Jump to content
The Education Forum

Brent Crosby

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Brent Crosby

  1. Yes. I would not try to defend the power of the state in places like China and the former Soviet Union. The point is, were they ever really communist states? If you look at the situation in China today, it is more like a "state capitalist" economic system. It clearly is a very efficient system (its growth-rate is far higher than in capitalist countries). However, the gap in inequality is also growing faster than in any other country in the world. I was talking to a man last week who has spent the last few years managing golf courses in China. He told me that the extremes in poverty and wealth
  2. Are not individual freedoms more prominent in capitalism than Communism or socialism?
  3. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/ge.../17/175897.html What next for conservatives Nov 17, 2005 by George Will (excerpt) The conservative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades. But, then, the limited-government impulse is a spent force in a Republi
  4. Is this common knowledge in the United States? How do the Republicans defend this massive budget deficit? I don't know if it's common knowledge. I imagine the RNP defend it like they seemingly always have by larger tax returns. It works as far as I can tell. My speculation though is the hidden taxes that might get brushed under the table. You might get a bigger tax rebate at the end of the year, but your general bills and property tax might go up even more as a percentage. But because that aspect of economics is I imagine rarely analyzed, then they might be getting away with more? T
  5. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0407d.asp What a Republican Majority Has Not Meant by Laurence M. Vance, September 29, 2004 It has been more than a year now since the Republicans gained an absolute majority in Congress and the White House. The road to this majority began in the third year of Bill Clinton’s first term. The Republicans gained complete control of the 104th Congress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republica
  6. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...7_06_JM_pf.html It wasn’t Bill Clinton or the GOP Congress that ultimately balanced the budget in the late 90’s, it was the growth of the US economy and the corresponding tidal wave of additional revenue. Conservatives may harp on President Bush for increasing government outlays from 18½% to 20%, but the increase is almost exclusively spending on defense, homeland security and the war - all of which is a response to 9/11. The growth in non-security discretionary spending has been cut every year of the Bush presidency. What they don't tell you is
  7. Impressive numbers despite the fact Bush Jr. and Reagan have increased the nat'l debt by twice what their Democratic predecessors had. In the name of economic prosperity, it was the Republicans who largely claimed national debt isn't a matter of importance. I think it also says something about Americans in general considering gov't lack of concern towards the issue is a reflection of its citizens. Tax cuts per say are awesome providing the administration is spending less, and since their ideologies agenda is to cut taxes no matter what their spending levels are, guess what that means gov't
  8. The sad part is gov't has no intention of reducing the nat'l deficit. I think Bush Jr. and Reagan's strength were/are the health of the economy in present terms. Nat'l debt doesn't detrimentally effect citizens today, but obviously tomorrow. The "good times" of today is somewhat illusory because it doesn't factor in the compounding problems of the debt. Can you imagine a day in American political history where the debt is so huge that we will not even bother looking at ways to pay it off? And then the thought that we are just going to print more money [we don't have] to lazily get rid of
  9. These are columns from what I think are past Republicans who now have moved over to the Libertarian Party. The first link I edited down to 1-3 of 6 parts. http://www.lp.org/lpn/9705-Jorgensen.html Why Republican politicians keep selling out freedom By Jo Jorgensen Republican Politicians give us the political equivalent of 1-900 Phone Sex. They tell us that we're special. They ask us what we really want -- and tell us that they want it, too. Then they start breathing heavy and getting excited by what we want. They tell us their fantasy for us. They tease us and tempt us. They arouse our pa
  10. We American consumers deserve nothing but blame for our addicting habits. Conservation? Not here. A statistic during the last quarter of 2005 showed Americans actually consumed more at the pump during the highest prices. Which is sad because the people that are trying to conserve at the expense of their own livelihoods have nothing to show for it.
  11. One thing is for sure, the American two-party system is a dead horse with gov't doing nothing but growing and growing. I'm sure our fore fathers would love to hear individual liberties are constantly at the expense of an ever growing gov't that favors regulations and intervention. I personally am jumping off the Titanic. Sure, these two party's will carry on for another umpteen decades, centuries...but what for? Bigger gov't means bigger problems. How in the world Republicans think they can "reform" a party that preaches small gov't but practices nothing but big gov't and blames the Democ
  12. I'm getting a bit off track, but I like this point: This article on Inadequate Ideologies really heightens my frustrations with the two-party system. We now get to, depending upon partisan, "pick and choose" what is and isn't immoral. Immorality can be something we accuse our opponents with and look the other way when our party is being confronted with wrong doings. Anyhow, John Denver once sang a lyric to the effect of 'working for our machines.' He was in a round about way saying that the more technology humanity produces, the more technology we need, and the more we work for them to
  13. "What I'm trying to say about presidents is people praise a Reagan or Republican while saying a Democrat is evil beyond compare, or vice versa. In the end it is about whose "less worse," and the reality is if a head official is not corrupt themselves, they either soon will be, or their administration is. This of course lends itself to its own predictable lumping of everything into categories, so there is room for play. Yet it really doesn't change the equation that the voters generally know that money is money, and some of what goes on behind closed doors is not worthy of being looked up to
  14. I wouldn't mind hearing some replies to the "but millions of Iraqi's risked their lives to vote," and why US insurgency on that basis is/is not worth it for their freedom. I am fairly confused on the whole issue. First because American conservative sources will regard The Guardian as a hard left, maybe anti-American news source. Second, frankly I found many of the points sited penetrating. I think one US radio critic said it best when he questioned the US's ability to change the Iraqi environment based on the fact evil has always been there for hundreds of years. Another that the US has g
  15. Responses welcome. http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081805.html August 18, 2005 More Continental Drift? The rationale behind a new world order by Victor Davis Hanson The new chasm between Europe and the United States seems to widen still — even as transatlantic diplomats assure us that it has narrowed — despite a common heritage and a supposedly shared goal of global democracy, free markets, and defeating terrorists. Europeans sell arms to autocratic China that will threaten democratic Taiwan. They legitimize the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and mostly caricature the American
  16. This could just have easily been put under the political area as the economics. I question and find it odd how any administration can cut taxes during heavy military spending? I'm hoping some experienced economists can join in on the discussion, or anyone else for that matter. I'm not a supporter of raising them, but it seems like cutting taxes and placing the burden on the interest rates is in effect raising taxes disguised as conservatives "small government" political favor. It in effect seem to me it will make whomever the next administration in power look worse. Kind of like shifting
  17. I thought this was a phenomenal review from Amazon on the book "Earth Report 2000." It comes from my blog: Ronald Bailey’s dumbed down “Earth Report” is nothing more than vulgar anthropocentrism marketed as feel-good ecology neatly packaged for the McMasses. Actually, even the title of the book is a misnomer. While Bailey’s book is a “report” of sorts, at no point does the author seem to express a sincere or grounded interest in the “earth”. Perhaps the book's greatest flaw, aside from the curiously misinterpreted statistics and erroneous conclusions, is its perverse avoidance of addressing
  18. I'd like to add the Bush administration, as far as my research concerns, has yet to have an actual pro-environmental record. He has done plenty positive pro-economy issues, but yet has to have done anything of substantial that protects environmental concerns. The Republican movement has and will continue to say Bush's administration is simply deregulating the over-regulation of the Democrats. I believe this is correct as far as it will go. However, oilmen, oil, and environmentalist, environment. There is no real gray area here for me. The saddening part is the conservative agenda is to p
  19. I'd like to add the Bush administration, as far as my research concerns, has yet to have an actual pro-environmental record. He has done plenty positive pro-economy issues, but yet has to have done anything of substantial that protects environmental concerns. The Republican movement has and will continue to say Bush's administration is simply deregulating the over-regulation of the Democrats. I believe this is correct as far as it will go. However, oilmen, oil, and environmentalist, environment. There is no real gray area here for me. The saddening part is the conservative agenda is to p
  20. I think Bush wants both. He just doesn't want people to know about American corporate imperialism. It's a side of history that I'm not proud of and one that needs to be addressed by Americans. I think it's a bit more serious issue than what Americans realize because westernizing the globe loses cultural identity. Regarding "communists," I think another reply hinted that Bush (and administrations in the past) deal with 'the lesser of two evils' all the time. John, I see your point as well though because it obviously is best not to work with any of them if at all possible.
  21. I noticed at Amazon there are plenty of books on the 9/11 Commission. Plenty that are conspiracy's on the cover-up of the Administration. I don't have an opinion either way, but I'm curious to know if conspiracy literature is nothing more than weak journalism? I enjoy them when given several outcomes or purport to show concrete ends. But I get the feeling usually neither are expressed with this type of subject. There's a lot of "war for oil" going around, and I'm wondering if any of you would care to delve in to the "good" wars America has partaken in, and the "bad" wars. I'm just a bit
×
×
  • Create New...