Political discussion (formerly in Mormon art)

[Marduk]

Lessee, Clinton balanced the budget, and had tax rates half of Reagan, who was responsible for over eight tax hikes and yet managed to have the greatest percentage increase of the deficit of any president, ever. Yeah, its stuff like this that makes me not take most tea-party related conservatism very seriously.

[Puckish Fiend]

Lessee, Clinton balanced the budget, and had tax rates half of Reagan, who was responsible for over eight tax hikes and yet managed to have the greatest percentage increase of the deficit of any president, ever.

I'm sure you meant the greatest increase of deficit before Obama. I'm also sure that you meant to explain the reason that Reagan had large deficits was because he was ending the Cold War, and that his deficit spending (which was mostly military in nature) was what Clinton cut to "balance" the budget (also Bush 1.0 and Clinton both continued the same rate of continued deficit spending as Reagan until 1994-95 when Democrats lost control of Congress and they decreased the spending). I'm sure you also meant to mention that Reagan dropped the top marginal tax rate to it's lowest level since the depression (from 50% down to 28% which was later increase during the Clinton years to 38% and back down to 35% in Bush 2.0 (this is what is now regarded as the evil Bush Tax cuts))and had lower tax rates even if he did have tax hikes (I don't know where you got your 8 tax rate hikes number).

If you want to understand the tea parties then you have to understand some basic economic theory. Bigger Govt = more programs more taxes and more nat. debt. Smaller Govt = less programs less taxes and less nat. debt and as a corollary more money for individuals. A tea partier would rather have the second, as people (for the most part) know how to spend their money better than the Govt. Also there is less money wasted on bureaucracy, red tape, and middle men (I think we all can agree that is a good thing).

Also many of the big social programs that the govt. has tried in the last 50 years (war on drugs, war on poverty, education reform) have completely failed (ie: every year budgets go up and more money is spent and drug usage and poverty levels go up and education levels go down) and have in many cases created communities that are completely reliant on the federal govt. Irresponsible govt regulation is also mainly to blame for the current economic crisis (federal lending policies that required lenders to give home loans to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify creating a massive ponzi housing scheme. Also Bush 2.0 introduced legislation to change these Clinton era policies, and it was shot down by the new Democratic majorities in congress) and current government spending has only increased the national debt (the idea that deficit spending is good for the economy comes from Keynesian economic principles) and not improved the GDP, unemployment, or interest rates (any govt. claims otherwise cannot be substantiated because it is impossible to know what would have happened in any other case. But if you look at historic precedents on recessions the act of not spending are faster recovery time than is being shown now). I much prefer the Austrian economic point of view, which is very well explained in this nice rap.

Back to art, I don't like McNaughton's artistic style, but his paintings are interesting even if they do make huge generalizations. I think the political ideas that he is trying to express are too complex to be adequately painted (whether the opinions he is expressing are valid or not is a completely other topic). Political and religious artwork is much more effective when if focuses on one simple principle or idea(the the Obama Hope poster or the Second Coming). They also don't mix well for household fine art. Who wants to potentially offend every other person who comes over?

[Puckish Fiend]

Minimalistic and abstract art has always intrigued me. If this painting was done entirely free-hand, without the aid of rulers, levels, painters tape, etc it would indicate immense skill. It would be on par with White on White or Black Circle. The exact proportions of the areas and the straightness of the lines is incredible.

An artist who can perform this type of feat is usually trained in and mastered classical painting styles, and now they are trying to push their art.

[Marduk]

Hrmm, Puck, did you graduate from the Ronald Reagan school of economics? Regardless, the point is, to say "we believe in smaller government" and then spend billions on the military is very hypocritical. What they should say is "we believe in less social programs and more military." And I stand by what I said, despite your condescending (and completely extraneous) Reaganomics for Dummies lesson.

[ahem.]

Vote Dukakis!

[/flippant and unnecessary interjection]

[Craig Jessop]

"we believe in less social programs and more military."

I know I do. (Shouldn't it be "fewer social programs?")

[Puckish Fiend]

Hrmm, Puck, did you graduate from the Ronald Reagan school of economics? Regardless, the point is, to say "we believe in smaller government" and then spend billions on the military is very hypocritical. What they should say is "we believe in less social programs and more military." And I stand by what I said, despite your condescending (and completely extraneous) Reaganomics for Dummies lesson.

FYI I am a libertarian and not a republican, which is a BIG difference.

Also I am less a member of the Reagan school of economics and more of the Austrian school. Also I have never defended modern military spending. I don't personally believe that we should have started the war in Afghanistan, and we should have been out of Iraq long ago. Nation Building doesn't work, and I don't think the US should be World Police.

You are ridiculous to cling to your claim that Reagan increased taxes more than Clinton when it is not so. And while Reagan did jack up deficits (which is one valid argument against him) he did not do so to the degree that Obama has which makes your statement wrong. The reason I like Reagan, is because he is the only modern president that decreased the size of the federal govt. (outside of Clinton, so props to him for that, but his cuts were only military in nature, and he increased the size of many other areas) which is why conservatives love Reagan. While no President is wholly without fault your critiques of Reagan and praise of Clinton were backwards and factually incorrect.

As for "Reaganomics" lesson (I saw it more of a correction of your skewed history lesson) it was condescending in direct response to the nature of your condescension of the Tea Party and their motives ( which are more libertarian than "conservative" or republican).

[Marduk]

I never called you a Republican. I never said anything malicious about the tea party. As to whether Clinton or Reagan increased taxes more, it depends on what metric you look at. Ditto to whether you believe Obama increased the deficit more; I said PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF THE DEFICIT, and by that metric, my statement was accurate. For your information, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere, as your view of history is apparently very skewed by your political beliefs, but the so called "basic economic theory" you put out is refuted by most economists. You're welcome to believe it, but don't present it as though all the intellectual world is in agreement, and only those crazy liberals refuse to understand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Laser Jock]

(Shouldn't it be "fewer social programs?")

Eh...it's not quite that simple. Check out this Language Log post. Mark Liberman does some explaining, and also links to an entry in Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage (which he and another well-regarded linguist on the site praised) on less vs. fewer. As M–W points out in the scanned-in version he linked to, "Uses such as the above [less used to modify ordinary plural count nouns], even those where fewer might have been more elegant, have been standard for more than a millennium."

[Cognoscente]

I miss Barry Goldwater republicanism. Why, exactly, must social conservatism be conflated with fiscal conservatism? Every issue is different, and agreeing on one principle does not mandate an acceptance of an entire platform.

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, "Every good Christian should be concerned", Goldwater retorted: "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives. He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals: "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar." He also said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

Yup. I like the cut of his jib.

[Puckish Fiend]

I never called you a Republican. I never said anything malicious about the tea party. As to whether Clinton or Reagan increased taxes more, it depends on what metric you look at. Ditto to whether you believe Obama increased the deficit more; I said PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF THE DEFICIT, and by that metric, my statement was accurate. For your information, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere, as your view of history is apparently very skewed by your political beliefs, but the so called "basic economic theory" you put out is refuted by most economists. You're welcome to believe it, but don't present it as though all the intellectual world is in agreement, and only those crazy liberals refuse to understand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You DID automatically assume that I love all things Reagan and painted tea partiers that way as well and implied that in as much as they do like Reagan they are hypocritical.
Which is why I am debating you on the validity of your statements of about taxes and deficit.

I don't know what metric you would have to look at to say Reagan raised taxes more. You could say that he made more people pay taxes because he created lower tax brackets, but that isn't true either seeing as he also introduced the convoluted exceptions and donations rules that made the lowest 50% of earners not pay taxes (which I believe should be done away with. Flat tax for all, or get rid of the income tax and have a steep VAT).

As to the Obama vs Reagan Deficit percentage, if you consider that Reagan had 8 years and the Obama has come close to the same percentages in just two it is just flabbergasting. Also looking at actual deficit numbers the percentage increased by Obama is greater than that of Reagan. The only way I can see of massaging the numbers to say otherwise is treating the two sets of numbers differently. As part of today's deficit we can see that Reagan increased the Gross public debt from about one trillion to four trillion dollars (in eight years). Obama has increased the Gross Nat Debt from about 9.8 trillion to just under 14 trillion (in TWO YEARS!). You can of course say, oh look Reagan added more percentage at his time, rather than percentage that Obama has at this time, but they have similar percentages of increases if you look at the big picture.

Also, if you look at the percent of deficit spending compared to GDP Reagan varied from 25% in his first year up to 60% in his third year, and back down to 28% his final year as president. Since then till 2008 the federal deficit spending per anum has oscillated up and down and was at 35ish% when Obama took office. For fiscal year 2010 it is at about 105% of GDP.

Isn't everyone's view of history biased with their political opinion? I wouldn't say my view of history is any more or less skewed than yours (I would say less based on the current discussion and numbers, but I digress).

The basic economic theory that I put forth has done better historically than Keynesian policies. As you put it, most of the "intellectual world" loves Keynes and thinks lightly about Hayek and other Austrian economic thinkers. But, it has been the following of Keynesian style bailouts and stimuli in economic policy that brings huuuuge deficits. It also leads to over-regulation and larger crashes in the markets, while prolonging recessions. Just because most of the "intellectual world" believes something doesn't make it so. Usually throughout history, the opposite is true, while a few people defy the group-think and are mocked for their radical ideas that could never be correct until everyone else is proven wrong.

It is statistical fact that you can't tax a population and not lose money to the middle men and bureaucracy that aren't producing. Not to mention that the larger the government program, the more fraud that will occur thus losing the buying power of the tax dollar. Hence the simple economic and sociological truth that has been shown in every government ever tried. Less govt(keeping in mind that some govt is necessary)=more freedom and prosperity and more govt= less freedom and more waste and less prosperity. You can mock it for being simplistic, but when you boil down to it, those are some of the greatest factors you see in economy.

[Marduk]

My apologies for the necro, but this article reminded me of our discussion here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/busin ... ss&emc=rss

[Imogen]

I've still never gotten an explanation on this. Not one I'm satisfied with anyway.

Conservatives want less government and less government interference into their personal lives/bank accounts/whatever.

But a lot of the conservative ideals of the modern times deal with people's personal lives (abortion/gay marriage/DADT, etc)

WHAT THE WHAT?!?! I'd much rather the government tell me what to do with my money than my uterus.

[Emiliana]

WHAT THE WHAT?!?! I'd much rather the government tell me what to do with my money than my uterus.

Amen, sister!

[Katya]

I've still never gotten an explanation on this. Not one I'm satisfied with anyway.

Conservatives want less government and less government interference into their personal lives/bank accounts/whatever.

But a lot of the conservative ideals of the modern times deal with people's personal lives (abortion/gay marriage/DADT, etc)

New Hampshire is a tricky place to campaign for conservatives, because they're very into the former kind of conservatism and very skeptical of the latter.

[krebscout]

I've still never gotten an explanation on this. Not one I'm satisfied with anyway.

Conservatives want less government and less government interference into their personal lives/bank accounts/whatever.

But a lot of the conservative ideals of the modern times deal with people's personal lives (abortion/gay marriage/DADT, etc)

WHAT THE WHAT?!?! I'd much rather the government tell me what to do with my money than my uterus.

This confuses me, too, with the exception of abortion. I don't see that as a big government-vs-small government thing, but that's something that you and I just disagree about anyway.

[wired]

This is an inconsistency in a lot of conservative's thinking. They assume the government is not equipped to deal with fiscal regulation and will make too many errors deducing the right policy, but that it is nearly infallible when you give the government a gun in some form or another (e.g. military application and police enforcement).

I do think that abortion is different because that can be much more about the balancing of rights. I don't want this to get into a big abortion debate, but I do want it to be clear that the abortion example might not be the best. Many conservatives (and some libertarians, as myself) who are against abortion are against it because they look at it as a violation of one person's interest in order to serve another. This gets into messy, messy arguments about whether a fetus is a person, when a fetus becomes a person, whether the fetus has the same type of rights as another person, etc. But, nonetheless, it's completely logical to view it as a the government protecting a person's (the fetus's) rights instead of solely infringing someone's rights (the mother's).

So the same reason I am against the government taxing as solely as a means to redistribute* is the same reason I am against abortion. It is the government implementing a mechanism where property or liberty is being taken away from one person and given to another.

*Note I'm saying for purely redistributive purposes. There are many, many valid reasons for taxing including providing common defense, institutional costs, and even non-redistributive purposes that have a redistributive effect (e.g. public schooling). What I am talking about is taking $10 from John and giving it to Joe because Joe just has less money than John.

[wired]

And just as a last note, Imogen, you are referring to social conservatives which make up a large part of the Republican party, though not all or even most of it. They, however, seem to be the most active in the primaries and vocal in the media so they tend to get the most notice.