And the point is valid. A majority can decide that it can violate the rights of a minority. According to you that is fine because there are no principles that would make such an action unjust.

I invoke Goodwin's Law and declare myself the winner.

Go me!

I think that the Nuremberg Trials established that principle was not a worthless abstraction even though your argument would be that genocide was fine as long as the majority voted for it. That is the big problem with the big slippery slope that you are on; it is a very short way to the abyss that leads to serfdom or slavery.

“Read your history. Hoover's was a “tax and spend” approach. FDRs was a “spend” approach. And that made all the difference. . .”

I don't know where you get your misinformation from but you are clearly not aware of the facts. I suggest that you actually study history before you try to write about it. A good place to start would be FDR's, 'Revenue Act of 1935.' It used to be popularly called the “Soak the Rich Act” for reasons that I will let you guess about. Of course, FDR did not stop there. In 1936 he wanted to tax retained earnings and Congress passed a graduated surtax on earnings that was based on the percentage of earnings that were retained. It also increased the tax on inter-company dividends. The net effect was to increase taxes on corporations and reduce investment at a time when capital investments were needed to create jobs.

I have no idea why the statists think so highly of FRD because the data shows that he never ended the depression that began with Hoover's administration. At the same time the great job done by Harding is ignored. The economy also contracted sharply as GNP fell by more than 20% in 1920 and unemployment more than doubled. But by cutting taxes and reducing the burden on the productive class by slashing government Harding allowed the market to liquidate malinvestments. By 1922 both GNP and employment rose sharply and the economy was off and running. It seems to me that Bush/Obama used the wrong model and followed the Hoover/FDR approach instead of the one taken by Harding. Sadly, the approach is likely to yield similar results as what was seen during the Great Depression. Expect a collapse in the real standard of living and full time employment and expect a major devaluation in the currency.

And the point is valid. A majority can decide that it can violate the rights of a minority. According to you that is fine because there are no principles that would make such an action unjust.

I invoke Goodwin's Law and declare myself the winner.

Go me!

I think that the Nuremberg Trials established that principle was not a worthless abstraction even though your argument would be that genocide was fine as long as the majority voted for it. That is the big problem with the big slippery slope that you are on; it is a very short way to the abyss that leads to serfdom or slavery.

“Read your history. Hoover's was a “tax and spend” approach. FDRs was a “spend” approach. And that made all the difference. . .”

I don't know where you get your misinformation from but you are clearly not aware of the facts. I suggest that you actually study history before you try to write about it. A good place to start would be FDR's, 'Revenue Act of 1935.' It used to be popularly called the “Soak the Rich Act” for reasons that I will let you guess about. Of course, FDR did not stop there. In 1936 he wanted to tax retained earnings and Congress passed a graduated surtax on earnings that was based on the percentage of earnings that were retained. It also increased the tax on inter-company dividends. The net effect was to increase taxes on corporations and reduce investment at a time when capital investments were needed to create jobs.

I have no idea why the statists think so highly of FRD because the data shows that he never ended the depression that began with Hoover's administration. At the same time the great job done by Harding is ignored. The economy also contracted sharply as GNP fell by more than 20% in 1920 and unemployment more than doubled. But by cutting taxes and reducing the burden on the productive class by slashing government Harding allowed the market to liquidate malinvestments. By 1922 both GNP and employment rose sharply and the economy was off and running. It seems to me that Bush/Obama used the wrong model and followed the Hoover/FDR approach instead of the one taken by Harding. Sadly, the approach is likely to yield similar results as what was seen during the Great Depression. Expect a collapse in the real standard of living and full time employment and expect a major devaluation in the currency.

Sounds kind of like Obama's “Change” doctrine–no substance, but if you repeat it long enough, people will begin to believe it.

Makes sense though. Risks tend to scare democrats. They want a world without risk.

“Both major parties are failures because they favour populism over principle. “

Fail. Democracy enshrines populism over principle. And thank God. Principle is a worthless abstraction.

“The Democrats are now in charge and when the Hoover/FDR type of tax and spend programs … “

Read your history. Hoover's was a “tax and spend” approach. FDRs was a “spend” approach. And that made all the difference. . .