Free Subscription! 
iTunes 
Our podcast will keep you up to date...
"Progressives and Ike"
Over at ThomHartmann.com (I got back on after being banned for asking tough questions), many Progressives prattle on about how prosperous we were under high marginal tax rates during Ike's regime. So I issued them a challenge. I'll take Ike's tax rates but we have to get the whole package. No Medicare and Medicaid. No EPA. No Depts. of Ed, Homeland Security, etc. No Civil Rights Acts, etc.
They erroneously think that the amount of taxes brought in is the measure of taxation in an economy. Spending is the true measure of taxation. That is why we were more prosperous under Ike's less than $100B budgets.
__________________
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it
Learned Hand
In the past men created witches: now they create mental patients.
Thomas Szasz
Relinquish liberty for the purposes of defense in an emergency?
Why? It would seem that in an emergency, of all times, one needs
his greatest strength. So if liberty is strength and slavery is weakness,
liberty is a necessity rather than a luxury, and we can ill afford
to be without it—least of all during an emergency.
F.A. Harper
did you know that Thom Hartmann once interviewed Ian Freeman
Despite the obvious political differences it wasn't a bad interview
http://twitter.com/sophiabotha
Yes. I heard that interview live. While I don't care for Ian, I thought Hartmann was a total douche. Ian was on under the pretense of talking about the Ron Paul campaign. And if memory serves, Hartmann detoured the conversation into the minutiae of how a anarchic society would work. The guy is a complete statist hiding behind a hippie touchy feely veneer and a populist facade. He did a similar think to Andrew Napolitano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUtNrwoDczU
I don't want to hijack your thread but Hartmann is right corporations shouldn't have the same rights as an individual
In fact there's a really good film called The Corporation about how big business has explioted the Surpreme Court ruling on the 14th Ammendment
Lysander - How did you get reinstated at Hartmann's? I've also been banned, several times in fact. :)
I don't know. I went on a couple of weeks and tried to login. I didn't get the "your suspended message" so I just requested a new password (I had forgotten it). Then I was in.
There is a real smart guy over there that goes by "Truth to Power". I thought it was you but I guess not. He seems to be a classical liberal/Tea Party type. He pretty much eviscerated the arguments of the statists over there. They're misrepresenting our arguments and accusing us of invoking straw men argument when actually they are the ones.
It's amazing how these self-styled Progressives are still wedded to the left/right paradigm. I don't even think they are anti-war for the right reason. They are pure reactionaries. Whatever Bush or the Fake Tea Party (which they conflate with the Ron Paul Tea Party), is for, they are against. They live in a fantasy world where there has been some kind of largely free market over the past 30 years. Based on the failures of what they think is a free market, they base their even more statist solutions.
I've noticed a new tactic of Regressives. When you point out that regulations have actually increased since Reagan, their new fallback is that Republicans don't really enforce the regulations. For them, selective regulation is a free market.
No, I haven't been there in months and months. I can't stand continually getting booted and having to re-sign up. Besides, the software they use if downright rudimentary. Very difficult to use.
Anyway, I'll have to go over and check out this "Truth to Power" dude. If I do decide to sign up again, I'll let you know here what my new name is.
I don't even think they are anti-war for the right reason.
I don't care if people are anti-war for the right reason, as long as they stay anti-war.
I don't really understand what you are talking about in the initial post of this thread. Are you saying that because the federal budget was less than $100 Billion that the rest of the market had more assets at its disposal in which to use to make the lives of the populace better?
I kinda agree wit-ya on that bit about war.
The problem with most of the left was that they were anti-war because Bush was President. So they were more anti-Bush than anti-war. This is part of a larger view of the Left which thinks that capitalism, which they equate with the free market. and war go together. This explains why they don't stay anti-war. Of course, I will take anti-war sentiment anywhere I can get it.
Let me explain the whole Ike thing. Many Regressives think that because tax rates were high under Ike and we were prosperous that we were prosperous because of the high rates. My challenge to them was to advocate for the whole package. Not to just pick the parts they like without taking the whole into consideraton. The country was prosperous in the 50's because the government was much smaller, but still bloated by libertarian standards.
The problem with most of the left was that they were anti-war because Bush was President.
There's some truth to thhat in respect to the mainstream of the Democrat Party but elsewhere on tthe left its not true
Lysander - I'm having some fun with the statists here:
http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/open-discussion/21221-i-oppose-any-bill...
Check out where the thread goes from there, and join the debate if you're so inclined. They don't ban you like at Hartmann's
One of the guys actually says something like "I don't care whether taxes are moral or not, it's something that's never going to change, so I just accept it."