Capitalism vs socialism

[K.Snyder]

It's only appropriate to bring up wealth redistribution...

I wonder just how many people, at least in America, know of how influential such a small percentage of rich people have on their country. 2% seems about correct here...

And of those 2% billionaires would suffice in bringing their countries out of the grips of poverty...

No one has suggested we tax YOU! Unless of course you're of the 2%, and in that case "you" can go cry me a river..."Why tax me when Joe Smo doesn't work?" blah blah blah...

Jo Smo would work doing what he/she enjoys if they were able to breathe...I do accept that America has large amounts of opportunities but poverty is still prevalent not to mention the middle class that can kiss their butts goodbye if another republican wins office without having to climb out of this *hole we're in...

No, we don't have to tax small business either, and even cut big business taxes...We limit the shares being held by the 2% and give incremental tax cuts only after a particular number of employees have been reached...

I like that idea...

[gmc]

spot;1332601 wrote: To provide a degree of balance to that comment, Communism as defined by Stalin was a a great deal more socially responsible than anything happening in the West at that time. History will, I think, assess Stalin rather more favourably than the way some of us brought up immersed in Capitalist propaganda manage at the moment.


You are talking a load of rubbish spot. Stalin took over the communist revolution and turned it in to a dictatorship. Lenin himself ended up warning the party about him after he realised the nature of the man he put in a position of power.

[spot]

gmc;1332754 wrote: You are talking a load of rubbish spot. Stalin took over the communist revolution and turned it in to a dictatorship. Lenin himself ended up warning the party about him after he realised the nature of the man he put in a position of power.


You don't feel it was necessary, given the circumstances. I do. If my view's right then what I said makes good sense, if I'm wrong then it doesn't. I don't see why we can't discuss it a bit more calmly.

[Accountable]

gmc;1332361 wrote: You might find this of interest, it's from a british perspective but since it's your heritage as well. There are five of them. Tony Benn was a socialist from the days before new labour got hold.

YouTube - Big Ideas That Changed The World : Democracy-Tony BennThat was definitely worth the time I didn't have to devote to watching it. Interesting about the Magna Carta only affecting ... was it 25? ... of the richest land owners. I'll have to see it again to really form an opinion because I was having to multitask.

[gmc]

spot;1332755 wrote: You don't feel it was necessary, given the circumstances. I do. If my view's right then what I said makes good sense, if I'm wrong then it doesn't. I don't see why we can't discuss it a bit more calmly.


No problem if you want to do so it would be enjoyable. I can back up my assertions and no doubt you can as well. There werte many in europe who very rapidly became disillusioned with russian communism, that's why the communist party bacame a fringe party in the UK and olny ever managed one MP, ironically in what is now gordon brown's constituency.

posted by K snyder

It's only appropriate to bring up wealth redistribution...

I wonder just how many people, at least in America, know of how influential such a small percentage of rich people have on their country. 2% seems about correct here...

And of those 2% billionaires would suffice in bringing their countries out of the grips of poverty...

No one has suggested we tax YOU! Unless of course you're of the 2%, and in that case "you" can go cry me a river..."Why tax me when Joe Smo doesn't work?" blah blah blah...

Jo Smo would work doing what he/she enjoys if they were able to breathe...I do accept that America has large amounts of opportunities but poverty is still prevalent not to mention the middle class that can kiss their butts goodbye if another republican wins office without having to climb out of this *hole we're in...

No, we don't have to tax small business either, and even cut big business taxes...We limit the shares being held by the 2% and give incremental tax cuts only after a particular number of employees have been reached...

I like that idea...


The thing is how did we end up convinced it was legitimate for so few to accumulate so much. When did we decide that the minerals under the earth and the profits from belonged to one person or to a corporation?

I know the answer so far as the UK is concerned but the states started with a clean slate. the first thing congress did was decide who got to vote and the next thing was to prevent ordinary people having a say in things. (OK sweeping generalisation there but reasonably accurate I think) Being UK educated the america revolution is taught as an incident on the way to the French revolution and building of the british empire.)

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1332794 wrote: The thing is how did we end up convinced it was legitimate for so few to accumulate so much. When did we decide that the minerals under the earth and the profits from belonged to one person or to a corporation?

I know the answer so far as the UK is concerned but the states started with a clean slate. the first thing congress did was decide who got to vote and the next thing was to prevent ordinary people having a say in things. (OK sweeping generalisation there but reasonably accurate I think) Being UK educated the america revolution is taught as an incident on the way to the French revolution and building of the british empire.)Well the answer is simple...The declination of education together with owning all of the media together with years of propaganda bombardment = (Mathematically) a brainwashed state.

"I don't like soccer" says the brainwashed "american"...Well "you" wouldn't be brainwashed if the 2% didn't brainwash "you" into thinking anything less than a booming "american" economy was "trash" and undeserving and in order to give "yourself" a sense of worth denounce soccer at the whim of the corporate pigs that are unable to place their advertising throughout the game to then convince "you" brainwashed people into buying their product. Go ahead and give a think...How long is the longest "you" actually viewed an "american" sporting event without being interrupted by some crap product by an equally uncaring benefactor?

These capitalist pigs not only do not care about "your" well being but they live and die off of "you" like leaches. They suck "you" dry of "your" money and then when "you" need assistance they deny "your" health insurance claims...As if they're not the same people...

If social security was entirely for the health and well being of people then why don't "you" get that all in one lump sum as opposed to $100 a month only to see "you" have to live to 113 to get all of it?

"America" is so wonderful and FREE!" :yh_sick I'm already ill

[gmc]

spot;1332755 wrote: You don't feel it was necessary, given the circumstances. I do. If my view's right then what I said makes good sense, if I'm wrong then it doesn't. I don't see why we can't discuss it a bit more calmly.


That was a calm response, I did initially just write bollocks but thought I should elaborate a bit, utter bollocks still did not seem terribly constructive so talking a load of rubbish is in fact a considered calm response compared to my initial response. Your view is not necessarily right or wrong, I can think of many examples where what was going on in the rest of europe was not exactly socially responsible or indeed pleasant for those who were victims. However what stalin went on to do blew any claims he might have had to be a socially responsible dictator completely out of the water. He is in a class of his own, as was hitler - many of his programmes were socially responsible and were copied around the world, as with stalin what he went on to do overwhelms any kudos his reforms might have gained him. It's like henry the eight - we remember the monster not the enlightened king. His daughter actually killed more than he did and yet she is remembered as a guardian of freedom. It just depends how you choose to look at things.

[K.Snyder]

Who disagrees that capitalism is defined by ones inability to define "plausibility"?

If it wasn't so true I'd laugh at it

[BTS]

K.Snyder;1332602 wrote: It's only appropriate to bring up wealth redistribution...

I wonder just how many people, at least in America, know of how influential such a small percentage of rich people have on their country. 2% seems about correct here...

And of those 2% billionaires would suffice in bringing their countries out of the grips of poverty...

No one has suggested we tax YOU! Unless of course you're of the 2%, and in that case "you" can go cry me a river..."Why tax me when Joe Smo doesn't work?" blah blah blah...

Jo Smo would work doing what he/she enjoys if they were able to breathe...I do accept that America has large amounts of opportunities but poverty is still prevalent not to mention the middle class that can kiss their butts goodbye if another republican wins office without having to climb out of this *hole we're in...

No, we don't have to tax small business either, and even cut big business taxes...We limit the shares being held by the 2% and give incremental tax cuts only after a particular number of employees have been reached...

I like that idea...


So ......

What % of tax does the the evil top 2% pay as opposed to the bottom 50%?

[spot]

BTS;1333033 wrote: So ......

What % of tax does the the evil top 2% pay as opposed to the bottom 50%?


Your government's none too hot on publishing up to date statistics, you know. Their 2010 Statistical Abstract from The National Data Book only goes up to 2006 on the appropriate spreadsheet (476 - Individual Income Tax Returns--Number, Income Tax, and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, at The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Federal Individual Income Tax Returns )

Neither is the detail much to write home about.

What % of tax does the the evil top 2% pay...

The top 2.94% of taxpayers pay 53% of all federal income tax, having earned 31% of the adjusted gross income.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of all federal income tax, having earned 10% of the adjusted gross income.

That's pretty much Capitalism summed up, really. One day those bottom 50% of taxpayers who live hand to mouth with just 10% of the cake will work out how to act in their own interests.

[Accountable]

That seems to sum up socialism. One's affluence is completely relative to another's, so if one gets fat on steak, he is dirt poor and practically homeless if someone else enjoys truffles. So it is the truffles being elsewhere that defines poverty rather than what one actually has, needs, or is lacking.

[spot]

Accountable;1333112 wrote: That seems to sum up socialism. One's affluence is completely relative to another's, so if one gets fat on steak, he is dirt poor and practically homeless if someone else enjoys truffles. So it is the truffles being elsewhere that defines poverty rather than what one actually has, needs, or is lacking.It's disgusting that you can talk of truffles in a land you share with so many homeless, Acc. The provision Socialism seeks to guarantee to all has nothing to do with getting fat on steak to keep up with a notional average, it's a matter of basic provision. It has nothing whatever to do with stratospheric incomes supporting truffle appetites, the rich can strut their own path to hell perfectly well on their own.

[Accountable]

spot;1333038 wrote: Your government's none too hot on publishing up to date statistics, you know. Their 2010 Statistical Abstract from The National Data Book only goes up to 2006 on the appropriate spreadsheet (476 - Individual Income Tax Returns--Number, Income Tax, and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income, at The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Federal Individual Income Tax Returns )

Neither is the detail much to write home about.

What % of tax does the the evil top 2% pay...

The top 2.94% of taxpayers pay 53% of all federal income tax, having earned 31% of the adjusted gross income.

The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay 3% of all federal income tax, having earned 10% of the adjusted gross income.

That's pretty much Capitalism summed up, really. One day those bottom 50% of taxpayers who live hand to mouth with just 10% of the cake will work out how to act in their own interests.spot;1333113 wrote: It's disgusting that you can talk of truffles in a land you share with so many homeless, Acc. The provision Socialism seeks to guarantee to all has nothing to do with getting fat on steak to keep up with a notional average, it's a matter of basic provision. It has nothing whatever to do with stratospheric incomes supporting truffle appetites, the rich can strut their own path to hell perfectly well on their own.It would be awfully hard to care less what disgusts you. If your brand of socialism has nothing to do with a notional average, then you shouldn't set it up as if it does. When you set up poor as being poor because it isn't as rich as rich, it's hard to take you seriously when you state the opposite in your very next post.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1333118 wrote: It would be awfully hard to care less what disgusts you. If your brand of socialism has nothing to do with a notional average, then you shouldn't set it up as if it does. When you set up poor as being poor because it isn't as rich as rich, it's hard to take you seriously when you state the opposite in your very next post.


It would be easy to get rid of society's current definition of poverty if the shares of a company were dispersed equally. The lack of monetary reward would be equaled, if not surpassed, by the people's choice to do as they please. The only change that would take place is the society's definition of luxury. I can attest that anything in regards to changing that definition from today's society would be very much in favor of the majority.

No one is suggesting that "poor" and "rich" would become an obsolete description because only a fool would believe in that concept. I can think of many trust me. The difference would be the levels of each becoming not so greatly distant from one and the other. Past experiences with socialism have not excelled so greatly but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from that to create an ideal society. That ideal society is surely not a capitalist one as America will lay witness to and I can just as confidently assure "you" people that if the republicans gain control this country will resemble the likes of a gorilla cage at the local zoo. Sure the cage might have been made of impenetrable bars but the sh*t flinging will get bad enough that not even the apes will want to stick around

[gmc]

Accountable;1333112 wrote: That seems to sum up socialism. One's affluence is completely relative to another's, so if one gets fat on steak, he is dirt poor and practically homeless if someone else enjoys truffles. So it is the truffles being elsewhere that defines poverty rather than what one actually has, needs, or is lacking.


If you've read 1984 you will have got the point about newspeak, mention socialism to an american and it conjures up a whole different set of concepts that it does to the european - it seems to be revolutionary socialism in it's vilest form that springs to mind. It's about envy and is liked by those without the get up and go to make their way in the world.

If you forget the label for a moment - at it's heart is a basic cry for justice and fairness the very same one that has been uttered throughout history.

Putney Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.


It's also in your declaration of independence, whose content is not as original as you might think.

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


The next thing that happened is that steps were taken to prevent everybody having a say in how they were governed - only those and such as those got the vote.

The oft quoted oput of context "all property is theft" was referring to what was happening in germany at the time when local powerful pandowners wre enclosin common land and claiming it for their own, in england the same was happening with the enclosure acts. In america it is also a common theme - how many westerns are about a cattle baron claiming land for his own they have no right to and the little homesteaders ganging together to fight back? Or films about the little man fighting back against big corporations? (Clint eastwood in pale rider for instance). that kind of thing still goes on you know

YouTube - Mountaintop Removal in Kentucky

They ones that object are portrayed as unamarican and standing in the way of progress. Nutty treehuggers that should just shut up and accept the price of progress, just as those who object to deep sea drilling for oil should shut up as well.

John Steinbecks the grapes of wrath was banned because it was socialist and anti-anerican. Mr Smith goes to Washington, one of the real classics was originally banned as being unpatriotic but I would be willing to bet few would see it that way nowadays.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


If you agree with that basic sentiment that all are created equal then at heart you are a socialist. When did americans decide that a few should own so much of the country's wealth and that those who live in the richest nation in the world should put up with being thrown out of work and homes while bailing out the instuitutions that caused an economic crisis? Politics is an argument about how you achieve a just society, it seems those who think justice for all is a bad thing are winning the debate at the moment by convincing people that objecting is unpatriotic.

Mind you I think they're winning in the UK as well at the moment but we have a long history of getting annoyed and kicking our leaders in to shape. We argue about how to achive social justice not about whether we should or not.

William Casey (1913–1987), U.S. intelligence chief, director of the CIA. Quoted in his obituary, in the Washington Post (May 7, 1987).

I pass the test that says a man who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart, and a man who is a socialist at 40 has no head.


Famous quote, always wondered who said it.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1333123 wrote: It would be easy to get rid of society's current definition of poverty if the shares of a company were dispersed equally.It would also "get rid of" society's current definitions of innovation and liberty. K.Snyder wrote: That ideal society is surely not a capitalist one as America will lay witness to No, it won't. We don't have a capitalist society. Truly free market capitalism would never enact legislation that favors one business or group over its direct competition as ours has, and it would certainly never bail out businesses to took stupid risks and failed. Truly free market capitalism would never see a business "too big to fail".K.Snyder wrote: and I can just as confidently assure "you" people ...WTF are "you" people?

[Accountable]

gmc;1333127 wrote: If you've read 1984 you will have got the point about newspeak, mention socialism to an american and it conjures up a whole different set of concepts that it does to the american - it seems to be revolutionary socialism in it's vilest form that springs to mind. It's about envy and is liked by those without the get up and go to make their way in the world.

If you forget the label for a moment - at it's heart is a basic cry for justice and fairness the very same one that has been uttered throughout history.

Putney Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It's also in your declaration of independence, whose content is not as original as you might think.

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The next thing that happened is that steps were taken to prevent everybody having a say in how they were governed - only those and such as those got the vote.

The oft quoted oput of context "all property is theft" was referring to what was happening in germany at the time when local powerful pandowners wre enclosin common land and claiming it for their own, in england the same was happening with the enclosure acts. In america it is also a common theme - how many westerns are about a cattle baron claiming land for his own they have no right to and the little homesteaders ganging together to fight back? Or films about the little man fighting back against big corporations? (Clint eastwood in pale rider for instance). that kind of thing still goes on you know

YouTube - Mountaintop Removal in Kentucky

They ones that object are portrayed as unamarican and standing in the way of progress. Nutty treehuggers that should just shut up and accept the price of progress, just as those who object to deep sea drilling for oil should shut up as well.

John Steinbecks the grapes of wrath was banned because it was socialist and anti-anerican. Mr Smith goes to Washington, one of the real classics was originally banned as being unpatriotic but I would be willing to bet few would see it that way nowadays.



If you agree with that basic sentiment that all are created equal then at heart you are a socialist. When did americans decide that a few should own so much of the country's wealth and that those who live in the richest nation in the world should put up with being thrown out of work and homes while bailing out the instuitutions that caused an economic crisis? Politics is an argument about how you achieve a just society, it seems those who think justice for all is a bad thing are winning the debate at the moment by convincing people that objecting is unpatriotic.

Mind you I think they're winning in the UK as well at the moment but we have a long history of getting annoyed and kicking our leaders in to shape. We argue about how to achive social justice not about whether we should or not.



Famous quote, always wondered who said it.I'll try to give this an ample reply later but I'm running late. Generally, I think you & I define equality differently in that I want to start the race equally and let each individual's talent & desire decide how far & how fast he will go, while you seem to want everyone to cross the finish line together regardless of any one person's effort.

[spot]

Accountable;1333118 wrote: It would be awfully hard to care less what disgusts you. If your brand of socialism has nothing to do with a notional average, then you shouldn't set it up as if it does. When you set up poor as being poor because it isn't as rich as rich, it's hard to take you seriously when you state the opposite in your very next post.
In a society with no poor it makes no difference what slice of the cake the pointlessly over-rich take. If there are people who lack the resources which would otherwise enable them to be adequately housed or adequately fed or adequately healthy, whether those resources come from income or from social welfare or from any other source, then from a Socialist perspective they deserve first bite at society's wealth.

In my answer to BTS I took the top 2.94% of earners who consume 31% of the total income as the pointlessly over-rich. I took the bottom 50% earning just 10% of total income as an indication of the wealth gap of the country. They're indicators, not analysis. Analysis would consider how many people are excluded from the figures altogether and how much they'd widen the wealth gap even more - the average homeless person or prisoner in jail or long-term unemployed doesn't make an income tax return at all, and they're not on the spreadsheet. Nor are the pensioners with no private provision.

The reason for highlighting the wealth gap as I did to BTS in a direct factual response to his question is to show that the country has the resources to provide for those it currently fails. The gap itself isn't the problem. The problem is the national refusal to introduce an adequate social safety net. Providing an adequate social safety net is the bedrock of Socialism.

[gmc]

Sorry, that first paragraph didn't make sense, I meant European not american, I've corrected it

Accountable;1333140 wrote: I'll try to give this an ample reply later but I'm running late. Generally, I think you & I define equality differently in that I want to start the race equally and let each individual's talent & desire decide how far & how fast he will go, while you seem to want everyone to cross the finish line together regardless of any one person's effort.


Actually no we don't. It's about getting a fair start and having equal access to opportunity, how you end up and what you make of opportunity is up to you. How do you make sure all get as good a chance as possible? Take education, if being born in a deprived area means you don't get access to a good education you are handicapped from the word go. You can still get on but it's that much harder. If you can't go to college or university because you can't afford it you can still get on but it's that much harder to do so. It is to the benefit of society that a good education be freely available to all. Scotland has had compulsory primary education ever since john knox. In the time of Adam Smith ( of wealth of nations fame) the literacy rate was over 90%, we were unique in the world in having universal education. University lectures were was open to all and lecturers were paid by those attending, if you look at a list of influential scots, scientists, engineers you will realise as a small nation we have punched well above it's weight.

If you read adam smith rather than biased edited highlights you will find a lot of what would now be seen as socialist ideas - he advocates an educated workforce as essential for the good of the economy. It's too important to be left to private schooling, it needs to be for all.

Infrastructure is important, toll roads are an extra cost on the price of goods in the same way as import tariffs put up manufacturing costs.

The health of the workforce is important as well so medicine should not be the preserve of the rich

He also advocated paying a decent wage rather than what an employer can get away with.

If a worker has just enough to live on they are in despair, if they have more than enough they spend it on goods and services thus generating demand and more income for manufacture. At the heart of it you need agriculture and industry, the notion that you can have a service based economy and generate wealth by moving money around is ludicrous. Moving manufacture abroad to get lower labour costs doesn't work if at the same time you destroy the basis of your economy, low cost and high profit margins mean nothing if you can't sell the stuff. You don't make the stuff any more and no one can afford anything. When wages rise the economy grows as people have more disposable income. Look at the past and what happened when ordinary people had disposable income and also what happened when the gulf between rich and poor started to grow.

If you look at the American economy in the fifties and sixties what drove was a highly paid workforce and their demand for good s and services, consumers were king. I would be willing to bet that now, in real terms, the average working wage in america is less than it was in the 1960's because you've accepted that employers can force down wages and you take what you can get and your industry is failing despite having a lower cost base in real terms - there's no one to buy the stuff. Too big a gulf between rich and poor with no hope of improvement is a recipe for revolution- bear in mind he was writing at the time of the french revolution. In the states you have the illusion that your vote counts in effect the ones that want change are effectively disenfranchised and an awful lot seem to have a panglossian view of their country.

Free access to education for all regardless of wealth, give everybody the same chance at the start, and a decent wage rather than allowing employers to exploit people for their own gain but to the detriment of everybody else, both socialist policies nowadays but they're also basic common sense. It is enlightened self interest to want an educated workforce and not to have ignorant people all around you, it is self interest not to allow employers to squeeze employees so there is nothing left. It is not in your interest to have people going bankrupt and losing their homes because of medical bills it is self interest to have universal healthcare - maybe you can afford it now but what if you couldn't? Are you a throw away person if you lose your job through no fault of your own?

Capitalism and socialism have a lot of crossover points. You've had forty years of right wing monetarist economic policies where everything had a price and your economy is in the **** (as is ours and for the same reason). Thatcher famously said there is no such thing as society but if you don't take care of those around you you end up with bugger all. Paying for the education of others people children or towards someone else's healthcare, for better housing is not just welfare or the making a society of people dependant on handouts dependants it's helping give them a chance to get on and towards a just society with freedom and liberty for all, you have to make things happen together cos a society of individuals is going nowhere. There's something wrong when you don't think everybody is entitled to a fair start in life and set things up so they have little chance or things are made unnecessarily difficult.

Yes there will always be those who are wasters look at G W Bush. If he had been poor he would have been a homeless drunk somewhere.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1333138 wrote: It would also "get rid of" society's current definitions of innovation and liberty. Of course it wouldn't. The freedom to choose one's profession would make up the numbers and even surpass the current system in which is dependant upon demand.

Accountable;1333138 wrote:

No, it won't. We don't have a capitalist society. Truly free market capitalism would never enact legislation that favors one business or group over its direct competition as ours has, and it would certainly never bail out businesses to took stupid risks and failed. Truly free market capitalism would never see a business "too big to fail".Because it's far worse than that this country is one of corporatism.

Accountable;1333138 wrote:

WTF are "you" people?""You" people" as in those other than yourself paying attention and who might be smart enough to not allow the corporate pigs to run them like muppets

[Accountable]

spot;1333144 wrote: In a society with no poor it makes no difference what slice of the cake the pointlessly over-rich take. If there are people who lack the resources which would otherwise enable them to be adequately housed or adequately fed or adequately healthy, whether those resources come from income or from social welfare or from any other source, then from a Socialist perspective they deserve first bite at society's wealth"They deserve first bite," regardless of the circumstances that made them so "deserving"? It sounds like our federal government's view of how to treat megacorporations.

No, thank you. You and yours can choose to live that way, but I will not willingly do so.

[spot]

Accountable;1333242 wrote: "They deserve first bite," regardless of the circumstances that made them so "deserving"? It sounds like our federal government's view of how to treat megacorporations.

No, thank you. You and yours can choose to live that way, but I will not willingly do so.As you say, it's a matter of philosophy. One's compatible with Christianity, the other rooted in personal avarice, dehumanising and a wilful lack of compassion. Your quote-marks around "deserving" speak volumes.

[Accountable]

gmc;1333127 wrote: If you've read 1984 you will have got the point about newspeak, mention socialism to an american and it conjures up a whole different set of concepts that it does to the european - it seems to be revolutionary socialism in it's vilest form that springs to mind. It's about envy and is liked by those without the get up and go to make their way in the world.

If you forget the label for a moment - at it's heart is a basic cry for justice and fairness the very same one that has been uttered throughout history.

Putney Debates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's also in your declaration of independence, whose content is not as original as you might think.

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you say, forget the label. I hate labels because they tend to unnecessarily encompass some bad with some good, while if we look at individual items we can take the good and toss the bad. Unfortunately too many people are happy to embrace the whole box to get the one gem they like.

Teaching history, part of the job is drawing links of the past to the present and from one culture to another. I really hope my teacher failed to do this when I was a student because they're pretty obvious to me today.

gmc wrote: The next thing that happened is that steps were taken to prevent everybody having a say in how they were governed - only those and such as those got the vote.

The oft quoted oput of context "all property is theft" was referring to what was happening in germany at the time when local powerful pandowners wre enclosin common land and claiming it for their own, in england the same was happening with the enclosure acts. In america it is also a common theme - how many westerns are about a cattle baron claiming land for his own they have no right to and the little homesteaders ganging together to fight back? Or films about the little man fighting back against big corporations? (Clint eastwood in pale rider for instance). that kind of thing still goes on you know

YouTube - Mountaintop Removal in Kentucky

They ones that object are portrayed as unamarican and standing in the way of progress. Nutty treehuggers that should just shut up and accept the price of progress, just as those who object to deep sea drilling for oil should shut up as well.

John Steinbecks the grapes of wrath was banned because it was socialist and anti-anerican. Mr Smith goes to Washington, one of the real classics was originally banned as being unpatriotic but I would be willing to bet few would see it that way nowadays. Laying a minor inaccuracy or two aside (truly not relevant) I am aware (and don't think I ever implied otherwise, though I've been here a long time & have revised many opinions) that the US has seldom if ever lived up to the ideals the Founding Fathers set before themselves and us. With the possible exception of George Washington, all of our most famous presidents are remembered not for their staunch and faithful support of our Constitution, but for violating it in some Machiavellian quest or other, usually also unconstitutional. But I do believe in and support the ideals. I do not believe the answer to individual liberty lies in passing responsibility for living free to the government. That may be the answer to individual comfort, but that is a wholly different thing.



gmc wrote: If you agree with that basic sentiment that all are created equal then at heart you are a socialist. When did americans decide that a few should own so much of the country's wealth and that those who live in the richest nation in the world should put up with being thrown out of work and homes while bailing out the instuitutions that caused an economic crisis? Politics is an argument about how you achieve a just society, it seems those who think justice for all is a bad thing are winning the debate at the moment by convincing people that objecting is unpatriotic.

Mind you I think they're winning in the UK as well at the moment but we have a long history of getting annoyed and kicking our leaders in to shape. We argue about how to achive social justice not about whether we should or not.



Famous quote, always wondered who said it.I rail daily against the unamerican government intervention preventing the natural consequences of bad (really phenomenally stupid) business decisions, the government intervention that encouraged such behavior, and government officials' loyalty to party and campaign contributors over their obligation to their constituents. We are not remotely similar to the American Ideal today. Further government intervention would take us farther from it, rather than closer.

Socialism as a personal policy is great and everyone should have it, but when it bleeds into the government it becomes something else, imo. People should have the freedom to choose not to be socialist, to go it on their own. That choice is taken away when we involve the government.

[spot]

Accountable;1333251 wrote: Socialism as a personal policy is great and everyone should have it, but when it bleeds into the government it becomes something else, imo. People should have the freedom to choose not to be socialist, to go it on their own. That choice is taken away when we involve the government.Anyone would think, from what you write, that the government was not responsible for the collection and distribution of tax. Social engineering could, of course, be left entirely to the voluntary private sector and involve no distribution of tax whatever. On the other hand you're selective in what aspects of social engineering you want including in the tax arena. When it comes to education, for example, you want tax money expended, which admits social engineering as a matter of government policy and responsibility. Where we differ isn't in whether it should happen or not, it's in the extent. The fundamental principle is common ground between us.

[gmc]

posted by accountable

I rail daily against the unamerican government intervention preventing the natural consequences of bad (really phenomenally stupid) business decisions, the government intervention that encouraged such behavior, and government officials' loyalty to party and campaign contributors over their obligation to their constituents. We are not remotely similar to the American Ideal today. Further government intervention would take us farther from it, rather than closer.


What do you mean by the american ideal? If it's the sentiments contained in the declaration of independence then how do you achieve it if not by government acting to give everybody a fair chance and prevent the powerful exploiting the weak? It's not as if the government exists apart from the people is it? the question is who gets to control it, the people or powerful interests. Left wing or right wing or somewhere in between - liberal democracy? If ever you want to see newspeak in action and the effect it has just look at american political debate. The very principles your constitution was founded on are denigrated as unpatriotic. Course I have a highly coloured viewpoint not actually being an american I can't really judge. You have an interesting way of looking at things, not having a written constitution we don't have endless debated about what is or is not unconstitutional it's more what is right and what we should do now.

[Clodhopper]

The fundamental principle is common ground between us.


Hear, hear.

Which is why, when it comes down to it, our countries get along as well as they do. And in historical terms we get on very well indeed. (I'd say the same is also true of Canada, Australia and NZ)

[Clodhopper]

"They deserve first bite," regardless of the circumstances that made them so "deserving"?


This sort of thing crops up in the Press from time to time. If that's the sort of thing spot is thinking of an example might be a feckless woman who has kids to be able to claim benefits based on that - a house and money to feed them. We'd all agree that is appalling behaviour, but to withdraw benefits from that person would harm the kids more than anyone else, and the child benefit is of importance financially to a few million decent families, and most important, of course, to the poorer ones. Should we withdraw that benefit to the detriment of all those decent families?

I think, on the whole, I'm prepared to put up with the woman who abuses the system since it seems to me the improvement in the life of so many families is worth it.

(At present, I think child benefit is a universal benefit which means everyone, rich or poor, who has kids is entitled to it. I suspect this will change soon and become income-dependent)

edit: I think you have to add in where we came from industrially: Conditions in the temements and slums of all our big cities were appalling and vast numbers of kids suffered from poor diet, vitamin deficiences and disease as recently as the Second World War and as a nation we didn't really get the problem sorted until the Fifties, I'd guess. Child Benefit was (basically) the method by which it was achieved. Along with Council Housing.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;1333195 wrote: [QUOTE=Accountable;1333138][QUOTE=K.Snyder;1333123]No one is suggesting that "poor" and "rich" would become an obsolete description because only a fool would believe in that concept. I can think of many trust me. The difference would be the levels of each becoming not so greatly distant from one and the other. Past experiences with socialism have not excelled so greatly but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from that to create an ideal society. That ideal society is surely not a capitalist one as America will lay witness to and I can just as confidently assure "you" people that if the republicans gain control this country will resemble the likes of a gorilla cage at the local zoo. Sure the cage might have been made of impenetrable bars but the sh*t flinging will get bad enough that not even the apes will want to stick aroundWTF are "you" people?[/QUOTE]""You" people" as in those other than yourself paying attention and who might be smart enough to not allow the corporate pigs to run them like muppets[/QUOTE]Odd that you would direct the word "you" at me yet mean people other than myself. It's more odd that you would separate yourself from those people paying attention who might be smart enough to not allow the corporate pigs to run them like muppets. But okay.

[Accountable]

spot;1333249 wrote: As you say, it's a matter of philosophy. One's compatible with Christianity, the other rooted in personal avarice, dehumanising and a wilful lack of compassion. Your quote-marks around "deserving" speak volumes.Wrong bait. Fish somewhere else.gmc;1333277 wrote: What do you mean by the american ideal? If it's the sentiments contained in the declaration of independence then how do you achieve it if not by government acting to give everybody a fair chance and prevent the powerful exploiting the weak? It's not as if the government exists apart from the people is it?Government action to give eveybody that fair chance doesn't have to include providing for those who can provide for themselves. Local gov't providing temporary safety nets for those who fall on hard times or permanent care for those without family who can't care for themselves is one thing (a thing that can usually primarily be handled by the voluntary generosity of friends, neighbors, and charities), but a federal one-size-fits-all benefits program is not only necessary and wasteful, it goes against the ideal of personal independence that is the USA.

gmc wrote: the question is who gets to control it, the people or powerful interests. Left wing or right wing or somewhere in between - liberal democracy? If ever you want to see newspeak in action and the effect it has just look at american political debate. The very principles your constitution was founded on are denigrated as unpatriotic.Yes, I've noticed, but I'll bet we're not thinking of the same principles.

gmc wrote: Course I have a highly coloured viewpoint not actually being an american I can't really judge. You have an interesting way of looking at things, not having a written constitution we don't have endless debated about what is or is not unconstitutional it's more what is right and what we should do now.Our system is designed to be decentralized to prevent the very power-grabs that have been happening off and on since Woodrow Wilson, and have spun completely out of control these last two administrations.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1333373 wrote: Odd that you would direct the word "you" at me yet mean people other than myself. It's more odd that you would separate yourself from those people paying attention who might be smart enough to not allow the corporate pigs to run them like muppets. But okay. Nothing "odd" about anything other than someone completely unable to discern a mere generalization at an attempt to not single anyone out other than those with a guilty conscience. It's the very definition of "muppet". Quite simply if it didn't apply to you then you'd have moved on without giving a care about bringing up a completely irrelevant point to an otherwise appropriate conversation.

[spot]

Accountable;1333378 wrote: Wrong bait. Fish somewhere else.For which read "What you write is undeniably true but simple morality doesn't enter into my economic rulebook because if it did I'd have to change my fundamental principles".

[gmc]

posted by accountable

Government action to give eveybody that fair chance doesn't have to include providing for those who can provide for themselves. Local gov't providing temporary safety nets for those who fall on hard times or permanent care for those without family who can't care for themselves is one thing (a thing that can usually primarily be handled by the voluntary generosity of friends, neighbors, and charities), but a federal one-size-fits-all benefits program is not only necessary and wasteful, it goes against the ideal of personal independence that is the USA.


It also goes against the original principles of our welfare state - the philosophy behind it owes more to socialist self help principles than anything else, ( self help as in encouraging education and banding together to help one another - things like the co-operative movement are a feature of it, a lot of the early unions in the UK provided access top education and provided death benefits and provision for widows and dependants for it's members - that's how a lot of the mutual insurance societies and building societies got started) it was not intended as a scroungers charter. ( people always take advantage) Where it differs markedly from your viewpoint is that leaving social welfare to charity is seen as degrading and undignified for those who receive it. Those who find themselves in poverty through circumstances beyond their control should not have their faces rubbed in it. The intention was to help people keep their dignity and get back on their feet again not make them dependant.

posted by accountable

Yes, I've noticed, but I'll bet we're not thinking of the same principles.


I really don't know. we might be in some ways. The semantics of the words we use have different connotations to each of us. You see socialism as top down imposed on people, I see it as a ground roots bottom up thing telling the establishment what people are going to accept. Freedom is when you tell a politician what to do and if that involves providing a welfare state that is what they will have to do. They weren't given a choice in the matter after ww2 and having just been through the second war in a generation they weren't going to accept anything less people voted for it en masse. Most people in this country and europe accept as normal what you see as socialist policies. They are socialist, but they are no longer radical. We would not tolerate private provision for mainstream healthcare for instance - it's too important to be left to the profit motive. You can go privately if you want, the reality is very few actually do and if those who did were told they would not have access, as a consequence of that decision, to the NHS in any circumstances the private sector would disappear overnight.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1333378 wrote:

Our system is designed to be decentralized to prevent the very power-grabs that have been happening off and on since Woodrow Wilson, and have spun completely out of control these last two administrations.


If you read Woodrow Wilson he is quite clear that the power grabs started in the first Congress with Hamilton and were deliberately institutionalised by him.

Gives evidence and examples to prove it too

[Accountable]

spot;1333401 wrote: For which read "What you write is undeniably true but simple morality doesn't enter into my economic rulebook because if it did I'd have to change my fundamental principles".And yet he continues undaunted, switching from bait to bait hoping to find the right one. Am I your Moby, Dick?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



gmc;1333409 wrote: It also goes against the original principles of our welfare state - the philosophy behind it owes more to socialist self help principles than anything else, ( self help as in encouraging education and banding together to help one another - things like the co-operative movement are a feature of it, a lot of the early unions in the UK provided access top education and provided death benefits and provision for widows and dependants for it's members - that's how a lot of the mutual insurance societies and building societies got started) it was not intended as a scroungers charter. ( people always take advantage)And that's fine for your welfare state. I would welcome such things as you describe with voluntary unions that people can join or drop at will. It is simply unacceptable (in the US under Constitution rules) when gov't is involved.

gmc wrote: Where it differs markedly from your viewpoint is that leaving social welfare to charity is seen as degrading and undignified for those who receive it. Those who find themselves in poverty through circumstances beyond their control should not have their faces rubbed in it. The intention was to help people keep their dignity and get back on their feet again not make them dependant. I understand. We've had this conversation a couple of times. I mark it down as cultural differences, nothing more.

gmc wrote: I really don't know. we might be in some ways. The semantics of the words we use have different connotations to each of us. You see socialism as top down imposed on people, I see it as a ground roots bottom up thing telling the establishment what people are going to accept.Very close. I see socialism as something that can exist independent of government. Americans are perfectly free to conduct themselves as socialists and as socialistically as they please. So in that way, I don't see socialism as top-down, but I do see anything coming from the government as top-down, in that anyone that refuses to behave as the government dictates risks losing liberty, possibly even life.

The majority of citizens need not agree with what the majority of Parliament or Congress vote for and it will still be just as binding as if we all had signed a contract. Therefore we must use our power of government dictates as sparingly as possible to allow the greatest liberty possible.

gmc wrote: Freedom is when you tell a politician what to do Only the majority get to be free under your definition.

Freedom is being able to decide for yourself if, how much, and in what fashion you wish to help your fellow man. Taking away that decision takes away liberty. Sometimes it's necessary. More often it's not. The beauty of humanity is that different societies decide where to draw that line. I simply prefer liberty over convenience or benefits more than you apparently do.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1333477 wrote: If you read Woodrow Wilson he is quite clear that the power grabs started in the first Congress with Hamilton and were deliberately institutionalised by him.

Gives evidence and examples to prove it too :-)I hadn't heard that. Thanks, I look forward to reading up on it. But I'm sure you agree that pointing out that others are doing wrong doesn't justify more wrongdoing.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1333530 wrote: I hadn't heard that. Thanks, I look forward to reading up on it. But I'm sure you agree that pointing out that others are doing wrong doesn't justify more wrongdoing.


The key point is institutionalised. That it was deliberately built into the system - it will happen despite individual actions not because of them and will continue to happen until the system is changed.

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1333699 wrote: The key point is institutionalised. That it was deliberately built into the system - it will happen despite individual actions not because of them and will continue to happen until the system is changed.
Not having read Wilson's take, but fairly knowledgeable on the Founders, the system was built expecting power grabs and so had the checks & balances built in to minimize if not prevent it. Unfortunately, Wilson successfully removed one of the key balances (foundational to the very nation) with the 17th Amendment, giving citizens redundant representation and stripping state governments of their rightful voice in federal decisions.

[Saint_]

hoppy;1191751 wrote: Under Capitalism, a farmer making a living and feeding his family sees a field across the road from him for sale and he says to himself, "If I buy that field and farm it also, I can make more money and provide better for my family, my kids education etc.


Actually, under Capitalism, the farmer would be paid not to grow anything on the field for years, then when he made a small garden for his family, the corporation who owned the surrounding land would sue him, take his land and make it an import center for goods manufactured in China. Out of work and evicted, he would find that the republican party had voted not to give him any unemployment benefits and in sheer despair, he would go on a shooting rampage at the local mall, then kill himself...

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1333721 wrote: Not having read Wilson's take, but fairly knowledgeable on the Founders, the system was built expecting power grabs and so had the checks & balances built in to minimize if not prevent it. Unfortunately, Wilson successfully removed one of the key balances (foundational to the very nation) with the 17th Amendment, giving citizens redundant representation and stripping state governments of their rightful voice in federal decisions.


For your interest :-

Nor were these open assumptions of questionable prerogatives on the part of the national government the most significant or unequivocal indications of an assured increase of federal power. Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, had taken care at the very beginning to set the national policy in ways which would unavoidably lead to an almost indefinite expansion of the sphere of federal legislation.



But no sooner had the powers of that government begun to be exercised under his guidance than they began to grow. In his famous Report on Manufactures were laid the foundations of that system of protective duties which was destined to hang all the industries of the country upon the skirts of the federal power, and to make every trade and craft in the land sensitive to every wind of party that might blow at Washington; and in his equally celebrated Report in favor of the establishment of a National Bank, there was called into requisition, for the first time, that puissant doctrine of the "implied powers" of the Constitution which has ever since been the chief dynamic principle in our constitutional history.

"This great doctrine, embodying the principle of liberal construction, was," in the language of Mr. Lodge, "the most formidable weapon in the armory of the Constitution; and when Hamilton grasped it he knew, and his opponents felt, that here was something capable of conferring on the federal government powers of almost any extent." It served first as a sanction for the charter of the United States Bank,--an institution which was the central pillar of Hamilton's wonderful financial administration, and around which afterwards, as then, played so many of the lightnings of party strife. But the Bank of the United States, though great, was not the greatest of the creations of that lusty and seductive doctrine. Given out, at length, with the sanction of the federal Supreme Court, and containing, as it did, in its manifest character as a doctrine of legislative prerogative, a very vigorous principle of constitutional growth, it quickly constituted Congress the dominant, nay, the irresistible, power of the federal system, relegating some of the chief balances of the Constitution to an insignificant rô1e in the "literary theory" of our institutions.



Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, A Study in American Politics (1885)

[Saint_]

Bryn Mawr;1333784 wrote: For Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, had taken care at the very beginning to set the national policy in ways which would unavoidably lead to an almost indefinite expansion of the sphere of federal legislation.


Or to quote Hamilton, "Coooool. Let's control everything!"

in his equally celebrated Report in favor of the establishment of a National Bank, there was called into requisition, for the first time, that puissant doctrine of the "implied powers" of the Constitution which has ever since been the chief dynamic principle in our constitutional history.


or to quote Hamilton, "Let's start with all the money!"

with the sanction of the federal Supreme Court, and containing, as it did, in its manifest character as a doctrine of legislative prerogative, a very vigorous principle of constitutional growth, it quickly constituted Congress the dominant, nay, the irresistible, power of the federal system, relegating some of the chief balances of the Constitution to an insignificant rô1e in the "literary theory" of our institutions.


Or to quote Hamilton, "Yeah, take that Constitution. My Supreme pwns you!

to quote the rest of us, "Whoops! Damn those rich..."

[Bryn Mawr]

Saint_;1333785 wrote: Or to quote Hamilton, "Coooool. Let's control everything!"



or to quote Hamilton, "Let's start with all the money!"



Or to quote Hamilton, "Yeah, take that Constitution. My Supreme pwns you!

to quote the rest of us, "Whoops! Damn those rich..."


A masterful summarisation - spot on

Wilson's continuation can be summed up with a quote from Private Frazer - "We're all dooooooomed"!

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;1333784 wrote: For your interest :-

[... snip ...]

Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government, A Study in American Politics (1885)I found the free e-book.

http://ia310812.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... 0wilsa.pdf

I'm downloading it now, but I won't be able to read it for a bit. Thanks, Bryn.

eta: I'm a bit disappointed that the importance of the 17th amendment seemed to pass right by you, though. It's probably the single most devastating blow to what should still be the United States of America.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1333869 wrote: I found the free e-book.

http://ia310812.us.archive.org/3/items/ ... 0wilsa.pdf

I'm downloading it now, but I won't be able to read it for a bit. Thanks, Bryn.

eta: I'm a bit disappointed that the importance of the 17th amendment seemed to pass right by you, though. It's probably the single most devastating blow to what should still be the United States of America.


Remember, we don't learn this in school this side of the pond and I'm still reading

The argument there appears to be that the selection of the candidates had already passed from the State Legislature to the party machine and that, instead of choosing the one most qualified for the job it was increasingly becoming the man with the least baggage (and, by implication, the least experience) that would distance him from one clique or another.

I'm still trying to work my way through the whys, wherefores and effects of the change and I'll get back to you - it might take a while though.

[Bryn Mawr]

A lovely quote regarding the causes of financial instability :-

"So long as the debit side of the national account is managed by one set of men, and the credit side by another set, both sets working separately and in secret, without any public responsibility, and without any intervention on the part of the executive official who is nominally responsible; so long as these sets, being composed largely of new men every two years, give no attention to business except when Congress is in session, and thus spend in preparing plans the whole time which, ought to be spent in public discussion of plans already matured, so that an immense budget is rushed through without discussion in a week or ten days,--just so long the finances will go from bad to worse, no matter by what name you call the party in power. No other nation on earth attempts such a thing, or could attempt it without soon coming to grief, our salvation thus far consisting in an enormous income, with practically no drain for military expenditure."


"G. B." in N. Y. Nation, Nov. 30, 1882

[Accountable]

"So long as the debit side of the national account is managed by one set of men, and the credit side by another set, both sets working separately and in secret, without any public responsibility, and without any intervention on the part of the executive official who is nominally responsible; so long as these sets, being composed largely of new men every two years, give no attention to business except when Congress is in session, and thus spend in preparing plans the whole time which, ought to be spent in public discussion of plans already matured, so that an immense budget is rushed through without discussion in a week or ten days,--just so long the finances will go from bad to worse, no matter by what name you call the party in power. No other nation on earth attempts such a thing, or could attempt it without soon coming to grief, our salvation thus far consisting in an enormous income, with practically no drain for military expenditure."
When the writer indulges himself with so many caveats, it's kinda hard to argue the conclusion, so let's examine the caveats.

* "... the debit side of the national account is managed by one set of men, and the credit side by another set, both sets working separately and in secret, without any public responsibility ... " -- I don't know the reference here. In today's world I would guess he's referring to Congress' spending and the Federal Reserve borrowing. Our Constitution gives both responsibilities to the House of Representatives, but they've delegated the unpleasant half to the Fed (which is why many of us believe the federal reserve system and fiat money to be unconstitutional - illegal in our federal government). As for working in secret, the House works mostly in public, for any that has energy & interest to follow them; the unconstitutional Fed acts almost wholly in secret from both the public and Congress, who is supposed to be overseeing them. In fact, they argue that transparency might damage the economy. :-2

* " ... and without any intervention on the part of the executive official who is nominally responsible ..." -- I'd originally read the word as "normally;" seeing it is really "NOMinally" changes things. When the President fails to exercise his responsibility as check to Congressional excessive spending and unconstitutional legislation, becoming a rubber stamp to their every wish, it is always bad for America. This is the great danger of partisan politics, where politicians feel greater fealty to Party than People, or to campaign contributors than Constitution (as we also see today).

* " ... so long as these sets, being composed largely of new men every two years ... " -- This may have been the case then; it certainly isn't the case now. IMO, the number 1 worst thing that has happened to our governmental system is that we allowed professional politicians to take control of the switches.

* ... and thus spend in preparing plans the whole time which, ought to be spent in public discussion of plans already matured, so that an immense budget is rushed through without discussion in a week or ten days ... " -- Well, time has certainly shown that immense budgets can be rushed through without discussion even when given the entire year to plan by professional politicians with decades in office.

* ... the finances will go from bad to worse, no matter by what name you call the party in power. No other nation on earth attempts such a thing, or could attempt it without soon coming to grief, our salvation thus far consisting in an enormous income, with practically no drain for military expenditure." -- or even with an enormous drain for military expenditure. We should have "come to grief" long ago, but luck and monetary & political prestidigitation have floated us far out over the precipice, so that the fall will be much greater, when it comes, than it might have been.



eta: oops, forgot to conclude. So to conclude, I agree that this shoe fits even today.

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;1334414 wrote: When the writer indulges himself with so many caveats, it's kinda hard to argue the conclusion, so let's examine the caveats.

* "... the debit side of the national account is managed by one set of men, and the credit side by another set, both sets working separately and in secret, without any public responsibility ... " -- I don't know the reference here. In today's world I would guess he's referring to Congress' spending and the Federal Reserve borrowing. Our Constitution gives both responsibilities to the House of Representatives, but they've delegated the unpleasant half to the Fed (which is why many of us believe the federal reserve system and fiat money to be unconstitutional - illegal in our federal government). As for working in secret, the House works mostly in public, for any that has energy & interest to follow them; the unconstitutional Fed acts almost wholly in secret from both the public and Congress, who is supposed to be overseeing them. In fact, they argue that transparency might damage the economy. :-2

* " ... and without any intervention on the part of the executive official who is nominally responsible ..." -- I'd originally read the word as "normally;" seeing it is really "NOMinally" changes things. When the President fails to exercise his responsibility as check to Congressional excessive spending and unconstitutional legislation, becoming a rubber stamp to their every wish, it is always bad for America. This is the great danger of partisan politics, where politicians feel greater fealty to Party than People, or to campaign contributors than Constitution (as we also see today).

* " ... so long as these sets, being composed largely of new men every two years ... " -- This may have been the case then; it certainly isn't the case now. IMO, the number 1 worst thing that has happened to our governmental system is that we allowed professional politicians to take control of the switches.

* ... and thus spend in preparing plans the whole time which, ought to be spent in public discussion of plans already matured, so that an immense budget is rushed through without discussion in a week or ten days ... " -- Well, time has certainly shown that immense budgets can be rushed through without discussion even when given the entire year to plan by professional politicians with decades in office.

* ... the finances will go from bad to worse, no matter by what name you call the party in power. No other nation on earth attempts such a thing, or could attempt it without soon coming to grief, our salvation thus far consisting in an enormous income, with practically no drain for military expenditure." -- or even with an enormous drain for military expenditure. We should have "come to grief" long ago, but luck and monetary & political prestidigitation have floated us far out over the precipice, so that the fall will be much greater, when it comes, than it might have been.



eta: oops, forgot to conclude. So to conclude, I agree that this shoe fits even today.


The tenor of his argument over the last many pages had been that the committee system removed accountability from Congress as a whole and gives far too much power to the chairman of the committee charged with dealing with any given task.

The two sides referred to were the Appropriations and the Ways and Means Committees who, at that time, allocated the budgets to the various departments and decided the types and levels of taxation in isolation with their proposals being rubber stamped by the Committee of the Whole. The membership of those committees being decided solely by the Speaker of the House during the first session of Congress after the Biannual elections.

He also argues that, by giving such control over to a small committee rather than having full debate by the whole of Congress you are allowing far too much scope for lobbyists to "influence" the outcome.

[Accountable]

I agree.

.................

But that hardly rises to the level of shutting the state legislatures out of the federal gov't operations, destroying part of the check & balance system originally set up by the Founders.