Who are you and what did you do with Phil?
I'd go for it because it is better than we will probably end up with.
Just having Warren Buffet in charge would help the markets.
You must have a very skewed image of me in your mind... I have mentioned Buffet often.
( BTW- Buffet is opposed to "free market" theory )
Perhaps I should explain myself so folks stop thinking I paint my face Blue...
While socially liberal in certain regards....I have demonstrated that I am far more of a fiscal conservative than any conservative on this board.
They would be more than willing to continue with an economic theory that has been Proven by events both recent and not, to be flawed and dangerous. That is not being conservative.
They would be willing to hand power back to the party that has Proven that they do NOT make government smaller... but bigger and more intrusive. ...That the only part of government they make smaller is the part of government that
polices finance. That is not being conservative.
They would be willing to hand power back to the party that has Proven they are NOT fiscal conservatives, but LIBERAL borrowers and even MORE liberal spenders...
...Back to a party who has been SO fiscally irresponsible that they have CUT federal revenue while INCREASING federal spending.
... back to to party that has Proven to be corrupt... from Cheney's sweetheart deals with a corporation in which he owns millions in stock, ( who beat it out of town ) to 28 billion in cash disappearing on a government plane, to coke parties in the Dept. of the Interior, to refusing to investigate ENRON until AFTER the board memebers had stripped their employees bare and crashed the energy market.
Anyone TRULY fiscally conservative would
not adhere to a party who was NOT
demonstrating conservative ACTION.
I backed Republicans when I thought Democrats were going too far....
I now back Democrats because Republicans have done far worse.
PARTY identification is as stupid and unreasoning as identifying with a particular football team.
You are
Not ROOTING for your home team....
You are SUPPOSED to be making choices based upon the needs of your NATION... Supposed to be intelligently assessing the actions of those who represent you and when they FAIL to represent you, you shit-can them.
I don't CARE what they SAY- I look at how they PERFORM.
Clinton will always be a hero because he CUT WELFARE- something every republican SAID, but never actually DID.
...always be a hero because he BALANCED the budget.... another thing every republican SAID, but never actually DID.
FUCK the lables everyone assigns... on these critical measures...Clinton was the best 'conservative' president we have ever had.
I don't WANT a "Liberal" president. I don't want a "conservative" president.
I want someone who is intelligent enough to understand in what areas we ought to be liberal ( civil rights and freedoms, research and infrastructure ) and in what areas we ought to be conservative ( finance, defense and regulation ).
I suppose I would consider myself a "scientifically REASONING constitutionalist".
I am socially liberal because the Constitution is a LIBERAL document, And I agree with the INTENT of the Constitution- to create a government that is
stable and can provide as
Maximally Free a society as is compatible with a stable society.
NOT anarchy- governance is NECESSARY- ergo government must be a solution.
I don't want to hear that government is the problem... I want to SEE politicians MAKE government WORK.
In fact, I Demand it.
I am FOR programs that can help the poor achieve because poverty
LIMITS the freedom of the poor.
But all of my views are TEMPERED by the FACTS uncovered by science.
I do not hold onto views that have solid evidence in refutation.
Despite my social liberalism... I opposed welfare because I UNDERSTAND evolution... and that if you Create a niche in
any environment where a living thing CAN survive, SOME living thing will move in and be perfectly happy to stay in that niche.
Welfare created such a niche... and, although the INTENT of welfare was honorable enough... BECAUSE of the truth about human nature, its
actual effect was the
opposite of that intent.
So I opposed it.
In the same sense, I oppose 'free market' ideology because I UNDERSTAND evolution and human nature... Given the opportunity, some humans beings WILL cheat, will conspire, and will manipulate in what
they think is their immediate self interest.
And, in economic systems, the immediate self interest of the individual is diametrically opposed to the interests of the group.
The individual is not capable of evaluating his interests in the greater scheme of a social construct... incapable of understanding how a short term profit... sought by ENOUGH individuals, could reverberate thru the grid and shatter the stability of an entire network of interconnected and dynamically balanced relations.
Thus- saying the market should NOT be regulated is precisely like suggesting that a Power distribution grid does not need to be regulated; That the operation of an engine does not need to be regulated..
Science tells us ALL dynamic systems are prone to instability. ITs why we put gyroscopes in spacecraft.
In nature, there is always another creature willing to take advantage when instability threatens a species.
But in human society... are we willing to risk OUR extinction so that some other culture can take advantage of OUR instability?
Market regulation is the gyroscope on our dynamic financial systems.
Free Market theory was formulated with good intent- but JUST LIKE WELFARE,
in practice the result of free market reforms are the OPPOSITE of that intent.
Are you intelligent and open minded enough to recognize when something you believe in is resulting in the opposite of what you expected?
I am not saying Regulate business to death... I would do away with many local municipal obstacles to buisness-
But the one area we must regulate effectively is the policing of corporate officers.
Just as Semi Tractors must be constantly checked to ensure compliance- simply because an overloaded or unsafe Semi CAN do SO MUCH Damage...
Corporations must be policed and controled because THEY can, obviously, do so much damage.
As a people, we can not be Absolutely Free. We rely on each other and therefore your right to swing your foot ENDS just shy of my ass.
Rather- our Constitution strives to offer us, as a people, the maximun amount of personal freedom CONDUCIVE to a cooperative and stable community.
Thus we have laws that limit our freedom in those respects that preserve order and cooperation.
This is the SAME approach we must take to our economy.
We must seek the system of regulation that offers us maximum amount of fiscal freedom that is
still conducive to a stable and cooperative market.
Not "Free Market" theory... But "free-ish" market theory.
A bicycle stays upright because our vestibular system checks on the dynamic balance of the system- and because we
consciously input tiny corrections and controls to maintain that balance.
The idea that the market is not AT LEAST as complex as riding a bicycle is naive.
I want the freest market that is
responsibly stable.