|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: Max Baucus - fascist-socialist, greedy, kleptocrat |
 |
|
It should come as no surprise.
Another fascist-socialist, kleptocratic thief has been exposed using the power and privilege of public office to line his own pockets, fill his bed, and provide liquor, luxury, lucre and loot to his mistress.
Power, privilege, pelf, political patronage, and pleasures of a paramour are the reasons evil, corrupt Senators such as Baucus support destructive programs such as social security, national health care, the income tax, property tax, federal reserve, and all the government spending and programs that are proven to cause, the inflation, destruction of the dollar, unemployment, poverty, recessions, depressions, pollution and lack of health care of the American people and the peoples of every country around the world.
| Quote: |
Max Baucus gave girlfriend $14K raise
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, gave a nearly $14,000 pay raise to a female staffer in 2008, at the time he was becoming romantically involved with her, and later that year took her on a taxpayer-funded trip to Southeast Asia and the Middle East, though foreign policy was not her specialty.
Late last Friday, Baucus acknowledged his relationship with Melodee Hanes, whom he nominated for the job of U.S. attorney in Montana, after it was first reported on the website MainJustice.com. But he said that Hanes withdrew from consideration for the job when the relationship became more serious. The next day, he dismissed calls for an ethics investigation, saying, �I went out of my way to be up and up.�
Since his announcement, more details of the relationship have emerged, raising questions about a workplace romance between a boss and employee that Baucus tried to keep quiet and also contradicting his explanation for why Hanes�s nomination was withdrawn.
Jodi Ravi, a former reporter for the Missoulian revealed over the weekend that the paper informed Baucus in March that it was poised to publish a story about Hanes�s relationship with the senator and the fact that he had nominated her for the U.S. attorney job. |
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30478.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Max Baucus' actions regarding health care reform were sufficient to demonstrate his true, disgusting character. This is just a smaller, less harmful symptom of said character.
As long as the American people keep voting men like this into power, they will run into problems. It's got nothing to do with Fascism, nothing to do with Socialism, and everything to do with his constitutents. Remember, as Libertarians like to say, humans are driven by incentives. If his constituents don't give him sufficient incentive to avoid corruption, he'll become corrupt. Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, you might enjoy the The Road to Serfdom. In particular, the chapter why the worst get on top.
Rising up in a political organization doesn't require the skills of good governance. The most ruthless and aggressive dominate. We don't get who we deserve. The system elevates a type of individual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm skeptical, but I'll check it out next time I order books from Amazon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The crooked and small-minded will always be able to rise. What matters is if the institutions they are in make it easy or difficult to hold them accountable. Max Baucus is in the US Senate, not a place known for holding people accountable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you very much. Quite convenient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Thank you very much. Quite convenient. |
Any thoughts?
I have the unabridged version in PDF format if you would like it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm being more or less forced into a Korean language contest (which is happening today) so I haven't had time to finish it. Here are some general thoughts on what I've read so far:
1) I dislike Socialism being equated with Totalitarianism. Socialism may be a tool often used by Totalitarianism, but that doesn't make them equivalent or inseparable. Certain limited control of businesses (regulations) and full state participation in certain sectors (education, law enforcement, health care, and disaster relief for example) are Socialist, but can exist totally independent of a Totalitarian government, and they do not inevitably lead to Totalitarianism.
2) I agree that power concentrated in the government has the potential to be far more damaging than power concentrated in the private sectorm. I also agree that excessive attempts at governmental planning lead to ruin.
3) I disagree that people these days have forgotten private property is an important part of both being free and ensuring freedom. There's a difference between saying, "I think health care should be ensured by the state, and a tax should be collected to pay for said health care," and, "I think all property should be owned by the state." A huge difference.
From what I've read so far (maybe 2/3rds of the way through), I feel like this individual is acting like Capitalism and Socialism are mutually exlusive things. They aren't; a mix is possible, and I feel it's optimal. I'd even say said mix should lean more towards Capitalism than Socialism. He's correct that excessive state planning isn't feasible, but some measure of planning is both feasible and useful. The important things are that:
1) Elected officials are held accountable (this is not impossible, it simply requires a politically active populace).
2) Political activity is strictly limited to human beings. Corporations, unions, and so forth have no place in politics. Only individual humans do. If an entity can't vote, it shouldn't be able to be politically active in any way. Entities like corporations and unions can't help but distort the system if they participate in it, because they can create incentives for politicians that are far more alluring than common citizens can, and also have entirely different desires and goals than common citizens do.
That said, nothing in the article convinced me of mises' original claim (that we don't get the government we deserve). The book claims that the unscrupulous will be more successful in a system tending towards Totalitarianism, but I'd instead say the unscrupulous will be more successful in a society of politically unaware and indifferent citizens. It would be hard to convince me that said citizens don't deserve exactly who they get.
Maybe I'm just heartless, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I'm being more or less forced into a Korean language contest (which is happening today) so I haven't had time to finish it. Here are some general thoughts on what I've read so far:
1) I dislike Socialism being equated with Totalitarianism. Socialism may be a tool often used by Totalitarianism, but that doesn't make them equivalent or inseparable. Certain limited control of businesses (regulations) and full state participation in certain sectors (education, law enforcement, health care, and disaster relief for example) are Socialist, but can exist totally independent of a Totalitarian government, and they do not inevitably lead to Totalitarianism. |
I only have a disagreement here. Although, it is not your preference for a little bit of socialism. Keep in mind the book was finished in 1944. Therefore, it is necessary to put 'socialism', as Hayek describes it, into context. The classical definition of socialism refers to the total means and control of capital and production by the state (that even includes human capital). Socialism used to be more akin to the national socialism of the Nazis or communism practiced by Stalin.
I think what you aspire to is social democracy as opposed to socialism. Admittedly, I tend more towards liberal democracy or less interference by the state (although I, by no means, want a total absence of the state). The point is that the debate is different today. Therefore, contexts and definitions of certain words or ideas are different as well.
I think we all at least aspire more towards democracy, whether it be republican democracy as practiced in the United States or parliamentary democracy as practiced in the United Kingdom, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth. However, the socialists, or totalitarians, of the time had no desire for democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
I'm being more or less forced into a Korean language contest (which is happening today) so I haven't had time to finish it. Here are some general thoughts on what I've read so far:
1) I dislike Socialism being equated with Totalitarianism. Socialism may be a tool often used by Totalitarianism, but that doesn't make them equivalent or inseparable. Certain limited control of businesses (regulations) and full state participation in certain sectors (education, law enforcement, health care, and disaster relief for example) are Socialist, but can exist totally independent of a Totalitarian government, and they do not inevitably lead to Totalitarianism. |
I only have a disagreement here. Although, it is not your preference for a little bit of socialism. Keep in mind the book was finished in 1944. Therefore, it is necessary to put 'socialism', as Hayek describes it, into context. The classical definition of socialism refers to the total means and control of capital and production by the state (that even includes human capital). Socialism used to be more akin to the national socialism of the Nazis or communism practiced by Stalin.
I think what you aspire to is social democracy as opposed to socialism. Admittedly, I tend more towards liberal democracy or less interference by the state (although I, by no means, want a total absence of the state). The point is that the debate is different today. Therefore, contexts and definitions of certain words or ideas are different as well.
I think we all at least aspire more towards democracy, whether it be republican democracy as practiced in the United States or parliamentary democracy as practiced in the United Kingdom, Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth. However, the socialists, or totalitarians, of the time had no desire for democracy. |
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't even consider the time frame the book was written in. I agree, it puts his words in a different light. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
That said, nothing in the article convinced me of mises' original claim (that we don't get the government we deserve). The book claims that the unscrupulous will be more successful in a system tending towards Totalitarianism, but I'd instead say the unscrupulous will be more successful in a society of politically unaware and indifferent citizens. It would be hard to convince me that said citizens don't deserve exactly who they get.
Maybe I'm just heartless, though. |
Hayek discusses party politics and who rises, no? Maybe your condensed version doesn't include it.
Hayek is a Nobel laureate, btw. His work on markets, monetary policy and similar are extremely important in non-voodoo circles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
That said, nothing in the article convinced me of mises' original claim (that we don't get the government we deserve). The book claims that the unscrupulous will be more successful in a system tending towards Totalitarianism, but I'd instead say the unscrupulous will be more successful in a society of politically unaware and indifferent citizens. It would be hard to convince me that said citizens don't deserve exactly who they get.
Maybe I'm just heartless, though. |
Hayek discusses party politics and who rises, no? Maybe your condensed version doesn't include it. |
Well, Rusty provided an unabridged copy in his last post, so when I have some time I'll page through it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
