Peikoff on the coming election

[bborg 0]

Sometimes, it is far more effective and productive to let others make the point for me.

Well, I prefer that if I'm wrong about something and someone is able to demonstrate that, they make the argument rather than lead me around by the nose. I may have a dog as my avatar, but that doesn't mean I want to be one. It's not that I don't find the information you're sharing interesting, but I don't see how I'm supposed to connect it to anything.

So back to the topic, how do you think Powell would affect Obama's foreign policy, and why should his endorsement change my mind about voting for him?

[Rational Ryan 0]

Do either of these candidates support any significant superficials?

McCain has been a pretty staunch advocate of free international trade.

That's good.

Obama has been a supporter of social rights.

That's bad. What are "social rights" to a Leftist other than special privileges for certain favored groups?

McCain supports massive tax decreases for the rich.

Considering the unfair burden of taxes on the rich, most of whom have earned their wealth, that is good.

Obama supports tax decreases for many middle class families.

... which are really welfare payments to those who do not pay taxes at the expense of the upper middle class and those who aspire to be rich. That's bad.

Each candidate has a number of superficial positives,

You haven't named any for Obama so far.

I don't think Americans are on board with the philosophy of the Socialists. I think they will reject it when it fails miserably.

They didn't reject it when it failed miserably under FDR.

The American sense of life is much better than that of Canada, and I think the failed policies of a forth right wealth re-distributor like Obama could bring about another, perhaps better version of the Reagan revolution, just as we got fed up with the insanity of Nixon and Carter.

The failure of socialism won't lead to a better understanding unless there is someone who can effectively communicate how and why socialism caused the failure. That means: If you want another Reagan revolution, you are going to need another Reagan.

1. I meant social rights, as in civil liberties like abortion, gay marriage...Not things like what was instilled in the Civil Rights Act.

2. No person deserves their wealth taxed. Any individual tax cut on any class of people is a good, not an evil. Both support tax cutes and tax increases. It's give and take, but they almost offer the same amount just for different people. Could you explain how it's welfare for the lower middle classes?

3. As for the New Deal and it's acceptance, you can chock that up to government and intellectual misinformation on the matter. People thought that the success we began to feel in the 40s was because of the New Deal. There weren't many people around that could tell people why government handouts and safety nets never work in the long run.

4. I don't want another Reagan revolution. I want a new and better revolution, because that revolution failed. I think Dr. Yaron Brook did a good job of explaining exactly why the Reagan conservatism ultimately went to Hell.

McCain is no Reagan, though. He isn't even close. He isn't located anywhere on the target, let alone the bullseye of Reaganism, though he'd like Americans to imagine that is the case.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Another example that may be of interest. Donald Rumsfeld, how many Presidents has he advised over his career? Starting as Chief of Staff for President Ford. Again, you will find that who advises the President is not a moot point.

The U.S. has suffered from Secretaries of Defense who fancied themselves to be the smartest men alive. Example: Robert MacNamara and Donald Rumsfeld. MacNamara fought the Viet Nam War like a deranged football coach who instructs his team to punt as soon as they reach the fifty yard line. Mac didn't believe in fighting. He believed in "sending messages" to the enemy. Result -- 60,000 dead Americans over a ten year period and a blow to our economy since Landslide Lyndon was determined to have his Great Society during a war. Even FDR would not have done that.

Then there is Don Rumsfeld who advised his President to go in light into a Muslim Country. Hast du in dein ganzen leb gesehen? It is utter madness. When warring against Muslims you either wipe them out (preferable) or if you must occupy, then do so with a heavy hand and many pairs of boots on the ground. Conquering a Muslim Nation is akin to herding cats or domesticating alligators. One cannot domestic and cajole Muslims. One must treat them as the wild beasts they are.

With geniuses like this, how do we not have a disaster?

ruveyn

[ewv 0]

2. No person deserves their wealth taxed. Any individual tax cut on any class of people is a good, not an evil. Both support tax cutes and tax increases. It's give and take, but they almost offer the same amount just for different people. Could you explain how it's welfare for the lower middle classes?

Obama is being criticized because he is disingenuously using the term "tax cuts" to sell a program of government handouts in the form of an income tax credit that are entirely unrelated to taxes. About half of the intended recipients don't pay income taxes at all because they don't earn enough under the progressive tax rates to be required to pay. It is also explicitly formulated as a transfer of wealth from those with higher incomes whose taxes would be explicitly increased in order to pay for the transfer when those paying the most taxes ought to be first in line for cuts rather than plundered more. So it's not a matter of actual tax cuts being criticized as "welfare".

The deception is quite deliberate. In 1972 McGovern proposed the same thing but (according to Charles Krauthammer yesterday) called it "Demogrants", making it explicit that it was a giveway orchestrated by the Democrats. His proposal was roundly rejected for what it was. In calling it a "tax cut" Obama is now selling socialism with capitalist slogans. Another example is his calling government spending "investments". This deceptive use of language through package deals and anti-concepts by the progressive left has been discussed here on the Forum previously.

3. As for the New Deal and it's acceptance, you can chock that up to government and intellectual misinformation on the matter. People thought that the success we began to feel in the 40s was because of the New Deal. There weren't many people around that could tell people why government handouts and safety nets never work in the long run.

Actually they thought they were getting success from the New Deal throughout the 1930s even though the depression was worse. People who lived through that period who are still alive today will still tell you that Roosevelt and the New Deal saved them from the Depression. You are right about how the people were hoodwinked. If you haven't read John Flynn's The Roosevelt Myth I strongly recommend it to you to provide a comprehensive account of the unbelievable things that went on under the New Deal and how people were misled and manipulated through propaganda and massive government spending and controls. Flynn is an excellent writer and as a prominent journalist during the period was very knowledgeable about the subject. He was one of the very few who did try to expose Roosevelt during the 1930s and was treated very badly for it.

4. I don't want another Reagan revolution. I want a new and better revolution, because that revolution failed. I think Dr. Yaron Brook did a good job of explaining exactly why the Reagan conservatism ultimately went to Hell.

McCain is no Reagan, though. He isn't even close. He isn't located anywhere on the target, let alone the bullseye of Reaganism, though he'd like Americans to imagine that is the case.

McCain isn't even a Bush, let alone a Reagan. Yes we need something much better than the Reagan Revolution but it would still be better than McCain and much better than Obama, who is in the opposite direction to an extreme. Yaron Brook was right about the influence of the free market conservatives being an improvement but not enough, but we would gladly take them now in comparison with what we are getting. Our current choice, however, is not that but McCain versus Obama and we can only try for the "best" of what is in fact available.