# Colin Powell is wrong



## Evan Gamble (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't think it would be a horrible thing if the republicans abandoned their archaic social conservatism and there simply became a two party system based on monetary issues.

When and were to spend our money is something that should be checked and balanced (not saying I don't agree with the dems though on a stimulus plan) And I was rather upset at what had to be taken out of the bill for it to pass.

We have always been (more or less) a two party-ish system. I don't think it is going to change so we might as well hope the republicans give up on the hard-core bible carrying right, and let that mind set go with the past.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 13, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Feb 12 said:


> Colin Powell recently commented that the country wouldn't be well served with a one-party system, therefore the Republican party needs to find new ways of attracting voters. At the time I agreed - although uneasily, because I can't think of a single issue that conservatives aren't totally wrong about.
> 
> Now I realize he's wrong. These pathetic fools are trying really hard to ruin the country! They're still spouting that ridiculous hype about saddling our kids with the bill, bla bla bla. Big government, bla bla bla.
> 
> ...



It must be wonderful to have such confidence of the correctness of one's own views that you simply wish away a party whose views are different.

I hope I never live in an America where everybody is in one party that happens to agree or disagree with me.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 13, 2009)

Republicans are doing what Republicans always do. They hold on to what they consider "core beliefs" that define what they think is conservative thinking. Problem being that those "beliefs" are just opinions and that the Ayne Ran style of absolutism doesn't really work in real life. So they've become old, odd and stogy in an ever changing world.

In a time where everybody needs to come together they still are playing the separatist policies. Ultimately it's not the core beliefs that bother me most about the party, it's their efforts to be so black and white about issues that bothers me.

I wish that life were as simple as just defining everything in right and wrong terms, but it's not. Life requires that you think beyond just black and white. They have demonstrated over and over again that they can't really do that.

It's a shame really. The party had a lot of potential in the 1980's. Then again I consider Regan to be a practical liberal rather than a conservative thinker. He used government in a pretty good way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2009)

> I don't think it would be a horrible thing if the republicans abandoned their archaic social conservatism and there simply became a two party system based on monetary issues


. 

I'm saying that their monetary ideology is precisely what's wrong!

Social conservatism is a separate issue. What can you say to people who believe that God commanded them to get involved in right-wing politics.




> When and were to spend our money is something that should be checked and balanced (



Over time, and sort of. The basic idea is that the government primes the well by running a deficit, and then that creates growth. We'll never have a balanced budget as long as we have a trade deficit, and we'll always have a trade deficit as long as the world economy is keyed to the dollar. There are rare exceptions, like the late 90s dot com era, but even then a budget surplus isn't necessarily good (because it takes money out of the economy).

If the government does nothing (or too little) then we'll have a huge deficit because of the loss of tax revenue. So it's better to have a huge investment in things that will get the economy going and have something in return for the huge deficit.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 13, 2009)

The problem is, Nick, that many of them BELIEVE what you refer to as those tired old cliches, which is why we have 2 parties.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2009)

"Then again I consider Regan to be a practical liberal rather than a conservative thinker. He used government in a pretty good way."

Wow do I disagree!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2009)

"The problem is, Nick, that many of them BELIEVE what you refer to as those tired old cliches, which is why we have 2 parties."

I question whether they really do believe it - I suspect they're far more cynical than that, in fact they're willing to ruin the country forever just to try and hang onto power - but either way that's exactly what I'm saying: it is the problem.

What's at stake is that the country could get stuck in a permanent depression. That's not hyperbole, it's real.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 13, 2009)

I should add that without fail, every "principled conservative" I've read from agrees that this is the time for government deficit spending. Only total fools go on about socialism and all that.


----------



## artsoundz (Feb 13, 2009)

"a simplistic diot"

Someone who isn't a _complete_ idiot. : ) i.e._ some_ republicans


----------



## Evan Gamble (Feb 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> The time to use these tired old clichés about tax cuts and free markets and passing this onto our children and so on is not while the country is crashing hard. What's happening is that they can't stand the idea that "big government" could get us out of this mess, because it would bankrupt their ridiculous economic ideology once and for all.



I'm not going to say that that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't help us out alot BUT really wasn't not (sadly) WWII that got us out of the great depression? Was it not how the world even started to use the dollar as international currency? 

But hey if the dems can check and balance themselves out fiscally I'd be totally open to a one party system. (until they fucked things up enough to where a new challenging party is needed-perhaps the resurgence of the wigs!)


----------



## Evan Gamble (Feb 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> "Then again I consider Regan to be a practical liberal rather than a conservative thinker. He used government in a pretty good way."
> 
> Wow do I disagree!



Yeah Reagan was just a kind old face to stupid Ideologies, sorta like a charismatic Bush IMO.


----------



## Evan Gamble (Feb 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> What can you say to people who believe that God commanded them to get involved in right-wing politics.



Start with STFU  .


----------



## Evan Gamble (Feb 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 13 said:


> Over time, and sort of.



Yeah i know what Keynesian economics is. I meant "checked and balanced out" in the sense that we're aren't spending money on bullshit, not a balanced budget which i understand does not necessarily have to be balanced.


----------



## david robinson (Feb 14, 2009)

always wanted to work in the USA, now i'm not so sure there is a USA.
DR9.


----------



## Ashermusic (Feb 14, 2009)

david robinson @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> always wanted to work in the USA, now i'm not so sure there is a USA.
> DR9.



Oh yes there is, and we just elected a black man as president by a comfortable margin.

And the fierce advocacy of competing ideas is EXACTLY what makes the USA the USA. It isn't always pretty to watch but over the long haul, it gets the job done for a high percentage of people.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 14, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> I'm not going to say that that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't help us out alot BUT really wasn't not (sadly) WWII that got us out of the great depression?



That is true as supply and demand went off the charts bringing our production to it's full capacity. Lot's of employment which now included woman entering the workforce in a big way.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 14, 2009)

Evan Gamble @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> I'm not going to say that that Roosevelt's New Deal didn't help us out alot BUT really wasn't not (sadly) WWII that got us out of the great depression?


That WWII ended the depression is a commonly held myth. Hey, if you were part of the military industrial complex, isn't that the story you would tell?

We've got two wars going on right now. Would the economy get better if we started a third?

The fact of the matter is that the economic recovery after FDR took office was slow and steady, which is exactly what you want. Otherwise you get boom and bust, which is what we are experiencing recently.

Another fact is that the New Deal built roads, dams, and bridges and brought electricity and phone service to nearly everybody. Our success in WWII was built with the productivity that this infrastructure enabled. Our young men returned from the war with the infrastructure in place to create economic expansion. The continued New Deal policies and strong unions allowed them to join the strongest middle class in history. By contrast, recent economic gains have been heaped at the top and did not trickle down. The lower and middle classes have been stagnant at best and often losing ground - even during booms.

Anyway, this chart is much better than my words at showing that the New Deal worked perfectly with steady growth (except for the one year when the backed off of the New Deal policies), rather than booms and busts (click for larger view):


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 14, 2009)

There can't be any dispute that Harvard graduate Admiral Yamamoto's prediction that Japan's attack on the U.S. would _awaken a sleeping giant_ came true. America's vast potential to manufacture and produce was indeed aroused and thrown into high gear. The result was that we dwarfed our adversaries abilities in the same area and defeated them as a result. The impact on our economy is a fact of history and hardly a myth.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 14, 2009)

JonFairhurst @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Dave,
> 
> Your Axis vs. Allies chart is interesting, but doesn't remotely make the point that the New Deal failed and war worked. Both the Allies and Axis were at war!



Jon, I wasn't saying the New Deal failed only that the furnace began to roar with the onset of the war. I came across that chart in researching Lend-Lease which began under another name in 1940. Just as Germany's economy boomed when they started to ratchet up for war so did ours in response to it. All areas of manufacturing went into high gear and naturally increased our GDP. That chart shows how much we and others out-produced the enemy. But there's no doubt we led the way. The statistics of our output are staggering. But I'm not advocating anything just recognizing a principle.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 14, 2009)

Even if you were advocating it, Dave, the principle wouldn't work in today's world. I think you're saying the same thing, but in those days they mobilized the entire economy for a new thing; we've been spending money on defense for ages, and it's been a drain.

Also, it's worth mentioning that we'd be in much worse shape today without the New Deal. Can you imagine if there were another run on the banks, or if nobody had Social Security, or the government weren't able to borrow, and so on?


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 14, 2009)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 14 said:


> Even if you were advocating it, Dave, the principle wouldn't work in today's world. I think you're saying the same thing, but in those days they mobilized the entire economy for a new thing; we've been spending money on defense for ages, and it's been a drain.



Right. The last thing we need is another war. It's a completely different era. Our massive resources were untapped then and now closer to tapped out. New technologies began to flourish then, many which haven't changed in all these years and need to.

Eisenhower made the call exactly on the Military Industrial Complex which went unheeded resulting in what really was criminal in the Viet Nam war. We need a strong defense just as sure as we need strong levies but war is not doing anything for economy that's for sure.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 15, 2009)

Another thing I neglected to mention about "the advocacy of competing ideas" (Jay's post) is that the Republican party has no competing ideas to contribute. All their ideas have been proven bankrupt - literally - and therefore they have nothing to say.

Hence my comment that all they're doing is standing in the way of progress, and the country would be better off without them.

So it's not that a want a single party system, it's just that I want the Republican party to go away and stop ruining my country.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 15, 2009)

btw, Churchill and Roosevelt were no dummies. They both had Hitler pegged very early on. Roosevelt had to repeatedly assure the American public he would stay out of another European war since the average guy on the street saw it coming too. Churchill was far less successful in convincing England to prepare for war and considered an alarmist by many. England had to play catchup in production once they were at war.

My point is that is what no accident that we were able to send tons of military supplies to England because we were producing like crazy far before we entered the war (which Jon's chart shows.) So I agree with history's simple verdict that US production and output in war materials had a huge impact on our economy. It didn't start on a December day in 1941.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 15, 2009)

Here's the principle in action again (from: US History 1950 - 1975)

_By the end of 1953, Eisenhower faced a lagging economy as a result of the Korean armistice's sharp military cutbacks._

Weapons is big business folks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 15, 2009)

And today it's about the only manufacturing we still have in this country.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 16, 2009)

Here's a small segment from a chapter of an article called 'Roosevelt's Dillema'. The 'two-budget strategy' referred to is the regular budget and what the President called the 'emergency' budget. You can see that military spending was it's own category though on equal footing with domestic spending. Both seen as instruments in jolting us out of the depression. 

When you say the New Deal worked prior to the war you are talking about military spending as a huge component. Otherwise the Japanese don't attack a huge military complex teaming with very expensive ships. So the New Deal and military spending are inseparable. Of course once the biggest war in the history of the planet began, spending went through the roof. One hardly needs a chart to figure that though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

"So the New Deal and military spending are inseparable."

In the sense that military spending boosted the economy, yes; in the sense that we'd be a third-world state today without the protections of the New Deal such as deposit insurance and Social Security, absolutely not!


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 16, 2009)

What's interesting Nick is that military spending was part of the 'regular' budget and that the New Deal was part of the 'emergency' budget. As I read further in the article it showed that FDR had the two issues (Domestic Programs and Military Spending) _coupled_ firmly in his mind. The war's impact on employment alone was staggering.

Here's something a lot of folks don't know. A lot of money was spent on R+D in every conceivable area during the war. We GAVE this R+D to Japan after the war. Hence Japan was able to create an even more modern manufacturing structure than us since they were rebuilding their country (with our financial help!) Isn't wasn't long before they overtook us in many of these areas. So the war also led to the economic boom of Japan as well.

Yes we still rely on FDR's safeguards to this day of course.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

Yeah. We sort of do the same thing now, since the stimulus is separate from the standard budget. Plus there's the black book military budget.

The other thing about Japan is that they didn't have military spending, so that was a huge drain on their economy saved. But the Marshall Plan was obviously a success - as was the New Deal.

I just hope that the Republicans still in power haven't guaranteed that we'll be in a permanent depression by forcing the stimulus to be too low. A lot of economists think it's too small, including Paul Krugman if you read his editorial on NY Times.com today.

I also hope that we'll really build the new power grid and get started solving global warming. That has to be the way out of this, as I keep saying - not that it's an original thought, of course.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 16, 2009)

Krugman's editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opini ... ef=opinion


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 16, 2009)

Good article there from the Times. 

Here's the article I was reading. What's fascinating is how Roosevelt pulled it all off politically and technically. Genius really in doing what he said he wasn't going to do (spend) and proving he wasn't doing anything of the kind simultaneously (by showing he was cutting.) Also a breathtaking power grab that was called unconstitutional by many but allowed him to make radical changes (in taxes and spending.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=bwJ-u6 ... &d#PPP1,M1


----------

