Gingrich

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:19 pm

Although i have to admit, its really easy to bash social conservatives (i dont think anyone here is one), fiscal conservatives on the other hand have a good point once in a while.

Im really glad the republicans have totally failed in growing a new generation of social conservatives, although god knows they tried. Jerry Falwell, BYU etc.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:44 pm

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Dec 10 2011, 03:40 AM) Ok, more like 50 nations in a loose economical union and a defense pact.

On a theoretical level I can appreciate that, and your ides about sound money and a sane military posture are easy to agree with. I just think that the laissez-faire style economical competition between the 50 states would lead to virtually no environmental protection and very crappy right for workers. Basically there would be a huge competition for businesses and mobile capital, and the "winners" would be those states willing to degrade standards to a 3rd world level.

Still, at least I agree on some of it

Awesome Gingrich quote there Germ. That's just... wow.

Oh Environmental impact?

Heh, well you see, that is where property rights come into play. Spoiling anothers land with pollution is something that you can sue over as it infringes upon their rights to use their land. Yes, it is reactive instead of proactive, but it will still get the job done. Property rights are something clearly outlined in the Constitution, the Feds can beef up property right laws without actually creating any further departments or spending any money.

... then again, quite a few states states have more restrictive environmental laws than the Feds have as it is. The ones that don't are so sparsely populated that it doesn't matter as much to them.

And that is my point, there is no reason to punish the small, sparsely populated areas with laws written for densely populated areas... it doesn't make sense.

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:44 am

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Dec 10 2011, 12:44 PM) Oh Environmental impact?

Heh, well you see, that is where property rights come into play. Spoiling anothers land with pollution is something that you can sue over as it infringes upon their rights to use their land. Yes, it is reactive instead of proactive, but it will still get the job done. Property rights are something clearly outlined in the Constitution, the Feds can beef up property right laws without actually creating any further departments or spending any money.

... then again, quite a few states states have more restrictive environmental laws than the Feds have as it is. The ones that don't are so sparsely populated that it doesn't matter as much to them.

And that is my point, there is no reason to punish the small, sparsely populated areas with laws written for densely populated areas... it doesn't make sense.

So it doesn't make sense to have a panel of people that say "heyyyyy wait a second, you're going to do what?" Subsequently, what do you do to a company that totally ruined the environment in an area, poisoned the ground water etc then goes out of business? Who do you sue now that has any money?

That's why, after the fact, means after people get sick - after people's homes are displaced - after the damage is done and money just doesn't fix it. Then you have statutory limits and maximum damages and such, and small towns of people end up fighting highly paid teams of power-lawyers and cant even afford to get the recompense they deserve!

Corporations have EVERY incentive to pollute, cut corners, and make decisions that disenfranchise people all in the name of profit. I dont think you can really disagree here, but your solutions arent preventative in nature at all, thats the primary dig here in a some of your beliefs. Absolute free market type stuff is in the same category.

My point is that it does not take a retard to say "no, you arent going to do that because its going to pollute beyond a reasonable amount" It's when politics get involved that everything gets mixed up but we cant just throw the baby out with the bathwater, in my opinion.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:56 am

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Dec 10 2011, 04:44 PM) <stuff>

The states own environmental regs will be the prevention. Federal strengthening of property law simply makes it easier for states to regulate and, should the state fail to do so, the people can take their own actions.

You make it seem like I'm some sort of Libertarian.

germloucks · Post by **germloucks** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:18 am

Camaro how many people have to suffer before you admit that, perhaps. one entity making decisions is better than 50. You cant possibly expect reasonable and effective legislation that protects people while not overburdening business to just freakin spring up from all 50 states in some magical libertarian christmas miracle....as if fracturing federal power into meaningless and useless state legislatures with no real way to reconcile them all (except the fed) is going to fix anything. The fed is going to have to referee all this nonsense at some point, because you know this process will get hijacked by the same people that made it so difficult at the federal level.

Red states doing one thing, Blue states doing another. You would imagine (and i think you would argue) that some equivalent free market principle is at work here with the states -- in that good idea spread and bad ideas fail and dont spread, but thats just another load of crap. Politics dominates politics, and thats the way its always going to be. Failures will be "spun" in the same way that minor successes will be to the voters unto the point that noone (who votes) knows the truth anymore, just whatever version of the truth their party swears up and down is true. Just like it is with the federal government.

Spreading the power around doesnt solve anything, in fact it creates problems. Now, with the states holding power over so much (as you want) you've effectively created 50 little tin dictators that will inevitably tow the party line anyway, but in a much more recalcitrant and intractable way now that the fed is out of the picture.

Its a recipe for disaster. You might claim that its what the constitution says, but noone is going to buy it - especially not any major federal court (which were given the power to interpret the constitution)

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:53 pm

The States seem to have large enough economies to justify their own bureaucracies... it seems as if the trouble comes from when you put a lot of emphasis on the Federal Government, which has too many competing interests to effectively govern the entire United States.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:38 pm

I find it amazing that religious conservatives would rather vote for a serial adulterer than an upstanding family man who just happens to be a mormon. Religious bigotry is a funny thing.

Also I heard that apparently this year the republican nomination isn't going to be a winner take all, state by state kind of thing. Rather the delegates will be proportional in every state, meaning even the little guys are going to continue to accrue delegates to the very end. We might end up in a situation where the plurality nominee (say, romney with 35%, gingrich 33%, and everyone else) ends up not being nominated because the other candidates decide to endorse someone else.

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 6:02 pm

I am pretty sure the religious conservatives dislike both candidates.
They like Gingrich because they view him as more likely to pass conservative tax policy.

The contrast was evident in the most recent debate, when Gingrich talked about capital gains tax cuts for the rich... and Romney for the middle class.

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:46 am

Malicious Wraith wrote:QUOTE (Malicious Wraith @ Dec 14 2011, 08:02 PM) The contrast was evident in the most recent debate, when Gingrich talked about capital gains tax cuts for the rich... and Romney for the middle class.

What I find amazing is that so many will vote for the "cut taxes for the rich" candidate. It must be they want to be in that crowd, even if their own income is solidly middle class or below it.

I'm not just talking of the US either, it happens over here too. Working stiffs vote for our version of the Republican money men since they want to be in that crowd, rather than voting for people who would actually represent their interests. Not a huge chunk of them of course, but more than one would think.

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:57 am

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Dec 14 2011, 04:46 PM) What I find amazing is that so many will vote for the "cut taxes for the rich" candidate. It must be they want to be in that crowd, even if their own income is solidly middle class or below it.

I'm not just talking of the US either, it happens over here too. Working stiffs vote for our version of the Republican money men since they want to be in that crowd, rather than voting for people who would actually represent their interests. Not a huge chunk of them of course, but more than one would think.

Neither party is for the middle class. They may pay lip service to it, but they aren't.

Nor is either party for the poor, pursuing policies that promote inflation and slow growth which hurts the poor and middle class the most, continuing the slow transfer of money from the middle and lower classes to the richest.