"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' " (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona) Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.

To be honest, I'm sick of the anti-Republican/anti-Democrat bullshit. Either way it's annoying.

I think you give them too much credit. Their outreach to religious conservatives was simply cover for their exclusionary economic policies. They had at least 6 years to ram through social legislation to please the religious nut jobs and only have a couple of executive orders to show for it. There are two tiers to the Republican party. The guys like Karl Rove who manipulate the ignorant masses to attain and power and grow rich, and the ignorant masses that buy it hook line and sinker.

Unfortunately for them, the consequences of their philosophies have come crashing down around them all at once. Their economic, environmental, foriegn, and domestic policies have all proven to be failures, and this last election was a referendum on their failures. I don't know what you would find appealing about their platform.

It is funny to me that Republicans blindly defend Carol Rove(sp) who leaked the identity of the CIA agent, not knowing, or caring that Rove is an atheist.

I'm a Christian. I go to church. I'm an Episcopalian. I think he may have taken a comment that I made where I was talking about how — I have had colleagues at the White House — Mike Gerson, Pete Wayner (ph), Leslie Drune (ph), Josh Bolten and others — who I'm really impressed about how their faith has informed their lives and made them really better people.And it took a comment where I acknowledged my shortcomings in living up to the beliefs of my faith and contrasted it with how these extraordinary people have made their faith a part of their fiber.And somehow or another he goes from taking it from me being an Episcopalian wishing I was a better Christian to somehow making me into a agnostic. You know, Mr. Moyers ought to do a little bit better research before he does another drive-by slander.

Brian37 wrote:

I think you throw the baby out with the bath water. I agree it is lip service but the idea of small government also depends on personal responsibility. They have sold small government effectively while picking our pockets.

The reality is that small government can work IF the classes cut out the middle man and deal honestly with each other and help each other. But you are right in that small government wont work as long as those who promote it dont like being held accountable.

Our tax code reads as convoluted and arbitrary as the bible and there is no reason that anyone of any class should have to be a brain surgeon to file their taxes, much less have to be a lawyer.

It is not an either or proposition for me. Big government can fuck up an economy, and take away freedoms as much as allowing the rich to control both parties. China has a big government, and right now their economy is much better than ours, but their citizens have little freedom to criticize their government. That is not a trade I am willing to make, just to feel safe.

It is not utopian to suggest to anyone of any class, that if you want help, do it in the private sector before depending on government as a default. If you want to be rich realize at the same time that it takes the middle and poor class to keep you there.

I agree that Bush failed, but it is because of the lying and lack of responsibility, not the simple idea itself of independence.

If the baby keeps shitting in the tub maybe the water isn't the problem. I don't really care if the government is big or small as long it's effective.  In my opinion the whole purpose of a government is to provide for a group of people what they can't provide for themselves. Things like national defense, law enforcement, education, health care, and infrastructure are all things that are too expensive, time consuming, and inconsistent when left in the hands of individuals. I think a centralized standard is a much better way of achieving quality and consistency (Every large business that rakes in money hand over fist subscribes to this theory to some degree.). I don't buy into the arguments that a larger government automatically leads to the erosion of civil rights or an inability to effectively provide these services. Every argument I hear against nationalized health care for instance assumes we would only do the stupidest things possible.

I agree that a free market / small government society would be tits if people dealt fairly and honestly with each other, but I don't think that's how we're wired. People tend to look out for number one first, and then their neighbors. Our current economic situation reflects that. For years the small government crowds battle cry was "Don't tell me how to run my business!". If they wanted to pay their employees dick that was their decision. It didn't effect anyone else. If they wanted to ship their production facilities overseas that was their decision. It didn't effect anyone else. If they wanted to dump their waste into a local waterway that was their business. It didn't effect anyone else. But, as it turns out, it does. If you pay your employees low wages and ship as much work overseas as you possibly can, eventually your target demographic won't be able to afford your products.

By removing regulations that serve to keep money circulating and build a strong middle class, you allow people to horde it for themselves. And horde they do. The common argument I hear in response to this is "If they make the money, why can't they keep it?". The answer is that it leaves millions of hard working people in the dust. This is one of the factors that lead to the Great Depression (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_great_depression), and it's exactly what's happening now.

The truth is we are not independent, we are interdependent. Just like we have laws that say you can't drive your car on the sidewalk, we have to have laws that regulate wages, work conditions, and environmental policies. Certain things should not be left to the better nature of capitalists. Health care will always suck when you leave it in the hands of people who are constantly looking for ways to make more money while offering less product.

To quote Keynes: Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

I agree that our tax code is a mess, but I still think if you make more money you should pay more in taxes. I hear the complaints of conservatives on this matter and it sounds like so much complaining from people who still live better than the average citizen by orders of magnitude. Their tax dollars help build a better society.

As for Bush, he failed every test that came his way; but our current dilemma has been years in the making and it started when we allowed the foxes to guard the hen house.

 

I agree with most of what you say. We are actually saying pretty much the same thing. I am of the idea that government should only do what it has to and not hand out everything to all the classes all the time as a default. BUT, you are right that the rich horders who have done everything they want, who are now bitching about more regulation, wouldn't be facing government intrusion if they had behaived themselves in the first place. They lacked the responsibility.

I am merely sorry it has come to this, no matter how nessary it is at this point. Maybe those dickheads should think twice about dicking over the middle class and poor in the future if they don't want government stepping in.

It is a result of jaded arrogence where the king doesn't realize his new cloths don't mean shit without respect for others.