PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues The End of the Beginning


Bewbies
03-05-2011, 08:54 PM
Brad Thor put this up on facebook...it's fascinating, you should watch.

Are the protests in Wisconsin winnable for unions?

Did the Progressive Era of gov't come about to be bigger, and stronger than the robber barons?

With the end of the Industrial Age upon us, will the gov't change to the less centralized, less powerful, more individualistic Digital Age?

The End of the Beginning

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iLilhZ_73Zc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Der Flöprer
03-05-2011, 10:32 PM
I liked it.

Bewbies
03-05-2011, 10:42 PM
I liked it.

Did what he was saying make sense? I hadn't seen what's going on now described that way before....

RubberSponge
03-05-2011, 10:57 PM
Not really impressed. Looking at a few other videos from this guy. He sounds like a softer spoken sportshrink with a camera. Just surprised he didn't call Obama a socialist commie pig, again.

Der Flöprer
03-05-2011, 10:59 PM
Did what he was saying make sense? I hadn't seen what's going on now described that way before....

In a way. I like the theory of it, because I'm all for smaller government (believe it or not), I'd just as soon see it happen sooner rather than later. If he's correct, I expect the transition to take 20+ years. I also expect this age will last quite some time.

That's kind of the rub though. Moralists love telling other people how to live their lives. Whether it's Dems with money control, or Republican Christians telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. I don't really see prohibition going anywhere. It seems like both sides want it one way or another.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 12:16 AM
In a way. I like the theory of it, because I'm all for smaller government (believe it or not), I'd just as soon see it happen sooner rather than later. If he's correct, I expect the transition to take 20+ years. I also expect this age will last quite some time.

That's kind of the rub though. Moralists love telling other people how to live their lives. Whether it's Dems with money control, or Republican Christians telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies. I don't really see prohibition going anywhere. It seems like both sides want it one way or another.

It'll be interesting to see how everything shakes out.

I don't get people form either side tellin people how to live their lives. As a Christian it embarasses me to see folks try and regulate their beliefs on everyone. It also pisses me off having people on the other side trying to regulate my beliefs as bad for society, as backwards, etc.

We'd all live happier lives if we stopped worrying about everyone else and focused on our own happiness, future and success. Long live the individual!

KC Jones
03-06-2011, 07:10 AM
Complete load of revisionist bullshit. This guys perspective on history is totally fucked.

tiptap
03-06-2011, 09:36 AM
The OBVIOUS mismatches in the argument starting with Progressive discussion is assuming that Progressive and Prohibition are of the same ilk. Prohibition and Temperance has much overlap but I question the overlap of Progressive and Prohibition. The total wealth in private hands has always exceeded the wealth of the US Government. The domination of City or State houses was faulted as wrong for "Robber Barons." And so it should be ok for the state houses to select, bought by Robber Barons to continue to get the Senators they want. Finally this is purely an economic argument. It fails on Conservation of Energy and Mass is assessing that in going forward "anyone can reach into their pocket and buy anything in the world and get it in days." He divides the buyers and sellers side of transactions using only half the argument to advance his arguments.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 10:11 AM
Did what he was saying make sense? I hadn't seen what's going on now described that way before....

If you'd like to read something along the lines of what the video had, read Walter Russel Mead's "Crisis of the Intellectual" http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/08/the-crisis-of-the-american-intellectual/

Not everything from the Progressive mind was big, federal government. For instance, the Erie Doctrine created by Justice Brandeis was created in 1938 in order to lessen the control of federal courts in cases.

But it's popular now to simply say that Progressives "hijacked" the Founders ideals. The video has a very Jeffersonian slant to it, with the yeoman citizen farmer romance.

There's no need for a bad faith presumption of Progressives as being hijackers of America. The overwhelming majority of Progressives only wanted to make America a better place. It wasn't all about killing robber barons and creating big government. That's a twisted story.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 10:18 AM
You should measure results, not intentions. Progressives have screwed things up BIG TIME, even if the had pure intentions when they implemented their plans.

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 10:20 AM
The overwhelming majority of Progressives only wanted to make America a better place.

Progressives "just wanted to make" the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia "a better place" as well.

90 million dead later....

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 10:22 AM
You should measure results, not intentions. Progressives have screwed things up BIG TIME, even if the had pure intentions when they implemented their plans.

Prog's don't care about results, it doesn't matter how many lives were destroyed, what matters is you felt good about yourself and your intentions were "good". Look, all you have to do is look at Black America--- the abortion rate, the poverty rate, the out of birth wedlock rate, the incarceration rate--- all brought to you by prog's with good intentions.

No never mind, let's talk about the Erie Doctrine. LMAO

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 10:34 AM
You should measure results, not intentions. Progressives have screwed things up BIG TIME, even if the had pure intentions when they implemented their plans.

Of course you should measure results. The reality is that after the Progressive Era, the United States entered an amazingly productive era in which we not only came out of the Great Depression with a stable society which remained fruitful for industry, but we won World War II, we had an enormous amount of people being middle class, afforded homes in the suburbs, cars, televisions, and we became the strongest country in the world.

You can argue that the measures the Progressives are not a right fit for the world we live in in 2020. But you can't argue that the Progressives screwed our country up. That's a completely falsification of the results. It's not reality.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 10:50 AM
Of course you should measure results. The reality is that after the Progressive Era, the United States entered an amazingly productive era in which we not only came out of the Great Depression with a stable society which remained fruitful for industry, but we won World War II, we had an enormous amount of people being middle class, afforded homes in the suburbs, cars, televisions, and we became the strongest country in the world.

You can argue that the measures the Progressives are not a right fit for the world we live in in 2020. But you can't argue that the Progressives screwed our country up. That's a completely falsification of the results. It's not reality.

Dude, you cannot be serious. The war on poverty has raided trillions of dollars from producers and redistributed it to people who won't/don't. Result, poverty level is at best unchanged, more likely is worse. Social Security is bankrupting America. Medicare/Medicaid has screwed up our health care systems beyond belief. Our Progressive Tax system has increased the wealth gap liberals cry about, and has allowed politicians to grab power by picking and choosing who to reward and punish with taxes. This system has created a far more difficult road to create wealth, and rewards folks who are born rich with a far smaller tax burden than people who have to work for their money. When people die Progressives have determined that since you cannot defend yourself they should take 50% of what you've earned, paid taxes on, and left to your kids. Yet families like the Kennedys pass wealth on for generations, skirting the equality they championed. Other families have to sell off their farms, companies, their NFL franchise to pay tax on assets that have already been taxed.

Anyone want to add to this?

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 11:00 AM
Dude, you cannot be serious. The war on poverty has raided trillions of dollars from producers and redistributed it to people who won't/don't. Result, poverty level is at best unchanged, more likely is worse. Social Security is bankrupting America. Medicare/Medicaid has screwed up our health care systems beyond belief. Our Progressive Tax system has increased the wealth gap liberals cry about, and has allowed politicians to grab power by picking and choosing who to reward and punish with taxes. This system has created a far more difficult road to create wealth, and rewards folks who are born rich with a far smaller tax burden than people who have to work for their money. When people die Progressives have determined that since you cannot defend yourself they should take 50% of what you've earned, paid taxes on, and left to your kids. Yet families like the Kennedys pass wealth on for generations, skirting the equality they championed. Other families have to sell off their farms, companies, their NFL franchise to pay tax on assets that have already been taxed.

Anyone want to add to this?

What can't I be serious about? Everything I just said is true. Most of the things you are saying have some legitimate backing to it. I just literally said that you can argue that the measures of 1930 aren't the measures we need in 2020. That's what you are doing. So what am I not serious about?

I never said that the War on Poverty, which came from the 1960s, went perfectly and it didn't cost anything. I'm not arguing that Social Security costs nothing and does not need to be reformed in some way. Those opposites are legitimate arguments. Like I said, it's legitimate to argue that. Repeat that, bewbies, in your mind so we can continue on similar wave lengths.

Here's what I'm saying: the Progressive movement worked for our time. The record supports that. We still are living in its shadow, and despite the problems [and there will always be problems, for any country, so let's get over the utopia ideal we are aiming for via no-progressives], we still have 1) the strongest economy in the world 2) the strongest soft power in the world 3) the strongest education in the world 4) a great health care system.

We are literally the strongest country in the world. To say that the Progressive movement ruined our country is a complete lie because our country is not ruined. Being the strongest country in the world is completely antithetical to being a ruined country.

The Mad Crapper
03-06-2011, 11:17 AM
Here's what I'm saying: the Progressive movement worked for our time. The record supports that.

No it doesn't. LMAO

The Depression lasted over ten years in spite of (some will make the case it was prolonged because of) the progressive movement.

America emerged as a super power after WW2 because we were the only actor in the war that wasn't completely destroyed, or significantly damaged.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 03:48 PM
You can argue that the measures the Progressives are not a right fit for the world we live in in 2020. But you can't argue that the Progressives screwed our country up. That's a completely falsification of the results. It's not reality.

This is the part I was responding to Jenson. Progressives aren't the right fit now, won't be the right fit later, and weren't the right fit before.

Anyone who says you can't argue that Progressives have screwed our country up either ignores the evidence, can't put 2 and 2 together, or is a Progressive and wants to lie about the results of their grand scheme.

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 04:43 PM
This is the part I was responding to Jenson. Progressives aren't the right fit now, won't be the right fit later, and weren't the right fit before.

Anyone who says you can't argue that Progressives have screwed our country up either ignores the evidence, can't put 2 and 2 together, or is a Progressive and wants to lie about the results of their grand scheme.

I suppose you can argue it, but it's a pretty lacking argument. I think the Progressive movement was really, really beneficial for our country. I think you're either ignoring the evidence, can't put 2 and 2 together, or you're just lying.

No one says you can't undo certain things the Progressives did. Just look at the 21st Amendment. But we're the greatest country in the world right now, and it's not because Progressives screwed the country. You just can't connect those two things.

You don't like some of the more economic measures like Social Security or the Income Tax. But women's suffrage, higher education rates, safer food, attacks on corruption, worker's rights, were also elements of the Progressive Era. Is it so hard to see some of the positive things that hard working, normal people did?

JohnnyV13
03-06-2011, 05:30 PM
If you'd like to read something along the lines of what the video had, read Walter Russel Mead's "Crisis of the Intellectual" http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/12/08/the-crisis-of-the-american-intellectual/

Not everything from the Progressive mind was big, federal government. For instance, the Erie Doctrine created by Justice Brandeis was created in 1938 in order to lessen the control of federal courts in cases.

But it's popular now to simply say that Progressives "hijacked" the Founders ideals. The video has a very Jeffersonian slant to it, with the yeoman citizen farmer romance.

There's no need for a bad faith presumption of Progressives as being hijackers of America. The overwhelming majority of Progressives only wanted to make America a better place. It wasn't all about killing robber barons and creating big government. That's a twisted story.

Geez, Jenson, you reading Erie in school?

Wow, I've almost forgotten about it. I pretty much only know Medicare/Medicaid law, HITECH act, and Health Care fraud and Abuse these days. I swear I talk about constitutional law more in forums than I do in anything work related.

Though, I have been following the fate of Obamacare. What are your profs saying about that, and the Phelps case?

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 05:37 PM
Yep, just finished Erie and it's progeny in Civ Pro. A pretty dreadful class, overall.

We just briefly mentioned the IIED claim in Torts last fall, but Professor was hesitant to give her own views. She did think that there was a good argument to the message being divorced from the beliefs, though. The belief was that homosexuality was bad, but the message was Thank God for Dead Soldiers, so she thought that that could be outrageous enough.

We haven't actually talked about Obamacare at all though. I figure I should probably take a Health Law class as an elective sometime. This spring break, two weeks, I'm going to NOLA to volunteer at a health law advocacy place, so I'm looking forward to that.

Bewbies
03-06-2011, 09:48 PM
I suppose you can argue it, but it's a pretty lacking argument. I think the Progressive movement was really, really beneficial for our country. I think you're either ignoring the evidence, can't put 2 and 2 together, or you're just lying.

No one says you can't undo certain things the Progressives did. Just look at the 21st Amendment. But we're the greatest country in the world right now, and it's not because Progressives screwed the country. You just can't connect those two things.

You don't like some of the more economic measures like Social Security or the Income Tax. But women's suffrage, higher education rates, safer food, attacks on corruption, worker's rights, were also elements of the Progressive Era. Is it so hard to see some of the positive things that hard working, normal people did?

I'd argue we'd be far better off today without the Progressive movement, but there's no sense in fighting that one out. :thumb:

Jenson71
03-06-2011, 10:43 PM
I'd argue we'd be far better off today without the Progressive movement, but there's no sense in fighting that one out. :thumb:

Yeah, there's really not. You could write a cool fantasy book about it, though, because that's what you'd be doing: making fiction.

I could argue that there would be no USA as we know it without the Progressive movement. I could argue that without the New Deal, there would have been a socialist revolution that would have completely shaken the foundations of America as we know it. I could argue that Upton Sinclair or Norman Thomas became President of the USA.

And my stuff almost happened. Your stuff is a load of fiction.