It's getting worse.
I see that now, the Republicans have brought in Obama's Aunt out East, who is poor, and now they say she is an illegal.

What a bunch of crap.
Keep the Family out of it.
The Republicans are just as low life as the Democrats.

What a bunch of gutter rats.

Eric

gelandangan wrote:

What if the budhist are the right religion, or the hindi, or the ao dai etc..

Unlike religion where no one is right or wrong till the Supreme Being comes to Earth to let us know who is actually right. Or more then likely to tell us we are so far off not one of us comes close to being right. Politics can be studied. It can be quantified and can be learned from in our lives.

I may only be 21 years old, but my interests have laid with history and politics when it comes to human related things then lets say others taking a interest to religion or the arts etc.

I personally have come to the conclusion that most commonly believed method to layout a political scale is too warped to be used as true scale of what makes a country "left wing" or "right wing". It has been modified and changed so many times by both sides to fit their agenda that they have very similar political systems on opposite sides of the scale. Which is why some say when you get to the ends of the scale they become one and the same. This is simply a lie meant to hide the fact no one wants a true right wing system of government nor do they want to have the left wing governments they detest to be called a left wing government (such as a monarchy) as the supposedly "stand for different things".

Top (Right Wing) and at the bottom of the list is the Left Wing side of the scale.

• 100% Right Wing Political System (no government)
  
  • No central government of any kind.
  • No regulations on how people conduct business.
  • People are allowed to live and work how they wish to support themselves.
  • The "law" is nothing more then the basic rights a person has to peace, security and the right for it to not be infringed.
  • The "law" is typically enforced by the people. If someone commits a crime towards you, your responsible to stop them and administer justice to them.
  • Protection of the nation and ones property from foreign powers is dealt with local militias organized for the current conflict only
• 75% Right Wing Political System -
  
  • Somewhat of a central government with local (State) governments being in charged of day to day affairs.
  • People are generally allowed to do and work as they please. Very little if any control on a persons life.
  • Some regulations on businesses such as taxation.
  • Law maybe more involved then peace and security of all, generally not enforced more then protection of the citizens. Police forces are established.
  • It is still a individuals right and responsibly to protect themselves and their rights.
  • Smaller organized full time militias are formed to provide better security from foreign powers. Majority of the militias are still locals "on call" when being attacked.
    
• 50%/50% Central Political System
  
  • Central governments exert power over local (state) governments when security of the nation is at risk, and no mediate the differences of opinions of the different states.
  • Foundations for socialism are created, welfare programs, governments being taxing peoples personal and business income tax to pay for the social programs and pay for the kind of central government required.
  • Laws become more complex, regulations deemed necessary and added to the law. Environmental laws and worker "protection" laws are created for the greater good.
  • Police forces and other law enforcement agencies are required to administer all the different regulations.
  • Full time militarizes are established with not only the goal to protect a nations assets but acquire assets as they become known (ie they become not only defensive but offensive to other nations).
  • People become only required to protect their rights at the moment. Expected to call the police to deal with the criminal once the confrontation ends.
    
• 75% Left wing Political System (aka Socialism)
  
  • Stronger Central government, buying the vote with the use of incentives to the people (such as currency bribes). Generally will regulate the local (state) governments to do as the central government wishes.
  • Regulations of businesses, market trading and any other exchanges of currency/labor/items of value.
  • Heavy taxation of anyone not deemed part of their own to support their goals. Eliminating any middle class or upper class not a part of them, which will allow this system to lead to a pure left wing government.
  • Laws are passed at will, to control the populations movements and free thinking abilities as time goes on. Security of a persons basic rights is less of a issue as the central government wants more control then in currently has.
  • A Person has NO right to self protection of their basic rights. Firearm/weapon regulations become more common and strict as time progresses.
  • Police forces must be indiscriminate and keep the population in check by enforcing the central governments ideas and beliefs.
    
• 100% Left Wing Political System (aka Communism)
  
  • Totally central government, may or may not have "satellite" governments who's sole responsibility is to administer the laws of the central government.
  • No one has any right without the central government allowing it.
  • Generally the majority of the crime and infringement of a persons rights is done by the central government itself. Through regulations, take over of personal property and the direct meddling in every citizens affairs.
  • Military forces (and Police forces are absorbed into the military generally by now) are generally used against ones own population. They can and will administer "justice" as they wish with the death penalty in one form or another (either on the spot or worked to death) being the preferred method of punishment for anyone deemed "not inline".
  • The majority of people must be at the bottom. Otherwise they will "get smart" and try to remove this form of government. Regulations prohibiting firearm ownership, free speech, and keeping them too poor to worry about anything but basic survival keeps the elite in power.
    

At least that's how I view things. A Central/Moderate Right country will always eventually slip into a left wing country it is impossible not to. It's not a question of if but when. Generally going to the left is always easier then going to the right. People by nature will take the easy path in life. The left generally provides that with welfare checks and not giving any one individual the need to do much in the way of work and personal responsibility. Till it becomes a totally left government and by then the majority of the people are too powerless to do anything about it. When they are able to do something about it, its generally done by people wishing to install themselves in power with another left wing government under the guise of being "for the people", after many generations people will repeat the cycle when getting promised the world again as they have forgotten the last "revolution" .... this can currently be seen in Russia today.

Dimitri

We can always find another seat Bushy.

Cheers, Vince

Yah and the roof rack is still empty.. any takers?

Mitri mate, I am twice your age and I seems to
have not even a quarter of your political knowhow....
I could say that I am blissfully unaware and uncaring

Dimitri, you have much more succinctly and effectively summed up what I was poking at, that the Republicans are not 'right' but actually just a different kind of 'left.' Laws, taxation, regulation and government interference (so to speak) is the basis for left or right not whether we support the death penalty or not (incidentally I do not as among other things, it delivers more power to law making and enforcing government bodies). What people consider as being 'left and right' changes dramatically over time and between countries and cultures (despite the reality being quite explicit and unchanging).

The thing that is constant between polar left and right is that there are a small group of 'winners' and a the vast majority of 'losers.'

Dimitri wrote:

Bail outs however worded generally involve the purchase of interest producing assets even if a large number of them default and the government only gets back the principle they still make money on the interest on the ones that are paid off. It is not a "leftest" policy the way it was done. Would have been a leftest policy if they took over the market and didn't pay off the investors. As a leftest policy makes anything you own the government's when ever the government wants it.

If you talk to any economist, government involvement in any way, shape or form in the nations economy is 'left' (and taboo) as it disrupts the balance between supply and demand (I still can't fathom why this is considered a bad thing with a looming recession/depression, but there we go). You talk about intent, the intent was to increase the liquid captial available to companies facing massive liquidity and credit problems, not seize assets (the assets value is irrelevant in the short term). In a polar left society this obviously would not be an issue as private enterprise wouldn't have any entitlement to these assets anyway, but drawing from your suggestions of scale between 'left and right,' the bailout package was certainly skewed a long way left.

Claymore wrote:

but drawing from your suggestions of scale between 'left and right,' the bailout package was certainly skewed a long way left.

Yes and no, remember the bail out WILL make the government money. They have capitalized their own assets by purchasing loans from lenders. The government with its assets can "weather the storm" and make money off these loans.

In essence they have put money in their own pocket without doing what a left wing governmental system would have.

Your thinking about it too narrowly. Consider me for example with money I can tie up for a few years. And consider you the lender who is owed a lot of money but you need money now to keep feeding your family.

So Uncle Bob and Little Sue down the street owe you 4,000$ and you cannot wait to collect that money in 5 years when they are to pay it.

I come down the street and offer you 3,750$ now to purchase the loans, as I have no immediate need of the money. And Uncle Bob borrowed only 1,000$ and Little Sue only borrowed 2,250$. So all you had lent in the first place is 3,250$, so your already making "money" on unpaid loans. While I wait it out come 5 years and collect and I make 250$ for doing nothing at all.

This is the government acting as a entity on its own, using its finances to increase its own over time. Without additional taxation or tariffs, neither did they regulate the loan industry to try and "boost" it, nor did they simply seize the assets and the companies to do it. Can't see how this is anything but a right wing thing to do.

Dimitri

Stop it you guys.....MY HEAD HURTS !!!!!

Cheers, Vince

Owwww.... Please don't yell.... AAAARRRGGGHH!!!!!

now I need sumpin stronger than a beer...

If you aren't happy with the top two choices then try another.
Its why I vote Libertarian.

Dimitri wrote:

Can't see how this is anything but a right wing thing to do.

Any government involvement is 'left,' whether it makes the government money or not. Deregulation and privatisation of government assets is at the core of right wing ideology. The intent of the bailout package was to alter the 'natural' economic cycle by providing banks with additional working capital to meet their working capital requirements. The 'right' (but stupid) thing to do would be to sit back and watch the banks collapse, and allow (in theory) 'better' banks to capitalise on the reduction in market concentration.

The problem with right wing economic principles with regard to banks, is that banks do not operate under the same supply/demand conditions as normal goods. Banks can loan out money that in reality does not exist, providing that they meet their 'required reserves' as mandated by the government. At the moment, banks in the US are only required (in the majority of cases) to actually have 10% of the liquid funds that they are lending out. For example, a bank with $1M can loan out $10M. The problem arises when people want their $10M while the bank has only $1M in liquid funds. Thus, banks go in to liquidation and a lot of people lose a lot of money.

The problem is, where do you draw the line? US farmers get large subsidies from the government to boost their competitiveness in the global market (again a very left policy). I am not suggesting that this is a bad thing, rather that it is the best course of action, which is why in essence I am a 'bleeding heart lefty (or liberal),' at least when it comes to fiscal policy.

D,

Good figgerin'.

Claymore,

The plan, if implemented correctly will make a profitable income, i.e., the savings and loan bail out. Yes.........It has been done before and the outcome was good. Making a profit is "Right." With an Obama presidency, all bets are off, when it comes to good management of the peoples money.

As a member of the agricultural community, most people don't know that the largest majority of funds going into the agricultural program goes into the food stamp and school lunch programs. The farmers and ranchers get almost nothing, if anything at all. I have never got a single cent from government programs.

Most farmers are extremely conservative and want any attempt at government to intervene in their lives to go away.

Cary

Cary-good on you!I can respect a man for not taking a gov't handout!
I have on the other hand seen what happens when the gov't helps farmers to not grow food crops-it's called CRP(maybe short for crap).We the taxpayers pay the farmers to not produce certain crops in certain years so that the markets will remain stable(prices)etc.,then the farmer can only use that land for "recreational purposes",etc.However they have no problem with selling hunting rights on said land,which is their right by the law.The BIG problem is that almost never do they declare any of that "hunting right" money on their taxes-which I do take offense to because it has come out of my pocket twice now if I am hunting on their property and they are cheating the system that keeps them afloat financially.

Vince wrote:

Stop it you guys.....MY HEAD HURTS !!!!! Cheers, Vince

Ditto!

I wondered what happened to all the good hunting stories, reloading experiences, etc.

OnTheLasGallinas wrote:

Most farmers are extremely conservative and want any attempt at government to intervene in their lives to go away.

Until the Australian free market out competes them for large volume wheat exports, then they scream bloody murder (or communism) and demand the US government rip them a new one.

OnTheLasGallinas wrote:

Making a profit is "Right."

Not true, the right typically stands for profits being retained by shareholders and power holders within the organisation. The left on the other hand (often indirectly) stands for increasing the amount of profit that is supplied to the low powered stakeholders in the organisation (in a micro sense, on a macro level obviously this encompasses all organisations, industries and demographies). The ideology of the 'right' is that profit is best achieved by concentrating funds to 'high achievers,' thus increasing incentive for people to 'work harder' and increasing competition, driving down prices for consumers (nice theory, doesn't work in practice). The ideology of the 'left' on the other hand is based around increasing the spending power of consumers, thus increasing revenue and profits for all parties (also nice in theory, doesn't work in practice).

On a side issue, I went to a nearby National Park this weekend gone (Wilsons Prom for those in the area), the number of foxes was staggering, I even saw a couple of deer on an evening wander. Parks Victoria claims that ferals are being handled well by rangers and contractors, mainly through baiting (citing safety reasons for why hunters are denied access). This is clearly not the case.

Higher output by the workers doesn't mean lower prices.

Nothing personal Claymore, but I think that you got your schooling from O'bama's Marxist Professor.

Higher productivity means lower cost for employers, and thus lower costs to consumers.

The American Worker's productivity has been consistently much higher than the rest of the world, and this is why our economy is so much higher.
California's GNP for example, is larger than France's GNP.
The list goes on and on.

Your ideas on capitalism are so off the mark, that it is close to being laughable.
They are ideas born of an extreme leftist, that even O'bama wouldn't agree with today.

I've got to "Hanitize" you Claymore, before you go any farther to the left.

Give me a PM for some free lessons on the true meaning of "right and left".

Fr. Eric