The Very Best Form of Socialism?: The Pro-Slavery Roots of the Modern Left

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 166
  1. #1
    Registered User
    bdad's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    333
    Rep Points
    43472985

    The Very Best Form of Socialism?: The Pro-Slavery Roots of the Modern Left



    The left has been waging a decades-long smear campaign against conservatives, painting them as bigots who have been on the wrong side of history on every issue, including America?s greatest sin ? slavery. Vice President Joe Biden even went as far as to suggest during the 2012 election that a Republican victory would .



    Leftist academics and historians have gone to great lengths to bury and distort the names and legacies of the men who defended the ugliest of American institutions; men whose philosophy on government, rights, and liberty, as it turns out, is uncomfortably close to their own. A modified but nonetheless similar tendency to subjugate continues to run through liberal policies today, replacing slavery with a cradle-to-grave entitlement system that trades liberty for material security, and the plantation master for government itself.
    Ann Coulter,Kevin D. Williamson, Sean Trende, and others have pushed back on the idea that the modern Republican Party is primarily built on racism. However, a further examination of what makes the modern parties, and more importantly, the modern philosophies of conservatism and progressivism, is essential. Little attention has been paid to the thinkers who made Democrats the party of slavery in the lead-up to the Civil War, and their influence on modern liberal ideas.
    Conservatives and liberals alike may be surprised to find that in reality John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina antebellum statesman and political theorist, and his pro-slavery allies, stand firmly as the intellectual forebears of the political philosophy of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the modern left. Calhoun and the antebellum thinkers behind the positive defense of slavery in the nineteenth century represent the first major criticism of American founding principles ? principles the American conservative movement seeks to preserve ? as well as the intellectual seed for the later Progressive movement and what is considered modern-day liberalism.
    The ideas Calhoun and others in his school introduced in the defense of slavery contrast sharply with those of the Founding Fathers and certainly modern free-market economics. Specifically, three of the core ideas Calhoun?s pro-slavery school embraced continue to resonate on the left.
    First, the slavery defenders challenged the Founder?s emphasis on the Lockean social contract, arguing that government ? and natural rights ? grow organically out of community.
    Second, the antebellum pro-slavery school repudiated the Founders? view of slavery as a necessary but fading evil, and instead defended the system as a ?positive good,? both for slave holders and for the slaves themselves. The benevolence of the slavery system was juxtaposed against an uncaring capitalism.
    Lastly, slavery?s defenders rejected the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence and argued instead for a society based on a principle of human inequality, resting their controversial beliefs on new ?scientific? ideas about both human nature and the organization of government.
    Each of these principles is echoed in the policy and philosophy of the modern left.
    Rights From Government, Not God
    The antebellum slavery defense mounted the first real challenge in America to the idea of the Lockean social contract, which was embraced at the Founding (only the Bible and Blackstone were referenced more than the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke in early American political writings). Calhoun and his fellow slavery advocates openly disagreed with Enlightenment social contract theory and instead saw rights as developing organically within society and government. Consequently, liberty for the Calhounites did not exist in a pre-government state of nature, to be protected from government incursion, but rather grew organically out of a communitarian society, including government. Calhoun wrote:
    As, then, there never was such a state as the, so called, state of nature, and never can be, it follows that men, instead of being born in it, are born in the social and political state; and of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born and under whose protection they draw their first breath.
    The Calhounite conception of liberty and rights is necessary to the unhypocritical defense of slavery and ?liberty? together, which sounds so discordant to the modern ear. Rights arise out of the organic government and body of custom of the political unit, and can therefore be defined and limited by society.
    Even the Progressives themselves understood their intellectual debt to antebellum Southern philosophy at the turn of the twentieth century. Charles Merriam, who was among the leading lights of the early Progressive movement in the twentieth century, wrote about Calhoun?s conception of liberty in his A History of American Political Theories:
    Calhoun and his school? maintained that liberty is not the natural right of all men, but only the reward of the races or individuals properly qualified for its possession. On this basis, slavery was defended against the charge that it was inconsistent with human freedom, and in this sense and so applied, the theory was not accepted outside the South. The mistaken application of the idea [through the policy of slavery] had the effect of delaying recognition of the truth in what had been said until the controversy over slavery was at an end.
    Further, on the conclusions of the political science of his own day, Merriam wrote that "Liberty, moreover, is not a right equally enjoyed by all... the inseparable condition between political liberty and political capacity is strongly emphasized."
    Merriam, like Calhoun, rejected the Lockean ideas of the Founders and substituted a ?positive rights? view of government in which rights are secured essentially as privileges, at least for those deserving of them, through positive law. Rights derive not from God and nature, but from the government, and are inseparable from and subject to it.
    The antebellum slavery defenders also diverged from the founders in the conception they held of the institution itself. Although the founders compromised on the issue of slavery, especially in order to ratify the Constitution, a militant defense of the practice as a positive social and economic system was rarely made during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Most agreed that the institution was evil, but made practical arguments about the speed and nature of the abolition process. Even the founders who were the most philosophically divided on the issues of the day were steadfast in their belief that slavery should and would end up in the dustbin of history.
    Alexander Hamilton was a member of an abolitionist society in New York and considered a number of plausible methods to end the system of slavery. George Washington released his slaves upon his death and tried to set an example for future emancipation. Thomas Jefferson proposed several measures to abolish slavery in Virginia and understood the institution?s corrosive effect on free society. The founding generation, often divided on issues of the day, agreed that slavery was a curse to be dealt with, not an institution to be lauded.
    But by the late 1830?s, as slave populations exploded rather than dwindled and soaring profits accompanied the once-dying institution, a new political theory was crafted to defend it. By 1837, John C. Calhoun?s ?positive good? speech had focused the intellectual class of Southern slavery defenders on the ostensible benefits of slavery to the slave himself.
    Paternalism and ?A Chicken for Every Slave?
    It is clear through their support of entitlement programs, near-endless welfare benefits, and niggling regulations of every type, that the modern leftist elite sees themselves as a benevolent guiding force, correcting the behavior of the poor or uneducated for their own good. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times even the fact that the U.S. government could not be granted Chinese-style dictatorship powers for a single day, implying that such a government could ?authorize the right solutions.?
    Compare modern liberal benevolent paternalism and support of the welfare state to the ideas of Henry Hughes, a passionate advocate of a slightly modified version of antebellum slavery that he dubbed ?Warranteeism.? The ideas behind a ?warrantee? system of slavery will sound familiar to students of the New Deal and especially the Great Society. Hughes said in A Treatise on Sociology, the Theoretical and Practical in 1854
    Laborers never want work. If they do; provision for its supply is warranted... Laborers are never out of employment? In the distribution of the warrantee economy, the distributor is the state or function of justice. Wages are warranted? Wages are variable, but these variations are never below the standard of comfortable sufficiency of necessaries. Want is eliminated. There are no poor: all have competence? Capital and labor are syntagonistic? The subsistence of all is warranted to all.
    Notice the similarity to FDR?s Second Bill of Rights, recently championed by liberal intellectual Cass Sunstein:
    The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.
    Hughes believed that slavery was a perfect system of social justice and that it would fix the inequalities of economic distribution that were present in free, capitalist societies. Hughes said that the economic and labor system must be highly regulated through the institution of slavery so that, ?injustice in the distribution shall be eliminated.?
    William H. Freehling, one of the greatest antebellum America historians, called Hughes a precursor to Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Kenneth Galbraith in that they allied Big Labor and Big Government against Big Capital.
    Freehling wrote in The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant, ?Just as Hughes wished Southern government to warrant a chicken for every slave, so he wanted northern government to warrant a meal for every free laborer.?
    George Fitzhugh, a Virginia planter and pro-slavery intellectual, went even farther than Hughes in his attack on free society and capitalism. Although Fitzhugh denounced the radicalism of communists and socialists, he agreed that capitalist society was ?diseased.? Fitzhugh defended Southern slavery as the economic model of the future and declared that ?slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism.? In fact, he believed nineteen out of twenty people, both white and black, should be slaves.
    ?A Southern farm is the beau ideal of communism,? Fitzhugh said. ?There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free laborers? Wealth is more equally distributed than at the North, where a few millionaires own most of the property of the country.?
    Fitzhugh said in Sociology for the South: Or the Failure of a Free Society:
    The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessaries of life provided for them.
    Fitzhugh then made the philosophical case for the principle of ?you didn?t build that,? explaining how society, which he likened to a ?hive,? actually had a right to an individual?s labor and property.
    Wealthy men, who are patterns of virtue in the discharge of their domestic duties, value themselves on never intermeddling in public matters. They forget that property is a mere creature of law and society, and are willing to make no return for that property to the public, which by its laws gave it to them, and which guard and protect them in its possession.
    According to Fitzhugh, individuals have, ?no rights whatever, as opposed to the interests of society; and that society may make any use of him that will redound to the public good.?
    The idea that society owns your labor, the underpinning of Fitzhugh?s slave system and Hughes? Warranteeism, echoes in the comments of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said in her 2012 senate run:
    There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there ? good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. . . . You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea ? God bless, keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
    Under the vision of the antebellum slavery defenders, a paternalistic system ? masters caring for and managing the lives of their slaves ? would take the place of true free-market competition. Capitalism would survive only under the highly regulatory and watchful eye of government.
    William Sumner Jenkins wrote in Proslavery Thought in the Old South, ?The system made the indolent do their share of the work along with the industrious. And it provided a diversion from the unproductive to the productive consumption. Instead of the wealthy spending their profits upon superfluities, they were taxed with the comfortable support of the laboring class.?
    In other words, everyone must do their ?fair share? as President Obama would say, and instead of freely spending their own money, the rich should ?spread the wealth? to the laboring classes and ?benignly? manage their lives.
    This pattern of thought continues in the mind of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who paternalistically bans items, such as large soft drinks, unhealthy food products, and guns, from those ?unworthy? of liberty. It was this fundamental lack of faith in a whole class of people to govern themselves that led the pro-slavery defenders, like Hughes, to make a rigorous defense of big government intervention and the slavery system, which they believed could protect that class from their own bad decisions and the ?heartlessness? of market competition.
    Hughes wrote, ?The economic system in the United States South, is not slavery. IT IS WARRANTEEISM WITH THE ETHNICAL QUALIFICATION. It is just. It is expedient. It is progressive. The consummation of its progress is the perfection of society.?
    Inequality and the ?Soft-Bigotry of Low Expectations?
    Hughes? argument for big-government statism rested on the assertion, not only that blacks were inferior, but that many individuals, including poor whites, were permanently incapable of self-government and were better off enslaved. Government infringement on freedoms and control from above, as NYC Mayor Bloomberg recently agreed, is sometimes necessary on behalf of those who were naturally inferior.
    Although the Progressives repudiated the policy of slavery, they remained convinced of this final truth that undergirded the pro-slavery school of thought ? the principle of human inequality and the incapability of certain types of people to self-govern. Like the later Progressives, the antebellum slavery defenders supported their position by pointing to the ?new sciences? of the day ? sociology, political science, and a bastardized form of biology.
    With this view of human inequality, the Calhoun school once again understood themselves to be challenging the Founders, who famously included the phrase ?we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal? in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson further wrote, ?The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.? Jefferson did not mean to say that all men are equal in talent or intelligence or success, but rather to highlight man?s basic equality in the sense that no man is born to rule and none born into natural subservience.
    The pro-slavery school ? necessarily, given the institution they sought to defend ? repudiated the notion of created equality, and flatly denied that some were not born to serve others. George Fitzhugh directly challenged Jefferson, saying that some were indeed ?born with saddles on their backs and others booted and spurred to ride them, and the riding does them good.? John C. Calhoun agreed, writing against the Founders? conception of human equality, ?These great and dangerous opinions have their origin in the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal; - than which nothing can be more unfounded and false.?
    It is important to understand that the defenders of slavery did not see human inequality as a license to abuse their slaves, but rather argued that it was good for the slave to have a master burdened with his basic care. Because they believed some people were born incapable of anything higher than slavery, slavery gave that sort of person security from the vicissitudes of free-market labor competition. In their view, slavery gave a person incapable of liberty material warrantees and placed a burden on the slaveholder to ?warrantee? a basic standard of living for those under his dominion.
    This same conception of human inequality cuts through the modern left?s hollow rhetoric on ?equality.? The same ?soft bigotry of low expectations? leads the left to support affirmative action, which assumes that minority students are incapable of reaching the same standards on the merits, but not school choice, a policy which grants disadvantaged students access to educational opportunities that allow them to circumvent our failing public school system. The similarity between Hughes? view of incapable slaves and the modern left?s ?soft bigotry? can easily be seen in the recent ?resetting? of achievement standards for public school students based on race.
    The principles Calhoun and his school put to the defense of slavery rested, not on ?Nature and Nature?s God,? but on the new sciences of the day, which they considered ?proof? of the inequality and incapacity of certain types of people for self-government.
    Henry Hughes, for example, was a student of Auguste Comte, who is known for founding the discipline of sociology, and most famous for his introduction of the doctrine of positivism. Hughes was one of the first Americans, along with George Fitzhugh, to use the term ?sociology? in his work. Comte believed that future society would be ruled by managerial technocrats, foreshadowing the modern administrative state. Historian Steven Lyman once dubbed the school of Hughes and Fitzhugh the ?Southern Comteans? and said that they were a ?foreshadowing of President Franklin D. Roosevelt?s New Deal policies, an American design for Leninist totalitarianism, or another variant of Marxism for the master class.?
    The antebellum slavery defenders used different disciplines in their discussion of government and rights than their predecessors; political philosophy and ?self-evident? truths were replaced by references to sociology and political science, much as they were in Progressive writings at the turn of the 20th century and continue to be on the left today. Rare is the modern liberal university that has departments of ?politics? or ?government? rather than of political science and sociology. ?Science,? rather than transcendent truths and inviolable rights, is accepted on the left today as the correct tool to measure the performance of government.
    Obviously, modern liberals are not slave owners, and some of the most odious aspects of the antebellum slavery defenders? philosophy have been rejected across the political spectrum today. However, intellectual heritage remains important.
    These were the underlying principles of President Obama?s campaign during the 2012 election from which conservatives recoiled in horror, particularly the ?Life of Julia? message that depicted an American woman entirely dependent on government and Democratic programs. Through each stage of life the ?benign? hand of government swoops in and protects the citizen from the dangers of the free market and liberty itself, taking upon itself the burden of everything from his self-defense to his choice of environmentally-friendly light bulbs.
    The cradle-to-grave entitlement society of government interference, regulation and control is a departure from the principles of a free society. The left?s vision of ?freedom? is based on different doctrines than those that animated the Founding Fathers, doctrines more beholden to John C. Calhoun?s pro-slavery political science than Thomas Jefferson?s philosophy of liberty.

  2. #2
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    at this point in time the republican party is showing itself to be so ridiculous i don't think they will ever win another election. republicans are foaming at the mouth over money and democrats believe humans are more important than how much wealth you can accumulate. slavery is about greed and indifference to human suffering. it is now and it always has been no matter how pretty you try and paint it.

    "It is important to understand that the defenders of slavery did not see human inequality as a license to abuse their slaves, but rather argued that it was good for the slave to have a master burdened with his basic care."

    anyone that believes that shit can suck my cock. you don't sell a man's wife and children because you give a rat's ass about his basic care.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  3. #3
    Registered User
    heckler7's Avatar


    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    ventura, ca
    Posts
    5,269
    Rep Points
    1992154030

    can you sum that up in one word

  4. #4
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    feeding the poor isn't killing this country, catering to the 1% is.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  5. #5
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    Quote Originally Posted by heckler7 View Post
    can you sum that up in one word
    how about two?


    whitewashing slavery.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  6. #6
    Registered User
    bdad's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    333
    Rep Points
    43472985

    Quote Originally Posted by heckler7 View Post
    can you sum that up in one word
    I thought it made an interesting comparison about the cradle to grave care, with the government taking the place of the slave owner. It refers to anyone who takes advantage of this care as a slave to the government.

  7. #7
    Junior Member


    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26
    Rep Points
    432803

    Good read, thanks!

  8. #8
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    Quote Originally Posted by bdad View Post
    I thought it made an interesting comparison about the cradle to grave care, with the government taking the place of the slave owner. It refers to anyone who takes advantage of this care as a slave to the government.
    define entitlement.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  9. #9
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    in reality the rich are the entitled cocksucking leaches



    Capitalism Creates Poverty: 'Free market' capitalism is just a racket

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  10. #10
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020


    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  11. #11
    Registered User
    Swiper's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,747
    Rep Points
    155240554

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Wing View Post
    in reality the rich are the entitled cocksucking leaches



    Capitalism Creates Poverty: 'Free market' capitalism is just a racket
    there's no such thing as a "free market capitalism" in our country.



    "Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!
    To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political parties. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names ? Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism."
    Has Capitalism Failed? - Ron Paul - Mises Daily
    Last edited by Swiper; 08-07-2013 at 02:00 PM.
    -S-

  12. #12
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020



    i find it kinda funny that some whites hate on blacks and say they are lazy and don't want to work. didn't we haul their asses here because white men were too lazy to do their own labor? didn't they do all the back breaking work demanded of them? slaves even built the white house and the supreme court. funnier still is that if you're a republican today and not a millionaire you're boarding a slave ship yourself without a word of protest.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  13. #13
    Registered User
    bdad's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    333
    Rep Points
    43472985

    Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.

  14. #14
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    some people say it like it is a dirty word. usually when talking to a senior that simply expects to get back somewhere close to what he paid in to ss.

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  15. #15
    .45 ACP rules!


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,586
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by bdad View Post
    Entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.
    So what you are saying is the wealthy have an extreme sense of entitlement.
    If gunners were as violent as anti-gunners believe, logically there wouldn't be any anti-gunners left.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    bdad's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    333
    Rep Points
    43472985

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    So what you are saying is the wealthy have an extreme sense of entitlement.
    Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers with the economy as it is.

  17. #17
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    Quote Originally Posted by bdad View Post
    Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers with the economy as it is.
    The right is freaking out because Obama is staying in a $345 a night room during his August Martha?s Vineyard summer vacation, but Bush spent more on one flight to Crawford than Obama?s hotel costs.
    The Blaze titled their story, ?OBAMA PLAN $7.6 MILLION MARTHA?S VINEYARD VACATION.? Gasp, the president is spending $7.6 million on his summer vacation. Cue, the outrage. How dare he waste taxpayer money on such luxury? At least, this is the emotional response that Republicans and the right wing media are hoping for.
    What Republicans and their media are conveniently leaving out is that President Obama isn?t spending $7.6 million on his vacation. The president is staying at a $7.6 million resort.


    The Washington Examiner reported, ?Local reports indicate that the first family will likely be staying at a $7.6 million resort home on southern edge of the island in the town of Chilmark where homes feature water access to Chilmark Pond, tennis courts and swimming pools.? This is apparently where Republicans stopped reading and began foaming at the mouth. Later in the same article the actual details of the cost of the trip are revealed, ?While the president typically keeps to himself and carries with him only a handful of staffers to Martha?s Vineyard, security will be tight. As in the past, the Wesley Hotel in Oak Bluffs will house security and communications officials. The owner told the Vineyard Gazette that the Secret Service has booked 70 rooms and another five have been reserved for the Transportation Security Agency. Rates at the hotel run from $225-$345.?
    Let?s do a little quick math on Obama?s ?$7.6 million? summer vacation.
    Nightly room cost: $345
    Estimated Number of Nights Stayed: 7
    Total Cost of Obama?s Room: $2,415
    Number of Rooms Reserved: 75
    Room Cost For Obama?s $7.6 million Vacation: $181,125
    In previous years, President Obama has stayed at a private residence in Martha?s Vineyard, but that option was not available to the president this time, so he is staying at a resort. $345/night doesn?t seem particularly extravagant for the President of the United States. They will need lots of rooms for Secret Service and security, plus transportation, food, and wages, but the total cost will not be $7.6 million.
    Republicans argue that Bush's vacations were cheaper because many of them were taken at his ranch in Crawford, TX, but this is not true. President Bush spent more taxpayer money on a single flight to Crawford ($805,000) than Obama will be spending on 70 hotel rooms for a week ($181,125).

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  18. #18
    .45 ACP rules!


    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,586
    Rep Points
    2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by bdad View Post
    Yes, how else do explain our president and his family taking lavish vacations at the expense of the taxpayers with the economy as it is.
    Obama is a pauper compared to the wealthy I am talking about.
    If gunners were as violent as anti-gunners believe, logically there wouldn't be any anti-gunners left.

  19. #19
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    President George W. Bush spent over 124 million taxpayer dollars on trips to his ranch in Crawford, TX, and using John Boehner's logic we demand that the GOP pay us back.


    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  20. #20
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,180
    Rep Points
    989810505

    And then there was a shift when Republicans backed "rugged individualism", but not for women or Negros. And then took it a step further by considering corporations as individuals, saying goverment shouldn't meddle in their affairs. But still they had to keep the military industrial complex securely attached to that Gov. Teat. They saw how successful that was at keeping those corporations up and running, so they thought long and hard, what keeps the MIC going, and what other corporations can we prop up by passing laws that kill citizens individualism? Wars, thats what and what else can we wage war on? Russia and the Cold War isn't going to keep the MIC going, we need something. Aha! Drugs, remember how much we hated those damn hippies and how individual they were while still living communally and all those drugs they loved, we can wage war on that and build up a Prison Industrial Complex. While we're at it those poor Oil and Gas guys aren't making enough money, lets shore up their individualism with subsidies.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  21. #21
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    eppure si muove

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  22. #22
    Registered User
    troubador's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    2,265
    Rep Points
    362639759

    Quote Originally Posted by maniclion View Post
    And then took it a step further by considering corporations as individuals, saying goverment shouldn't meddle in their affairs. But still they had to keep the military industrial complex securely attached to that Gov. Teat. They saw how successful that was at keeping those corporations up and running, so they thought long and hard, what keeps the MIC going, and what other corporations can we prop up by passing laws that kill citizens individualism?
    Yeah the military industrial complex is a great example of hybridized socialism. After WWII the Labour Party took power in Britain. After seeing how the benefits of state involvement they nationalized a few of the industries. Coal is a good example; they employed more workers but they produced relatively less. The inefficiencies led to shortages of coal and the industry losing profitability. The military industrial complex solves this problem by producing a product that's not consumed by the public. The demand can be whatever you want it to be. The democrats talk a big game about labor but they've done nothing compared to the republicans perfect example of labor called the military industrial complex.

  23. #23
    Is Doin It 4 Da Shorteez
    LAM's Avatar


    Join Date
    May 2002
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Las Vegas & Florida & St. Croix
    Posts
    16,365
    Rep Points
    974265240

    if you compare the highly functioning economy's in the OECD you will find in place policy that is in direct contrast to conservative policy. the US large middle class was made via progressive policy in less than a decade post the great depression. labor unions with benefits, healthcare, wages that increased with productivity and/or inflation, pensions, etc.

    the best practices observed across the OECD and other country's are far more in line with progressive policy, it's not even debatable as it's known world economic history.
    William F. Buckley describes a conservative as, "someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop." - and then proceeds to drag civilization back to times best left in history's dungheap.

  24. #24
    Crimson Rep
    BOARD REP
    jay_steel's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,825
    Rep Points
    602230632

    LW acts like the democratic party is the saving grace to this nation it is just turned out to be socialism at its best. Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger. Obama is an idiot for this all he is doing is putting more power in the presidents hands and more power to the gov't. What do you think is going to happen when a Republican takes office with some of this additional power they have. You bash push for catering to the "1%" what about all the money Obama gave to green energy comps that went bankrupt and the businesses he supports. Your blind if you support this man he is to busy covering up shit to protect Hillary and what is best for him self. He has not done a single thing to benefit this country. We are still at war and giving even more money to terrorists.

  25. #25
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_steel View Post
    Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger
    how exactly?

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  26. #26
    Crimson Rep
    BOARD REP
    jay_steel's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,825
    Rep Points
    602230632

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Wing View Post
    how exactly?
    1) Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause ? The purpose of Congress?s power to regulate commerce among the states was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national free trade pact. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it.


    2) Threatens the Notion of Limited Government ? The individual mandate would be a grant of limitless legislative and regulatory power. This violates the doctrine of enumerated powers in which Congress is given few and specific legislative powers.


    3) Imperils Religious Liberty ? ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith.


    4) Rewrites Contract Law ? The individual mandate renders the purchase of health insurance to be compulsory. For centuries, it has been understood that a contract is valid only if all parties voluntarily and mutually assent to its terms

    5) Charges a Financial Penalty to Regulate Behavior ? ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty on those that fail to purchase health insurance. The Constitution does not grant Congress an independent power to tax for the general welfare and may not use taxation as a means to regulate activity, unless that regulation is authorized by the Constitution.


    6) Imposes an Unconstitutional Tax ? The Obama Administration asserts that the financial penalty is a tax. However, this ?tax? does not satisfy the three types of taxes ? income, excise, or direct ? listed as valid in the Constitution. The penalty is not assessed on income so it is not a valid income tax. The penalty is not assessed uniformly and is triggered by economic inactivity so it is not a valid excise tax. Finally, ObamaCare fails to apportion the tax among the states by population, and therefore is not a valid direct tax.


    7) Erodes Federalism ? ObamaCare?s expansion of Medicaid is of such an enormous degree that states are coerced into compliance or risk abandoning the poor. ObamaCare would deny all Medicaid funds for noncompliant states.


    8) Infringes Upon the Reserved Powers of the States and the People ? The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states and to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to compel the purchase of a product as a condition upon legal residence in the United States.


    9) Neither Necessary nor Proper ? The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the means to execute its enumerated powers and adds no additional powers to the legislative branch. The regulation of inactivity cannot be necessary and proper in executing the powers of the Commerce Clause.


    10) It?s Not Just Unconstitutional ? ObamaCare will increase taxes and healthcare costs, destroy new jobs, add to the national debt, burden both small and large businesses with new regulations, and violate the founding principles of a republic expressly founded to secure the blessings of liberty.

  27. #27
    Registered User
    Swiper's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,747
    Rep Points
    155240554

    Quote Originally Posted by LAM View Post
    if you compare the highly functioning economy's in the OECD you will find in place policy that is in direct contrast to conservative policy. the US large middle class was made via progressive policy in less than a decade post the great depression. labor unions with benefits, healthcare, wages that increased with productivity and/or inflation, pensions, etc.

    the best practices observed across the OECD and other country's are far more in line with progressive policy, it's not even debatable as it's known world economic history.
    labor unions made up a tiny percentage of the work force back then and still do. they had no impact. it was productivity that made the middle class with the advancement of machines helping produce products at a high rate in less time.
    -S-

  28. #28
    Voodoo Doll
    ELITE MEMBER
    Little Wing's Avatar


    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Bangor, Maine
    Posts
    36,723
    Rep Points
    2136000020

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_steel View Post
    1) Exceeds the Scope of the Commerce Clause ? The purpose of Congress?s power to regulate commerce among the states was to end interstate protectionist measures and establish a national free trade pact. The Constitution does not give Congress the power to create commerce in order to regulate it.


    2) Threatens the Notion of Limited Government ? The individual mandate would be a grant of limitless legislative and regulatory power. This violates the doctrine of enumerated powers in which Congress is given few and specific legislative powers.


    3) Imperils Religious Liberty ? ObamaCare forces religious institutions to provide services that violate their faith.


    4) Rewrites Contract Law ? The individual mandate renders the purchase of health insurance to be compulsory. For centuries, it has been understood that a contract is valid only if all parties voluntarily and mutually assent to its terms

    5) Charges a Financial Penalty to Regulate Behavior ? ObamaCare imposes a financial penalty on those that fail to purchase health insurance. The Constitution does not grant Congress an independent power to tax for the general welfare and may not use taxation as a means to regulate activity, unless that regulation is authorized by the Constitution.


    6) Imposes an Unconstitutional Tax ? The Obama Administration asserts that the financial penalty is a tax. However, this ?tax? does not satisfy the three types of taxes ? income, excise, or direct ? listed as valid in the Constitution. The penalty is not assessed on income so it is not a valid income tax. The penalty is not assessed uniformly and is triggered by economic inactivity so it is not a valid excise tax. Finally, ObamaCare fails to apportion the tax among the states by population, and therefore is not a valid direct tax.


    7) Erodes Federalism ? ObamaCare?s expansion of Medicaid is of such an enormous degree that states are coerced into compliance or risk abandoning the poor. ObamaCare would deny all Medicaid funds for noncompliant states.


    8) Infringes Upon the Reserved Powers of the States and the People ? The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not granted to the federal government to the states and to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to compel the purchase of a product as a condition upon legal residence in the United States.


    9) Neither Necessary nor Proper ? The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the means to execute its enumerated powers and adds no additional powers to the legislative branch. The regulation of inactivity cannot be necessary and proper in executing the powers of the Commerce Clause.


    10) It?s Not Just Unconstitutional ? ObamaCare will increase taxes and healthcare costs, destroy new jobs, add to the national debt, burden both small and large businesses with new regulations, and violate the founding principles of a republic expressly founded to secure the blessings of liberty.
    scott garrett? you can't be serious? anything from anyone that doesn't want creationism taught in our schools?

    you don't get what you wish for ~ you get what you work for

    ...






  29. #29
    Bohemian Extraordinaire
    ELITE MEMBER
    maniclion's Avatar


    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Mēns Incognita
    Posts
    27,180
    Rep Points
    989810505

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_steel View Post
    LW acts like the democratic party is the saving grace to this nation it is just turned out to be socialism at its best. Defying the constitution and taking away the free power of the people and making the gov't stronger. Obama is an idiot for this all he is doing is putting more power in the presidents hands and more power to the gov't. What do you think is going to happen when a Republican takes office with some of this additional power they have. You bash push for catering to the "1%" what about all the money Obama gave to green energy comps that went bankrupt and the businesses he supports. Your blind if you support this man he is to busy covering up shit to protect Hillary and what is best for him self. He has not done a single thing to benefit this country. We are still at war and giving even more money to terrorists.
    Green energy jobs are rising, and will continue to, and the more we install the less money goes to Arab Oil to fund terrorists. Sure a few companies went under because the Chinese were dumping product at unrealistic prices, and now many more of them are dropping like flies, while many of the American manufacturers are starting to get back up, and it all came down to innovation, building superior high quality products thanks to an infusion of gov. money on the federal and local levels. We were at risk of losing our green energy to overseas companies, and we all know what not having energy independence does to national security(oil).

    The amount we lost in those investments will be well worth the gamble when all is said and done. And it is chump change compared to the amount of subsidies we have given the fossil fuel guys who could have thrived very well on their own without them.
    Coarse edged youth, the irish pendants string from their smiles
    not yet plucked as to slacken the seams
    and drag down the features of age,
    no folds or creases from unkempt wear
    eyes of tranquilty, crystalline-beads
    no sign of despair in their hair, nor their hearts
    but oh they have yet to be experienced and that makes aging so very worth it...ML circa2012

  30. #30
    Crimson Rep
    BOARD REP
    jay_steel's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    3,825
    Rep Points
    602230632

    Quote Originally Posted by maniclion View Post
    Green energy jobs are rising, and will continue to, and the more we install the less money goes to Arab Oil to fund terrorists. Sure a few companies went under because the Chinese were dumping product at unrealistic prices, and now many more of them are dropping like flies, while many of the American manufacturers are starting to get back up, and it all came down to innovation, building superior high quality products thanks to an infusion of gov. money on the federal and local levels. We were at risk of losing our green energy to overseas companies, and we all know what not having energy independence does to national security(oil).

    The amount we lost in those investments will be well worth the gamble when all is said and done. And it is chump change compared to the amount of subsidies we have given the fossil fuel guys who could have thrived very well on their own without them.
    the issue is he invested money in foreign green jobs not domestic. we have plenty of oil still in the US that could easily sustain us for more then enough time and continue to be independent from the arab countries. The problem is all the political parties are in bed with them and let them walk all over us.

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2013, 03:30 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 06:00 PM
  3. Michael Johnson Claims Benefit From Slavery
    By Curt James in forum Sports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 11:33 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-15-2012, 05:44 PM
  5. Sort of new guy going back to his roots
    By Braveheart82 in forum New Members Begin Here!
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 07:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
-->