good stuff.
lots of tasty morsels here for a libertarian to munch on.

>> ^blankfist:
> I wish neo-conservatism was more like conservatism.

fiscally, yeah. you, me, ron paul, and a massive majority of the sift, and the internet in general, clearly wish that. which means the younger fiscal conservatives. the ones whose opinions will actually matter in 10 years.

> I don't know when the Republican Party changed...

reagan.
for better, and worse, but undeniably pivotal. he changed things.

> ...but they've strayed so far from their original small government, non-interventionist platform.

no doubt. here's a quick outline of how i see some of the important bits.

basically, (fiscal conserv) republicans got sick of watching (fisc lib) democrats get so much mileage out of what they saw as often milking the middle class, with the false promise of helping the poor, with your tax money.
but often helping themselves first. the poor get some crumbs. that way, you'll always have more poor people around, to beg on behalf of.

but hey. the social safety net sells well.
getting up to debate it, and replying, "instead, i promise not to raise anyone's taxes, or coerce you with the comforting illusion of security, supposedly provided by a more powerful and centralized government."

no. we want smiling poor, soft pillows, and free beer.

that was a watershed where many republicans said fuck fiscal conservatism because otherwise we'll keep getting our asses kicked.
party fundraising is noticeably easier in the free beer tent.

ergo, neither party is fiscally conservative anymore.

so we'll take the same taxes, and instead of feeding the crumbs down to the bottom of the system, we'll feed them into the top of the system and let it just sorta...
trickle
down.
aka corporate welfare, and a very un-free market.

which reagan's own vp, ghw bush, referred to at the time as...
anyone? anyone?
voodoo economics.

oh, and reagan himself wasn't really a neo-con. but enough of his cabinet was, and many were still-embittered nixon aides. some with ties to large defense contractors, hence...

> They're like the nation-building spendthrifts of the Democratic Party but with a heavy heaping of religious arrogance thrown into the mix.

and that was the other seismic shift with reagan. prior to that, it was the democrats who were perceived to be god's party. because they wanted (or pretended) to help the poor.

> I think the two parties just need to fuck and get it over with.

party at my place in november.

> Then we can just call that party the DemoPublican Party and we'll all continue to lose.

one of many alternate scenarios i'm clinging to:
whichever party starts getting real about fiscal solvency, continues to enjoy the kind of response ron paul has been getting.
often across previously well-established party lines.

lines drawn by those 2 parties, neither of which existed in 1776.

lines neatly down the middle, of what i believe to be the government we clearly started with.
socially liberal.
fiscally conservative.

damn. that's so much more than i had intended to write, and i haven't even gotten to a 10th of what i wanted to say here. oh, hey. i've got one o them blogothingies, maybe i oughtta' use that again sometime soon...

I hope Obama raises the taxes enough for the public schools to adequately educate the youth of America, for the states to properly maintain their roads, for free public healthcare and a social safety net to combat poverty and the class society. But that's just the thoughts of a communist, tax-loving European.

Guess whose wrong.

There is a interesting post by Kevin Drum:

END OF AN ERA?....David Frum is pretty pessimistic about the current state of movement conservatism, but George Packer says that David Brooks is even more dejected:

When I met David Brooks in Washington, he was even more scathing than Frum. Brooks had moved through every important conservative publication — National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard — "and now I feel estranged," he said. "I just don't feel it's exciting, I don't feel it's true, fundamentally true." In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed "true." Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times. "American conservatives had one defeat, in 2006, but it wasn't a big one," he said. "The big defeat is probably coming, and then the thinking will happen. I have not yet seen the major think tanks reorient themselves, and I don't know if they can." He added, "You go to Capitol Hill — Republican senators know they're fucked. They have that sense. But they don't know what to do. There's a hunger for new policy ideas."

The great liberal wave that lasted from the 30s through the 70s was fundamentally based on three things: middle class wage growth, the construction of a social safety net, and the individual rights revolution. Its other pathologies aside, liberalism's big problem by the end of the 70s was that it had essentially won most of these battles. Not all of them. No movement ever wins all its battles. But once you win two-thirds of them, it's hard to sustain the kind of momentum it takes to win the rest.

Conservatives are in the same boat today, except worse. Modern movement conservatism was also fundamentally based on three things: low taxes, anti-communism, and social traditionalism. ("Small government" was never more than a fig leaf.) Today communism is gone (and Islamofascism has failed to rally the troops in the same way), taxes literally can't be lowered any more, and sex-and-gender fundamentalism has become an albatross that's rapidly producing a generation of young voters more repelled by conservatism than any generation since World War II. Even in the late 70s, there were still plenty of traditionally liberal goals still to be fought for. Not enough to build a winning coalition around, but still something. Modern conservatives don't even have that. The culture war is pretty much all they have left, and its clock has run out.

They won't be willing to say this during a presidential campaign, but there are at least half a dozen smart Republican senators who understand this and don't really want to go down with the ship. So even if Democrats don't win a filibuster-proof majority in November — as they almost certainly won't — it's likely that there will still be enough survival-inspired GOP senators around to give Barack Obama the votes he needs to make a difference. If that's the case, and if Obama has the courage of his convictions, his first two years could be historic.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

@moonsammy

Social Security *is* mis-used and it *is* horrifically broken. It isn't, however, an unnecessary burden to this country - it does a lot of good and has allowed several people that I know personally to subsist without reverting to begging their community or family for money. Perhaps this makes me biased, but I don't care - I see a benefit to the social security program in this country, warts and all.

You're seeing someone in need of money to sustain themselves, but you're not questioning the government's role in how they became that way, which is key to understanding this issue. If these people you know personally to have benefited from SS were to have retained that income throughout their life instead of having it taxed away from them, they likely would have been far better off financially and not in the situation you now use to justify Social Security in the first place. With a little self-responsibility, they could have invested that money in a personal 401k and benefited the economy and themselves far greater than if it had been taxed away from them. The minute you begin to use the argument that some people are not responsible enough to do this for themselves and need the government to step in and force all of us to do something for the "greater good," that's the moment you've forsaken liberty and entrusted a greaseball politician with your future and your children's futures. I don't trust someone else with my money to keep their promises. I don't make much money and would love to opt out of social security and take charge of my own money and retirement. But you know what, moonsammy, the government won't let me. It assumes that we are all children in need of taken care of from cradle to grave, and that we cannot spend our own money as well as they can, that we cannot choose teachers for our children as wisely as they can, that we cannot protect our property as well as they can, and they're wrong. It's an appealing concept to people, to go through life with a guardian angel called the government, but our forefathers distrusted men and government immensely because of the tyranny they had just defeated. The constitution limits the power of government explicitly. Come election season, the false promise works to greater effect than the truth. Obama will be elected, but it won't stop the greater depression of 2010 and China's subsequent rise to superpower status. Start buying your gold.

Regarding your links: wow, you're surprised I didn't read a libertarian think tank's website about the current plight of a social programs? I try to get my information from non-partisan sources.

They do cite sources underneath, you know.

I'll admit to not being a professional economic or historic analyst, but I'm pretty sure that being poor during the depression sucked massively, and that a social safety net would have been *really* useful back then.

Except you don't realize what caused the depression. It was the same government interference you trust to solve the problem. I'll also say that no it wouldn't have helped. SS would have collapsed. It would have been an incredible tax burden to those who managed to retain work. And the 25% who had no work had no income from which pay the SS tax. So many retired people wouldn't have gotten their checks, and the government would have had to borrow or inflate the money supply, debasing the purchasing power of the dollar. And remember as well that SS is a forced dependency, so no one would have had the savings that they had actually accrued in absence of SS after the depression hit. It would have decimated everyone.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most when people go around posting things about Ron Paul being idealistic, as though trusting a bunch of corporate-bought slickos to follow their own rules or genuinely care as much about you and your family as you do to be any less idealistic. Government is a necessary evil to protect people's rights, but it has no business in many of the affairs it is assuming today. The constitution held up fairly well, but time and human stupidity just proved too much. When we went from "only Gold and Silver" to central bank IOUs with nary an uprising, that was the end. The USA was the last stand on Earth. God help us all.

@BansheeX: "in the free market system, the money is transferred naturally through production and consumption, which is good for everybody"

Everybody? Really? Is it safe to assume you're talking about a scenario in which all countries have perfectly managed democratic / capitalist governments and economic systems set up? Because if any country in the world is run by a corrupt government then the free market will inevitably lead to exploitation *somewhere*. I actually agree with you that in a perfect world the free market economy would be the ideal choice, but we're presently too far from that world to effectively implement such a plan. Unless or until we can cause companies within this country to behave as good corporate citizens there's going to be inequity somewhere in the world caused by the US.

Where are the incentives in an unregulated free market for companies to not pollute other countries or cause long-term damage for short-term profit? *Some* regulation is a good thing, and in many ways necessary (there's only so much broadcast spectrum, so someone needs to regulate it's use; non-renewable resources are sometimes in international / non-owned locations; many other examples), even in a perfect world.

I also do understand that social security goes to everyone - I don't necessarily agree that it should. The program is not perfect at present, but eliminating it wholesale seems a less advisable approach than reforming it to maintain solvency, lessen its aggregate tax burden, and be hardened to abuse or use by those who haven't earned it.

You stated "Don't pass this guilt trip garbage on people, this is what gets them trusting in the government in the first place" - I wasn't trying to 'guilt trip' people, I was making an argument regarding the societal benefits of this particular program. I think blindly trusting the government is a terrible idea, and many federal programs *should* go away. Like I said: I like Ron Paul. I want to see the military reduced (though not eliminated, as that would be insane), I want to see the income tax abolished (though not, obviously, the ssa tax), I want to see the drug war eliminated at a federal level, I don't believe in government legislation of morality, etc etc. SS is a safety net / insurance program / 'retirement program' (if you insist) that tangibly benefits a large number of deserving individuals.

As to all those years before social security's advent in this country somehow being preferable? Hardly. This and the other horrible social programs of the era are largely credited with allowing for the rise of a viable middle class in the US, and the arguments I've seen have been pretty convincing. I'll admit to not being a professional economic or historic analyst, but I'm pretty sure that being poor during the depression sucked massively, and that a social safety net would have been *really* useful back then. Wouldn't have been a panacea of course, but it would have helped.

Regarding your links: wow, you're surprised I didn't read a libertarian think tank's website about the current plight of a social programs? I try to get my information from non-partisan sources. The social security program *may* have to start dipping into the *interest* earned within the trust account starting in 2018. It won't be actually bankrupt until 2052 even if no modifications are made. If the cap is raised or eliminated it will be solvent essentially indefinitely. I'm using the Congressional Business Office's analysis from around the same time as the Cato institute item you linked.

You misrepresented what I said several times - please stop doing that. At no point did I say that "SS isn't in trouble financially or a tax burden on the economy" - quote where I said anything like either of those assertions. You can't. On the contrary, I opened my comment with "so what you're saying is that you're against social security largely because it is being mis-used and is horrifically broken" - this is a direct recognition of the fact that the program does have faults. I'm just surprised that you think the way to fix it is to eliminate it.

Social Security *is* mis-used and it *is* horrifically broken. It isn't, however, an unnecessary burden to this country - it does a lot of good and has allowed several people that I know personally to subsist without reverting to begging their community or family for money. Perhaps this makes me biased, but I don't care - I see a benefit to the social security program in this country, warts and all.

Wart removal would be appreciated by me though. A good first step would be removing the corrupting influence of business within government - if it would be possible to make our representatives in charge of the country completely subservient to the will of and collective good of the citizens of the country we'd be in much better shape, unfortunately I don't see that happening soon. The business / government mix you dislike (facism, by definition) is a terrible thing.

Oh, and on the issue of gun control? I like how Israel and Norway (? might be a different northern European country, I'm working off memory) do it - everyone owns and is trained in the proper use of a gun. Completely levels the playing field, which I assume really does do an excellent job of reducing violent crime.

This post has gone way beyond too long. I apologize to everyone for my rantiness. If the VS community would prefer that BansheeX and myself (or just myself, perhaps) shut the hell up about all this I'll gladly do so - I'm open to complaints

I do find it interesting that he is very careful to give the impression that he is not attacking immigrants. On Google video, the website refers you to www.numbersusa.com , which I only gave a cursory overlook. I don't necessarily agree with his aims, in fact it's very difficult to determine what part this plays in the larger immigration debate. I will say that one of the little discussed aspects of immigration is the effect that legal immigration has on the labor market in technology-related fields, for example electrical engineering.

American corporations have succesfully argued that the US must increase the number of H1-B visas issued to skilled workers to keep up with the demand for tech-sector jobs. While I can't speak for the market as a whole, the reality is that migrant labor has the same effect in the communicationslabor market as it does in construction or agriculture. Wages throughout the industry are depressed, and I'll give you a specific example involving my father. He is an independent contractor with a Master's degree in RF engineering, and he competes with workers that will work for 40% of what he charges. Some would say that the market dictates the wages or that he overcharges but the only way he can compete is by being substantially more skilled than the majority of the engineers in the market. He frequently will be hired later to fix a project that went to foreign contractors who are able to underbid him dramatically.

I think it raises a number of questions, beginning with the obvious one. Are the American people benefiting by importimng advanced degree holders when there may be no need for them in the labor market? I understand that corporations are designed to run efficiently, not to manage our economy. What are the consequences of the disappearance of the middle class? This year the savings rate in this country was negative, and there is a looming housing crisis. I suspect that the producer of this video is not an honest broker but I am curious to hear a sincere debate on immigration policy in this country. It is currently hurting both the migrants (moreso illegals in manual labor than professional-class migrants) and it is certainly hurting our economy. That conversation should certainly also encompass our social safety net in this country (Medicare, Social Security, the lack of health insurance by many Americans) and our national debt. I am by no means a nativist, nor do I think we need to close our borders but I do believe in results-oriented policies dictating effective government. I truly enjoy VideoSift because I believe it's one of the rare places where I experience an open exchange of ideas.