Research is your friend. Try using it instead of relying on Republican and Democratic organizations. Look at the bills themselves. Obviously you know that groups on both sides slant things, at least I hope you do.

Marshall’s not the Nancy Pelosi liberal that Newt and the rest of the group try to make him out to be. It’s sad when the parties try to destroy candidates not beceause of their views but because of the letter beside their name.

You keep bringing up tarriffs as if tarriff rate is the be all end all of economic freedom. You’re basing your entire argument on “If tarriffs are high, there isn’t much economic liberty.”

Your argument is of course, wrong. With the exception of the tarriff acts, America was a highly capitalist society.

The very definition of liberty hinges upon the power of choice.

No, the very definition of liberty hinges upon the ability to carry out an act of volition (free-will)

If my power of choice is hindered due to economic oppression inflicted upon me by unreasonable prices or layoffs from my company, and I cannot choose to enjoy the fruits of my labor, then my liberty is removed.

Funny you should mention that. The economic oppression of an entire entity, be it city, county, state, or nation, can only be caused by an organization large enough to affect said entity–i.e. city government, county government, state government, or federal government. Economic “oppression” occurs when the government acts as an unequal competitor in a free-market, by either subsidizing, regulating, or taxing. There is no historical example of “economic oppression” having ever been a result of the free-market. Please don’t respond with crap like “The Great Depression” or “Child Labor”. Those were due to societal/governmental changes separate from the market.

Low government intervention? I’m sure that Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and the succession of corrupt congresses have something to say about that.

I think this is one point we can agree on. Neither of these three were big on small government. Look what happened as a result of that (in chronological order): The Trail of Tears, The Civil War, The Beginning of American Imperialism.

“A welfare state…

Here is the web site which discusses this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/07/club_for_growth_rates_congress.php

It lists the following criteria:

*Making the Bush tax cuts permanent

*Death Tax repeal

*Cutting and limiting government spending

*Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts

*Expanding free trade

*Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits

*Replacing the current tax code

*School choice

*Regulatory reform and deregulation

It is my best guess that they probably made the mistake of not weighing in the criteria “Cutting and limiting government spending” heavily enough and just weighed it as but one of these 9 basic criteria.

Also, a second mistake is that they might have looked at raw volume of spending increase bills without weighing more heavily particularly egregious bills.

(again, there are just educated guesses)

But your criticism is valid.

Still, I think that, otherwise, the more you learn about CfG, the more you’ll like what they are doing.

Hope this helps!

Rob McEwen

“That’s not liberty, my friend. It’s convenient. It sounds good. But it’s not liberty…”

The very definition of liberty hinges upon the power of choice. If my power of choice is hindered due to economic oppression inflicted upon me by unreasonable prices or layoffs from my company, and I cannot choose to enjoy the fruits of my labor, then my liberty is removed. It is not conveinence to want the ability to enjoy a small segment of your income.

“The Soviet Union died when the wall fell. Socialism is still very much alive and well.”

Where? Cuba? China? Cuba is a dying society waiting for Castro to out in a puff of smoke. China is slowly beginning to diversify their economy by merging capitalist concepts into their economy. Socialism is dead.

“No, Liberty was the cornerstone of 19th century America. I never said the country was based 100% on Smith’s ideas. But to say that 19th Century America was not based primarily on free-market capitalism and low government intervention is historically innaccurate. Get educated.”

Liberty? Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the United States government, there is no question about this. Also, liberty was, sadly, in need during the 19th century. Slavery, civil war, Jim Crow, corporate greed and corrupt government during the Gilded Age, slaughter of the Native America population, Wounded Knee, the birth of monopolies like Standard Oil, child labor, tenements, nativist violence against immigrants, etc. No, I believe the 19th century was based upon anything but liberty.

Low government intervention? I’m sure that Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley and the succession of corrupt congresses have something to say about that.

“A welfare state…”

The majority of the population on welfare are children. This is the same argument used by Reagan when he invented his welfare queen. There may be a few abusers of the system, but that doesn’t mean the entire system should just be abandoned. Most people on welfare desire work, but this fact isn’t easy to see for those who are not struggling, who have drew the lucky hand in life. Most of these people want to earn their own money and not have it distributed. And, it is hard to not demonize profit for some when they do not have the opportunity to share in anything like that b/c they are too busy barely surviving paycheck to paycheck. Keynesian economics have done a lot of good. Isn’t it interesting that the American economy grew at its fastest rate during the 20th century when Keynesian economics were the cause celebre of the U.S. government?

Okay…IF CFG is really the organization you think/say they are, then there’s something wrong with the guy/intern assembling the votes and/or the scoring formula.

Because with Tom Price voting for CAFTA and the Highway Bill, as well as all other spending bills that are busting our budget, HOW can he score the highest?

That’s not liberty, my friend. It’s convenient. It sounds good. But it’s not liberty…

Oh, and FYI, I don’t like Marx anymore than I do Smith. I like how you resort to the same tired refrain of demonizing the opposition as Marxists. I thought that died out when the wall fell. Silly me.

The Soviet Union died when the wall fell. Socialism is still very much alive and well.

Tariffs were the cornerstone of 19th century America.

No, Liberty was the cornerstone of 19th century America. I never said the country was based 100% on Smith’s ideas. But to say that 19th Century America was not based primarily on free-market capitalism and low government intervention is historically innaccurate. Get educated.

No economist has had the impact on the United States as that of John Maynard Keynes. His style of interventionist economics have been the basis of American economics since the days of FDR.

You’re right about that. But look where the country has gone since that time. A welfare state. A society based on handouts. A society which thinks income is distributed rather than earned. A society which demonizes profit. A society which is now only ranked 9th in the world in terms of economic freedom. A society which spends nearly as much on funding a bureaucracy than it does funding a military. Yeah, Keynesian economics have done us a WORLD of good.

By the way, do think it is an inherent right to be able to go to Six Flags?

I’m confused, how was our economic base built upon Adam Smith’s theory when for much of our history, up until the early 20th century, the main source of revenue for the United States was based upon tariffs? Is that free trade? Tariffs were the cornerstone of 19th century America. Adam Smith said they were inefficient. Many business leaders and industries followed Adam Smith, and our government, perhaps, borrowed a few ideas, but to say that our economic base was built upon the theories of Adam Smith is ridiculous.

No economist has had the impact on the United States as that of John Maynard Keynes. His style of interventionist economics have been the basis of American economics since the days of FDR.

Oh, and FYI, I don’t like Marx anymore than I do Smith. I like how you resort to the same tired refrain of demonizing the opposition as Marxists. I thought that died out when the wall fell. Silly me.

My definition of economic liberty is simple: respectable wages and low prices, being able to take your family to Six Flags without having to worry about the gas bill or layoffs.

Whether you like it or not, it was Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” economic theory that our country’s economic base was built upon. Whether or not he was the first to advocate a free market or not, he is the one who brought free-market ideology to the forefront.

Also, whether you like it or not, the forefathers chose Smith’s ideology over Karl Marx’s ideology.

Remember what Milton Friedman said. The fear of economic freedom is really a fear in freedom itself.

So, if Smith is wrong, what is the classic definition of economic liberty, Mojo???

Yeah, Adam Smith is the prophet of economic liberty. Man, you got me good, I mean, how can I argue when you name check a man that believed in the invisible hand and that man acting his own self interest would benefit his community. Kenneth Lay certainly did a lot for his community. Monopolies certainly enhance economic liberty. Outsourcing has done much for America. I mean, who am I to say that the government should impose some regulations, just to help the invisible hand along.

But, it is interesting that the person you tell me to “see” is an inveterate plagiarist and has been proven wrong many times. Here is a libertarian critique: http://www.mises.org/story/2012

You’re right about Lewis. My bad.

You’re wrong about CFG though. Your bad.

Westmoreland, Lynn

Republican
GA
6%

Scott, David

Democrat
GA
74%

Price, Thomas

Republican
GA
5%

Norwood, Charlie

Republican
GA
0%

McKinney, Cynthia

Democrat
GA
100%

Marshall, James

Democrat
GA
37%

Linder, John

Republican
GA
0%

Lewis, John

Democrat
GA
100%

Kingston, Jack

Republican
GA
11%

Gingrey, John

Republican
GA
0%

Deal, Nathan

Republican
GA
5%

Bishop, Sanford

Democrat
GA
72%

Barrow, John

Democrat
GA
42%

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard

Club for Growth reminds me of Grover Norquist’s sham operation as well: ATR is noting more than a mechanism to launder money, as proven by the Ralph Reed-Jack Abramoff-Grover Norquist love triangle.

Their alleged additional criteria (same page) are:
* Taxes
* Spending and size of government
* Social Security and entitlements
* Trade
* Legal reform
* School choice
* Regulation

A candidate’s:
* Level of proven leadership on growth issues
* Potential to become a congressional or national leader
* Willingness to oppose party leaders when they are wrong and otherwise take political risks
* Personal background suggesting a strong understanding of growth issues

Max Burns is not running against John Lewis.

My definition of “economic liberty” fits with the classic definition of economic liberty.

See Adam Smith.

I’m sure they’d have a different idea of what it is…but they’d be wrong.

Seems to me that your definition of “economic liberty” matches the Club for Growth. I bet you love the list!

I have a feeling that some poor Mexican farmer, or a laid off auto worker from Michigan has a different idea on what “economic liberty” means.

I hope Max Burns beats him.

The Club for Growth evaluates them according to their votes on Economic Liberty. Meaning, taxation, spending, free trade, etc…

It’s a combination of several issues, not just a few that you happen to agree/disagree with.

Mojo,

Economic Liberty is not a conservative/liberal thing. Economic liberty means complete freedom from government interference in the economy, whether negative interference (regulation) or what some would consider to be positive interference (minimum wage). The idea is, if the government interferes, whether it helps you out or not, it’s not true economic liberty.

If a democrat is pro-economic liberty, then he/she will do well on the scorecard.

Unfortunately, not many democrats are pro-economic liberty.