I fail to see how progressive American politicians who embrace the democratic process laid forth by the Founding Fathers are in fact totalitarians akin to Hitler and Mussolini.
Justin Trudeau
- Thread starter kanaia
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Some observations from a 62 year old self-employed worker who is retired from the U.S. military.
The old saying is "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" can also be applied to every political party in existence. When applied to political parties the weakest link is always it's "pie in the sky" policies.
One of the weakness of the republican or conservative party has always been that it fails to embrace the fact that there are people in the world who are always going to need help that is paid for by others through taxes. The middle of the road conservatives understand this but they are always shouted down by the right wingnuts who don't want to pay any taxes.
One of the weakness of the Democrats/Liberals/Socialist is that they believe that just throwing money at social problems like poverty and social inequity is going to solve all the problems and that people who have worked hard have no rights to their personal property and should be forced to pay for everything. Again, there are some middle of the road members who don't fully buy into this, but are shouted down. Another problems with the Democrats/Liberals/Socialist is that they see giving money to those without as a solution to the problem when in reality it is just buying votes at the best and a perpetuation of a class dependency.
I've always felt that throughout history, civilization has been riding a pendulum. In the industrialized world, this means we slowly move from conservative viewpoints and policy to liberal. We move in one direction until we hit a point where everyone says, "That's enough" and we start moving in the opposite direction. In the early 1900s the US was more on the conservative/capitalist side of the pendulum. Then the depression hit and it caused the US to start moving more towards the socially liberal side. For the record, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Democrat and a Socialist. He brought this country out of the great depression not by just giving people money and telling them to go ahead and stay home, but by creating jobs and putting them to work. Read up on the Civilian Conservation Corps sometimes. Roosevelt was not "Robin Hood". His policies were not about taking money away from the rich and just giving it to the poor but about putting people to work.
Another problem I have with the liberal socialists is that continually live in a fairytale world where they think all they have to do is say something and it will come true. An example is the push to increase the minimum wage. Liberals believe all companies can just increase the minimum wage because they make so much money and it will not result in price inflation. What they fail to realize is that business owners are in the business to make money and their profits aren't taken until after all the overhead (supplies, workforce, building upkeep, mortgages, rent, utilities) are paid. Grocery stores, for example, are on a razor thin profit margin (I'm not talking Walmart either). I know successful store owners who make 2 to 3 cents off every canned food item they sell. If they raise the minimum wage, then they are going to raise their prices to make their small profit. When they raise the prices of their goods, the low-income families are going to have to pay more.
Final thought. I believe we are heading towards a point in time where those of us who are working hard and making money enough to live a comfortable lifestyle will get fed up with paying close to half of what we make to support others. Two things will happen, either we will finally wake-up and become a stronger political voice and push the pendulum back the other direction or we will just stop working. We will stop making money at the rate which mandates we give half of it to other people.
The old saying is "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" can also be applied to every political party in existence. When applied to political parties the weakest link is always it's "pie in the sky" policies.
One of the weakness of the republican or conservative party has always been that it fails to embrace the fact that there are people in the world who are always going to need help that is paid for by others through taxes. The middle of the road conservatives understand this but they are always shouted down by the right wingnuts who don't want to pay any taxes.
One of the weakness of the Democrats/Liberals/Socialist is that they believe that just throwing money at social problems like poverty and social inequity is going to solve all the problems and that people who have worked hard have no rights to their personal property and should be forced to pay for everything. Again, there are some middle of the road members who don't fully buy into this, but are shouted down. Another problems with the Democrats/Liberals/Socialist is that they see giving money to those without as a solution to the problem when in reality it is just buying votes at the best and a perpetuation of a class dependency.
I've always felt that throughout history, civilization has been riding a pendulum. In the industrialized world, this means we slowly move from conservative viewpoints and policy to liberal. We move in one direction until we hit a point where everyone says, "That's enough" and we start moving in the opposite direction. In the early 1900s the US was more on the conservative/capitalist side of the pendulum. Then the depression hit and it caused the US to start moving more towards the socially liberal side. For the record, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Democrat and a Socialist. He brought this country out of the great depression not by just giving people money and telling them to go ahead and stay home, but by creating jobs and putting them to work. Read up on the Civilian Conservation Corps sometimes. Roosevelt was not "Robin Hood". His policies were not about taking money away from the rich and just giving it to the poor but about putting people to work.
Another problem I have with the liberal socialists is that continually live in a fairytale world where they think all they have to do is say something and it will come true. An example is the push to increase the minimum wage. Liberals believe all companies can just increase the minimum wage because they make so much money and it will not result in price inflation. What they fail to realize is that business owners are in the business to make money and their profits aren't taken until after all the overhead (supplies, workforce, building upkeep, mortgages, rent, utilities) are paid. Grocery stores, for example, are on a razor thin profit margin (I'm not talking Walmart either). I know successful store owners who make 2 to 3 cents off every canned food item they sell. If they raise the minimum wage, then they are going to raise their prices to make their small profit. When they raise the prices of their goods, the low-income families are going to have to pay more.
Final thought. I believe we are heading towards a point in time where those of us who are working hard and making money enough to live a comfortable lifestyle will get fed up with paying close to half of what we make to support others. Two things will happen, either we will finally wake-up and become a stronger political voice and push the pendulum back the other direction or we will just stop working. We will stop making money at the rate which mandates we give half of it to other people.
The majority of 1%ers are third and fourth generation wealth. They haven't worked for anything they have, they inherited it, which is why Democrats/Socialists/Liberals feel those 1%ers wealth should be appropriated back to those who are busting their ass and are financially struggling in the lower middle class.
I wasn't going to comment on this thread as I don't know a hell of a lot about Canada and it's politics but I do have to comment on Pappy's post.
I had read a fantastic article about the increase in minimum wage out west to $15. I forget the state. Maybe Oregon. Anyway the article then went on to state that the people affected by this increase in minimum wage had a large portion of them request to have their hours cut so that they can still receive government assistance despite the wage increase. The whole argument out there about going to $15 was to get people off of assistance but it clearly didn't do anything
I'll see if I can find the original article.
My final comment to this topic is whatever happened to common sense and moderation in politics? Why does there have to be an extreme to either side in politics. How has there not been a SUCCESSFUL political group to step up and fill that widening gap between the two extremes?
I had read a fantastic article about the increase in minimum wage out west to $15. I forget the state. Maybe Oregon. Anyway the article then went on to state that the people affected by this increase in minimum wage had a large portion of them request to have their hours cut so that they can still receive government assistance despite the wage increase. The whole argument out there about going to $15 was to get people off of assistance but it clearly didn't do anything
I'll see if I can find the original article.
My final comment to this topic is whatever happened to common sense and moderation in politics? Why does there have to be an extreme to either side in politics. How has there not been a SUCCESSFUL political group to step up and fill that widening gap between the two extremes?
If they'd in embrace the republican process instead of The democratic process ( which is mob rule) then our government would work for the people and keep individuals safe from the Leviathan that is the State. Lordofthepipesmokerings, I don't think you personally accept tyranny, but tyranny is the left wing agenda. But then again maybe you do. Let me clear my throat, and speak for the founders on this one...They didn't fight against tyranny to adopt individual crushing progressive ideals, where the collective state is God over its subjects. They gave us the 2nd amendment so that wouldn't happen. Damn this bowl full of H&H White Knoght is awesome, What you smoking today LOTPSR? I love your alias, by the way.
I'm not overly thrilled he has a majority government as a first term but there are messes in areas not related to the economy that need to be fixed. I'm a bit leery about his fiscal policy, I guess time will tell on that one. As for Justin himself, he has his old man's charisma but from what I can remember things didn't turn out all rainbows and unicorns under Pierre's regime.
@fitzy I totally agree. We once had a Progressive Conservative party which was fiscally conservative and socially liberal but they were swallowed up by a more extreme right wing party.
I have some trouble with that point of view and those who says social programs steal your freedom. U.S.A is not going well and we Canadian will probably fall with you. But that's not at all because of social programs. Take a country like Denmark, where people are highly taxed and there a lot of social programs. They pay high taxes but got a much more enjoyable quality of life than many americans! Their not going into bankruptcy but not sure it won't happen to us. So to me freedom comes with social programs that way no one fall into the economy. And to lighten the mood Trudeau will legalize weed so all those social programs will be paid out by themselves
@FNORD- Unfortunately, most of us Yanks don't seem to have a clue as to what is going on south of Michigan, either.
@LOTPR- I think you answered your own question. When it became vogue for "liberals" to bash everyone else as "rednecks", a certain amount of backlash was to be expected. There is a huge diffference between people who are truly liberal, and American Political Liberals. APL's are known for being exceptionally dogmatic, and not allowing facts to interfere with their strict adherence to certain social and political theories. It is impossible to argue with someone who firmly believes they already know all there is to know, so I won't even try. But if you're interested in an outside view, it appears to some that APL's cloak dogmatic ignorance as "enlightenment", and political weakness as "compassion".
@LOTPR- I think you answered your own question. When it became vogue for "liberals" to bash everyone else as "rednecks", a certain amount of backlash was to be expected. There is a huge diffference between people who are truly liberal, and American Political Liberals. APL's are known for being exceptionally dogmatic, and not allowing facts to interfere with their strict adherence to certain social and political theories. It is impossible to argue with someone who firmly believes they already know all there is to know, so I won't even try. But if you're interested in an outside view, it appears to some that APL's cloak dogmatic ignorance as "enlightenment", and political weakness as "compassion".
I used to agree with this. Now I do not. Taking from some to give to any group smaller than all others is theft. I support charity and always will, but I do not believe we should obligate anyone to work for more than themselves and things which benefit all of us together. "The poor will always be with you," and so will many people who just screw up. That is natural selection. Better to protect and not overwork the good than worry about tragedies, because tragedies are part of life.
The rest of your post -- or essay? -- is wonderful and thought-provoking, as are many of the other comments in this thread.
@Vink- Yes, take a country like Denmark, which couldn't possibly be more different than the United States. Denmark is a 90% homogenous country, which means they have an easier time reaching a consensus on almost any issue. Unlike the U.S., they have not yet been artificially Balkanized by a government dead set on enforced "diversity", which leads to much internecine squabbling about what is "fair" and who deserves more of what. Wether anyone is willing to admit it or not, there is a reason people picked teams and established borders to begin with. All the social theory dreamed up by repressed, anal-retentive, upper class German philosophers will not change that historical phenomenon.
Excellent points all-around. Not sure if you include Friedrich W. "Fred" Nietzsche or Arthur "Arty" Schopenhauer in that category, but they took a stand against it.
They seem inhuman, many of the things that work best, but best results are for the best. If there's one thing that I believe, it is that people need less time working and doing menial bureaucratic crap, and more time wandering around in the woods and exploring their souls.
Yes, I'm a friggin' tree-hugger and proud of it. I just don't think you get to appreciate the environment without doing things like going into the woods, camping and hunting and dodging rattlesnakes, and really learning how nature works. Nature is not a nice tidy package of "good" or "evil." It is pure function but somehow, it produces great beauty. And that fills my spirit and makes me approach life with great joy.
A couple food for thought items:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html
https://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/scandinavia-is-a-collectivist-paradise-n
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/27/scandinavian-miracle-brutal-truth-denmark-norway-sweden
These articles should span from Right to Left and middle, so maybe everyone can find something to enjoy.
One thought on Trudeau: it seems to me that when people run from one bad leader to another, the problem is far deeper than one guy. It's possible that both Harper and Trudeau were disasters.
Yep the US is going broke because of social programs. Denmark and other socialist countries reserve the right to steal as much money as needed to make everyone Enslaved not equal. . They have Fed Reserves that eat from the gutter of the US Fed Reserve. The Fed Reserve is at the root of most of the socialism around the world, thats why it was set up to crush competition on monetary lenders. It is more complicated than mere taxation. In The US our frededom is something we are born with, freedom is not granted from a government. That sets us apart from the rest of the world.
@DM- One of the best things our government ever did, in my opinion, was to recognize the importance of preserving at least some of our country's natural beauty and resources for us and future generations to enjoy. There is a balance between utilizing resources responsibly to gain prosperity and destroying everything in sight. What you describe, Deathmetal, is every bit as important to a person's well-being as any material comfort or security. Sometimes people forget that good health north of the Adam's apple is a requirement for a good life.
On a slightly related note: it sucks that just when cognizance of, and technical ability to, utilize resources in an environmentally responsible manner is at an all-time high, most of our industry has been off-shored to less environmentally responsible countries. If we ever get our industrial base back, it can not only be cleaner than ever before, it can multiply the number of jobs involved due to environmental engineering and remediation.
On a slightly related note: it sucks that just when cognizance of, and technical ability to, utilize resources in an environmentally responsible manner is at an all-time high, most of our industry has been off-shored to less environmentally responsible countries. If we ever get our industrial base back, it can not only be cleaner than ever before, it can multiply the number of jobs involved due to environmental engineering and remediation.
- Status