Matt Krell's points in the HA are well taken. I argued them myself on this board back in April and May.

Sorry Curmudgeon, the GI Bill was in fact a Roosevelt/Truman program and hence must be considered "liberal" root, branch and bud. About the VA I'm less sure. I'm also less sure that the "liberals" would want to claim the VA anyhow. In many accounts, notably those of Vietnam and Desert Storm vets, the VA looks like a conspicuous failure. You "conservatives" can claim it if you want.

Also, Curmudgeon you're making a disingenuous comparison between liberalism and socialism when you hold up Europe's supposed "backing away" from socialism as evidence of the economic growth limits imposed by  "liberal" social programs. Classic American-style liberalism--a la FDR and Truman's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society--was little more than a series of attempts to forestall the onslaught of revolutionary socialism that had been made to appear imminent by the crises of the early 1900's, 30's and 60's. American "liberalism", in other words acted as a brake upon socialism, and the liberal position has been marked by hypocrisy and bad faith ever since.

Also, I wish people would stop this simplistic equation of economic "growth" with social good. It simply doesn't jive with history since, over and over, growing, productive economies have existed within societies that are human rights nightmares. Further, this equation begs the question of exactly how "growth" is to be measured. Unless the share of wealth held by the most vulnerable members of a society is figured in, I'd hold, "growth" is an empty, meaningless term, whose only real use is to demonize the Left.

The revolution that is brewing in Mexico, for instance, has been catalyzed by neoliberal denial of the social implications of vast wealth gain for a small minority at everybody else's expense. Mexico is about to "grow" itself into a Hugo Chavez-style revolutionary left populism, with all the trimmings, including state ownership, wealth taxes, expensive new housing and education programs for the poor and economic help for Castro. Why? Because Mexico has no tradition of FDR-style "liberalism."

You know, come to think of it, you "conservatives" ought to be right glad that dyed in the wool "liberals" have had so much sway in American life. If they hadn't, the USA might have taken a radical left turn at any number of times in the 20th century! We might still be calling each other "Comrade."

Working class hurt by Republican policies

When I saw this headline, I felt sure that the writer would be pointing out that the huge influx of illegal immigrants was depressing wages in the US. Most Democrats and many Republicans (including George Bush) are against enforcing immigration laws. And since the Republicans are in the majority, they should take the bulk of the blame for the current situation. Sadly I was wrong about the motivation of the writer. It was another fruitcake that thinks that increasing the minimum wage is a solution to solving low income problems. It has been demonstrated many times that increasing the minimum wage reduces opportunities to enter the work force and get experience. Employers compete for quality workers by increasing wages and many fast food businesses are paying starting wages above the minimum wage. To the extent that employers can hire illegal workers, they can avoid increasing wages, and in many instances avoid even paying the minimum wage.

Ironically, the author of the letter to the editor probably supports amnesty for all of the illegal workers now in the US, a solution that did not work in the 1980’s. I have not seen it stated explicitly anywhere, but the key for employers of illegal immigrants is to keep them illegal or have a constant supply of new illegal immigrants to keep wages low. Sadly, we have Democrats and Republican trying to encourage more illegal immigrants to come to the US for their own political gain. Republicans get the support of employers who like the low wages and the vulnerability of illegal immigrants. Democrats get the support of those who think that Mexicans have a God given right to come illegally to the US. Both parties are pandering for the Hispanic vote.

Except for Canada, I can think of no other country in the world that is as accommodating to immigrants as the US. If we stay on the present course, there will be a backlash that could become very ugly. The result may well be immigration laws, and enforcement of those laws, that will change forever the way we view foreigners. The Balkanization that is accompanying the current situation will get worse since new immigrants are not assimilating into the American culture.

Hiking minimum wage doesn't reduce jobs

This statement confuses static statistics with dynamic statistics. The proof offered in the response is not proof at all. In a static environment where only one parameter is changed, i.e. the minimum wage, there would be a decrease in jobs unless the demand curve for labor was a vertical line. It is not a vertical line, it is downward sloping. The reason you get the results cited in the paper is that the demand curve for labor was shifting outward reflecting the new jobs created. We have had a long run of increasing the jobs available in this country especially compared to Europe, Mexico, and South America, countries that pride themselves for their socialist policies.

There is no economic justification for a minimum wage; the support for it is purely emotional. Those with low job skills, or bad work habits like it because they see it as increasing their incomes. Of course all of us like increased incomes. We would even like SFT if he could raise our salaries such that we were paid more than faculty at all other universities. Those who earn much more than the minimum wage, (because they are much more productive), like to see an increase in income for poor people so long as it does not come out of their pockets. They like to see an increase because it makes them feel good at zero cost. Some like to see it because they see all employers as evil exploiters. However, they would not like a law that said they had to pay more for a product because it made someone else feel good. There is no lack of folks who like to fell good by using your time and your money to do good deeds.

One World Nation wrote:

---

Pot Stirrer wrote:
His advantage over Reagan is that changes in federal laws governing ownership of media outlets--TV, radio, print--have made it much easier for a small group of conservative media moguls to buffalo voters into acting against their own interests. These laws were signed by Ronald Reagan, right?

---

Would that small conservative group include CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, etc.? You, sir, are delusional.

Voters have non-economic interests as well as economic interests.

One World Nation wrote:

---

Pot Stirrer wrote:
C.L.--Working class hurt by Republican policies http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060709/OPINION02/607090308/1009/OPINION


No secret here: Reagan got people to vote against their economic interests by offering them a smorgasboard of "values" issues that took their minds off of their diminishing standard of living, and fed and focused their formerly inchoate fears over the bewildering rate of social change. Reagan, to put it another way, gave Americans something outside themselves to hate and fear.
The same menu, of course, is still being offered up and Americans are still glutting themselves while their economic future continues to wither away: the "right to life", anti-gun control, the dismantling of affirmative action, "tax reform", the "Evil Empire," "getting government off people's backs," the fight against "reverse discrimination", especially against white men . . .  
Sprinkle all this with a cleverly concealed disdain for anyone not white, affluent and suburban, let simmer in an atmosphere of diminished economic expectations, add a dollop of knee jerk patriotism whipped into being by the egregious revision of the Vietnam War concoted ala "Rambo"  . .  and you  have a heady electoral brew, one that confirms certain American voters in their worst prejudices and parochialism and compensates them with somebody besides themselves to blame for what's going wrong in the world: abortion advocates,  "liberals", feminists, "welfare queens", "black racists" like Jesse Jackson, environmentalists, greedy, corrupt union leaders, etc. Hitler, of course did a similar thing in the 1930's, as did George Wallace in the 1960's.
Bush manipulates much the same language of hatred, bias and distortion as the Great Communicator. His advantage over Reagan is that changes in federal laws governing ownership of media outlets--TV, radio, print--have made it much easier for a small group of conservative media moguls to buffalo voters into acting against their own interests. These laws were signed by Ronald Reagan, right?

---

Arrogant, elitist, hateful garbage. Garbage, dearie. You have so much contempt for the ordinary people --

William Safire, Spiro Agnew, ousted

Shrug wrote:

---

Why is it that the left wing nut cases always resurrect Hitler but never mention their pal Stalin?

---

As I recall from my history classes, Hitler was a "socialist," and at the outset of his campaign to conquer the world had signed a pact with Stalin his fellow socialist. Left-winger likes to ignore the facts that the greatest perpetrators of state sponsored inhumanity in the 20th century were all left-wing socialist governments. I find it both fascinating and distasteful how the left tries to characterize the right and far-right as somehow headed down the path paved in blood by that great socialist Hitler.

 

One can certainly point to politicians who use arguments of divisions (rich vs. poor, white vs. black, male vs. female) in order to sway votes. This is as old as politics itself and will likely never change but politicians on both the left and the right do this. What makes a Hitler different than a Regan is that Hitler justified his actions as in service to the collective of the German people where as Regan justified his actions as in the service of the individual American citizen.

 

It is the idea that government must address the inequities in society for the benefit of the collective that invariability leads a leftist government down the path of despotism because the only way it can find to address these inequities is to take from the producers and “give” the fruits of their labor to the collective.

 

Speaking for myself as a person I consider leaning to the right, the role of government is to protect the individual from the collective. And that my friends this what places Hitler on the left (he did not exactly protect the individual rights of the Jews) and Regan on the right.

Shrug wrote:

---

Why is it that the left wing nut cases always resurrect Hitler but never mention their pal Stalin?

---

Also known as Godless Liberal (my girl Ann just wrote a nifty best seller about me!). I suppose you would characterize me as a "left wing nut case"---but my ancestors suffered at the hands of the Russian aristocracy (sorry Cossack), and I view both Stalin and Mao as among the most evil people to walk this planet. Genocide, whether wrapped in collectivist nonsense, the divine right of monarchists, or national-socialism, is one of the great sorrows of our species. Our ability to use weapons that inflict a quick death separates our aggression from that of the rest of god's creatures (thank you Mr. Lorenz for this insight).

Shrug--I don't know why you have an axe to grind about this, but I don't know a single American liberal who thinks Stalin or Mao were heros or warm and fuzzy types to be celebrated or their atrocities minimized. There was a time in America when Mao's writings found an audience, just as Mussolini and Adolph had a fan base here (including some high ranking scions of American industrialism--such as the Ford family). A little fair and balanced, please.

Reading assignment for those who give a poop:

"Deadly Quarrels." This is a classic analysis of the causes of the armed conflict in modern times (one of the few comprehensive tomes). Most of the factors (labels) that folks on this board have thought are important (e.g., "socialism" as the cause of warfare or genocide) have not been systematically implicated in such outcomes.

Godless Liberal wrote:

---

Who taught you history? Hitler was not a "socialist" or a "communist." He was a national-socialist (hence the NAZI party), which held extreme right wing nationaist and expansionist views. He executed more than enough Commies and socialists to warm the ****les of your heart. You say that us Godless Liberals (we are here infesting your home town), like to ignore facts? The facts are, as noted in my previous post, that state sponsored genocide knows no theocratic or economic or political system boundaries.

---

Godless, I am not aware of having made any claim that Hitler was a communist. I only claimed he made a pact with one, Stalin, which is a historical fact. And as your point that he was a national-socialist, the national refers to his/the NAZI's racial views. The term national-socialist is most often used by parties that define themselves as socialist and patriotic, not "right-wing." That there are right-wing people with nationalist and/or racial views goes without saying. But holding these views (which I do not) does not make them socialist. Hitler, however was a socialist but not of the communist variety. Not everyone who is a socialist is a communist, but all communist are socialist. What made Hitler a socialist that he believed the major means of economic production in the country belonged under state control.

As to your statement that (e.g., "socialism" as the cause of warfare or genocide) have not been systematically implicated in such outcomes," I will rest my case that they have been implicated based solely on body count alone which can be attributed to them. That is not to say democracy has not had its brushes with genocide, but nothing to compare to the wholesale slaughter committed by the great socialist states of NAZI Germany, communist China and the former Soviet Union.

 

Coast Resident wrote:

---

Godless Liberal wrote:
Who taught you history? Hitler was not a "socialist" or a "communist." He was a national-socialist (hence the NAZI party), which held extreme right wing nationaist and expansionist views. He executed more than enough Commies and socialists to warm the ****les of your heart. You say that us Godless Liberals (we are here infesting your home town), like to ignore facts? The facts are, as noted in my previous post, that state sponsored genocide knows no theocratic or economic or political system boundaries.

Godless, I am not aware of having made any claim that Hitler was a communist. I only claimed he made a pact with one, Stalin, which is a historical fact. And as your point that he was a national-socialist, the national refers to his/the NAZI's racial views. The term national-socialist is most often used by parties that define themselves as socialist and patriotic, not "right-wing." That there are right-wing people with nationalist and/or racial views goes without saying. But holding these views (which I do not) does not make them socialist. Hitler, however was a socialist but not of the communist variety. Not everyone who is a socialist is a communist, but all communist are socialist. What made Hitler a socialist that he believed the major means of economic production in the country belonged under state control.
As to your statement that (e.g., "socialism" as the cause of warfare or genocide) have not been systematically implicated in such outcomes," I will rest my case that they have been implicated based solely on body count alone which can be attributed to them. That is not to say democracy has not had its brushes with genocide, but nothing to compare to the wholesale slaughter committed by the great socialist states of NAZI Germany, communist China and the former Soviet Union.
 

---

Boy, you are really stretching it to suggest that Hitler was a socialist or that Nazi Germany was a socialist state (beside having the word "socialist" as part of the party title). You are so wrong on this.

Okay, let's try to keep this a bit simpler. What is your definition of socialism, and what aspects of the NAZI regime or political system do you suggest represent the socialist philosophy?

Joker wrote:

---

Godless Liberal, I learned on another thread that wars are caused by belief in the supernatural.

---

Sectarian disagreements are positively (though weakly) correlated with the initiation of armed conflict throughout the ages. But, this association is of a very small magnitude and is confounded by a number of other variables. So, it is not a belief in God or supernatural that seems to cause some disagreement, but it is the flavor of God that is often at dispute. Often this is a proxy variable for land grabs, familial disputes, or a mechanism that produces psychological distance between groups that can lead to conflicts. On the other hand, organized religion has also been used as an instrument of peace.

Having followed the threads on the Episcopal Church infighting by LVN and others, at least we can say it is a peaceful conflict. If the conflict involved contiguous nation-states of Anglicans armed to the teeth, I'd be a bit more worried.

CoBster in Residence wrote:

---

Godless Liberal wrote:

What you said was

Most of the factors (labels) that folks on this board have thought are important (e.g., "socialism" as the cause of warfare or genocide) have not been systematically implicated in such outcomes.

To which I responded that the book may examine "armed conflict", but the human rights violations perpetrated by some of the individuals I listed weren't in the context of an "armed conflict". So, to summarize, I stated that you picked a book that by your own admission omits the meat of the issue: how communist/socialist/totalitarian leaders abuse their people on a day-to-day basis. Again, though, I'm not too sure just how many U.S. Presidents, British PMs, and their like have a historical legacy that includes the word "genocide." I'm thinking the correlation between "genocide" and "socialist leader" is a lot higher [that is, larger and more positive] than the correlation between "genocide" and "freely elected leader."

The rest of your anti-Republican agenda is simply mouthing off.

---

Without too much quibbling, the British Empire had quite a history of brutality during its Colonial days (and the PM was not elected by the masses by the way). South Africa also had quite a flair for nastiness. Ariel Sharon (a fellow landsmann) has had his name associated with a couple of very embarrasing incidents. Japan's WW-2 monarchy (certainly not socialist) was responsible for some pretty major league atrocities in China and Korea. Genocide in Rawanda and the Sudan?

Now, if you merely said that totalarian regimes have a much worse record with respect to human rights than non-totalarian regimes, i would agree hardily and we could go and have a beer together. For some reason, a couple of you posters (or maybe one poster using different names) are labeling all totalarian regimes, whether collectivist/communist or fascist, as "socialist." Here is where we disagree. There are socialist leaning regimes elected within parlimentary systems (many in fact), and these are neither totalarian nor engaging in genocide. Similarly, there have been right wing fascist governments that have had strong capitalist leanings.

Why do you and other posters persist in your line of argument? I suspect that this is simply an attempt by some of you to paint Democrats, liberals, and socialists with the same broad brush, and to somehow mix these folks in with Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. You'll need a very broad brush for this paint job, dear friend.

I am not sure that my agenda is anti-Republican (though I admit that I am getting some pleasure out of Delay's comeupance). In fact, I would vote for McCain over Hillary (why do I get the feeling this will be our choice), and I think Charles Pickering was treated poorly. I like Justice Roberts, but think Scalia is a bit of a bone head. But, overall, I do enjoy tweaking you folks on the right and left who love your political party to the bitter end, right or wrong (or is it "love it or leave it"?).

LVN wrote:

---

So far, at least. Of course, before long, they're going to start wheeling out the lawyers. In the Episcopal Church, unlike Baptists for instance, my church's building and land is owned by the Diocese of Mississippi, not by the congregation. So "departing" churches in some areas (not here) are already in lawsuits with their bishops. Armed warfare might be preferable.

---

Don't feel alone, LVN. I heard that First Baptist in H'burg is going though a fight over the music.  Since there wasn't enough attendance for services with traditional music they will have only the modern music the young folk enjoy.  Some of the older folk plan to leave.