Glenn Beck - Common Sense

[dmagicglock]

I just picked this book up yesterday at borders and it's an awesome book! It's a short book, only like 150 pages, and he brings up some great points, sometimes its hard to believe all the shitty legislation thats been passed right before our eyes until you see it in print. He was great in this book about being non partisan and clearly points out the leeching of America by both parties. Anyone else read this? If not I'd suggest you check it out!

[Disclaimer]

Glenn Beck.

Though every once in awhile, he'll hit a gem and actually make some sense. If I have some time, maybe I'll hit the library and grab a copy so I can pick it apart.

[dmagicglock]

come on Justin, seriously!? lol

I don't think you'd like it tho', he refers to things like the constitution, and founding fathers, he does kind of diss on socialism and universal healthcare and the excessive spending that we've burden ourselves and future generations with...

here's a little preview

"When Americans say that socialism is a better system than capitalism they are essentially saying they prefer to be led and fed by the state than be free. They are saying, perhaps ignorantly, that they prefer increased state control over their personal decisions because having a cap on success is an appropriate price to pay for also having a cap on failure."

[Disclaimer]

If you're truly successful, you'll find a way to be regardless of any constraints placed on you.

Pure socialism is evil, but hybridization with capitalism is the best way to strike a balance. There are certain things, things that we take for granted, that have advanced our society as a whole because the private sector is unable or unwilling to provide a service because of their profit motive.

[dmagicglock]

wouldn't competition in a true free market provide the service to those who arent willing to provide it. For ex: SafeAuto provides insurance to people with terrible driving records when other insurance companies are more worried about profit and would probably deny that same person auto coverage. Yet say, a safe auto is willing to accept a smaller profit margin to run their business model.

[chevysoldier]

If you're truly successful, you'll find a way to be regardless of any constraints placed on you.

uhhh....? Tell that to those that lived under saddam, dont you think they wanted to be succesful? Or did they say"I like living in a hut with no shitter or running water."

Edited August 15, 2011 by Casper
fixed quote

[Disclaimer]

wouldn't competition in a true free market provide the service to those who arent willing to provide it. For ex: SafeAuto provides insurance to people with terrible driving records when other insurance companies are more worried about profit and would probably deny that same person auto coverage. Yet say, a safe auto is willing to accept a smaller profit margin to run their business model.

Without forms of socialism, how are they going to have roads? And who is going to protect those roads?

[Disclaimer]

uhhh....? Tell that to those that lived under saddam, dont you think they wanted to be succesful? Or did they say"I like living in a hut with no shitter or running water."

I stand by my statement. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[chevysoldier]

I stand by my statement. Where there's a will, there's a way.

So what you're saying is they didn't have the will to succeed?

I would like to see you stand by your statement when obama had dicked this country up.

[Disclaimer]

Sure. I feel much better about the general direction we're heading than I did 8 years ago. I'll stand by my statement... do you feel oppressed by our current regime? Really?

[chevysoldier]

Sure. I feel much better about the general direction we're heading than I did 8 years ago. I'll stand by my statement... do you feel oppressed by our current regime? Really?

Hmm, I dont like paying for lazy people's health coverage, I dont like illegal immigrants reaping benefits they havent put in to. I dont like obama making a photo shoot over NYC and scaring the shit out of everyone. I like my guns, I like free enterprise(would obama give money to your local jiffy lube to keep them from going under?)

[DangBruhY]

Sure. I feel much better about the general direction we're heading than I did 8 years ago. I'll stand by my statement... do you feel oppressed by our current regime? Really?

I feel better about this country now, then I did 8 years ago as well...

Unemployment has skyrocketed.

Defacite has tripped in 6 months than in the last 8 years.

Business are laying people off and moving to other countries.

This country is getting better every day!

/sarcasm

[dmagicglock]

Without forms of socialism, how are they going to have roads? And who is going to protect those roads?

well lets start with the definition of socialism:

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

• policy or practice based on this theory.

• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

That being said, creating infrastructure which is typically outsourced to blacktop and paving companies, would not be socialism because you're paying money to a private entity to provide that infrastructure. Also, employing police to ensure community safety or military isn't necessarily controlling means of production but more or less protecting your investment. I'm not advocating no government or anarchy, but i think just as our founding fathers did, a federal government should be small as possible.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

[Bad324]

its a good book!

[Disclaimer]

I feel better about this country now, then I did 8 years ago as well...

Unemployment has skyrocketed.

Defacite has tripped in 6 months than in the last 8 years.

Business are laying people off and moving to other countries.

This country is getting better every day!

/sarcasm

1) Unemployment is 100% the new leadership's fault, after 8 months? Srsly?

2) Deficit. Tripped? Does not compute. Cite your sources.

3) You basically repeated #1, and once again that NEVER happened until 8 months ago, right?

I can be sarcastic too.

[Disclaimer]

well lets start with the definition of socialism:

socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|

noun

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

• policy or practice based on this theory.

• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

That being said, creating infrastructure which is typically outsourced to blacktop and paving companies, would not be socialism because you're paying money to a private entity to provide that infrastructure. Also, employing police to ensure community safety or military isn't necessarily controlling means of production but more or less protecting your investment. I'm not advocating no government or anarchy, but i think just as our founding fathers did, a federal government should be small as possible.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity." Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

Infrastructure is still funded via social means though, regardless of the private business with which it is executed, and therefore the community is controlling the monetary resources as well as deciding where those resources are best served. Protection from a police or military presence is also a SERVICE. So, again, the government controls and provides that service as well. Unless you have your own personal bodyguards?

I agree with the Jefferson quote. But, you have to consider the context and time frame in which it was spoken. Society has changed, our country has improved and we've educated ourselves (some of us, anyway) so our societal structure will continue to evolve. A solution for 2-3 generations may not be the same as the solution for 2-3 generations in the future, and thus we change. Financial instruments have been created which no longer force the frugality of the government. Right, wrong , or indifferent - that's the way it is.

We did have a surplus the last time we had a Dem in office though . That's frugality for ya.

[DangBruhY]

1) Unemployment is 100% the new leadership's fault, after 8 months? Srsly?

2) Deficit. Tripped? Does not compute. Cite your sources.

3) You basically repeated #1, and once again that NEVER happened until 8 months ago, right?

I can be sarcastic too.

Oh yeah, it's Bush's fault! Just like this morning, when I rode my bike into work... It was cold... That's because it was Bush's fault! GTFO!

[Disclaimer]

Do you read what you type? It's like a one way street with you.

You words out, but don't bother taking anything in.

You made the identical argument I did, yet when I repeat it back to you, you don't like it.... what? Did you realize how asinine that argument was?

[Ryan_c_F]

1) Unemployment is 100% the new leadership's fault, after 8 months? Srsly?

2) Deficit. Tripped? Does not compute. Cite your sources.

3) You basically repeated #1, and once again that NEVER happened until 8 months ago, right?

I can be sarcastic too.

1) The unemployment aspect is more the fault of the market manipulations and the collapse of the housing bubble. So many businesses levied their finances against the market that they lost everything when it popped.... just like '29... In any case, you could blame Congress for not effectively controlling the federal reserve as well, keeping interest rates artificially low for FAR too long and creating market conditions favorable to untenable adjustable rate loans that caused the problems in the first place. That bomb put so many people into bankruptcy that normal industry started to fail when people stopped buying. Other credit-dependent markets (AUTO INDUSTRY) died afterwards as a result.

2) In terms of budget deficit, he is right in saying that the budget deficit more than "tripled." Bush's budget deficit for 2008 was just under $500 billion (SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/28/bush-leaving-next-preside_n_115335.html). Obama's projected 2010 budget deficit is.... ready?... $1.75 trillion dollars (SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123564748462081261.html). To put that in perspective: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost the country roughly 3 trillion dollars over six years. Obama plans to spend over a third of that in ONE year, at a time when he's already admitted on national television that the country is OUT OF MONEY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGo83FofDhU

3) I think the more important aspect of this point was defection of business to foreign nations. Remember, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates on the planet... iirc it's approaching 37% of all business profits. Some socialist countries don't get near that much. Unemployment can be traced to a multitude of factors... but when businesses leave, it's a concerted and well-though-through process that tells the American people that American business doesn't feel the economic situation here is tenable any longer, and is a condemnation of not only the policy-making administrations but of the economic system, the buyers, and the structure of business in general.

Becoming an import business and electing to pay tariffs instead of domestic tax rates is a HUGE problem that no one has adequately been able to address, certainly not the democratic congress and new democratic presidency. Remember, the Congress has been blue for 3 years, since the 2006 elections. They have a huge part to play in our current issues, and there is a reason why congressional approval is in the low twenties.

[Ryan_c_F]

Oh, and I don't blame Obama for it in terms of him being President - I do, however, blame him for being part of the extreme-left segment of Congress that fought for these types of programs and then washed their hands of it after they imploded.

[Ryan_c_F]

We did have a surplus the last time we had a Dem in office though . That's frugality for ya.

Because Bush I raised taxes, and Clinton cut the defense budget.

[shittygsxr]

If you're truly successful, you'll find a way to be regardless of any constraints placed on you.

uhhh....? Tell that to those that lived under saddam, dont you think they wanted to be succesful? Or did they say"I like living in a hut with no shitter or running water."

If you want to tell the people that lived under Saddam come with InyaAzz and me to Michigan this weekend. I will introduce you to about 1/2 million Iraqi nationals that are doing quite well for themselves.

Edited July 24, 2009 by shittygsxr

[dmagicglock]

Infrastructure is still funded via social means though, regardless of the private business with which it is executed, and therefore the community is controlling the monetary resources as well as deciding where those resources are best served. Protection from a police or military presence is also a SERVICE. So, again, the government controls and provides that service as well. Unless you have your own personal bodyguards?

I agree with the Jefferson quote. But, you have to consider the context and time frame in which it was spoken. Society has changed, our country has improved and we've educated ourselves (some of us, anyway) so our societal structure will continue to evolve. A solution for 2-3 generations may not be the same as the solution for 2-3 generations in the future, and thus we change. Financial instruments have been created which no longer force the frugality of the government. Right, wrong , or indifferent - that's the way it is.

We did have a surplus the last time we had a Dem in office though . That's frugality for ya.

well infrastucture is mostly a state/local issue not a federal issue so you can try and argue its some form of socialism all you want, but the responsibility is not intended to be that of the federal government. As far as solutions for generations differs, I can agree that times have changed, but your statement is something that almost mimics people thinking that the constitution is a living document that can be interpreted differently depending on the time period. I disagree and I don't think that the founding fathers had that in mind either. You must subject yourself to a moral authority and it has to be unchanging, otherwise the constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on. You can't change morality based on circumstance, either it is good in principal then and always or it is wrong in principal then and always. Otherwise our moral compass would be broken and I think the same morality should apply to legislation and government. Big government wasn't good then and still proves to be bad now.

And you know one of the ways the budget was balanced when a dem was in office and (you had a republican majority in the congress (which makes the "congressional budget") : By lowering medicare, welfare and social security benefits

[Disclaimer]

I guess i don't understand why it makes a difference what 'level' the socialism is? It is what it is, at whatever level it's imposed from.

The Constitution IS a living document, or they wouldn't have made any way to amend it. Morality changes for each generation and culture as well. Are prostitutes immoral? Why are they legal in Nevada, but not in Ohio? Who judges morality?

[dmagicglock]

The bill of rights is living document but not the constitution, and many people fought against the idea of a bill of rights. Just because prostitutes are legal in nevada doesn't make it moral, IMO anyways. God judges morality, our conscience is provided to us to lead is in the right direction. When you talk religion people freak out because they think seperation of church and state, but that was intended to prevent our government from having a state run church like "the Church of England" rather than not using religious principles to help shape the morality of our government. None the less that is a seperate issue and I digress. Here's some info regarding the argument against a bill of rights. Many people thought that if you started specifically naming rights, then one would assume that a right is not protected unless mentioned, but if you're free then you are free... so no need for a bill of rights?

"The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and therefore that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[8]

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[9]

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.