay far higher taxes and get much more, and that's the key- not the rate of taxation, but the rate compared to the return.

I agree on taxation and the size of government, that its not a matter of the size of government but whether its larger than necessary. Good policy often requires a combination of tax cuts and tax increases.

But, a lot in our government needs to be streamlined, there's a lot of ineffective bureaucracy and waste, and conservatives are right when they talk about involving the private sector. Health care plans in certain countries ban private care, and those systems have just as many problems as a fully private system.

However, even if we agree on that abstract level, I've found, for as much as I've read this site, that it leans left more than right.

I've found, outside of the war on Iraq, Bush was no less centrist than Clinton, even though both tried to re-frame the center in terms of their respective ideologies and both were divisive in doing so. Immigration proposals, no child left behind, and faith based initiatives, were all centrist solutions, even if not all of these were implemented right or agreeably.

The real center is about a lot more than pointing out extremes and avoiding them---its about understanding the arguments put out by extreme partisans, understanding why they're not realistic, and finding some principled common ground that Americans can agree on and find realistic. Politics is the art of compromise, and the center is about the moderation of different sides in the political discourse.

cosmoetica ,

You're right, its true that the tax issue is a canard, in that wealthier people can afford to pay a higher rate.

Its also a canard when Democrats complain Republicans 'cut taxes on the rich' when they do general tax cuts that affect everybody

At this site, the "moderate" position on immigration is generally presented as some form of amnesty, while enforcing our laws is considered "extremist".

cosmoetica, and Europe has economic problems of its own, its historically had high unemployment due to the size of government and taxation. i'm not condemning government prrograms or anything european. But europe isn't a model for centrism. Europeans themselves are starting to become more conservative, as they're realizing certain gov't policies don't work.

I simply laughed when I read the start of this thread. Brookings is probably not only "conservative" but "extremist" ...

As to reality -- the burden of proof falls upon advocates of more taxes and regulation and intervention by government, as well as preservation of the status quo.

"The real center is"

... defined largely by pragmatism and resignation about "water under the bridge" (though we who are better insist on the morality behind "Go and sin no more"). The most practical example of a moderate[ or ]centrist (thread title corrected) is a swing voter. Not only can "pure" ideology be willingly compromised, but obviously partisanship, particularly among those of us who merely view one or the other party as the lesser of two evils at best.

DLS,

yea its largely defined by pragmatism, but policy is by definition about pragmatism. You can be in the center and be principled about it.

A lot of others who talk about being in the center , l ike mny politicians, are just there for expediency and come up with solutions that just sound moderate but really don't understand the issues

If this site seems like it leans to the left thats because we have a truly incompetent conservative in office, and much of the political discusion is going to revolve around him, his policies and his actions. He's screwing things up pretty bad, so we bitch about him. Once we get an incompetent liberal in office this site will start to seem consevative as we rip the new president a new one. In short, a properly moderate site with this administration SHOULD seem to be skewed left.

They routinely say "centrist" or "moderate" because of liberalism's past failures and they can't admit they are liberals. Not only the politicians but the posters on this site. Neither Clinton nor Obama will admit they're liberals, much less that they are well left of the center of the US public.

Sometimes I wish things could be made easier for libs by ending any remnants of constitutional federalism (which they've treated with contempt since the 1930s) and replace it with a general, nearly-unlimited grant of power to Washington, that would make it truly a national government. (I'd leave it to the liberals to propose the abolition of state governments and any remnant state sovereignty, converting them largely to administrative units or districts instead.) That way we who know better would no longer be concerned with arguing about what Washington legally and legitimately may or can do, and we can join the libs in spending 100% of the time arguing over what we believe Washington should do, or what we want it to do (or still, wisely, often not to do).

Then pragmatism would be reduced to a great extent to negotiating mutual combinations of favors to each side. Or if we had 4-6+ parties someday with proportional representation and coalitions, spend most time in "trading."

* * *

"a lot in our government needs to be streamlined, there's a lot of ineffective bureaucracy and waste, and conservatives are right when they talk about involving the private sector"

Aside from programs often achieving the opposite of their desired result, there are all kinds of unforeseen (as well as foreseen) consequences with various government interventionism, and the medical analogy continues to hold. It's like being given a drug (a new government program). Unfortunately, there are side effects. Rather than question the drug, instead what is often sought is another, additional, new drug in addition to the first drug. That one produces side effects...but rather than reconsider all that medication, instead more drugs are prescribed for the additional side effects. The cascade is silly.

Many who are well to the left have failed to learn from earlier failures of US liberalism (and failures seen elsewhere in Europe). They believe what was wrong was that we never went "far enough." Not enough "progress," that is. If nothing else, reality will strike hard in 10-20 years when Social Security as well as Medicare bills come due. That and any possible future federal debt trap. All the envy and class warfare and "fairness" [sic] in wrongful tax policy won't evade this.

"because we have a truly incompetent conservative in office,"

I'd hate to see things on here if we had a truly competent conservative officially in office, rather than have Cheney manage things largely by default.

Well, Slamster, we see preferences already being expressed. Both Clinton and Obama are well left and have nearly-identical programs, but because Clinton has posed as a "centrist" [sic] and was not rabidly anti-war, the harder-core lefties on here, including members of the staff, so to speak, have bashed here more than us non-libs have, at times. (It's so bad they've been meaner toward not merely Clinton voters, but fellow posters on here and even fellow staff members, than I and other mild-mannered Clark Kent non-libs would ever d r e a m of being.)

heh

DLS- Who is representative of your concept of a "truly competent conservative"? Because I've yet to see conservatism work in the real world, which is why all of the Pres candidates on the Republican side had to reach all the way back to Ronald Reagan for a role model. I think even Reagan would not be considered a conservative by his party on certain issues these days. Also those who reach back to Reagan fail to acknowledge that we're facing a totally different set of problems than he did in the '80's, and that he likely would not have invaded Iraq.

DLS,

I agree completely except don't think it means there can be no government involvement at all. I think some government involvement can be justified even on libertarian standards, if libertarians weren't obstinate. For example, I think environmental regulation is well justified because of the legal concept of public space. I think the FDA was created as a way around litigation that existed in its absence. A lot of other laws deal with situations in which the free market is not a free market, like anti-trust legislation, and corporations are government created entities. The government does end up having a role in the market.

What is bad, is when legislation is doesn't arise from legal justification, but is just an experiment. That leads to situations like you describe, where bad programs are endlesly patched up, and never rethought.

Thank you Paul. Well framed.

I'm in the middle-left, I guess. I don't want "socialized (ie nationalized) medicine" but I believe the 35% profit and overhead of insurance companies prevents us from achieving affordable health care for all, and the <5% overhead of Medicare is a very attractive model. Plus our national goal is to provide effective, and cost-effective health care. Their goal is to maximize profit. Conflicting goals.

On the war/terror and privacy/security front, I side with the "noses out of our business" libertarian end of the spectrum. I try to be pragmatic, and think my views express that. The Pres is our CEO, not just Commander in Chief. When a program is proposed to the board and stockholders--Congress and us--we should expect the cost, the plan and measurable results, plus oversight.

For example, on the hot-button issue of wiretapping, I see no evidence that the program has paid off. I'm skeptical because of the extreme difficulty of sifting through the sheer volume of calls and emails, and computers can only do so much. I'm no criminal mastermind or spy, but I really doubt that terrorists are talking openly about dirty bombs or assassination on the phone, or in emails. More likely it's like "Pizza night is Tuesday. You in?" "Yeah, we're bringing lots of beer, Abdul is bringing sauce and you've got the dough, right?"

How in the world is Bush's program going to catch that? I want to see what they've got, after all these years. And if not me, for "national security reasons," then a security-cleared judge or senator. As the "board", Congress (some on each side at least) has to see the beef. It's not responsible for them not to see it and not acceptable for the CEO to withhold it.

"Who is representative of your concept of a 'truly competent conservative'? "

Cheney was an example I gave. No question he's competent as well as conservative.

"I've yet to see conservatism work in the real world"

Deregulation has enabled us all rather than the wealthy to travel by air routinely. There is an example of success ("working"). The same is true for what tax reform Reagan could get through. Revenues increased and people had less incentive to shelter income as well as disincentive to work. Even the Clintons gave in to reality after 1994 and started falling back on friendly fascism ("government-business partnerships") rather than outright government interventionism as well as things like welfare reform. (Bill Clinton and Gore sickened me the time they said they had learned their lesson, though. They said they no longer believed Washington should be like your parents. Instead, it should be like your grandparents, "nurturing you" ... it made me sick to hear them say that. There remain things that need to be learned!)

"Also those who reach back to Reagan fail to acknowledge that we're facing a totally different set of problems than he did in the '80's, and that he likely would not have invaded Iraq."

Last issue, I agree -- he pulled us out of Lebanon. He did intervene elsewhere, though. Libya and Grenada, cheers. Take that, terrorists and Soviet adventurers...

Also with health care, as naive as I feel so many supporters are of extending Medicare to everyone*, this is no longer a fringe idea and it may be inevitable. Such a thing was simply unknown in the early 1980s in polite, sane society.

* We'll exchange one set of problems for another, including problems hidden because of the way things are now. Medicare underpays providers, who make up for this by charging more to private patients and the privately insured. Once this is no longer an option -- private duplication of medical services provided someday to all by Medicare won't be allowed, to keep people from leaving Medicare and then wanting not to pay as much for it) -- there will be a need to pay providers more, not less, than Medicare is paying now. It could be much more than anyone realizes.

"don't think it means there can be no government involvement at all"

I'm not a libertarian purist. We need someone else to set the rules by which everyone plays. That may include the stuff that Nader used to harp about, the safety features of automobiles. Unless people are willingly going to pay more for these, it's stupid for any manufacturer to spend more and offer them in a vehicle that costs more. There's no reason any company should go first unless they are confident they'll outsell the competition. That's where government can step in and set the rules with minimum requirements that all must meet. In reality this often goes wrong. Big business is okay with regulations so long as they enable the big players to wipe out the smaller competition. (Then they want the regulation to end.) And what we should be seeing are minimalist goals, not what we see, for example, in health care already with what has long been far more than true medical "insurance" but is comprehensive pre-paid care -- now loaded with extras:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120388378628988...

"For example, I think environmental regulation is well justified because of the legal concept of public space."

Also re. Washington, externalities such as air pollution not respecting state boundaries, etc..

"The government does end up having a role in the market."

Having to police it, of course, but also consider something that's not my problem but is many others': Is the demand for insulin by diabetics elastic? Can we just be arrogant in a conservative sense the way liberals are often arrogant, and just mutter the standard economics line: "Then the goods [like insulin?] will reach the price to which the consumers value them accordingly..." etc. Insulin isn't the same as, say, deciding to eat out at a restaurant or go to the movies.

Paul - Your former colleague(Herr JS) weighs in on your post. He doesn't think TMV lives up to it's name. Maybe thats why he and the Dutch lad formed the own blog, with links to HotAir, the Ctritter in Boston and NRO.

DLS, no i think some government involvement in health care is justifiable. and, even in the conservative sense, is economically sound, being a safety net. so the debate ends up being, what type of health care involvement makes sense.

hillary herself has had to move on this a little, her earlier health care plan being a failure. people should learn how she tried to destroy people who offered more moderate bi-partisan proposals.

"I don't want 'socialized (ie nationalized) medicine'"

Actually, any so-called "single-payer" scheme that is a government monopsony is socialized, even if the providers remain nominally private (so as to remain subject to junk lawsuits, in the US's case). However, it certainly is more practical, and in this country (USA) the Left has often learned to resort to fascistic practices rather than the more controversial outright ownership as well as control of something ("Am-Industry," "Am-Health," etc.). What always has mattered anyway, of course, hasn't been nominal ownership, but control. It's more fun to handle the grand stuff and give orders, while leaving the day-to-day headaches of ownership to the nominal owners. That's their problem!

Note that not only does so-called "single-payer" constitute a federal takeover of the health system of this country (as did Hillary Clinton's more openly fascistic scheme in the early 1990s with HMO-based "alliances," a corporatist dream that totalitarians of the 1930s would have loved), but if there is budgeting and revenue redistribution involved, the health care funds could be used as an even larger, more sinister tool of domination by Washington than the federal highway funds racket.

Have fun imagining the possibilities with that potentiality, that's all too real.

"i think some government involvement in health care is justifiable. and, even in the conservative sense, is economically sound, being a safety net"

Oh, even the drug plan makes sound sense in theory.

a) If it's part of therapy, as much as, say, crutches, why not provide it?

b) Drugs can be cost-effective even if expensive up front, if they prevent or even merely delay a need for treatment later such as surgery, hospitalization, etc..

* * *

"people should learn how she tried to destroy people who offered more moderate bi-partisan proposals"

"I want Penny-Kasich dead in three days!"

DLS,
Gee whiz I go away for an hour and come back to 23 comments with almost half from you? ;-)
Can you tell us how you came to be so informed and articulate. I imagine you as a retired Political Science Professor.

Hey Rudi,
Thanks for the heads up on Poligazette.
I miss Michael and Jason and their right of center commentary.

It is very hard to try and hold the center here at TMV. When one is on the left or the right it is easy to anticipate where the slings and arrows will come from. When in the center the challenges come from all sides.
Perhaps that is why Centrist legislators are rare - their breed has to have thicker hides.

"Deregulation has enabled us all rather than the wealthy to travel by air routinely."

You have got to be kidding me. Deregulation has screwed so many industries I barely know where to begin. For starters, the airlines are hardly a model of success since deregulation. The only ones making money these days are the new ones without crushing pension/benists issues. The CA electricity shortage of 2001 was a direct result of deregulation as well as the S&L bailouts of the 80's. Deregulation simply lets a few higher ups totally destabilize the system while they grab every nickle they can before the system falls. Then in comes the gov't and taxpayers to foot the bill.

"Can you tell us how you came to be so informed and articulate."

The check's in the mail, Paul. Oops -- that wasn't meant to be public. [wink]

I read a lot and I like to be observant everywhere I've lived and traveled (all over the USA).

Articulate? I would say a number of people on here are better writers than I am.

Number of comments on here = interesting thread development.

Others' turn now.

"You have got to be kidding me."

Not at all. Air travel used to be a tightly managed cartel. Most of us couldn't afford it. As for the power company stuff, it's more complicated than that. Yes, there were crooks (I believe making classic suffering-old-ladies remarks, even). But regulation and interference with development of generating capacity is a much worse problem than the government-run-and-abused "play-market" setup. It's hardly the case that we always see profits privatized but losses socialized.

DLS, the healthcare consumer is the patient not the insurer, and the provider is the physician. The insurance companies or Medicare administrators are just conduits for payment, not the physician's employer. Physicians who accept Medicare do not consider themselves "nominally private" and in fact seem to appreciate knowing what is covered and being paid promptly. Physicians who accept Medicare can certainly provide elective procedures, not covered by Medicare, and they do. Medicare is just a big shared risk pool, just like an insurance company, except that they don't exclude pre-existing conditions, cherry-pick customers or constantly try to deny coverage.

Going back to my corporate model of the government, many companies are now self-insuring, precisely because of the high cost of private insurance. Congress, as the Board of Directors, should look into whether self-insuring as many "employees" as choose to be covered can reduce costs while providing superior care. I'll gladly pay my share of the shared risk, which I'm confident will be lower than the cost of the cherry-picked "shared risk pool" plus 30% profit.

As to your red herring about "junk lawsuits" there are certainly legitimate lawsuits, just as there are certainly unscrupulous or incompetent physicians. People who are harmed by such physicians have a right to sue for damages, and because medical review boards are not always effective in policing their own trade, patients have the right to ask for punitive damages. Don't we as a nation want to discourage crookedness and incompetence?

I would prefer if regulation and deregulation were conducted in more incremental steps. There are so many risks of unintended consequences.
But the environment for these kinds of deliberations are polluted by political posturing and special interest influence. Which almost always brings me back to campaign finance reform to increasingly elect objective and pragmatic representatives from both parties.

PaulSilver,

I support campaign reform, but I think the hidden issue is that some of the problems with money in politics are tied to the election system. And that if we open ballot access to third parties and allow more debate participation, we'll create a more open political environment that is less tied to machines and money. It would be the most effective thing we could do. Republican and Democratic candidates tend to be too tied by the hip to money that most attempts to reform, like McCain-Feingold are smoke and mirrors.

Rudi,
I agree with as you call them the Dutch Lads. It isn't really a bad thing though. I think it's really hard to have an atmosphere that supports all sides. When Michael and Jason left there was a big hole here for center right and conservative viewpoints. Joe seems to have tried to fill the void but the most frequent contributers are still the center left or liberal viewpoints. That's fine, I consider Poli and TMV to be the yin and yang. Both fill a good spot and neither totally buys in to either the left or right orthodoxy.

"But regulation and interference with development of generating capacity is a much worse problem than the government-run-and-abused "play-market" setup."

Actually the LA municipal electricity, which didn't get deregulated and was still run by the city, ran just fine during the crisis, and actually was overproducing and sold extra electricity to CA during this time. The power crisis was very complicated, but every aspect of it was tied to the deregulation and subsequent free market manipulations that caused the problem. It was a classic example of why we have regulation in the first place.

Redfish,
Agreed.
I usually mention Campaign Finance reform along with redistricting, open primaries,
etc.

Redfish: Republicans do NOT cut taxes for everyone; and aside from the fact that the rich do not need cuts, even if they did, the very fact that they get larger cuts than the middle class, % and real (and I include all the loopholes and ways to circumvent their fair share) is what drives the anger over these tax cuts. Capital simply does not flow down- Reagan showed that in spades. But, invest $ at the lowest levels and it always trickles up- ask the World Bank of its many success stories in 3rd World nations.
As for Europe, the problem is not the tax rates, but too much gov't involvement in certain areas. They need to set ground rules in certain industries, and then let co's battle it out and innovate. The loss of jobs is due to lack of real competition. That's why when economies get too top-heavy in oligopolies (such as now in the USA) they tank, just as Communist (or rather Statist- incl Fascist or theocratic) economies tank. But the relative tax rate has little to do with it.
Regulate an industry to protect consumers and citizens, then let the players innovate, and all win, Then reap higher rewards. But, the mid-20th C. postwar (1945-1970) American economy showed that higher tax rates are no drag at all on economies. That's simply a canard.

DLS: 'They routinely say "centrist" or "moderate" because of liberalism's past failures and they can't admit they are liberals. Not only the politicians but the posters on this site.'

Well, of course there are liberal failures, but most of the things named as such- Soc Sec, Medicare, are not. They are success stories. The failures come in smaller things- wasteful bureaucracies on marginal subjects, or grants or earmarks for ridiculous studies. But, Conservative failures need to be acknowledged- the disastrous Reagan Trickle Down folly, deregulation, and repeated attempts to marginalize certain groups, like homosexuals, which led to a decade's lag behind in funding AIDS research. And let's not forget the War on Terror, Iraq, and general fiscal irresponsibility that the last 30 years have wrought. Although I'm no Bill Clinton fan, and think his economic record was spotty, he was the only Prez to balance a budget since, I believe, Ike.

DLS: '"Who is representative of your concept of a 'truly competent conservative'? "
Cheney was an example I gave. No question he's competent as well as conservative.'

Damn, you never know when to quit while your ahead. WMDs, Saddam is planning to build nukes, the Plame nonsense. My biggest gripe, and most people I know- including diehard Rep's I know and work with, many who are voting for Obama, cite the Bushco incompetence as being a bigger reason they're turned off to their party than malignance or ideology.

'Deregulation has enabled us all rather than the wealthy to travel by air routinely. There is an example of success ("working"). The same is true for what tax reform Reagan could get through. Revenues increased and people had less incentive to shelter income as well as disincentive to work.'

Airline deregulation led to the worst decade of air safety directly after the PATCO firings. Reagan's tax cuts benefited a small % of people at the top of the ladder, while the poor got poorer and mean family incomes fell. And the revenue intake from taxes in the 1980s hit its zenith after Reagan had to reverse field and raise taxes, due to his disastrous first round of tax cuts.

Slamfu: 'You have got to be kidding me. Deregulation has screwed so many industries I barely know where to begin. For starters, the airlines are hardly a model of success since deregulation. The only ones making money these days are the new ones without crushing pension/benists issues. The CA electricity shortage of 2001 was a direct result of deregulation as well as the S&L bailouts of the 80's. Deregulation simply lets a few higher ups totally destabilize the system while they grab every nickle they can before the system falls. Then in comes the gov't and taxpayers to foot the bill.'

You beat me to it.

DLS: 'Not at all. Air travel used to be a tightly managed cartel.'

It was a well-regulated industry, and popular air travel by the masses actually started post-WW2. Ticket prices fell from the 1940s to Reagan. What Reagan did was enable the industry to cut corners on safety with predictable results.
Same is true in the telecoms and media industries. While people marvel at cell phones and downloads, reliable cell service is abysmal, and prices for internet access via services and hardware have left a digital divide in the wake of a re-monoplizing industry. Big media has corporatized all the network news and radio stations have lost all cultural and artistic diversity. If homogenization of the voterbot is a goal, then deregulation is good. If not, then not.

GD: 'DLS, the healthcare consumer is the patient not the insurer, and the provider is the physician. The insurance companies or Medicare administrators are just conduits for payment, not the physician's employer. Physicians who accept Medicare do not consider themselves "nominally private" and in fact seem to appreciate knowing what is covered and being paid promptly.'

Exactly. The idea that even a Medicare expanded system would be socialized, and that lines would form around the block are silly. All it would mean is a single conduit, rather than 1000s.

As for Michael and Jason: they left not because of their views, but because they acted in unscrupulous ways- deleting posts that disagreed with them, slanting whole threads toward their biases, and they still do the same at their new site. Ideology was not their problem, maturity is.

And TMV is fairly moderate. There are a few libs like Shaun and some of the pro-Hill brigade, but Pete Abel and some others lean right.

The parallax of an extremist is always an extremist POV.

cosmoetica:

of course taxes have an effect on the economy if they aren't placed right or the benefits aren't enough. i'm not arguing that you can tell economic well being from the tax percent, you can have higher taxes and a healthier economy, by any number of reason. but there are a lot of effects of taxes or subsidies that aren't necessarily accounted for. in the end my view of taxes, is that the aim should be to have most taxes be pecuniary, in that things which incur social costs end up paying for programs that address them.

I also agree that trickle-down supply-side economics isn't a solution more than Keynesian demand-side economics. Either approach can be useful at certain times, though. I believe in the Laffer curve for taxation, and I think the same principle extends to every type of economic policy , because any action on the market generally depends on the market's degree of elasticity, and its ability to adapt.

And yes there have been times when Republicans try to institute an across-the-board tax cut, by a flat percent, and Democrats try to portray this as "cutting taxes for the rich". Richer people will obviously get more real dollars back; but some times, cutting taxes across the board is good policy, while other times its not. I support progressive taxation, in either case.

Well, the Laffer is an exemplar of moderation, and applies to things beyond the economy. I deal with it on a day to day basis with balancing shelf diversity with saleability. But, Keynes folk have not had the meltdown that trickle down did.

But the across the board tax cut, buy nature is regressive. What is amazing is that people who complain about progressivism a) don't realize that it's the system we use that allows them to get rich in the first place, and that making 10k a year, and avoiding taxes, is not better nor more onerous a burden than someone making 10 mill, with taxes progressing from 15-70% or so. Which would I rather be? Take a damned guess!

And while the gov't can be wasteful, a loo at the nation's savings rates and th eflexible morgages shows that the private citizen is even worse.

Ask yourself, should we privatize Soc Sec, and then have to bail out the tens of millions of morons who will piss away their retirement, or tweak a system as we go along, means test, legislate than Congress cannot, under any circumstances, rip off the SS trust fund, and assorted other measures? I opt for the latter- it's fairer, more realistic, and certainly more cost-effective.

Michael and Jason also threatened/bullied commenters and front pagers who didn't agree with their "moderation". The non-US contributors at TMV were attacked for an anti-US bias. A moderate or centrist site needs view points from both ends to present both sides of an argument. As Cosmo mentioned, some who didn't agree with "orthodoxy" were bullied and threatened with "barring from the site". Articles from foreign that question "American exceptionalism" are evil...

Paul,

Since your is likely the 10th iteration of the topic, in honor of the significant milestone, I will contribute a comment to the blackhole this subject has evidenced itself to be.

You, sir, are indeed moderate in tone and I will also stipulate you are moderate in your liberalism. But, as CS alluded to over on her post on the dark continent, can you enumerate for me a position of yours that you consider to be right of center?

For that matter, of all the regular posters here, I can only think of Holly on Israel and lynx on immigration to be the ONLY time a right of center position has been articulated here other than by the few of us here by virtue of non-planned affirmative action.

If persons posting here were beyond moderate to also encompass centrism, one would think law of averages would call for right of center on at least a few more occasions.

As respects your highlighted topics your left of center bias shows simply by how you present these.

You seem to postulate regulation should ALWAYS be present, only the degree of such being open to decide. But, in a society premised on freedom and free enterprise, should not the unbiased viewpoint start with why must the regulation be imposed at all? If you cannot demonstrate actual harm to society from the unabridged freedom status, I do not accept the hurdle is cleared.

Secondly, is the most fundamental reason for instituting taxation really based on a egalitarian welfare premise or the premise of providing services which are most effectively administered or delivered only at a widely collective level?

In essence, the viewpoints expressed here always seem to assume we automatically get to start at the 50 yard line, when I believe when it comes to "burdening" a citizenry with regulation or taxation that you must always reprove the harm or the economic case.

See what you got started here Paul? Good god ya'll!!! Congrats for speaking from the dangerous center. As you suggest, it's where you get it from all sides; on the other hand it's where the firmer ground is. I believe moderatism is well represented here ~ on average. Perhaps those who think TMV is too left or too right are just too far removed from the center to get proper bearings. ;-)

CO,
Off the top of my head I am right of center regarding frivolous spending, unjustified farm and industry subsidies, I favor voter ID, a National ID system and a simplified tax system, I support English as the official language for conducting public affairs, I am sure there are others. I have a particular resistance to social engineering such as some smoking bans in which there are no victims.

In theory I can agree that regulation may not always be necessary but as a practical matter I think that is remote. Anytime an individal's behavior can impact someone else, regulation may be justified.

I don' t fully under your distinction about taxation. Taxation does allow the Government to offer services than may not be possible by individuals. Such as SS to provide a safety net if one's investments tank, or Health Care which is cheaper when the cost is amortized over the entire population, and space exploration.

The Constitution's limits on the role of government were fashioned 200 years old. Reasonable and pragmatic legislators may agree that it is in our collective interest for regulatory intervention in Health, Energy, Environment, Election reform and all of the unintended consequences of a flatter and more densely populated earth.

DLS- How is Cheney competent- ??

look at our foreign policy and the way the Iraq War has been mismanaged! Cheney backed Rumsfeld and would never have gotten rid of him. I actually think that Bush's administration would have been better off without Cheney because Bush would have listened to Colin Powell in 2001 instead of marginalizing him. Cheney has created divisions within the administration and taken power away from cabinet officials- creating the impression that the head was disconnected from the body.

DLS -I agree with Slamfu on deregulation. Air travel is now more dangerous and less efficient. Remember Jet Blue and other cut rate airlines that ended up cutting back on safety checks? I'd rather pay more and know I'm going to get there in one piece.

Look at how deregulation has affected the toy industry, with thousands of recalls made routinely because of lead paint , which the companies weren't forced to test for. Voluntary standards are a boon to industries like the toy industry or the mining industry- where safety standards have not been legislated and enforced until the recent slew of accidents. Regulation protects consumers from corporate greed.

Paul: I should probably let CO answer since his comments are so well written and thought out, but since I think I completely understood the point on taxation I'll make an attempt to answer your question on that point.

I'm pretty sure what CO alluded to was the philosophical premise for having any taxation at all. Conservatives would say that the premise is STRICTLY to provide for the services which have to be provided for the common good, the infrastructure and defense for the collective which can't logically exist without a collective revenue source (think interstate highways and military, for starters, add in public education.

Liberals of course agree with all of those taxation needs, but they add in other categories which promote equality (and that's equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.) These are the programs which redistribute wealth- welfare and other 'entitlements', grants and subsidies.

I think what CO is saying is that the 50 yard line of centrism would lie directly between those two philosophical approaches on the issue of taxation (or I should say, on the need for revenue.)

The founding fathers were opposed to having a standing army. I imagine George Washington would be appalled to see our troops stationed in foreign counties around the world.

I think almost everyone knows people who prefer to homeschool their children, rather than submit them to public education.

I used to live in Arizona. I knew a bunch of libertarians. Some of them considered the interstate highway system nothing but socialism in action. One of them claimed yield signs on freeway entrances were an unconscionable abridgment of his Constitutional rights.

As a frequent (and frequently argumentative) commenter here, I appreciate the ability to make my arguments in this public forum with large audience. Along with that, I appreciate the fact that everyone is free to disagree with me--or, worse, to ignore me.

This is not an echo chamber. You can go to plenty of other places for that. You won't to have to look far to find one.

One man's 50-yard-line is another man's left field. Stop trying to work the ref.

GS: it's darn near impossible to play the game if the teams don't agree on where the 50 yard line is, though, isn't it? That's why I think that part of it is absolutely essential to any discussions that are supposed to be centrist in nature. If you know that the folks you are talking to are considering their own 30 yd line to be the 50, then you can do the math and figure out where they are coming from and how to justify your own position.

CO: 'As respects your highlighted topics your left of center bias shows simply by how you present these.
You seem to postulate regulation should ALWAYS be present, only the degree of such being open to decide. But, in a society premised on freedom and free enterprise, should not the unbiased viewpoint start with why must the regulation be imposed at all? If you cannot demonstrate actual harm to society from the unabridged freedom status, I do not accept the hurdle is cleared.'

***The Cigaret industry, the drug industry, on basis of health issues. The FDA, for similar reasons. The fact that all companies have shown that sans regulation they will cheat and cut corners. The 1980s in airline safety was a perfect example. Deregulation has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it's been applied.
Government's purpose is broad but singular- provide for the citizenry what they cannot do for themselves- be it the protection of the military, the police, the firefighter, or regulations on foods, drugs, vehicles. Should we opt out of licensing motor vehicles?

'Secondly, is the most fundamental reason for instituting taxation really based on a egalitarian welfare premise or the premise of providing services which are most effectively administered or delivered only at a widely collective level?'

***It's a false dichotomy. The real reason is what was stated above- to provide what the citizen cannot provide for themselves. This sometimes includes the poor and inform being able to get food, assistance mdically and financially so that their illness is prevented from spreading or they do not feel so helpless they turn to crime to survive.

'In essence, the viewpoints expressed here always seem to assume we automatically get to start at the 50 yard line, when I believe when it comes to "burdening" a citizenry with regulation or taxation that you must always reprove the harm or the economic case.'

***Actually, your use of false dichotomies says more of YOUR parallax on things, As I stated above: The parallax of an extremist is always an extremist POV.

CS: See above.

'Conservatives would say that the premise is STRICTLY to provide for the services which have to be provided for the common good, the infrastructure and defense for the collective which can't logically exist without a collective revenue source (think interstate highways and military, for starters, add in public education.'

***And the common good can mean welfare for the poor, Medicaid for the poor and Medicare for the elderly. The reality is that no individual nor corporation gets rich w/o the help of others. Can Wal-Mart move its products about without the gov't provided public commons of infrastructure? No. So they owe it to pay taxes to the system that lets them get rich. Let us not forget- a marketplace is not a RIGHT- it is a mutually agreed upon setting that is allowed by all parties pursuant to regulations on safety and health issues the government sets for the welfare of all.

'Liberals of course agree with all of those taxation needs, but they add in other categories which promote equality (and that's equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.) These are the programs which redistribute wealth- welfare and other 'entitlements', grants and subsidies.'

***Ask any welfare mom if that program promotes any equality (outcome or opportunity) with the median citizen. That's just silly, and another Right Wing canard. Wealth redistribution, as you call it, can be justified by the fact that when the gov't gives tax breaks to the rich or corporations they are, at first, DISTRIBUTING the wealth of the masses to a privileged group. If you rail about redistribution- that quaint relic from the Cold War, then at least be honest enough to acknowledge the myriad ways wealth is distributed at first, with the slight mitigation of redistribution at far lower levels.

'If you know that the folks you are talking to are considering their own 30 yd line to be the 50, then you can do the math and figure out where they are coming from and how to justify your own position.'

But the positions you are taking above show you want to start with a first and goal and call it midfield!

C Stanley--

Where do you place the 50 yard line?

Please be specific.

cosmoetica.

my main issue with welfare is that it can't be a broken system, the society can't sustain an unlimited number of people. which is why i think it has to be justified as an economic safety net, rather than a redistribution of wealth; and which is why i think welfare/workfare reforms in the 90s were important.

on those terms, businesses like welfare also, because their well being depends on the well being of others in the country.
a good health care system is also a benefit to those that don't need it.

but whenever programs are justified entirely on wealth redistribution, and not some common social need, they end up being broken, because they don't take in account the ability of society to sustain it.

also i'd say deregulation, like regulation, often has a mix of positive and negative effects. its like , as I pointed out, the Laffer curve. Sometimes regulations could have been too strict to have been effective, other times too lenient to have been effective.

Redfish: See my above on the distribution before redistribution. Even in the late 80s heyday of Welfare moms, they got a fraction of what corporations got & get.

The onus is on those who claim that it's wealth redistribution to prove it, because manifestly the overwhelming majority of folk on welfare are and were poor. The rationales for corporate welfare, by comparison, have never had a justification.

Your whole POV is based upon assumptions not based in reality. Just how many folk on welfare have you ever known? If more than just what was seen on Jerry Springer, you'd never be taking the ridiculous claim of wealth redistribution- a cynical political buzzword that has no real world heft.

As for Laffer, I agreed. But even at their tightest, Am regulation has never been on par w European nations; same w taxation.

George: if you click over to MVDG's place (Rudi's link above), I've discussed my view of the 50 yard line (or true philosophically oriented centerpoint) in the comment section there. I'm basically arguing that the philosophical center is the exact point at which govt begins intervening in the economy (or social issues, if you're talking about the left/right divide on those.)

What most people here seem to do though is argue that the center of American politics today is considerably to the left of that point on economic issues- that we've already ceded ground toward the liberal view of govt regulation and taxation for redistribution of wealth. That may be true, but it still doesn't make it healthy to center debates around that centerpoint- because then all we do is debate just how far to the left we should drift, based not on logical rationals about those leftward shifts producing net benefit, but based only on the vague feeling that people want solutions and will now accept govt intervention since they no longer feel confident that the private sector (or conservative govt policy) will address problems that are important to them.

And I will grant you that the reason this situation exists is a failure of conservative leadership.

Cosmo: I'm rapidly approaching the limits of my football knowledge here, but obviously you believe that I'm doing what I believe you are doing- moving the goal posts, or starting with a yardage advantage. My argument, again, is based on where the true philosophical divide between conservatism and liberalism (American liberalism, that is) lies. I see you claiming that on every issue it's already first and ten on the liberal team's 30 yard line, and you feel this is justified because you believe that regulation and welfare policies are obviously needed for the common good.

The dichotomy about the different rationales for taxation and govt intervention isn't a true dichotomy, you're right about that (but neither CO nor I claimed it was dichotomous.) What we're saying is that there's not an 'either-or', it's 'either-and.' Your position is the 'and' one- you believe that infrastructure and defense COMBINED with welfare and regulation of business are all 'common good' needs to be provided by the govt. You take that as a given, we don't. We tend to look to the Constitution for the core roles of govt, and to say that any expansion of the role of govt should be taken as a last resort and with burden of proof on those who advocate for it.

It's also important to note that there are various ways that govt can take that role of protecting consumers from excesses of corporations. Trust busting is preferable to direct regulation IMO because this keeps the market forces that can protect against the excesses of monopolies or oligopolies. It also provides much greater opportunity for upward mobility, because if the labor situation is pyramidical for workers, then it's much better to have a lot of small pyramids vs. one or two large ones in any given field of employment.

And I strongly disagree with the concept that the marketplace is not a right. Citizens have the right to organize themselves for whatever enterprise they choose which promotes their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This isn't something they must petition to the govt to do, it is by default their right. You list things that make the marketplace possible- infrastructure, for example- but I've already stated that this is indeed a role of govt and citizens as well as corporations already do pay for that service of govt. The corporations pay taxes for the right to use those services- but I'm unclear as to why you feel their burden should be so much greater than anyone else's. I'm also unclear why it isn't obvious to anyone that the taxes ultimately are paid by the consumers- so all we're really doing when we impose taxes on a food producing company is saying that they pay X dollars which gives them the use of interstate highways to truck their products around the country, which in turn raises the price of those products (and the welfare mother and the working poor have to pay those higher prices- so these are actually regressive taxes.)

CS: Here is your first and goal stand: 'I'm basically arguing that the philosophical center is the exact point at which govt begins intervening in the economy (or social issues, if you're talking about the left/right divide on those.)'

***That occurs the moment a government builds a road to foster commerce. That occurs the moment government grants a license for radio or tv. That begins the moment government grants individuals the right to incorporate.

For most not on the Right side, these are everyday givens. That you see this as a centrist stance says much of your parallax on things. Only the most extreme libertarians take such a position, and they certainly are not moderates.

CS: 'Your position is the 'and' one- you believe that infrastructure and defense COMBINED with welfare and regulation of business are all 'common good' needs to be provided by the govt. You take that as a given, we don't. We tend to look to the Constitution for the core roles of govt, and to say that any expansion of the role of govt should be taken as a last resort and with burden of proof on those who advocate for it.'

***Regulation got hard after the disaster of the deregulated 1920s. It WAS a last resort, and very needed. The deregulation of the last 25 years has shown it was a good thing overwhelmingly. The aforementioned lack of regulation on products from China and other nations supports this. There is no such thing as a truly free market. That's theism, not reality. It's only a matter of who sets the rules and how stringently. I'd prefer gov't bureaucrats over corporate hacks, because it's easier to get rid of. and punish, elected bums than corrupts COOs and CEOs.

CS: 'Trust busting is preferable to direct regulation IMO because this keeps the market forces that can protect against the excesses of monopolies or oligopolies.'

Both can work, but look at the FTC and FCC. Monopolies and oligopolies are the rule now because the gov't has gone limp. But both are cricial to ending the gaming of markets by individual interests of the few against the masses' welfare, as in commonweal.

CS: 'And I strongly disagree with the concept that the marketplace is not a right. Citizens have the right to organize themselves for whatever enterprise they choose which promotes their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This isn't something they must petition to the govt to do, it is by default their right.'

***All rights are human fictions, and needed ones. But, for the Right, which tends to disdain all the rights granted- to an abortion, as example, to vote, as another, to speak of a greater right to hawk goods than control one's body or express oneself democratically? Gimme a break.

CS: 'but I'm unclear as to why you feel their burden should be so much greater than anyone else's. I'm also unclear why it isn't obvious to anyone that the taxes ultimately are paid by the consumers- so all we're really doing when we impose taxes on a food producing company is saying that they pay X dollars which gives them the use of interstate highways to truck their products around the country, which in turn raises the price of those products (and the welfare mother and the working poor have to pay those higher prices- so these are actually regressive taxes.)'

***Corps are legal fictions granted to the public for the public good. I work, as example, for a large family owned business. It is wholly private, and the owner can pay himself what he wants. A corp is a public entity and not a natural fre market phenomenon. They literally are 100% dependent upon the gov't to exist legally. They owe it to give back to the gov't (i.e,.- you and me, the citizenry) because we have allowed them the right to make money with limited liability compared to, say, my ultimate boss in business- a private individual.
You wanna play, you pay. And since a corp has no dependents that are a drag on its income (and employees are not dependents but moneymakers), the state has every right to tell the entity it created the limits of what it can do and make. Don't like it, I'm sure there are other enterprises willing to step in. Period.
As for the burdens being passed to the consumer. Yes. And then the consumer spends and the money goes round and round. This is how economies work. So? TYou are therefore making the case for me, that the corps should be taxed higher, and regulated more, so that they do not pass on costs to us.
Ex- I worked in the telecom industry- note all those little BS charges that the telecoms added after AT&T's 1984 breakup? Universal connectivity fees, etc.? Recall that they did not exist on your bill beforehand, because the gov'y said, hey we granted you a monopoly, and that's the price you pay for it. Afterwards, w deregulation, they (Baby Bells) decided to gouge customers with it, even though they had merely become regional, not national, monopolies. Had the same regs been in place, and in place now, we'd all be saving a good ten bucks or so a month.
And this has occurred in all deregulate industries. The telecoms have merely been the most brazen and up front.
Regulation, in this case, and many others, saved you money. Not bad, eh?

C Stanley--

I clicked on Rudi's link. It's a very long thread there, so I might have missed it, but I don't see anything about a 50 yard line.

Maybe it's on another thread? Unfortunately, though, I am not allowed to post comments at the MVDG site. So the option of continuing the conversation over there is not open to me.

I am interested in where you personally place the 50 yard line. I'd be interested in how you personally define the exact center. I also think that would be more fruitful than the frequently made complaint the TMV does not live up to some objective standard of moderation.

Cut and paste?

George: I didn't use the phrase '50 yard line' over there- I picked that up here from someone else. Anyway, here's some cut and paste for you:
Lots of people are saying that the center HAS moved to the left (or a variation of that, that people who are centrists are opposing the right more now because of a lousy batch of conservatives who’ve been at the helm.)

But my point is that philosophically, the center point doesn’t change-those are constants. So if you accept the premise that the center of American opinion is now somewhere to the left of the ‘magnetic north’ center, the actual midpoint between big govt solutions and small govt libertarianism, then all of the debates end up being about just how far left we should go. The center doesn’t hold when there’s no rational consideration of any ideas that are anything other than liberal or extremely liberal ideas.

Then Claudia (who is the commenter also known as "Lynx" disputed my assertion of a true north position. So I countered with this:

Claudia, on economic issues there certainly is a midpoint- it’s the point at which we stop approaching issues from the laissez faire, free market aspect and instead apply govt interference or regulation on the economy.

I don't think this is all that complicated (you're free to disagree with my point, but I don't see why it should require a lengthy explanation for a pretty simple concept.)

The concept is that conservatism actually means something, as does liberalism (though American liberalism has evolved into something different than classical liberalism, so it might be better to call it progressivism or some such thing.) Conservatives approach each problem from the standpoint that the default position is NO GOVT INTERFERENCE, and then each case is decided on its merits. The burden of proof is on those who want to regulate or raise taxes, to show that these steps are necessary, unavoidable, and will result in a net gain to counter the negative effect of govt power being interjected onto citizens.

The fact that on many or most issues, ground has already been ceded, doesn't mean that the argument should begin at this new point where some regulation and some degree of taxation is a given. The burden of proof is still on those who wish to enact these policies.

Again, you can't claim that you've already got a first down on the 30 yard line, just because your team already scored some touchdowns. Start debating each issue at the intersection of two different approaches: we either have the govt directly intervene by taxing or regulating, or we look toward other solutions (or in some cases, accept the status quo if the problem really isn't as great as it's been made out to be.)

I think that the movement of the debate to a new fulcrum that is left of center is unhealthy for a number of reasons. It reflects a lack of thoughtfulness (because more often than not, assuming that a govt solution is necessary never takes into acct whether previous govt interventions have proven effective in similar circumstances, or whether or not such a proposal will have more unintended negative consequences than positive ones.) It's also a problem to debate this way because we've skipped over a lot of potential solutions which might require a lot of ingenuity, but might prove better than a bureaucratic solution. Just because recent conservative leadership has been lacking in those kinds of solutions doesn't mean that we should assume they don't exist.

CS: 'onservatives approach each problem from the standpoint that the default position is NO GOVT INTERFERENCE, and then each case is decided on its merits.'

Interference, not assistance. Your very choice of words betrays your starting line.

cosmo: I was talking about conservatives starting from that perspective, which is of course to the right of the center line. All I'm asking is that liberals meet us just on the other side of that line for the line of scrimmage to begin there in each discussion. You come to it from the perspective that govt action is assistance, I come to it from the standpoint that it's interference. Then we each make our case and everyone decides who had the better defense of their position.

IOW, I've never pretended to be anything other than a conservative, cosmo- but I get tired of having to pull discussions away from the assumption that conservatism isn't even an option. I go to centrist websites because I really do believe that those discussions can help figure out when the govt really can have a role to "assist" and when it's just interfering and should get out of the way.

I said assistance to highlight your bias. I did not state it as my choice of words. Gov't can do both, but as I showed above, and as Keynesian economic reality has shown since the 1930s, there is a definite need for the gov't to moderate the excesses of private greed.

I gave some examples, and I'll give another, from two other threads:

'Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?
In 25 years Cons will be defending gay marriage and Healthcare as a right, and conveniently forgetting that people like you ever existed and dared to call themselves cons.
Make book on that! History's flow is toward greater liberties, and there's a reason liberty and liberalism come from the same root word.'

By it's nature, conservatism can work only in small, select areas, such as personal finances, or not raiding Soc Sec. But it utterly fails when trying to control human nature- see Communism, Prohibition. It fails because even Cons only want to be cons in certain areas. No real Con wd be against abortion- it's no one''s business what anyone does w their body. No Com wd oppose gay marriage, for what consenting adults do is no one's business. So-called cons have a host of things they want to take liberal measures to resolve, yet do not call them such because they know that they are not really Cons, but Right Wing extremists.
Look at strict Constructionists, who apparently forget that all the rights not enumerated within the documents are de facto granted to the individuals.
Since rights are all human fictions, that means that the Constitution does not grant rights, as much as demarcate specifics, with the general unenumerate drights being a given.

That's both a Consevrative approach to the document, as well as a liberal one, showing that honest approaches to both can lead to the same place. Unfortunately, the last 3 decades have seen a bunch of corrupt pseudo-Cons push out real conservatism, which, despite its limits, is a defensible belief system on some scores. But the Reagan-Bush sort of con is a con only in the 'confidence man' meaning.

C Stanley-

But my point is that philosophically, the center point doesn’t change-those are constants.

I'm going to try to sort the things that bother me about this.

You talk about a constant.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant that can be measured, quantified, defined with some degree of precision. It takes both expertise and labor to do these things. And the people who do it stand on the shoulders of the scientific giants who came before them.

That's physics. Social science is a long way from being physics.

I don't believe there is a constant. You sometimes seem to agree with me about that, but then you start talking about a constant again. If you think there's some kind of objective constant midpoint, please measure , quantify and define it.

I do believe there is middle ground. But not everyone will agree where it is. And people left out of that consensus will be disgruntled, to say the least.

For example, you talked about the interstate highway as an example of the common good. I agree with you about that, by the way. I imagine the vast majority of people would agree.

But not everyone does. And the people I've known who disagree make a strong case on principle against it. They think it was government interference. They businesses should have built their own transportation infrastructure. They think, given free market solutions, consumers would have had choices of competing highway systems. They think those choices would have made costs lower than our current taxes.

I think that argument is laughable. And the Libertarians I've known were fairly good-humored about being laughed at. But they stuck to their principles.

There isn't any question about it--private businesses were able to offload their needs for transportation infrastructure onto the federal government. And I don't think there's much question about it--doing so benefited the common good. In pragmatic terms.

An argument is sometimes made that businesses in places like Eurpoe have benefited in pragmatic terms from offloading their healthcare costs onto the government. Maybe it's not true. But as long as there are people opposed to that on the ground of some kind of principle, they are always going to be disgruntled when the topic comes up. They're going to be opposed to having that discussion. They're opposed on principle.

And they seem to think the principles they believe in are constant.

Do you see what bothers me in that?

George: All of this goes back to the ideas of rights as Natural Law, rather than human fictions. The Left sees rights as infinitely flexible, and the Right as only those the Bible dictates.

Cons often forget about the public commons that you mention.

The centerpoint, as I demonstrated above, is always changing, for human beings, and their societies are constantly getting more liberal- in the open-minded, not political, sense.

This is inevitable, because sheer knowledge keeps lighting up the dark ignorances of biases and fears.

Ask yourself: 100 years ago someone like CS would have been arguing over the destructive nature of giving women the vote. Now it's not even on the table. Similarly, gay marriage, genetic engineering, and universal healthcare will be defended by folk who claim to be, as CS claims, conservatives. And they will deny they ever opposed such things, because society will have so accepted a person's right to healthcare, marry anyone regardless of sex, or determine if their baby will be a boy or girl, blue or green eyed, or be creative or functionary.

Reality moves on, and as the now dead Buckley said, 'Conservatives stand athwart history and yell STOP!

Ain't worked out too well, has it?

cosmo, this is really rather amusing. So, liberalism is to be credited for everything good that has happened in our history? How about acknowledging that we started with a pretty ultraconservative premise of individual liberty to begin with? And that the 'progress' that you cite has come about as a result of the interplay, the push and pull, of liberalism and conservatism?

Basically you can make a list of all of the good things that liberalism has brought, and I'm happy to give 'your side' credit for many of them. But I'll then point out that after your list of a dozen or so items, conservatism is to be credited for everything else, as well as for preventing the liberal changes from going too far or too fast.

George, you don't have to take me so literally on the 'constant' reference, it was just an analogy to a physical/scientific concept of a fixed point. Do you really not get that my 'going back and forth with agreeing with you' is due to the fact that I see a difference between the abstract (where there IS a fixed centerpoint between the conflicting political philosophies- one side being the government action side and one side being the govt restraint side) and the reality on the ground where people's opinions have shifted toward accepting more left leaning policies?

I'm saying that the debates, if they're to be truly centrist, should focus around the philosophical middle, not the public polling middle point.

Go ahead. But I'd be willing to bet that the Con goodies are really not goodies at all, but merely things you prefer.

On the other hand, tell me where any of this: 'Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?'

is historically arguable. And what positive push and pull did anti-abolitionists or exploitive child laboring corporations provide?

CS: 'How about acknowledging that we started with a pretty ultraconservative premise of individual liberty to begin with?'

Yes, only rich, white, landed men had personal liberty, then liberally, we included minorities, women, and people under 21. You have to realize you just ran into your own endzone for me?

So, go ahead, list all the great Con ideas. I'll bet at least 50% of them are not only not great ideas, but like your above claim, actually argue for the other side.

CS: 'I'm saying that the debates, if they're to be truly centrist, should focus around the philosophical middle, not the public polling middle point.'

Which you have shown starts squarely in the liberal red zone.

C Stanley--

I can only read your words, not your mind.

You define the philosophical middle as being the "where there IS a fixed centerpoint between the conflicting political philosophies- one side being the government action side and one side being the govt restraint side".

In favoring the interstate highway system, public education and the military, aren't you deeply inside the government action side? I ask because you seem to think you're on the government restraint side.

cosmo: Just about everything written by the founders would qualify as 'great Con ideas' since they obviously created our system of govt to guard against the tyrannies of govt. Still care to claim that 50% of those writings aren't great?

George: Even the govt restraint side recognizes that some things need to be ceded to govt, that govt needs to exist and it has certain core functions to provide for collective needs of society. Govt action siders include a lot of additional stuff there though, which they claim are collective needs because they address needs of large groups of individuals- but that's not the same as a collective need.

And govt restrainters don't believe the govt needs to be restrained in all cases that go beyond the core collective need functions either- but the farther you stray from that premise, the farther one gets from that abstract centrist point. There's value in recognizing that there's a starting point and knowing that we crossed that point for a compelling reason, rather than just crossing it without concern for the downside of that process (growth of govt bureaucracy.)

cosmo: a few points about the antiabolitionists or the anti-child labor law people.

First, those on the 'good' side of those debates certainly weren't always on that side for pure reasons. Abolitionists were often trying to abolish slavery in order to gain economic advantage for the North back from the Southern slave states.

And even those on the side that I (obviously) consider highly immoral, those people were right to point out that the exploitation of workers in northern factories wasn't that significantly different than slave conditions. Of course there's a degree of difference which can't be ignored- freedom- but the point is that the whole issue revolved around the general labor conditions that prevailed across the whole land, and the fact that the US economy couldn't withstand a sudden precipitous rise in cost of productivity even though that rise was morally necessary.

On child labor, my views are colored by my own experience visiting a Third World country (Guatemala.) I'd previously been a good liberal on that issue, trying to be informed about labor conditions for the products I purchased so that I'd try to avoid contributing to exploitation. Problem is though that I saw that families would starve if their kids couldn't work, so who would be helped by prohibiting child labor?

You've actually helped me clarify my arguments against knee jerk liberalism because these examples show that it isn't (as liberals would argue) that progress is impeded because the selfish bastard conservatives refuse to allow change, it's because there's simply a need for conditions to catch up to be able to support the needed change. And that's why the old adage about liberals basing their ideas on emotion is apt- you believe that every problem could be solved if people just cared a lot more, while conservatives are more grounded in reality.

"collective need"?

Now you're talking like a socialist, C Stanley!!

You're free to think conservatives are "more grounded in reality" than liberals. Just as I'm free to consider the connection between tax cuts in a time of war and the large budget deficit.

If you're satisfied with the arguments you've made, I guess we're done.

For now.

CS: cosmo: Just about everything written by the founders would qualify as 'great Con ideas' since they obviously created our system of govt to guard against the tyrannies of govt. Still care to claim that 50% of those writings aren't great?

***Are you serious? The US Constitution is still considered a Revolutionary document. Dictators do not quote from it. People seeking greater freedom do.

Here's what I wrote: 'So, go ahead, list all the great Con ideas. I'll bet at least 50% of them are not only not great ideas, but like your above claim, actually argue for the other side.'

Damn, I'm good!

CS: 'Of course there's a degree of difference which can't be ignored- freedom- but the point is that the whole issue revolved around the general labor conditions that prevailed across the whole land, and the fact that the US economy couldn't withstand a sudden precipitous rise in cost of productivity even though that rise was morally necessary.'

C'mon, you can do better than that sort of weasel word argument. This is akin to the claim that the Civil War was not about slavery, but state's rights. State's rights for what? To legalize slavery. And when you state 'he fact that the US economy couldn't withstand a sudden precipitous rise in cost of productivity even though that rise was morally necessary.' you show that you simply are not looking at the same history the rest of us do.

'Problem is though that I saw that families would starve if their kids couldn't work, so who would be helped by prohibiting child labor?'

***Geez, think that paying good wages to American workers, and not exploiting children or adults overseas might be the better option?
People sell their children to real slavers still in India, the MidEast and Indonesia- let's excuse that, as well.
And I'll go you one better. I actually did CHILD LABOR, in NYC, in knitting mills and cartage companies, only a few decades ago, and it's all about exploitation of the kid, the means of the family, and a lax enforcement.

'And that's why the old adage about liberals basing their ideas on emotion is apt- you believe that every problem could be solved if people just cared a lot more, while conservatives are more grounded in reality.'

You think in cliches, I don't. I've given reality, and you've given examples that undermine your own claims. And caring does not matter, only intellect does; a quality your claims lack: yes, the US Constitution is a conservative document, even though it is embraced by revolutionaries and was deliberately left open-ended exactly because the Founders knew that their descendents would deal with, and know how to solve problems they could not imagine.

Now, just don't go all Hillary on me cuz yr losin'. No tears, please.

CS: Still waiting for how the most revolutionary political document in world history, which broadened the scope of individual liberties is somehow conservative, since liberalism is all about empowering the individual.

Not only do I not resort to tears when debating, cosmo, there'd be absolutely no need for me to cry because you're only 'winning' by defining everything according to your own biases.

Of course the founding documents were revolutionary but there's absolutely no support for the idea that the founders were trying to set up a govt that would embrace New Deal policies (funny how FDR found that he would have needed to stack the Supreme Court to have gone any further with those kinds of policies, because he'd reached the limits of what the Constitution actually allowed him to do and he'd have needed some creative reinterpretation to expand the power of his government any further.)

No, I'm sorry, but most any rational thinker who is even vaguely familiar with the Federalist papers knows that the founders had the utmost concern with the need to constrain government's power. Where is the open endedness you speak of in any of our founding documents (or the philosophical debates which led to the creation of those documents?)

Ha- I crossposted and didn't see your latest comment. I have no problem with classical liberalism and in fact it's completely compatible with true conservatism, cosmo. My beef is with modern American liberalism which began in the 30s and no longer has much at all in common with the ideals of individual liberty that defines classical liberalism.

Maybe that's why we're arguing in circles-you're conflating two different political philosophies and claiming that the Constitution and other documents support liberalism (true on the classical liberalism, false for modern progressive American liberalism.)

CS: 'but there's absolutely no support for the idea that the founders were trying to set up a govt that would embrace New Deal policies'

They did not conceive of the telephone, but the document is flexible enough to see that invasion of privacy applies to one's conversations, in their hom eor on private phone lines, save for a judicial warrant.

That is one of hundreds of examples that proves the Constitution is fundamentally liberal.

And FDR was wrong to try to stack the court, just as Reagan was wrong to implement the litmus test. So? All that shows is that people in power, regardless of ideology, tend to abuse power, which is why post-FDR, a term limit was set.

'Where is the open endedness you speak of in any of our founding documents (or the philosophical debates which led to the creation of those documents?'

9th Amendment: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

Why do you think so many scholars get pissed off and argue, because the doc left so much open and vague PRECISELY because they knew that an open,liberal approach to civil liberties was the only way to go.

'most any rational thinker who is even vaguely familiar with the Federalist papers knows that the founders had the utmost concern with the need to constrain government's power.'

Yes, and Statism is not a left wing nor right wing argument, but rejecting the incursion of the state into personal issues like who one marries or sleeps with, or what a woman does with her body, are bedrock liberal principles, as well as those for true cons.

There are certainly bastardizations of liberalism, but anything that furthers the individuual is certainly liberal, and this would entail Soc Sec. Medicare, and Welfare, whereas anything that supports groups or corporations is not.

You'd be the first to argue that trying to tar Classical Conservatism with W's policies is wrong, yet you are quick to do the same in reverse. I'm not conflating anything, but you are conveniently hopscotching from claim to claim, position to position, and even jumping on X's and calling them O's.

cosmo: I really feel it necessary for you to explain what you mean by liberalism. Yes, I absolutely do feel that W and Co (and MOST of the recent GOP leaders) have tarred conservatism and claimed that title for things that aren't at all conservative.

And if you're only defending classical liberalism then I repeat that I don't differ from you on that. But you frequently defend policies that I see as modern US progressively liberal, not classically liberal. Obviously you see the problem with statism as it relates to individual moral behaviors, but you don't seem to see the problem with high taxation to promote economic egalitarian ideals.

In your penultimate paragraph I noted one explanation where I think you are completely wrong (cut and paste isn't working, for some reason, so I'll paraphrase you.) You're saying that anything that benefits the individual is liberal-

huh?

Lots of things benefit individuals, but when those things are being enforced or provided for by government, there's a tradeoff of liberty. That doesn' t mean it should never happen, and classic liberalism isn't anarchist so it certainly allows for some of that tradeoff when the benefits outweigh the goods (and particularly it's a given when you're talking about a core function of govt that's agreed upon by nearly all, like defense or police/justice functions.)

But to say that ANYTHING that benefits the individual is classically liberal, is completely inaccurate. That seems to be the exact jumping off point for modern progressive liberalism, and it's exactly where I part company. Because when you leave it open (which I guess is what you mean about open endedness) like that, you've begun to ignore the fact that liberty is being sacrificed for those things.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal


Main Entry:
1lib·er·al Listen to the pronunciation of 1liberal
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date:
14th century

1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full3obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious4: not literal or strict : loose 5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

That's a close approximation to what I mean. You are oft confusing Left with Liberal and Right w Con. W, as example, is a Right Winger, but no Con.

I'm not confusing</> left winger with liberal, just pointing out that I find some of your preferred policies to be left wing rather than liberal (in classic sense.) See my last post.

'And if you're only defending classical liberalism then I repeat that I don't differ from you on that. But you frequently defend policies that I see as modern US progressively liberal, not classically liberal. Obviously you see the problem with statism as it relates to individual moral behaviors, but you don't seem to see the problem with high taxation to promote economic egalitarian ideals.'

The Right (not Cons) often tries to confuse Classical and Real world liberalism, and does so because the Left often confuses both.

First, I see no right to a free market in any document going back to the Magna Carta. The state always reserves the right to regulate commerce, for safety, health, and other legit reasons no one argues over. Taxes fall among these. In the 1700s tariffs sufficed as governmental income, but there were few private corps and few individuals worth taxing, for the needs of the people were low. There were virtual witch doctors- leeches and craniometry, etc., so no healthcare needs. there was slavery, exploitive child labor, no suffrage for women and poor white males. There were no egalitarian ideals in practice, only on paper.

As society evolves and complexes (a nice verb) different rights were construed from the unenumerated rights reserved by the 9th Amendments and other gray areas. This is perfectly constitutional, and in sync w the Founders' intent for leaving the doc wide open. Strict Constructionists betray their own limited knowledge of history and biased ideas when they claim otherwise.

What these rights have done is empowered individuals and granted them greater protections against the state, as well as other powerful groups. But, with complexity, just as a kitten needs more food as it grows into adulthood, so does an economy and society need more fuel. By the eraly 20th C. taxation was introduced for individuals and businesses. Nowhere has anyone challenged that this is unconstitutional. It literally pays for the enforcement of laws and regulations that protect us from criminals and polluters, bad medicine and tainted food.
In short, there is no right to not pay taxes, although some folk with the most bizarre religions have won here and there.
The issue is a false one because the objector usually only objects to those things they do not like, while not wanting to forego that they do- it's a reverse NIMBY thing. And since society allows individuals, esp thru legal fictions known as corps, to make money in ways they otherwise legally could not, there is no reason that the state cannot set tax rates as sees fit, since special exceptions in law and tax rates are given to corporations, thus distributing public wealth (that money extra that homeowners or individuals pay to subsidize corps). To then turn around and cry that those folk who have subsidized the wealthy thru initial distribution are somehow getting special redistributions of wealth via middle class tax cuts or welfare of Soc Sec is absurd, since the balance is not equal, and those crying redistribution are often those who welcome initial distribution. Thus an galitarian equilibrium (at least theoretically although never in reality because the poor are always screwed worse) is kept.

I said 'There are certainly bastardizations of liberalism, but anything that furthers the individuual is certainly liberal, and this would entail Soc Sec. Medicare, and Welfare, whereas anything that supports groups or corporations is not.'

Yes, the initial distribution of wealth to the rich via tax breaks hurts the individual, and the redistribution 'hurts' the rich, but only in as much as they are losing an advantage- again theoreticall.

It recalls an old argument I had w a SS teacher, who claimed shitting was a good feeling. I said that it was not a good feeling objectively, but only comparatively to the feeling of constipation. In similar terms, it is not liberty being sacrificed for egalitarianism, but unfair advantages that the rich and powerful have to level the playing field (again, theoretically, not really).

It certainly is a liberal thing to try to stand up for the individual against the corporation. Show how it is not.

''m not confusing</> left winger with liberal, just pointing out that I find some of your preferred policies to be left wing rather than liberal (in classic sense.) See my last post.'

And I've demonstrated they are not, because yuor claims overlook many real world realities. As I state above, even the most Left Wing policies do little to really effect empowerment against the special interests of corps.

OK, I'm a bit more comfortable with an 'agree to disagree' stance now that you've elaborated. Wish I had more time to debate the specifics but I'm going to have to sign off soon.

Few quick points:
I can't agree with your 'giving back to the rich via tax cuts' because that presumes some level of taxation which truly represents the need for common good, into which everyone has to pay a progressively determined share. And that level of the federal budget status quo is not something I can agree with- as though this is a given and thus any reduction in taxes (giving back to those who payed a higher proportion to begin with) is some sort of redistribution. Undoing the overtaxation is sometimes a reality (and no, I'm not saying that it's always that way, or that taxes should always be reduced, or that debt should be allowed to balloon while taxes are being turned back- think more along the lines of the 90's peace dividend than the wartime tax cuts that Bush implemented, and you'll be closer to understanding the different circumstances under which I'd disagree that tax cuts must be 'paid for' or that they represent govt GIVING something to anyone. It's a refund, not a gift.

Obviously I disagree with you on the degree to which the individuals who earn money have been given any extra assistance in doing so- that they would have to pay a debt for what they've earned, above and beyond what is already a progressive tax that reflects their greater ability to pay.

I had missed one of your lengthy posts above where you discussed corporations and taxation and one statement stood out because I can't parse any sense out of it at all. You say that corps should be taxed higher and regulated more so that they won't pass costs along to you and I. You've got it completely backward here- reality shows that every penny of tax and every penny of regulatory cost is paid by you and I, the consumers- not the corporate CEOs. You're saying what? That the govt should regulate by disallowing them to charge fees like the baby bells did? So what? Their costs go up and they raise the rates for their service. They can't itemize it on our bill as a fee, so the basic price of the service goes up by the exact amount that they'd have billed us for as a fee.

CS: 'I can't agree with your 'giving back to the rich via tax cuts' because that presumes some level of taxation which truly represents the need for common good, into which everyone has to pay a progressively determined share.'

***So, to be fair, you must agree that all corporate welfare and subsidy must end, since they are legal fictions and not people, and that such subsidies make the free market gamed. Right? Same with the many loopholes the rich can exploit to pay lower rates of taxes than a working man like me makes.

CS: 'And that level of the federal budget status quo is not something I can agree with- as though this is a given and thus any reduction in taxes (giving back to those who payed a higher proportion to begin with) is some sort of redistribution

***It's the right that uses the 'redistribution' Cold War era terminology. This is a new century yet Cons are stuck 3 or 4 wars in the past. But, when the public subsidizes tax breaks for corps, surely you realize that is initial distribution or wealth from the working class to the rich, right?

CS: 'I'd disagree that tax cuts must be 'paid for' or that they represent govt GIVING something to anyone. It's a refund, not a gift.'

A refund to those who need it least, and whose wealth is largely attributable to the sytem that the commonweal of the people sets up. To say that the gov't is not gibing them a tax break is semantic nonsense. The gov't already GAVE them a leg up to get rich, often on the public dole. So, yes, the tax cuts are a refund, but all the initial tax breaks and subsidies to start business are a gift.

'above and beyond what is already a progressive tax that reflects their greater ability to pay.'

Even warren Buffet remarked that via assorted loopholes his tax advisors find, he pays a lower % of taxes than most working class Americans, and says that's wrong. Again, the progressive taxes are in theory. In reality, most rich folk skirt them w ease.

CS: 'You say that corps should be taxed higher and regulated more so that they won't pass costs along to you and I.'

I never said that. There's no way to do that save outright confiscation, but one can make it onerous on corps via many ways- if they underpay employees, refuse to give benefits, etc. There is no RIGHT for a corp to exist. They exist at the leisure of the state. One can impose fines and penalties for actions which pass on certain costs, but that has never happened because there is no will nor spine.

What you are agruing is for a liberty for legal fictions to do what they will because they always have. That;s hardly good sense.

'Their costs go up and they raise the rates for their service. They can't itemize it on our bill as a fee, so the basic price of the service goes up by the exact amount that they'd have billed us for as a fee.'

Then, when all do that, in concert, you have the basis for collusive and monopolistic practices. Indict one or more, and you can be sure that one of the competitors will swallow the costs that will be counterbalanced by picking up the lost business of the violators. That's reality.

The gov't has every right to say that this is the ceiling. Too often corps claim losses when they really make profits. Co X makes 10 mill inm profit one year, but they give out million dollar bomuses to the dozen board members and claim a two mill operating loss. Happens every year in 99% of corps.

Only by regulating against such will we get the public golems know as corps to pay their fair share. If you do not realize these things go on you simply are not inhabiting the real world.

Look at the Exxon Valdez mess. Now they have to pa 2.5 bill in damages- or 3 weeks of profit for an inc. 2 decades ago. Hardly a disincentive. But make that a 100 bill fine, or 2 years worth of profits, and they'll be disinclined. Wanna pass it along to your consumers? Great, I'm sure BP, Chevron, and all the other co's wd love that. You see, the market can be used to punish wrongdoers. All it takes is spine, and stiff enough resolve.

That's what is lacking, not any ideological stance, just doing what is fair.

Subsidies and preferential tax policies like loopholes aren't conservative even though they are associated more with our right wing politicians (not even exclusively so though.) So when I argue for conservative policy, I'm not defending what I would consider corporate welfare- I'm talking about the situation which WOULD exist if there were no positive interjections on the market system toward the managerial side.

Your same argument about corporations being fictional entities actually proves my point- because they only exist on paper, which is why they never actually pay the taxes that you want to impose on them- the consumers do. That's why those taxes are actually regressive.

I'm not arguing, as you say, "for a liberty for legal fictions to do what they do because they always have". What I'm saying is that it's a fiction to think that higher taxes will constrain them from doing harm to the consumers- that remedy actually causes more harm than good.

And I'm not even opposed to all negative interventions to constrain corporations- I simply want people to consider whether the policies do what they're intended to do and ask first whether there isn't a market based method to constrain rather than a govt intervention to constrain.

On your Big Oil example, stiffer fines make more sense than the general argument for high taxation, because the fines affect the one offender who then has to compete with the rest of the industry. But when you're taxing all of the industries at a high rate, the cost does get paid by you and me. Or, the company moves offshore- which is why McCain's proposal to cut the top corporate rate makes more sense to help workers affected by jobs going overseas than does the Dem proposal for protectionism.

You mentioned punishments to corps who don't pay their employees enough or don't give benefits- but we already have those mechanisms in place (minimum wage law) and unions organize to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits.

The govt can't get involved more than it already does in that because you can set a minimum wage but you can't control wages any more than that (for the obvious reason, that when productivity costs rise, consumer prices rise accordingly and the net effect for the wage earner is at best a wash.)

So I don't know if you're just arguing for the status quo or asserting that more should be done, but I'll accuse you of ignoring reality again if it's the latter.

You argue for fairness, which is certainly an elusive target. Who decides what's fair? Our system of govt and basic system of economics both use adversarialism to come to the closest point to fairness possible. You're right to criticize when govt sides with management, because that doesn't allow labor an even chance to negotiate for a fair compromise between needs of the corp to keep productivity costs low and needs of workers to earn a living wage. But here too, the solution is to get govt out of the process- stop the subsidies and corporate favoritism- without the govt finger on the scales, it can balance more correctly.

'Your same argument about corporations being fictional entities actually proves my point- because they only exist on paper, which is why they never actually pay the taxes that you want to impose on them- the consumers do. That's why those taxes are actually regressive.'

Virtually all forms of taxation tried out are regressive, but arguing that because Corps dodge their fair share we shd go easy on them is absurd. As I said in the Exxon Example- fine their asses off, and let them dare to pass on the fruits of their wrongdoing, then let their competitors destroy them!

'What I'm saying is that it's a fiction to think that higher taxes will constrain them from doing harm to the consumers- that remedy actually causes more harm than good.'

This is why you structure tax rates with incentives to do good, as well as heavy fines. Corps are like children, you have to use positive and neg reinforcements. You can structure taxes in a way like this: wanna pay your CEO 1000 times the median worker's pay, great, but you can only write off ten times the rate. All the rest comes out of your profits. Companies that comply would get tax breaks, and those that don't will have to pay their fair share. The co's that play by the rules then have greater access to capital and workers because their reputation proceeds them, and the greedy bastards end up strung by their own balls. Again, the gov't can and shd set rules that provide for the best outcome for the commonweal. Wanna pass on your higher tax burden cuz you overpay yr board- go ahead, but the company that plays by the rules will be able to undercut you, and the market will force you to be less greedy.

And no, there is no market method to do this. There is no Smithian Invisible Hand- if the Great Depression did not show the utter naive-te of such claims, nothing will.

'But when you're taxing all of the industries at a high rate, the cost does get paid by you and me. Or, the company moves offshore- which is why McCain's proposal to cut the top corporate rate makes more sense to help workers affected by jobs going overseas than does the Dem proposal for protectionism.'

Which is why you set up a taxation system that forces co's to play by the rules and do good. Those that do will via the market succeed. Corps are the citizen's playthings, and we have every right to discipline and design their playpen as we see fit. And wanna go offseas? Great. Tariffs go up, and we strip you of your rights to incorporate stateside, which opens the investors and mgmt up to personal litigation, as they wd now lack the legal buffers corps provide.

That's not protectionism, that's punishing economic treason.

'You mentioned punishments to corps who don't pay their employees enough or don't give benefits- but we already have those mechanisms in place (minimum wage law) and unions organize to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits.'

Talk about moving midfield- so minimum wages and unions are punishments. Well, no, they are not. Again, they are market realities imposed from without in the former and within in the latter.

'The govt can't get involved more than it already does in that because you can set a minimum wage but you can't control wages any more than that (for the obvious reason, that when productivity costs rise, consumer prices rise accordingly and the net effect for the wage earner is at best a wash.)'

You cannot micromanage wages, but as I've shown, you can incentivize good wages and benefits so that you go one up on your competitor. damn straight it can be done!

This is reality, but one never tried because of lobbyists and special interests that keep the corps in charge of politics.

'You argue for fairness, which is certainly an elusive target. Who decides what's fair?'

We do. If we decide it's fair for universal healthcare, it's fair, just as we decided it's fair not to enslave others. Again, we are theoretically in control, but most people abdicate their national and local responsibilities on a civic level.

'But here too, the solution is to get govt out of the process- stop the subsidies and corporate favoritism- without the govt finger on the scales, it can balance more correctly.'

Except that corporations are almost infinitely more powerful than unions, much less individuals. For every whistleblower like Erin Brockovich there are 999 who get crushed totally. Only the government which sanctions these golems can get them in line. To not do so is not only NOT fair, but an abdication of one of gov't's essential duties- to provide for the citizenry that which they cannot do for themselves- i.e.- protection against corporate bullies who pollute, abuse, and game the economy and ecology.

Well, I'd hate to be your kid, I guess- all stick, no carrot, and no recognition that the kid has value above being a plaything of the parents. Obviously I'm being facetious, I imagine you don't or wouldn't treat actual offspring that way- but it's where your analogy breaks down. You treat the corp as a fictional creation when you want it to have no rights, and then you punish it when it doesn't behave the way you want it to, but you never acknowledge that it can't possibly be committing infractions (certainly not treason- if it doesn't exist and doesn't have rights, then it doesn't have responsibilities either) if it doesn't actually exist.

Look, I don't disagree with you as much as you probably think I do. I agree that citizens can construct corporations as they wish and use govt regulation to impose behavior that benefits the individuals- because the corporate structure really does exist to serve all of the individuals not just the top execs of the corps. But your rationale is completely punitive- tax the hell out of them, dare them to pass it along to consumers (the ability to do that or not do that depends on whether or not their competitors are similarly taxed, and the ability of the market to put the restraints on depends on the elasticity of demand for the particular product or service.) If they decide to close shop, you'll want the govt to use tariffs to remove the advantage of going overseas- but what good does that do when an entire industry goes overseas and there's no domestic competition left?

On the fairness bit, who is 'we'? You already demonstrated that sometimes the collective 'we' is wrong and isn't advocating for the just solution, so then who gets to step in and declare a foul? That's what I mean about allowing the adversarial system to work as much as possible- because the least worst way to determine fairness is to let both sides fight it out and see where you end up.

On the specific issue of universal healthcare, we could all say that it's fair for everyone to have it but that doesn't mean it's possible for unlimited access to healthcare services to be available at a rate that we can afford either as individuals or a society. I'll wrap with a reference again to that Buckley quote about costs being prohibitive.

Oh, and I missed covering one point....minimum wage is a market reality? It's quite obviously not- it's an artificially imposed floor that is above what the market cost of the labor would be in a totally free market. I'm not arguing against it, just correcting you in that this is external to the market reality (and yes, there are legal punishments for corps that don't play by the rules and pay the minimum wage, so where am I wrong on that??)

And here's something about how little effect previous attempts to manipulate exec pay via the tax structure have had:
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7596

CS: 'Well, I'd hate to be your kid, I guess- all stick, no carrot, and no recognition that the kid has value above being a plaything of the parents. Obviously I'm being facetious'

And not reading. I explicitly described a system wherein good and responsible corp behavior is rewarded by the market and the bad punished. This is the thing that is really aggravating w most online threads. You can say A in neon lights and someone argues as if you said B because they are not intent on real dialectic, merely ruminating to themselves.

'but you never acknowledge that it can't possibly be committing infractions (certainly not treason- if it doesn't exist and doesn't have rights, then it doesn't have responsibilities either) if it doesn't actually exist.'

It is a LEGAL fiction. Did you not read that adjective. The argument you pose has no heft unless you elide that word. You did. I didn't. No weight to your claim.

'But your rationale is completely punitive- tax the hell out of them, dare them to pass it along to consumers (the ability to do that or not do that depends on whether or not their competitors are similarly taxed, and the ability of the market to put the restraints on depends on the elasticity of demand for the particular product or service.) If they decide to close shop, you'll want the govt to use tariffs to remove the advantage of going overseas- but what good does that do when an entire industry goes overseas and there's no domestic competition left?'

Reality check. Again, it is NOT punitive, but it levels the playing field. Again, that you see taking away the gamed advantages that corps use and leverage says much of where your midfield in an argument starts. Those that play by the rules will thrive, and be incentivized vis taxes to do well, and those that do not will be fined and taxed more heavily. They can certainly pass on their 'burden,' but wise consumers will reject their product, and force them to get in competitive line, or face extinction. And if you think there are not willing entrepreneurs to fill the consumer hole, you are delusional. Like nature, economies abhor a vacuum. If GE doesn't wanna make product A specify to safety norms you can be damn sure there's a startup waiting to takeover their market. Fact- we are not Ghana. We are the largest most powerful market in the history of our species. No one is willingly going to abandon that.

'On the fairness bit, who is 'we'? You already demonstrated that sometimes the collective 'we' is wrong and isn't advocating for the just solution, so then who gets to step in and declare a foul? That's what I mean about allowing the adversarial system to work as much as possible- because the least worst way to determine fairness is to let both sides fight it out and see where you end up.'

We is the citizenry, and of course errors will be made- but HONEST errors. The gaming that goes on now is willful criminality. There is a bog difference. You may still be dead if I accidentally pick up a gun and it misfires and if I deliberately assassinate you. But in the former I'm exonerated and in the latter incarcerated. Motives do matter.

'On the specific issue of universal healthcare, we could all say that it's fair for everyone to have it but that doesn't mean it's possible for unlimited access to healthcare services to be available at a rate that we can afford either as individuals or a society. I'll wrap with a reference again to that Buckley quote about costs being prohibitive.'

Appeals to authority are a sign of a weak argument. Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups. If the whole of the nation is the base pool, and used to collectively bargain rates down, healthcare becomes much simpler, more cost effective (4% overhead vs. 30%+ for HMOs), and everyone is happy, w/o resorting to the so-called punitive measures we, as the gov't, have every right to impose on the gouging drug corps.
Like many, you like to create problems where there are none, then use these problems as reasons for inaction. This is why Hillary is sinking, BTW.

'It's quite obviously not- it's an artificially imposed floor that is above what the market cost of the labor would be in a totally free market.'

There is no such thing as the free market. And just as corps and big players game the system so does the gov't have every right to impose a minimum wage. Since the market is not a natural phenomenon, but a manmade one created by consent of individuals, companies, LLCs, corps, and the gov't, the players can all determine the rules, and the realities- such as minimum wages. A truly free market would have great incentives to reinstitute slavery, but the modern market shuns that, child labor, and other forms of exploitation. You are confusing reality with your theoretical construct of an Adam(ic) Smith non-reality.

And yet another argument of why something cannot be done. Yawn.

Since your reality is whatever you choose to make it in order to declare yourself the winner of the argument, it's really impossible for me to debate that moving target. In some paragraphs, you talk about the effects of market forces and then later deny that there's any such thing. You talk about using tax code to incentivize lower CEO compensation, but you ignore the evidence I gave that this hasn't worked, and now you're falling back on the part of your argument that really says the market will respond to the bloated salaries as consumers will choose to support companies that treat their employees better (when did I ever argue against that?) In that first paragraph that you quoted from me above, obviously I was talking about your proposed govt punishments on business, not what the market would do.

That's the whole point- generally (not in all cases, but as the default position) remedies are more effective when they work with the market forces instead of against them (not sure if at this moment you're accepting that there is such a thing as market forces, but I'll throw it out there and see which way the winds are blowing in your mind at the moment.) Increasing public awareness always adds a layer of transparency so that consumers can decide if they want to use a moral compass in regard to their purchasing; sometimes this works, as in recent trends for consumers paying upcharges for green products. It's not perfect, but instead of comparing it to the utopian ideal you have to compare it to the actual effects that regulation would have- which are often pretty lousy.

When I oppose regulation, it's not just because regulation and govt interventions are repugnant as an assault on freedom. I certainly have a preference for as much liberty as possible, but quite often in the case of corporate regulation, my disdain is due to the fact that the regulations don't work. Why do we have all the tax loopholes that we have? Because people will find a way to beat a system that attempts to regulate or tax them above what they think is fair. When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.

Sorry to have bored you with realities about why things can't be done. I'm equally bored by the notion that things can be done so easily (when anyone that takes the time to study an issue sees that that's not the case at all.) Can't even believe you'd make the argument that Medicare could be expanded easily and cheaply- even the existing system is a mess and costs are already almost unmanageable, and set to rise exponentially with the boomers aging.

Just wanted to note that I am signing off for the evening. Will check back tomorrow if I get a chance, but if you respond, don't assume that my lack of response means anything other than lack of time.

'In some paragraphs, you talk about the effects of market forces and then later deny that there's any such thing.'

***I've talked of controlling the market, not denying the market. A free market I deny, but not a market. That's not an insignificant difference. BTW- this thread: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/ralph-nade...
has a link by a poster named GereenDreams on Corporate personhood. Your link was a banal abstract that gave no real rationale, save for your pessimistic 'it can't be done' stance.

'You talk about using tax code to incentivize lower CEO compensation, but you ignore the evidence I gave that this hasn't worked, and now you're falling back on the part of your argument that really says the market will respond to the bloated salaries as consumers will choose to support companies that treat their employees better (when did I ever argue against that?) In that first paragraph that you quoted from me above, obviously I was talking about your proposed govt punishments on business, not what the market would do.'

***There has never been any plan to reduce CEO compensation via a method I outlined, and your link provides none. In short, you say the 'weak' efforts of the past show that a real effort is doomed to fail. I disagree. But you are not willing to try because you feel this is government interference. It is not. It is the gov't exercising its very raison d'etre- protect and provide for the citizenry that empowers it.

'That's the whole point- generally (not in all cases, but as the default position) remedies are more effective when they work with the market forces'

***Which describes my remedy to a T. Make the market react to the forces that impel change for the better, rather than play to the mere greed of the few. You seem to trust in the ability of money and power to not corrupt. History and I know better. Again, this is why gov't exists.

'When I oppose regulation, it's not just because regulation and govt interventions are repugnant as an assault on freedom.'

Deregulation has been an attack on the safety and well-being of consumers since the 80s. And corporations are not real things, so they have no freedoms to lose. They are paper-based money machines that the rich hide behind to avoid personal responsibility. Bill gates cannot be sued if Microsoft uses some toxic substance in its PCs' His fortune is safe even if the co. he founded tanks.

'I certainly have a preference for as much liberty as possible, but quite often in the case of corporate regulation, my disdain is due to the fact that the regulations don't work.'

But the airlines were safer w regulation, service in telecoms were better w regulation. There was more transparency w regulation in the food and drug industries. Media conglomeration has stifled varied voices, politically and artistically. I could go on and on, but the point that deregulation has failed is MANIFEST, whereas regulation worked. You may not want a big game hunter with you in the corporate jungle. Bye-bye tiger food to you. But I'll take Teddy Roosevelt any day!

'Why do we have all the tax loopholes that we have? Because people will find a way to beat a system that attempts to regulate or tax them above what they think is fair.'

Why do we have security systems. Because thieves think that their not owning what they want is unfair. This is your silliest argument yet, save for claiming the Constitution is a Conservative document. One does not let the child dictate to the parent what it deems its punition should be nor what the rules of the game are. The parent (i,e,- society at large, tells the individual what behaviors are tolerable or not. If the individual does not like it, they are free to move to another country, or work to change it legally. But if they break the law (even by tax cheating) they need to be disciplined. You do realize your analogy is the same as many of the excuses Left wackos made for welfare cheats? Choose you enemies well, and all that....

'When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.'

Actually, revenues hit their high water mark in the 80s when Reagan reversed field and gave in to the then largest tax increase in history.

'Can't even believe you'd make the argument that Medicare could be expanded easily and cheaply- even the existing system is a mess and costs are already almost unmanageable, and set to rise exponentially with the boomers aging.'

Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare expansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

Wow. This thread has taken on a life of its own. I love it. Cosmo and CS, you are both articulate and passionate purveyors of your viewpoints. I have not had time to read every word, but I will; every scintillating word.

Thank you, GD. I know your opinions lean much closer to cosmo's than to mine so I'm appreciative for your respect for my arguments even if I haven't swayed you.

I'm short on time today so can't really continue going toe to toe, but will try to give some final thoughts before we leave it. Fortunately I see that I can now cut/paste in IE (I couldn't when using Firefox, for some reason, and it was maddeningly frustrating.)

Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare ex
pansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't claiming that creating new bureaucracies would be cheaper or better than expanding Medicare. On the contrary, that would obviously be even worse, but what I argue for is doing neither.

'When Reagan cut the top tax rate, revenues increased because it was no longer worth the bother of finding all of the loopholes. Sometimes less really is better.'

Actually, revenues hit their high water mark in the 80s when Reagan reversed field and gave in to the then largest tax increase in history.

Irrelevant to my point, because I was specifically talking about the demonstrable effect when Reagan lowered the top marginal income tax rate. The tax increases you're talking about had nothing to do with that, and even when GHB knuckled under and raised the top marginal rate, it didn't go up to the absurdly high level that it had been at prior to Reagan (to reiterate my main point: that was the overly confiscatory policy that had led to most income of the high earners being sheltered via loopholes.)

Now to back up a bit to broad themes. My major premise is that all human behavior (economic as well as other behaviors that could be deemed moral/immoral) are difficult at best to control in a population. Even when most people agree that a particular behavior is immoral, unjust, or harmful to other individuals, we have to accept limits about how far govt can do to control that behavior. You say that this concept would be akin to letting a child dictate to a parent what the rules should be. Well- no, your mocking me by taking the point somewhere I didn't take it. Instead, in that analogy, what I'm suggesting is akin to a parent realizing that if he/she takes too much freedom from the child, the child will rebel- and it isn't possible or desirable for the parent to do the things that would be necessary to prevent that (locking the child in his/her room 24/7, or having surveillance cameras, inspections, and the like.)

It's not that I think it's unfair for greedy economic behaviors to be controlled, I'm simply asserting that I don't believe they can be as controlled (or punished/incentivized to change) as you believe they can be. I think you'd agree with that argument for individual moral behaviors relating to sex or drug use. I surmise that you see it differently on economics because you see the corporate structure interposed between the govt and the individual actors, but I say that's irrelevant. When the govt regulates corporate behavior, it's still regulating individual behavior. The moral issues of liberty may be negated by having the corporate entity as the one that's subject to regulation- but the laws of human nature that lead individuals to find ways to do endruns around the rules still prevail.

Oh, one more thing on the 'thieves will steal because they think it's unfair that they can't have what they want" meme. Of course. But....at some point, if goods are not available to the upstanding citizens, they too will steal. That's the meat of my argument- that when rules become too restrictive, people find a way to get what they want/need, and they rationalize the behavior instead of acting on more ethical principles.

CS, on a technical note, add the ScribeFire extension to Firefox and you can copy anything, bold it, italicize, underline and

blockquote

in the WYSIWYG editor, then click the code view and paste. Easy, Wonderful. And links? easy too.

Great, thanks for the tip, GD.

Now to the issue at hand. I believe at the root of so much that is wrong with American politics is the pernicious influence of money on politics and corporate ownership of the media, that has homogenized coverage in most radio and TV markets. Corporate personhood is the fiction that has subverted the will of the people, and we have been warned time and again to guard against exactly the takeover that has occurred. Among them:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. " Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Lincoln was right. 20 years later the robber barons of the railroad monopoly had rewritten a Supreme Court decision to falsely portray the decision as coming from the Court. It did not. It came from the clerk of the Chief Justice after his death. The clerk had been on the railroad payroll for 30 years.

"There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by … corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." -- James Madison

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -- Thomas Jefferson

"In this point of the case the question is distinctly presented whether the people of the United States are to govern through representatives chosen by their unbiased suffrages or whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions." -- Andrew Jackson

"I am more than ever convinced of the dangers to which the free and unbiased exercise of political opinion - the only sure foundation and safeguard of republican government - would be exposed by any further increase of the already overgrown influence of corporate authorities." -- Martin Van Buren

"As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear or is trampled to death beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." -- Grover Cleveland

"There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. …

"A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view." -- Secretary of State and 3-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan

"I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign expenses of any party.… Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Lots more, HERE

The problem is that I don't really disagree with you about the problem of corporate money in politics, but I disagree (with you, I presume, and with the quote from Teddy) about our ability to control it by prohibiting it. McCain Feingold has made the problem worse instead of better, for example (though I realize it's not a ban on corporate money- but it attempted to put some restrictions); as a result, we now have 527s for which the candidates have plausible deniability, so the ads just skirt around the intent of the law and sling mud in the most scurilous manner (as if the stuff approved by the campaigns isn't bad enough.)

It's like you're arguing with a libertarian that drug use is bad and that's why we need to continue the war on drugs, and the libertarian is responding that he doesn't want drug use to increase but his position is based on the evidence that prohibition doesn't work and leads to negative unintended consequences. Continuing to argue with him about the evils of pharmaceutical recreation isn't going to convince him- so if you want to convince me on this issue, show me how it is that you believe that an abolition of the concept of corporate personhood with regard to First Amendment could possibly work.

I think we have already passed the point at which any politician will have the courage to take on these powerful pseudo-citizens. It is probably up to us. How?

Citizen's petition to amend the constitution of the state of ______________


"For all purposes under _state_ law, "person" shall be defined as a living human being."

It may need a clause to keep it from becoming a pro-life/pro-choice argument:

"Nothing in this amendment is intended to define the point at which human life begins."

CS, I think enough people are outraged by corporate malfeasance that enough signatures could be amassed to put this on the ballot of most states. I know, corporations may leave the state, but there aren't many headquartered here anyway. And besides, each would need to abide by local laws to do business in the state, just as all food companies have to label food in accordance with California's prop 65.

As to your first amendment issue, it's not an issue for non-persons. The Bill of Rights clearly was not written for companies, but for humans. All corporate speech is "commercial speech" not "free speech". They are not "individuals" entitled to speak their opinion, though all actual persons in the company are. Commercial speech, as opposed to free speech, must be "truthful and not misleading". Let's see them adhere to that standard for a change.

BTW, I read it all, and I'm impressed with both the tone and content of this thread. To cosmo's points about Exxon, the case is an emphatic proof that "the invisible hand" of the market does not correct for corporate misbehavior. Exxon fought for 25 years to avoid ANY consequence at all for its negligence. They did not suffer at the hands of consumers and their business has thrived while shirking their responsibility.

If they want the rights of persons, how about the responsibilities. Ford decided not to fix the exploding Pinto problem because it would cost more to fix than the wrongful death settlements that resulted from their reprehensible decision. That, for an actual person, is premeditated murder, and Ford should have been given the death sentence. Corporate charter rescinded, all assets to be auctioned off by the govt. Now that would be a powerful incentive against corporate "persons" willfully doing harm to actual persons. In fact, if we start terminating corporate charters for corporate crimes, the shareholders will do the job for us. They'd flee at the thought that Ford could simply cease to be.

I think your last suggestion is more along the lines of something I could support, GD. And I'm also not opposed to truly significant fines for wrongdoing, as cosmo suggested in regard to Exxon Valdez. But having corporations have to bear responsibility for wrongdoing is different than trying to punish them through the tax code for not paying their workers enough- that's the sort of thing that just doesn't work (for the reasons I've already stated- all of the companies in the industry will face the same pressures, so if their product is inelastic enough they'll pass costs to consumers- and they'll find creative ways around paying anyway.)

CS: ' Here is what I wrote: 'Expanding Medicare would be cheap, cost effective, and curtail the need for wasted billions in bureaucratic startups.' That is a comparison. Medicare ex
pansion would be FAR cheaper than all the needed bureaucracies needed to be created for a from scratch plan. It's always better to take a proven system and expand and improve than start from scratch with a system that has no track record. I can't believe you'd think otherwise. I thought you were smarter than that.

I thought it would have been obvious that I wasn't claiming that creating new bureaucracies would be cheaper or better than expanding Medicare. On the contrary, that would obviously be even worse, but what I argue for is doing neither.'

***It was obvious you were arguing for doing neither, but you offered no alternatives.

'Irrelevant to my point, because I was specifically talking about the demonstrable effect when Reagan lowered the top marginal income tax rate. The tax increases you're talking about had nothing to do with that, and even when GHB knuckled under and raised the top marginal rate, it didn't go up to the absurdly high level that it had been at prior to Reagan (to reiterate my main point: that was the overly confiscatory policy that had led to most income of the high earners being sheltered via loopholes.)'

***But the irrelevant point is that the tax cuts were behind the increases, for when GHB raised taxes at the end of his term, the early 90s saw tax revenues grow, too. When JFK cut taxes before he dies, it raised revenues, but W's tax cuts have seen less revenue. The lesson? That the tax rate really makes little difference on revenue- that depends on other things in the economy. The recession that Ford and Carter dealt with came to an end before Reagan's tax cuts took effect, and new bizes were sprouting. More bizes, more tax revenue. When Bush raised taxes, by the time they took effect, the recession he got from Reagan's voodoo economics was ending, and bizes sprouted. More bizes, more revenue from taxes.
You make the chronology is causality fallacy. And history shows that throughout out nation's life, tax revenues have not been dependent on the tax levels of the time.
However. the healthiest economies have had a parallel with the highest tax rates over extended periods.

'Instead, in that analogy, what I'm suggesting is akin to a parent realizing that if he/she takes too much freedom from the child, the child will rebel- and it isn't possible or desirable for the parent to do the things that would be necessary to prevent that (locking the child in his/her room 24/7, or having surveillance cameras, inspections, and the like.)'

***No, because that analogy only goes so far. Children do not poison wells, cook books, nor steal from their employees and customers at every opportunity. Too stay with that analogy, the child, in this case, is a young Ted Bundy. You have to box in the range of damage that can be done. In short, corporations are the most powweful and largest form of organized criminal enterprise going. Are all corps crooked? No, but most are, in the banal ways of cooking the books or forging customer signatures on contracts to outright grand larceny and market manipulation like Enron. I worked at the pre-SBC takeover SBC, and they did as bad or worse than Worldcom. They just knew when not to push it too far. They were better crooks.

'It's not that I think it's unfair for greedy economic behaviors to be controlled, I'm simply asserting that I don't believe they can be as controlled (or punished/incentivized to change) as you believe they can be. I think you'd agree with that argument for individual moral behaviors relating to sex or drug use.'

***The fundamental difference is that the state created corps, they have not created individuals, ad individuals have rights- civil and human, corps have no rights. Think of a corp as a moneymaking robot piloted by people. We have every right to disassemble a dysfunctional robot. And sex and drug bhavior are ethical choices that only become criminal due to others claims of morality. Accounting fraud and stock manipulation are clear crimes no one argues with, as well as affecting manifold more folk.

'When the govt regulates corporate behavior, it's still regulating individual behavior. The moral issues of liberty may be negated by having the corporate entity as the one that's subject to regulation- but the laws of human nature that lead individuals to find ways to do endruns around the rules still prevail.'

***Wrong, you do not grasp group psychology. I just read and will be sending Joe a review of The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo, who did the famed Stanford Prison Experiment, and it's a book where he dissects Abu Ghraib and shows it was not a few bad apples, but a rotten barrel that infected the guards. In short, all corps are rotten barrels and the fact that there are decent folk working there says alot. But the win at all costs attitude corrupts, and government can do something about it, if people like you actually did not take the copout so often.

'That's the meat of my argument- that when rules become too restrictive, people find a way to get what they want/need, and they rationalize the behavior instead of acting on more ethical principles.'

***And my point is that the rules are not restrictive enough, which is why deregulation has been a disaster. You claim they're tight. Sorry, you're crazy, and when was the last time you worked in a major corp? The gov't can make the rules and should, so that your and my money is not wasted bailing out the Chryslers or assorted pension plans that many Corps are legally required to fund, but did not.

BTW- forget SS or Medicare- the pension bailout that is not even spoken of dwarfs both as a problem- and all this while CEO salaries were obscenely increased.

CS: Your 527 and drug comparisons are not even remotely tangential to the issue. Some great quotes, GD.

You still buy in implicitly to the fiction that corps are somehow the same as a person. They are not, and even run by a person, they have legal protections a person lacks.

GD: 'Corporate charter rescinded, all assets to be auctioned off by the govt. Now that would be a powerful incentive against corporate "persons" willfully doing harm to actual persons. In fact, if we start terminating corporate charters for corporate crimes, the shareholders will do the job for us. They'd flee at the thought that Ford could simply cease to be.'

Exactly. If they wanna leave the country? Great. Fuck'em, and ban their products as we shd all Chinese toys. Think another entrepreneur will fill the vacuum and play by the rules, even if it means making only a great, and not obscenely great, profit? Damned straight. CS simply does not get this. Corporations are expendable! People should not be.

'But having corporations have to bear responsibility for wrongdoing is different than trying to punish them through the tax code for not paying their workers enough- that's the sort of thing that just doesn't work (for the reasons I've already stated- all of the companies in the industry will face the same pressures, so if their product is inelastic enough they'll pass costs to consumers- and they'll find creative ways around paying anyway.)'

***High taxation is not a punishment, for that to be true one would have to grant that low taxation is a RIGHT! It is not. Again, the very basis of your assumption has no factual reality. A society can tax as much or as little as it wants, on whom it wants. But, as I demonstrated, that tax can be used as great incentives- pay your CEO 100 mill a year when the median worker makes 30k, but allow the corp to only write off ten times the median amount- 300K. The rest is counted as legit profit and taxed accordingly. wanna bet you'll see CEO salaries and bens plummet to realistic levels? They don't like it- get a real idea that innovates and own your own non-corp co. And, again, there will be plenty of folk willing to work under the terms outlined.

There's simply no evidence against this because it has never been tried, and your analogy of the tax rates, even if one bought your argument, is a no go since enforcement is all- w/o it great legislation can fail. We need more IRS auditors, not less.

Go back in 25 year increments, and ask yourself, is 2008 better than 1983 better than 1958 all the way back to 1608 and the founding of this nation. Unquestionably, all that progress has been 'liberal'. Now, even cons like you would not support slavery, but conservatives did. Cons like you are against child labor, but in the day they did not. Cons like you are against Jim Crow, but not back when. Cons like you get sick when hearing of experimentation by the government on blacks and forced sterilization of the mentally ill years ago, but conservatives supported it then. Consevratives opposed Suffrage. Do you?'

So, history has spoken.