28 comments

    • Sleepy Tom says:

      At least Bobby doesn’t waste government financial resources on presenting resolutions to honor meaningless crap.

      • Three Jack says:

        franklin “honoring meaningless crap”:

        i give you hb1443 (2006) – a bill “so as to designate Georgia red clay as Georgia’s official dirt”

        • jenny says:

          Um, it was a joke. He was fed up with the myriad of stupid resolutions. But it wasn’t meaningless crap, it was meaningless dirt.

        • Sleepy Tom says:

          Three Jack,

          Franklin offers a bill to satirize the thousands of other bills and resolutions over the years that range from honoring Joe Mack Wilson (an adjudicated racist when he was alive) to honoring Glenn Richardson’s johnson, and you miss it by a country mile.

  1. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Whats that smell?

    Oh yeah, that is the pungent odor given off by a loser.

    What exactly is the Federal Government involved with in our daily lives? who envisioned what?

    This is McBerry’s problem: He is marginally correct. This gets down to the big Jefferson vs Hamilton debate during Washington’s term and until Hamilton died. Big business = big government.

    the two paradigms are simple. Jefferson (along with his democrats) wanted an agrarian society of subsistence farmers and Hamilton wanted merchantilism to be expanded and for the US to prepare for the next British invasion. Thats it.

    Who won? A little bit of both. Poor people would eventually be granted the franchise, but big business won…and we beat the British again in 1812 (just as hamilton predicted). Things have obviously changed…we are no longer a manufacturing industrial society. We are a service/financial society. The crash of ’29, ’87 and ’07-’08 are a result of what? Not too much government. They are a result of the private sector being unable to deal with collective action problems.

    The math is simple: a robust market must exist for firms to compete in. No firm has any incentive to act in a manner that will preserve the system…in fact all actors (firms) game the system until it can no longer be sustained. Then the market crashes. Government regulation has always (which might be too strong a statement) sought to strengthen the infrastructure since no businessses will do so willingly.

    States are terrible at this. Having 50 sets of regulation and 50 markets is a terrible idea…it actually prohibits alot of growth and discourages the opening of business in new jurisdictions.

    I am cool with going back to the idea of jefferson’s notion of democracy in America. I can tell you right now, though…conservatism will not get you there.

    • ron322 says:

      I would say Government regulation has always sought to prop up the system of debt/credit, spending money that does not exist. One look at the National debt should be proof enough.
      Growth is what we are lacking now. Productive growth that is.
      Hamilton was right in part as was Jefferson. The problem was violating our new found law to justify creating a system of credit that would allow for growth. I.E. we had to be in debt to be credit worthy. Since that time the Government and the debt have grown together to create the mess that we have today.

    • Game Fan says:

      “Government regulation has always (which might be too strong a statement) sought to strengthen the infrastructure since no businessses will do so willingly.”

      Uh, yeah, that’d be nice if Government were the referee which couldn’t be bought. (dream on)

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        The Founders were great ment, but they did not see things eye to eye.

        Claim what you wish about the extent to which the government can be bought, I disagree. There is very little evidence that campaign money influences votes, it may influence how much work a congressmen or President will put into a piece of legislation or a policy…but their minds are not really swayed. The more systemic problem is a matter the accumulation of wealth and that passing legislation for the benefit of you investment accounts is not illegal.

        The American system has few problems. Those listed in my comment above are mostly traceable to one thing, the power of parties. The education of the public is another problem, but not as big of one as ideologues and those in the minority think. A lot, however, can be fixed if redistricting were required to be party neutral.

        The democratic party will probably have the majority in Congress for atleast the next 10 years. It is a party that has a long history of knowing how to run a country. The GOP floundered for two reasons, they are on the fringe (1) and (2) they used their brief time in the majority as a redress of greivances. The GOP won in ’94 on a big bet that paid off. They won in 2002 because of 9/11. They lost in 06 and 08 because they have nothing to offer America. They always spend their time in office trying to undo popular and successful programs and cutting taxes on people that do not need tax cuts.

        Back to my original point, 435 congressional districts that are all marginal would have some fairly profound implications. Two parties will still exist, third parties will be further marginalized, but responsiveness will prevail in the end. In addition, the means by which this is to be brought about: democracy!

        Imagine the quality of candidates we would have in say the 10th district. Paul Broun couldn’t survive. He isn’t smart enough or good enough at anything to win without a 20pt advantage.

        Food for thought. I have brough this idea up a dozen times in the past year or two…never has it been given any consideration by the PP community, but it is atleast an interesting thought experiment.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          There are so many things wrong in your post, I don’t know where to start. I think we established long ago that you are NOT a conservative, and nothing like Goldwater.

          “There is very little evidence that campaign money influences votes” What rock are you living under? Money is the mothers milk of politics. You can have a great candidate and a great message, but if you can’t get that message to the voters, you have NOTHING.

          “The more systemic problem is a matter the accumulation of wealth and that passing legislation for the benefit of you investment accounts is not illegal.” So I can earn money, but it should be illegal for me to give it to my children? Communist.

          “A lot, however, can be fixed if redistricting were required to be party neutral.” Redistricting occurs one every 10 years, unless the courts say the party in power was gerrymandering. How that is done is based on a state by state. This does not fix MOST of the problems, but if every state did it the way Georgia does, it would be better. I agree with Sonny: http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,78006749_91290006_91293357,00.html

          “The democratic party will probably have the majority in Congress for atleast the next 10 years” See you in 2010.

          “It is a party that has a long history of knowing how to run a country.” Honestly are you really really happy with what direction the congress and the President are headed? How long should it take to decide if you are going to give your commander in a war the number of troops he has asked for? I think President Obama is showing great leadership skills right now. Sarcasm implied.

          “they are on the fringe (1) and (2) they used their brief time in the majority as a redress of greivances.” I disagree with the first part, see you in 2010. The second, might be appropriate. IMO, the reason they lost power is they strayed from the platform and started spending money just as fast as the Dems. Well the Dems have proven that they HOLD the title of the fastest spenders, but you know what I mean. Fortunately, MOST of the bigger spending GOP have been booted from office. Some of them got the message and are behaving better, for now. Unfortunately, the one that were replaced have been replaced by bigger spending Dems.

          “They lost in 06 and 08 because they have nothing to offer America. They always spend their time in office trying to undo popular and successful programs and cutting taxes on people that do not need tax cuts.” They lost because they didn’t get their message out, and/or did not have a unified message, and/or strayed from the platform.. What successful programs? Popular with the ones getting “Obama money from Obama’s stash?” As far as cutting taxes go, have you ever been offered a job by a poor person? I like a fair tax that taxes everyone, including the illegal aliens, but that’s me. About half of Americans don’t pay income tax.

          If you think Paul Broun can’t survive, pick another candidate and run him or her against him. Unless you are going to redraw the maps to get him out, which I think you implied that you are not in favor of doing.

          There are reasons you thoughts have not been given any consideration by me. I will let others speak for themselves.

    • Wow, this is the one of the first intelligent set of thoughts on economics I have ever read on Peach Pundit, and it was marked as negative-3?!?

      One of these days I hope to find just the right thread where I can post a comment about buying a Georgia Bulldogs football jersey, and wearing it to shoot a negro lesbian muslim atheist Oxendine-supporting abortion doctor in front of a massage parlour known for selling beer on Sunday, all the while quoting lines from Atlas Shrugged which PROVE Obama is a communist. It would just be a social experiment… I’d like to see if this “plus” and “minus” checkbox system can support a comment going over plus-100.

Comments are closed.