Reply To: Political Statements
@JoAnn:
I never said that those who are not members of the TPP are not Americans nor that they do not desire freedom
What you did say:
some people do not know the difference between two different types of Americans. One group believes in … limited government, in fiscal conservatism … the others are people who engage in male dominance rituals … in a homoerotic manner.
What you meant:
We don’t describe ourselves as “teabaggers.” That’s describing something else entirely. Please don’t use that term.
How it came across:
There are only two types of Americans: members of the TPP, and faggots.
Pretty manichaean, isn’t it? Now you understand some of the negative reaction you received?
Regarding “socialism,” the government has been unloading the assets it had purchased, banks have been paying back TARP funds, and things have generally been getting back to normal. This wasn’t a Venezuelan-style strong-arm nationalization; it was a matter of desperate industry, unable to secure credit from the market, asking the government to act as a lender of last resort, with the government receiving equity in some of these companies in order to protect the interests of taxpayers. Neither the affected industries nor the government was really crazy about this arrangement, and those companies that are healthy enough to do so have been paying off the debts.
Regarding cap and trade, I think it’s too subject to fraud and abuse, especially in the spurious science behind some carbon offsets. IMHO, a gradually increasing carbon tax will be much more effective, and decreased demand for petroleum would weaken Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc. I’m not as worried about coal, but the petroleum-based economy has lead to foreign policy nightmares, and reducing petroleum consumption, not just domestically but internationally, is a critical component of a far-sighted foreign policy.
The constitution wasn’t created to put reins on the federal government; it was created to establish the federal government. Checks and balances were created concurrently, and further reins were added shortly thereafter, but it’s simply incorrect to say that the primary purpose of the constitution was to restrict the powers of something that didn’t previously exist.
On the subject of limited government, I’d be curious to hear what the TPP have to say about abortion, gay marriage, and the war on drugs. These are contexts in which social conservatives (which I’ll grant are not always in complete agreement with fiscal conservatives, but they’re closely allied these days) come out against limited government.