|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 12 2013 07:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:50 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2013 06:47 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 04:42 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:35 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:29 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 04:12 WhiteDog wrote:On December 12 2013 04:11 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Hard work obviously isn't going to guarantee anything to anyone (nothing is guaranteed), but it sure as shit improves one's chances at success. Prove it. On December 12 2013 04:12 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Apparently not very well. I missed that one. I never said hard working people did not exist, I said that there are no direct link between the work you put in something and the wealth you end up with. On December 12 2013 04:11 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I already addrssed that. No, hard work does not necessarily lead to success. Nor does poverty necessarily lead to failure. I already admited that it's hard to succeed. And because it's hard, fewer people are going to actually do it. But this is true whether everyone starts off even or they don't. The hard working, driven people are going to gather wealth and power, and the less inclined or less caring will not. And thus, it makes sense that the children of the wealthy are more likely to be wealthy or more sucessful (by whatever metric), etc. My point was in saying that A) this is not a bad thing, B) big fat government can't fix it, (it actually makes it worse by letting the powerful set the rules) and C) government should not take upon itself some moral duty to equalize everything- both for ideological reasons (what do we value as a society and individuals) and for practical reasons.
[quote]
And yet, the mindset of the left is to try and govern individual behavior. You must buy this, you can't buy that, etc. You are right- it's really complex, so stop trying to control it! The problem is, as I said, that the distribution of the wealth created is a political matter. If you don't actually do something about it, the strong will feast on the weak and take all the wealth for them. And history has proved this time and time again. Saying that without rules the fox will not eat the chicken is dumb. The state, it is true, do make it worse sometime. That's why we the weakest need to take control of it, that's called the dictature of the proletariat. When you increase and centralize power, history is pretty clear as well: People suffer and/or growth is stifled. Despite the whining about big business, we are living in a time with an amazing amount of the world out of poverty. The state didn't do that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, the state has some role, but it should be minimal. Increasing the size of the state doesn't make it more noble or more virtuous, it does the opposite. The difference is while corperations can "abuse" people by paying them "too little" or what have you, government has the force and power of the law, combined with with the moral superiority they derive from being elected "by the people." This (AND the curruption from monied interests) make things worse. You know the saying- "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'm saying it's a dog eat dog world- trying to change it from the dogs jaws to the cat's claws is at best a useless idea, and at worst a bad idea, especially when the cat gets to set the rules. \ It's not true that it do worse. There are objective facts that shows that, for exemple, with a higher marginal taxation rate, inequalities are lessen. It's also quite sad for me that some people argue that, because it is a dog eat dog world, we should not do anything. I find valor in trying out, even if the result is null, and doing nothing, refusing to see more in humanity than what meets the eye, is insatisfactory. Like I just said, I really don't care about the "equality gap." I don't really understand the left's obsession with it. If everyone gets richer, then why try to change the whole system so broadly. Clearly SOMETHING about the system works. Who knows how much innovation has been stifled or delayed by overbearing rules. I'm arguing that life is not and cannot be utopia, thus we should use this fact and work around it, instead of trying to achieve ultimate harmony. When you shoot for something that is untainable, you just make a mess along the way. Anway, I should really get back to my math hw.... Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.73 (peak)
1975 $314.77
1980 $290.80
1985 $284.96
1990 $271.10
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.17
2000 $285.00
2005 $285.05
2010 $297.79
2011 $295.49
2012 $294.83 (still 14% below peak) SourceThe good news in all this: wages overall are up since the recession’s start. The bad news: They’re down from the end of 2008, broadly flat over the past decade, and on an inflation-adjusted basis, wages peaked in 1973, fully 40 years ago. Apart from brief lapses, like in the late 1990s, wages have been falling for a generation. SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. Just about everyone has a higher income since the 70's. ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/ATI.PNG) Many don't have a higher pre-tax pre-transfer cash wage, but that narrow definition isn't very meaningful. And you didn't even read the report that it came from... + Show Spoiler +http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf ??????? Those are two different things... I was refuting the idea that people make less now than in the 70's in an absolute sense, not a relative one. Edit: Additionally figure 2 is market income, so pre-tax, pre-transfer. I think post-tax, post-transfer matters as well. Your wish is my command... + Show Spoiler +Still not looking good.
Jormundr, could you explain what point you are trying to make? You've made two posts now that haven't disputed anything I wrote while making snide comments.
|
The first word of Ryan Loskarn's trouble came Wednesday morning, when Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) announced that law enforcement agents had searched the residence of his top aide.
A few hours later, the Justice Department confirmed that Loskarn had been arrested on charges of possession and distribution of child pornography, and Alexander announced that he had appointed a new chief of staff and removed Loskarn from his payroll.
"I am stunned, surprised and disappointed by what I have learned," Alexander said in a statement.
Loskarn, a 35-year-old Maryland native, has spent more than a decade in politics, and had served as Alexander's chief of staff since 2011. He has been called "one of the Senate GOP's top strategists and aides" and been named one of Roll Call's "Fabulous 50."
Over the past few years, Loskarn's name had popped up occasionally in the D.C. media.
In 2010, Loskarn, who was then the staff director for the Senate Republican Conference Committee (SRCC), talked to Politico about how he spent his 32nd birthday, which fell on a weekend. The festivities included drinks at The Pug on H Street, the National Symphony at Kennedy Center, and a dinner at Taberna del Alabardero near the White House.
Source
|
On December 12 2013 07:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:58 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:[quote] Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: [quote] Source[quote] SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical.  But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism. Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up. You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would. I didn't say that I know nothing about the economy, just that I don't know the particulars of everything. On a broad note, I think Cronysim and loss of freedom should be enough to give us pause at all but the smallest of government intrusions. I simply think markets would do a better job dealing with such issues. I never claimed that any market was perfect, I just think that one is better than the other. I'm not advocating full and total economic anarchy, if you will. Even the founders placed rules (Commerce clause to regulate the states when they were at odds with each other, or the federal government's broad power in terms of international trade.) And since I dont have sub40apm here to contradict me, I'm just going to use the example of the stimulus, tarp, etc, for failures. None of them came close to doing what they were supposed to do. All I hear now is democrat damage control "Well it wasn't enough, but at least it didn't make anything worse!" I've asked for this several times now in this thread: Where has government intervention made anything better? Where has the idea of free markets failed? (Hell, how often are they tried? Was Reagan the last one to even try?)Government succes is the exception, not the rule. One reason this area gets on my nerves is because the common attack AND defense of both sides is that "well, when that happened, the situation was different!" This is why I avoid particulars, though I could delve into them somewhat if needed. For instance, you (or someone) is possibly crafting a response as to why the stimulus was a good thing. The first sentance of that response will make very clear to explain why it a different situation and that all that was needed was more. A fine point to make, when what you advocate for never actually happened, and any disagreement can be chocked up to "that was a different time." Anyway, I'm off to my next class, but I would be happy to continue later.
I feel like your view is just lead by the ideological belief that government is always inefficient with no real knowledge on what a world without a government is.
Also the last part of your comment is just pointing out why economy is a flawed "science" and why most politicians are retards. Yes, answers to specific problems are always different because the historical context is always different : it is always "a different time". Keynes was never for "a big government" (and communists were no either, altho that's another matter) he was for contre cyclical stimulus : stimulus and government investment in difficult time, and a low government in good economic times.
Your view of a "small government" cannot work everywhere and everytime because nothing is "everything equal" in real life. I'm pretty sure a healthy society, with a good sense of social justice, a good relationship between all the social class, could almost function with a minimal government, but that society could not live long and it's certainly not today's society.
|
On December 11 2013 17:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 16:52 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 15:03 Introvert wrote:On December 11 2013 14:42 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 12:58 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 12:18 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear.
[quote]
I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.)
The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:[quote] Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Dismissing you quickly has little to do with my own internal critical method does it? Are you saying something I've never heard before? Or do you want me to put words in your mouth and then shoot it down so you can scream "straw man" at me? I'm simply replying to your inane comment that you idolize "freedom" so long as "freedom" is defined as being stuck with whatever random lot you drew in the birth lottery. What an empty yarn you spin. Freedom for those born in poverty is hardly freedom at all. But god forbid everyone be given a base standard of living, because that would harm their delicate "will to succeed" and act as an anchor on "freedom." You have so much criticism for anything and everything about letting individuals pursue their separate interests. I expand on American exceptionalism and the ideas running contrary to it. You retort by embodying every stereotype of the everlasting critic. Who are these angels that will stand up to your ... but seniors
but evil capitalists
but inequality? As long as these are governments made up of humans to govern humans, I'll settle for less than utopia. And you'll settle for what, exactly? The days when you can no longer pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person? The moral of the story is you can't trust the system. I'm sure you have in mind something that outperforms what you deem "meagre opportunities." I mean, even as you ignore that what was middle class luxuries yesterday are reachable by the bottom quintile today. I have nothing against freedom. I highly value personal sovereignty. I value it so highly that I want to maximize it for every individual by removing liberty-reducing factors like poverty and disadvantage. Yes, this comes at the cost of disproportionate, unearned, and unjust, wealth disparities that are largely a product of inherited advantages, luck, and/or systemic force multipliers. But your criticism is that I am only a critic. I have no answers for you. As Badiou would say: "better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent." If your best argument is that I don't have all the answers, then so be it. Your continued participation and advocacy for the current system sustains the immense systemic violence inherent in the current neoliberal, free-market capitalist world order. What do you expect of me, really? Either I have a roadmap to utopia, or I must be complicit in your violent regime? On December 11 2013 13:19 xDaunt wrote:On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. The whole premise here is retarded. Inequality in outcome doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a "damnation" of a large percentage of people as you describe. Hell, being "poor" in this country certainly is a far cry from whatever you're intending to describe. Where else are poor people fat and have flat screen TVs? What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person? This will never happen because most people lack either the brains or the work ethic to be anything more than peons in the system. That doesn't mean that they won't live happily and be able to provide for themselves and their families. Wow, do both you and Danglars really think that it's not so bad to be poor in America today? Really? Is that your response?: "It's not so bad to be poor, at least you can have a flat screen television (well, I think you can, at least that's what they tell me)." You are so disconnected from reality. "Fat poor people clearly have enough food, otherwise they wouldn't be fat, therefore their life can't be so bad." You are caricaturing yourself. So the hypothetical is a hypothetical. What is your point? You seem to be saying, "this will never happen, and moreover, it doesn't matter what kind of a world would result, because people suck and deserve their lot." Your refusals to answer aren't really that surprising. You would rather not think about the surplus labor force, worldwide, that you are condemning to wage slavery in the name of capital accumulation. That disintegrates the fairy tale. On the one hand you say that not everyone will be damned to poverty. On the other hand you say that "most" people lack the brains or the work ethic to be anything more than peons (implicitly: therefore, they deserve to live in shitty housing, eat shitty food, rack up debt, and always be on the verge of financial disaster, while watching reality tv on their flat screen). But! you say. But! they can still live "happily and provide for themselves and their families." This is simply untrue. ![[image loading]](http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pgjqtvytj02vwwjjpgduvw.gif) You both seem to lack serious empathy and understanding about what it actually means to be poor in this country if you don't think it is unjust that one of the single most important factors in determining someone's earnings is the income of his or her parents. All this may sound a bit impressionistic. But more and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much “stickier” than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter. Source.If you think it's gotten better since 2004, you are living in a dream world. ![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/131209100348-economic-mobility-620xa.png) Source.
In 2001, Bhashkar Mazumder, an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, recalculated income heritability matching census data to Social Security data, which allowed him to compare parent-child incomes over a greater number of years. He found that income heritability was more like 50 to 60 percent. Mazumder later recalculated Solon’s PSID-based findings applying a more sophisticated statistical model and found that income heritability was about 60 percent. Then, in a 2004 study, Mazumder approached the question from a different angle, examining the correlation in incomes among siblings, using longitudinal survey data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That put income heritability at about 50 percent. “The sibling correlation in economic outcomes and human capital are larger than the sibling correlation in a variety of other outcomes including some measures of physical attributes,” Mazumder wrote. Most strikingly, he found that income among brothers actually correlated more closely than height and weight. I am less the master of my fate than I am of my body mass index.
Source.Maybe you guys are just uninformed. Or maybe you think that this incredible heritability, an attribute totally out of someone's control, is alright, so long as we preserve the freedom to hold onto the wealth you have accumulated and are free in the future to continue accumulating more wealth. At least, that is, if you are the privileged minority with the wealth to begin with. You can't value individual sovereignty and try to both lift some people up, and take some people down. That's not individuals making choices, that's the state coming in and saying "you've done too much, let me take some." What is free about that? What's free about you deciding when someone has too much? What's wrong with children getting their parents money? What's free about taking private property from people and telling them "no, you can't decide where that goes, we do." You assume that all wealth comes at the expense of someone else. That the rich are only rich because everyone else is a sucker or unable to overcome their own circumstances. This is of course historically false, but climbing to the top is rare. Do people do easy things or hard things? Easy, obviously. So why are you surprised it's so unbalanced? Do you actually think if everyone started off even that they would all end even? + Show Spoiler +Moreover, I don't understand the view that more bureaucrats or laws help anyone. Government collusion with large corporations is one reason we are where we are. The fewer people in control, the worse it gets. They will, as you seem to desire, impose their morality on everyone else. It is wrong for you to have this much! Things will never be fully equal, they may not even be close to equal. But let the cream rise to the crop, don't squash some so that others are brought up. Don't subsidize those who are not willing to do the work. Some are in very deep ruts, it's true. But don't tinker with the whole society just for that. No "fundamental transformation" is necessary. This is why no one here will ever agree. The values are different. You clearly don't value individual sovereignty as much as you value the ever elusive state of "equality." This is why no one will change their mind. Edit: I obviously support some rules, don't get the idea that I want nothing but cave men running around. You are jumping to a false conclusion. It's not like I'm advocating a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. I'm advocating a system wherein the actual socio-economic starting point for everyone maximizes their personal sovereignty by providing an equitable, solid base (I'm not inclined to put a number on it, but let's just say a middle-class position). That is the only way to actually ensure a kind of equality of opportunity that matters. I do not think everyone will "end even." But the object of life is not to have the highest wealth accumulation score. No one is worth a billion other people, even if those people are Somalis, rural Chinese, or whatever. Likewise, I am advocating a system that makes it difficult or impossible to accumulate as much wealth as the 300 richest Americans have accumulated. Despite what you think, the planet is finite, and there are a finite amount of resources. It's unethical and obscene that the richest people in this world have as much as they do, while the poorest people in this world start with nothing. Starting with nothing is equivalent to an economic, intellectual, and social maiming. And the butcher is the liberal regime. You are sacrificing billions of people to the meat grinder, now, and in the future, and your argument is, "well they aren't being productive enough, they just need to tighten their belts and work harder at FoxConn." On December 11 2013 15:12 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 14:42 Livelovedie wrote:On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 03:24 KwarK wrote:
American exceptionalism. They're too free to be constrained by facts. Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear. I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.
President Barack Obama I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.) The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:On December 09 2013 14:18 HunterX11 wrote:On December 09 2013 14:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Unless you're talking about seriously depressed regions, anyone who is a hard worker can get a job if they want one. Hell, people who are really good at whatever they do professionally will always find work one way or another. And I'm not talking about shit jobs at McDonald's or Walmart, either. Part of my job is to deal with people who have shit happen to them. Without exception, those who are legitimately hard workers and who aren't completely compromised (like some of my brain injured clients) have no problem finding work and getting hired. On the other hand, I also have clients who are lazy, and they, unsurprisingly, have trouble getting employment or staying employed. Things aren't so bad that determined people can't find work. Are you saying then that increases in structural unemployment are caused by a mass increase in laziness? Even if they were, shouldn't we do something about that more than just telling people to get tougher? Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 09 2013 12:40 Livelovedie wrote:On December 09 2013 12:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
What does Europe have to do with the TPP? Regardless, I don't see how your argument makes sense. We pay countries for the things we buy from them. They don't deserve extras like free IP on top of it. Meant TPP, my apologies. You made it seem like the US has leverage to dictate the agreement, but I don't see how they do. So your ultimatum makes no sense. I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Removing freedom from some can create a more free society in general. Unless you feel that freedom to be coerced is in fact freedom. The devil's in the details when you speak of a "more free society in general." I mean, let's appoint angels that will deem which of society need sacrifice their freedom for the whole. Otherwise, I'm more concerned that the ruling class will pick based on political considerations. (May I also suggest slightly tongue-in-cheek that every person here would stand at attention and say, "I am not the one that needs to sacrifice freedom") On December 11 2013 14:42 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 12:58 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 12:18 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 11:34 Danglars wrote:On December 11 2013 07:31 IgnE wrote:On December 11 2013 05:50 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Our current president marks a departure from the belief in American exceptionalism. He'll mince words, all right, but the point is clear.
[quote]
I'm not the best guy to sell the principles of liberty and freedom (really, individual sovereignty) to a society increasingly disillusioned with them. I want opportunity for all, but hold the minority view of how to achieve this in this forum. The majority holds that some liberties and some freedoms specifically must be forfeited to an extent with the goal of achieving societal goods. The primary ones coming up here are an improvement in the plight of the poor, the environment, a sense of fairness, and a notion of equality. Simultaneously, big businesses are subject to distrust, and suppose levels of federal government and government bureaucrats to largely have trustworthy aims (subjected to analysis, I have no doubt a reasonable reader will find this to be true. See posts Walmart/Pharmaceutical Company evils followed by others governed by the generalized supposition that bureaucrats are not just throwing money at the problem.)
The heralds of American Unexceptionalism have a firm grasp on government right now, if you ask me. Not a very popular government at all, either. Equality of opportunity is nothing but a fiction in a society with vast wealth inequality. As I said, forfeit freedoms in pursuit of a notion of equality. Because On December 09 2013 15:08 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 14:37 xDaunt wrote:[quote] Who says that there has been an increase in structural unemployment since 2008 when the market turned? This report to Congress says that the current high rate of unemployment is predominantly cyclical. And no, I'm not saying that "laziness" is what resulted in people losing their jobs to begin with. What I am saying is that people who legitimately are good workers (and want to work) seem to have no trouble getting employed when they lose their jobs for reasons outside of their control. How many of you have actually had to hire a new employee or otherwise dealt with these issues from the perspective of the employer? It's a real pain in the ass. There are so many people out there who are just lousy workers. The good ones are really hard to find, because they all have jobs. It's fine for you to say that about professionals with "marketable" skills but when was the last time you were an aging senior who lost his job and pension trying to find some new employment? Or a young recent college grad trying to get experience and develop the expertise you say will find determined individuals a living wage? It's news to me that most people on UI for 90 weeks are established professionals with expertise who are just too lazy to get a new job. Seniors and On December 09 2013 15:04 IgnE wrote:On December 09 2013 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I don't think we can dictate an agreement, but we do have lots of leverage. We're a great customer, and they have to buy dollar assets anyways. IP is silly. Rent-seeking capitalists trying to propertize ideas. evil capitalists. You have a penchant for dismissing things out of hand and quickly too. I suppose you have your own theory about how to preserve a level of opportunity in society, or do you say that none should exist? Dismissing you quickly has little to do with my own internal critical method does it? Are you saying something I've never heard before? Or do you want me to put words in your mouth and then shoot it down so you can scream "straw man" at me? I'm simply replying to your inane comment that you idolize "freedom" so long as "freedom" is defined as being stuck with whatever random lot you drew in the birth lottery. What an empty yarn you spin. Freedom for those born in poverty is hardly freedom at all. But god forbid everyone be given a base standard of living, because that would harm their delicate "will to succeed" and act as an anchor on "freedom." You have so much criticism for anything and everything about letting individuals pursue their separate interests. I expand on American exceptionalism and the ideas running contrary to it. You retort by embodying every stereotype of the everlasting critic. Who are these angels that will stand up to your ... but seniors
but evil capitalists
but inequality? As long as these are governments made up of humans to govern humans, I'll settle for less than utopia. And you'll settle for what, exactly? The days when you can no longer pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. On December 11 2013 12:31 IgnE wrote:
Let's do a thought experiment:
Let's assume everyone is born and raised with the strong, sensible work ethic of Danglars and xDaunt. Everyone avoids crime, graduates from high school (goes to college? not sure if you guys think everyone has to go to college to succeed or not), works hard, and shows up early to whatever job they can get (McDonalds or equivalent for the bottom 20%).
1) can everyone find full time employment?
2) can everyone find a fulfilling job?
3) can everyone eventually find financial security (how do you want to define this? house? family? debt?)
4) can every single person work their way up from mcdonalds to something like high-level management (i'm not really sure what you two aspire to do with your life or what you think is worthwhile, other than accumulating things and being free from taxes)?
5) will there be less inequality or will the floor of the bottom quintile somehow reach what we would consider "middle class" today?
I get the feeling that you two don't really understand that implicit in your system is the damnation of a large percentage of people to toil, poverty, and unhappiness, and that this is an always already condition of the system. What do you really think would happen if everyone took advantage of the (meagre) opportunities you both assume exist for every single person? The moral of the story is you can't trust the system. I'm sure you have in mind something that outperforms what you deem "meagre opportunities." I mean, even as you ignore that what was middle class luxuries yesterday are reachable by the bottom quintile today. I have nothing against freedom. I highly value personal sovereignty. I value it so highly that I want to maximize it for every individual by removing liberty-reducing factors like poverty and disadvantage. Yes, this comes at the cost of disproportionate, unearned, and unjust, wealth disparities that are largely a product of inherited advantages, luck, and/or systemic force multipliers. But your criticism is that I am only a critic. I have no answers for you. As Badiou would say: "better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent." If your best argument is that I don't have all the answers, then so be it. Your continued participation and advocacy for the current system sustains the immense systemic violence inherent in the current neoliberal, free-market capitalist world order. What do you expect of me, really? Either I have a roadmap to utopia, or I must be complicit in your violent regime? Surely, you must realize that being for "removing poverty and disadvantage" is like saying you're for apple pies and motherhood. It's your views on how this should be accomplished and by whom that will make or break your views on personal liberties. If you'll pardon me, but many presidents and political parties of all stripes and colors have said exactly what you say now. I'm against injustice and for freedom. It's their means of achieving this that's in question. The question is if utopia is unachievable (your chief gripe about equality of opportunity), and my preference is meager in this or impossible in that, then what structures would you erect to outperform what I have just described? Criticism is fine and dandy in my book, provided deep down that critic has thought through his own positions and believes them superior, and is furthermore willing to defend them. I can't go much farther in the other issues. You reject the proposed causes, and you deny your opponents any empathy with the poor (as has echoed from leftist demagogues from one generation to the next). Maybe I may side with Franklin, who wrote In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety .Please link your sources from the United Kingdom Gallup-Heathways so we know this is not a poll conducted of UK Income Groups -- particularly when it divides up income groups in pounds As I said, sometimes doing nothing is the appropriate answer to a system of ongoing violence. A Bartlebian repudiation can have more effect than reactionary outbursts of irrational violence, especially when the direction out is not clear. But you believe in magic and fairy tales, while rejecting other solutions out of naked greed. The evidence of the last 30 years shows that the current system leads to more of the same. Worsening inequality. Lower socio-economic mobility. Decreasing freedom. One starting point would be providing a minimum income to people that would lower the floor and improve opportunities for the bottom quintile or quartile. Instead you say that that would disincentivize people from working at Arby's. You willingly throw away the brains of millions, if not billions of people, by having them spend their days doing menial tasks for pennies, because it's more efficient for the accumulation of capital (at least in the short term). Liberalism is a meatgrinder that chews up individual subjective experiences of life and spits out profit for the capitalist. What might happen if we truly offered equality of opportunity to as many people as possible by ridding them of the extreme stresses and strains of wage slavery, where people's labor is simply a commodity to be bought and sold for the lowest price possible? If you think this is the best there is, you lack imagination. As a side note, the American colonies in the 18th century were much more egalitarian than now. I know you love the sacred Founding Fathers but it's a bit ridiculous to take it seriously when they violently took land from the indigenous peoples here before them. It's nice to talk about freedom for the white man when you are plundering resources and turning land you found into your own property. Please tell me how circumstances back then, where you had a thousands miles of continent to steal to your west, are in any way applicable to now? But yes, I concede the indigenous folks weren't efficiently using their resources and land for the accumulation of capital. I'm about to go to sleep, so I am not going to argue particulars with you. Moreover, I contend that you do Show nested quote +advocate "a society that forcibly takes from the rich and gives to the poor, at regular intervals, in an on-going and continuous fashion by some Big Brother, bureaucrat-laden government. The latter portion is simply a requirement of the former part. People will naturally acquire wealth and power, thus it is necessary for such an "ideal" society to regularly do these things and maintain equilibrium (most likely through their government, no?). "The only type of opportunity that matters." Your view is that it simply isn't fair that some people start off better. It's best that some be brought down so everyone can start with 5k in the bank upon their 18th birthday, free education, and maybe even a house. This planet contains billions of people, and unless you keep everyone regular and the same, no one should be successful. You can't force that type of equality. If person A uses this opportunity and makes a fortune (but not "too much," whatever that means) and person B takes it and gambles it away, then I would expect person A to do better, for their children to do better, for their community to do better, etc. Your view forces a big fat "RESET" button for every new person while trying to split the (now limited) cash/assets among everyone (this is the limiting you fear, ironically enough). If you limited profits, you limit the will of a company/person to hire more and spread more wealth, as well as improve the quality of life. If Microsoft was limited to 1 billion in profits every year, than what is their incentive to innovate, to expand, to provide more jobs? They hit the cap and will be like "well, if we make more, we have it taken from us. We'll just sit on our hands until something changes." If you just put a cap on it (either officially having an $X amount or by raising taxes absurdly high), you kill incentive. No one will go to the heights, except to gain power they hope to use later, to influence those setting the rules (which is currently happening). You seem to expect everyone who works for something do it because they are passionate about it and care about the good of humanity. Oh, if only it were possible! Some people just ARE harder workers, some just ARE more driven. The object of life for most is not the have as much $$$ as possible. I agree. But for those who value such things, why do you get to shut them down? Why is it up to you to decide "obscene?" Variants of capitalism have rapidly decreased poverty across the entire world. The problem with the progressive idea is that they are trying to change human nature. People are so radically different, and life is so complex, that you cannot organize this society you desire. There is too much to manage, and it is too prone to abuse, not by the greedy fat cats that you hate, but by the busybody, life-planning bureaucrats who thirst for power, in whatever form- monetary or otherwise. Moreover, I don't want this type of society. I don't value ease and a level starting ground. life isn't a chess set, and how boring would it be if your life consisted of NOTHING outside the game? Only a few in the world like any one thing that much. Your view sounds nice to you I'm sure, but it's not practicable. Maybe a small scale, but the more people you have, the more entropy you introduce. As to your little note about the Founding fathers/framers- What about stealing Indian land was egalitarian? It certainly wasn't in the way you are advocating. I can admit this country has done some pretty bad things. But I don't see the relevance. Sorry if I was kind of all over the place, trying to get this out before bed.
Welp, you caught me. There will have to a forcible redistribution of wealth.
Microsoft is like the worst example you could possibly pick. The software industry is perhaps the iconic example of people doing productive work without the money incentives that you conservatives seem to think drive all behavior. Free software (in both senses of the word free, free to use, and free to modify and distribute) is better than Microsoft's products in almost every way. It's also absurd to think that Bill Gates needed a future promise of $100B to develop the software ideas he had before putting the rent-extracting machine on autopilot.
I meant that the colonists were more egalitarian in that inequality was lower (even counting slaves, but much more so if slaves are ignored) than today's society. Oh, and ALSO they were free to plunder a bunch of resources and land from their neighbors. It's easier to advocate a bit less redistribution from your own upper class if you can offer ambitious poor people the wealth of your neighbors isn't it?
|
Thought this was interesting:
The winners and losers of the Murray-Ryan budget deal
Winners
...
Big oil: The US and Mexico can drill jointly for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, as they agreed in Los Cabos in 2012. That's a huge win for big drilling companies that waited for the agreement to be approved.
Losers
...
Big oil: Yes, Big Oil is both a winner and a loser in this deal, although its losses aren't so great. While it gets the Gulf of Mexico, the industry is going to make less money from its drilling agreements with the US government.
Link
I hope this is used as a model for compromise on similar energy issues going forward. Let the activity take place, but if you don't like it, charge more for it via taxes and royalties.
|
On December 12 2013 07:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 07:18 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:58 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism. Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up. You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would. I didn't say that I know nothing about the economy, just that I don't know the particulars of everything. On a broad note, I think Cronysim and loss of freedom should be enough to give us pause at all but the smallest of government intrusions. I simply think markets would do a better job dealing with such issues. I never claimed that any market was perfect, I just think that one is better than the other. I'm not advocating full and total economic anarchy, if you will. Even the founders placed rules (Commerce clause to regulate the states when they were at odds with each other, or the federal government's broad power in terms of international trade.) And since I dont have sub40apm here to contradict me, I'm just going to use the example of the stimulus, tarp, etc, for failures. None of them came close to doing what they were supposed to do. All I hear now is democrat damage control "Well it wasn't enough, but at least it didn't make anything worse!" I've asked for this several times now in this thread: Where has government intervention made anything better? Where has the idea of free markets failed? (Hell, how often are they tried? Was Reagan the last one to even try?)Government succes is the exception, not the rule. One reason this area gets on my nerves is because the common attack AND defense of both sides is that "well, when that happened, the situation was different!" This is why I avoid particulars, though I could delve into them somewhat if needed. For instance, you (or someone) is possibly crafting a response as to why the stimulus was a good thing. The first sentance of that response will make very clear to explain why it a different situation and that all that was needed was more. A fine point to make, when what you advocate for never actually happened, and any disagreement can be chocked up to "that was a different time." Anyway, I'm off to my next class, but I would be happy to continue later. I feel like your view is just lead by the ideological belief that government is always inefficient with no real knowledge on what a world without a government is. Also the last part of your comment is just pointing out why economy is a flawed "science" and why most politicians are retards. Yes, answers to specific problems are always different because the historical context is always different : it is always "a different time". Keynes was never for "a big government" (and communists were no either, altho that's another matter) he was for contre cyclical stimulus : stimulus and government investment in difficult time, and a low government in good economic times. Your view of a "small government" cannot work everywhere and everytime because nothing is "everything equal" in real life. I'm pretty sure a healthy society, with a good sense of social justice, a good relationship between all the social class, could almost function with a minimal government, but that society could not live long and it's certainly not today's society.
I'm not advocating a world without government, how many times do I have to say that? We haven't had such a thing in how many thousands of years (and earlier)?
My view, gleaned from thought and examination, is that government is on balance, in America, more harmful when it tries to interject into matters inappropriate for it, or matters where some power is to be gained and held by the political elite.
This is why I don't go to the UK thread, or any other European thread. If it works for them, great, I don't really care. If they are willing to make the trade-offs, it's up to them.
Welp, you caught me. There will have to a forcible redistribution of wealth.
Microsoft is like the worst example you could possibly pick. The software industry is perhaps the iconic example of people doing productive work without the money incentives that you conservatives seem to think drive all behavior. Free software (in both senses of the word free, free to use, and free to modify and distribute) is better than Microsoft's products in almost every way. It's also absurd to think that Bill Gates needed a future promise of $100B to develop the software ideas he had before putting the rent-extracting machine on autopilot.
I meant that the colonists were more egalitarian in that inequality was lower (even counting slaves, but much more so if slaves are ignored) than today's society. Oh, and ALSO they were free to plunder a bunch of resources and land from their neighbors. It's easier to advocate a bit less redistribution from your own upper class if you can offer ambitious poor people the wealth of your neighbors isn't it?
I already said that cash is not the only motive for things. (But once Microsoft got to a billion in profits, I'm pretty sure money became a huge, overriding factor... Even if this was not the case when Gates was in his garage.) So no, independent people who do that sort of work are precisely the people that benefit from a market and system with as few rules as possible. Be they cash seekers or not. It's the danger of Microsoft getting cozy with politicians that scares me. You know, just like Hollywood and all those internet regulation bills.
I still don't get your colonist point. The conservatives in the thread have already made it clear that an equality gap is not something of upmost import, if it means anything at all.
I get your second part of that, but it's still not relevant. Are you saying that they would have been less modern day right wing if they didn't have other people's land to give away? You couldn't possibly know that.You could argue that it was be easier for the people to accept it because they were just taking land from "savages" but I would argue that a land scarcity would actually make the rich ones be even less inclined to do any redistribution. "What if they come for me next?" I must be missing something here.
|
|
|
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete. But more than that, they were obscene to begin with.
|
On December 12 2013 07:18 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 06:58 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:04 Mercy13 wrote:[quote] Except most people aren't getting richer, let alone everyone: [quote] Source[quote] SourceI wouldn't care about the equality gap either if people's basic needs (healthcare, education, etc.) were met in our society, but they manifestly are not. The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism. Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up. You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would. I didn't say that I know nothing about the economy, just that I don't know the particulars of everything. On a broad note, I think Cronysim and loss of freedom should be enough to give us pause at all but the smallest of government intrusions. I simply think markets would do a better job dealing with such issues. I never claimed that any market was perfect, I just think that one is better than the other. I'm not advocating full and total economic anarchy, if you will. Even the founders placed rules (Commerce clause to regulate the states when they were at odds with each other, or the federal government's broad power in terms of international trade.) And since I dont have sub40apm here to contradict me, I'm just going to use the example of the stimulus, tarp, etc, for failures. None of them came close to doing what they were supposed to do. All I hear now is democrat damage control "Well it wasn't enough, but at least it didn't make anything worse!" I've asked for this several times now in this thread: Where has government intervention made anything better? Where has the idea of free markets failed? (Hell, how often are they tried? Was Reagan the last one to even try?)Government succes is the exception, not the rule. One reason this area gets on my nerves is because the common attack AND defense of both sides is that "well, when that happened, the situation was different!" This is why I avoid particulars, though I could delve into them somewhat if needed. For instance, you (or someone) is possibly crafting a response as to why the stimulus was a good thing. The first sentance of that response will make very clear to explain why it a different situation and that all that was needed was more. A fine point to make, when what you advocate for never actually happened, and any disagreement can be chocked up to "that was a different time." Anyway, I'm off to my next class, but I would be happy to continue later.
When I refer to "market failure" I am not commenting directly on the bailouts. "Market" doesn't just refer to the financial markets, it refers to any system where individuals trade resources with a goal of maximizing their own rational self-interest.
You think that "markets would do a better job dealing with such issues" without (I think) developing any understanding of the problems free markets create. I freely acknowledge that government intervention in markets also creates inefficiencies, but sometimes these inefficiencies are less than those created by the market acting alone. I don't claim to know what the correct level of government intervention should be in a given situation, but your knee-jerk reaction against ANY level of government intervention in most cases is unrealistic.
Just as an example, consider the healthcare market pre-ACA. It wasn't working, on any sort of objective measure. Costs were spiraling up, and millions of Americans were forced into bankruptcy by medical costs even though they had health insurance which they believed was adequate. Many other millions of people didn't have insurance at all, and depended on the insured to pay for their emergency room visits.
I believe that this situation was untenable, and some level of government intervention was necessary. The ACA created a system with a minimal level of intervention into the insurance market, and in time it may help to address some of these issues. Personally I think the ACA involves too much of an effort to work within the existing market system rather than instigating meaningful reform, but, practically speaking, it's probably the best we can hope for at this time.
Anyway, this is getting beyond my point that significant government intervention is needed in some areas, including healthcare, where it has been demonstrated that the free market is not capable of providing adequate service. The level and manner of government intervention represented by the ACA may not be the correct approach, but this is not an argument against government intervention in general.
|
On December 12 2013 11:37 IgnE wrote:
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete.
I'm pretty sure you mentioned them first. Edit: or maybe it was in response to the Franklin quote.
Were they hypocrites in some ways? Yes. Do we still advocate slavery like some of them did? No. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You seem to have some context of what they said and what they did, but only part of it. Go read something besides Zinn and get back to me. It's like saying you don't like abortion because Margret Sanger was a nasty, racist person. Besides, many of the founders/framers did hate slavery! If you like, I could just quote those ones at you
Freedom wasn't just land to them, it was ability for one to do as one wishes, to own things, use their own time as they see fit, etc. You yourself advocate a system where people's stuff is forcibly taken from them! But in your mind "this time they deserve to have it taken." it's like dismissing everything you say because you are rich enough to own a computer. I could just as well advocate that we take from you and ship to Africa.
You advocate the same thing, it's just that your tolerance for taking is different.
|
On December 12 2013 11:41 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 07:18 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:58 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:40 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 06:23 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 06:08 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2013 05:38 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 05:23 Jormundr wrote:On December 12 2013 05:19 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The system I'm advocating isn't in place though, only strange versions of it. (Which still cause the worldwide poverty rate to fall.) The past 100 years has been dominated by progressive thought and government. Look where we are. The war on poverty? Failed (considering the $$ sunk into it). Medicare? Going broke. Social Security? Going broke. You can't honestly use what we have now as a critique of the conservative position, because this is nowhere close to it. One of the reasons that your hated fat cats are so powerful is precisely because you have increased the government's authority and role in the economy and people's daily lives. You don't think I'm merely advocating the status quo, do you? The closer this system moves towards total government control, the worse it gets. Do tell us your position and how you're going to fix everything. I'm just gonna pull an Igne and reserve the right to merely remian critical. But in all seriousness, I'm not going to go over every detail here. I'm sure that by following this thread, you have gathered some information on what the general conservative position is. An obvious, important consideration is how to undo the failures of the progressive movement while hurting as few as possible. But broadly speaking, I would roll back the power of government and return them to original constitutional principles. Not every department is useless. As a chemistry major, I kind of appreicate the work the FDA does when it comes to the approval and disapproval of drugs and such. (At the same time, I am dreading the onerous and slow operation of the agency.) That being said, if a state by state solution could be found, I would prefer that. I'm not in favor of just banning things like trans fats though, that's idiotic. That's the type of thing that needs to disappear. I really don't have time to go over everything, nor do I have all the answers. But that hardly makes me unique here. Out of curiosity, would you agree or disagree that the role of government should be limited to correcting market failures? I ask because I think that a government that limited itself in this way would necessarily be very big, probably bigger than what we have today. However, if you think that the government should not correct market failures, then you are allowing a whole lot of people to be screwed over. Basically throw equality of opportunity and basic living standards out the window. This is an entire subject in itself that has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, I really don't have time to get into it. I'll put it this way: I'm not convinced that the businesses going to lawmakers for taxpayer $$$ fixes anything, it just lines their own pockets. It seems that at best you could argue it's the classic case of removing a band-aid. Do it quickly wih more pain (but is over quickly) or slowly with less pain at any instant (but the pain lasts longer). I disagree with your last 2 sentances, but again, I don't really have time to move into such a massive topic. It doesn't seem to me that the decent way of life we have now is the result of government, but in spite of it. I think you may not be familiar with the concept of market failure... understandable if you study chemistry, I suppose. I suggest you take a couple minutes to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure. Basically there are many instances where free markets lead to inefficient results, and some people argue that government's role should be to intervene to correct these inefficiencies by, for example, creating the FDA. I would only expect complete efficiency if I expected everyone on the market to predict everything perfectly, or succeed at all their goals. I'm more a fan of the wait-it-out solution. Again, things like the FDA are fine lines for me because I can see that the FDA has actually accomplished things (as in prevented bads drugs from going to market). But, what good drugs have the stopped from being sold, and for what reasons? How expensive has the FDA made the research-to-market process? What stupid rules have they put in place? How are we going to limit them when they have no direct accountability? I think if you add more players (espeically large ones like governments) you necessarily increase inefficiency, it's just hidden behind the taxes. I'd leave it to the market. I trust people who have their own self-interest at heart to make better market decisons than a bunch of politicians (who ultimately are the ones who decide.) Never mind the corruption factor. But here we begin wandering out of my area. My postion is derived from the idea of maximum freedom and a look at what I see. And all I see everytime government gets involved is failure and cronyism. Government introduces inefficiency, it's true, but free markets do as well. You apparently have very strong views on this subject despite not being familiar with all the ways free markets can screw things up. You seem to believe that the inefficiency introduced by government intervention in free markets is necessarily greater than the inefficiency created by the markets themselves. Why do you believe this? I can think of many examples where government intervention leads to greater efficiency than a free market system would. I didn't say that I know nothing about the economy, just that I don't know the particulars of everything. On a broad note, I think Cronysim and loss of freedom should be enough to give us pause at all but the smallest of government intrusions. I simply think markets would do a better job dealing with such issues. I never claimed that any market was perfect, I just think that one is better than the other. I'm not advocating full and total economic anarchy, if you will. Even the founders placed rules (Commerce clause to regulate the states when they were at odds with each other, or the federal government's broad power in terms of international trade.) And since I dont have sub40apm here to contradict me, I'm just going to use the example of the stimulus, tarp, etc, for failures. None of them came close to doing what they were supposed to do. All I hear now is democrat damage control "Well it wasn't enough, but at least it didn't make anything worse!" I've asked for this several times now in this thread: Where has government intervention made anything better? Where has the idea of free markets failed? (Hell, how often are they tried? Was Reagan the last one to even try?)Government succes is the exception, not the rule. One reason this area gets on my nerves is because the common attack AND defense of both sides is that "well, when that happened, the situation was different!" This is why I avoid particulars, though I could delve into them somewhat if needed. For instance, you (or someone) is possibly crafting a response as to why the stimulus was a good thing. The first sentance of that response will make very clear to explain why it a different situation and that all that was needed was more. A fine point to make, when what you advocate for never actually happened, and any disagreement can be chocked up to "that was a different time." Anyway, I'm off to my next class, but I would be happy to continue later. When I refer to "market failure" I am not commenting directly on the bailouts. "Market" doesn't just refer to the financial markets, it refers to any system where individuals trade resources with a goal of maximizing their own rational self-interest. You think that "markets would do a better job dealing with such issues" without (I think) developing any understanding of the problems free markets create. I freely acknowledge that government intervention in markets also creates inefficiencies, but sometimes these inefficiencies are less than those created by the market acting alone. I don't claim to know what the correct level of government intervention should be in a given situation, but your knee-jerk reaction against ANY level of government intervention in most cases is unrealistic. Just as an example, consider the healthcare market pre-ACA. It wasn't working, on any sort of objective measure. Costs were spiraling up, and millions of Americans were forced into bankruptcy by medical costs even though they had health insurance which they believed was adequate. Many other millions of people didn't have insurance at all, and depended on the insured to pay for their emergency room visits. I believe that this situation was untenable, and some level of government intervention was necessary. The ACA created a system with a minimal level of intervention into the insurance market, and in time it may help to address some of these issues. Personally I think the ACA involves too much of an effort to work within the existing market system rather than instigating meaningful reform, but, practically speaking, it's probably the best we can hope for at this time. Anyway, this is getting beyond my point that significant government intervention is needed in some areas, including healthcare, where it has been demonstrated that the free market is not capable of providing adequate service. The level and manner of government intervention represented by the ACA may not be the correct approach, but this is not an argument against government intervention in general.
I already said, I don't fully expect it to perform at 100% all the time. And I don't have a knee-jerk reaction, I've given examples of government involvement (or state government involvement) that would be at least neutral. But thought, reading, and study have brought me to the place where I think (especially nowadays) that the government causes more failure than success, even if it takes decades (like SS and Medicare).
I don't get why it's so hard for everyone to understand that I'm not advocating some sort of free-for-all shootout.
The system before this was hardly a free market one. It was heavily regulated, no cross state purchases, for example. It was no free market failure. The ACA is a burning wreck, but time will eventually reveal this to everyone. It was a classic power grab, ~85% of the 85% of people who had healthcare liked what they had. But yet, the whole system had to be subject to thousands of pages of new law and thousands more of new regulation for a small %. That's not "minimal involvement." Instead of taking baby steps, the government got as much as they could, politically. And now, every time they reveal that something was a flat out lie, we have to hear about how it was ok because it was for our own good.
|
On December 12 2013 11:37 IgnE wrote:
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete. But more than that, they were obscene to begin with.
Per capita, I'm not sure that any country has more citizens that hate their country than the US. The amount of irrational guilt from the American left never ceases to astound me. You want to know why people on the right so openly question the patriotism of those on the left? Shit like this. And just to be clear. I don't have a beef with acknowledging the history. I just take exception to the profane judgment.
|
How are SS and Medicare not successes? O_o
|
On December 12 2013 12:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 11:37 IgnE wrote:
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete. But more than that, they were obscene to begin with. Per capita, I'm not sure that any country has more citizens that hate their country than the US. The amount of irrational guilt from the American left never ceases to astound me. You want to know why people on the right so openly question the patriotism of those on the left? Shit like this. And just to be clear. I don't have a beef with acknowledging the history. I just take exception to the profane judgment.
It's easier to bring about "fundamental transformation" when you teach people to hate your country the way it is and the principles it was founded on. It's perfectly logical for the left's intellectual leaders, I'll bet.
|
On December 12 2013 12:04 aksfjh wrote:
How are SS and Medicare not successes? O_o
They are in the process of failing. You know, the whole "unsustainable" part. And what's the solution? MOAR MONEY. As it always is. That's why it's a failure. It will NEVER stop costing more, we just keep kicking the can down the road.
|
On December 12 2013 12:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 12:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 11:37 IgnE wrote:
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete. But more than that, they were obscene to begin with. Per capita, I'm not sure that any country has more citizens that hate their country than the US. The amount of irrational guilt from the American left never ceases to astound me. You want to know why people on the right so openly question the patriotism of those on the left? Shit like this. And just to be clear. I don't have a beef with acknowledging the history. I just take exception to the profane judgment. It's easier to bring about "fundamental transformation" when you teach people to hate your country the way it is, and the principles it was founded on. It's perfectly logical for the left's intellectual leaders, I'll bet.
Of course. I just wonder the extent to which the peons understand that they're being manipulated.
EDIT: Instead of peons, I should use the proper term: "useful idiots."
|
Which is exactly the sort of empty name calling that both sides can indulge in on a whim. No matter the words you choose, it isn't a very useful statement to make.
|
On December 12 2013 12:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 12:04 aksfjh wrote:
How are SS and Medicare not successes? O_o They are in the process of failing. You know, the whole "unsustainable" part. And what's the solution? MOAR MONEY. As it always is. That's why it's a failure. It will NEVER stop costing more, we just keep kicking the can down the road.
How is it unsustainable? A few minor tweaks to tax brackets and/or increased wages for the "middle class" and the "unsustainable" part is fixed. As for Medicare, it's more or less fine with medical costs getting under control.
|
On December 12 2013 12:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 12:05 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 12:02 xDaunt wrote:On December 12 2013 11:37 IgnE wrote:
I am arguing that the Founding Fathers are hypocrites, and that their political economy is based in a system wherein they can forcibly seize the land and resources of others at little cost to themselves. Pasting quotes about "freedom" from the Founding Fathers is gross because it decontextualizes the quotes, creating a palimpsest for conservatives to overlay their own definitions and ideologies. Don't paste quotes at me from genocidal slave owners who had thousands of miles of rich, fertile, resource-laden land that they propertized and claimed as their own. We don't exactly have the option of disconnecting from the system, going out to a pristine piece of land, and working it for ourselves do we? So those notions of "freedom" are obsolete. But more than that, they were obscene to begin with. Per capita, I'm not sure that any country has more citizens that hate their country than the US. The amount of irrational guilt from the American left never ceases to astound me. You want to know why people on the right so openly question the patriotism of those on the left? Shit like this. And just to be clear. I don't have a beef with acknowledging the history. I just take exception to the profane judgment. It's easier to bring about "fundamental transformation" when you teach people to hate your country the way it is, and the principles it was founded on. It's perfectly logical for the left's intellectual leaders, I'll bet. Of course. I just wonder the extent to which the peons understand that they're being manipulated. EDIT: Instead of peons, I should use the proper term: "useful idiots."
Hey, give him a break. We all know he had that special thrill going up on his leg when Obama was touring the world apologizing.
|
On December 12 2013 12:38 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 12:07 Introvert wrote:On December 12 2013 12:04 aksfjh wrote:
How are SS and Medicare not successes? O_o They are in the process of failing. You know, the whole "unsustainable" part. And what's the solution? MOAR MONEY. As it always is. That's why it's a failure. It will NEVER stop costing more, we just keep kicking the can down the road. How is it unsustainable? A few minor tweaks to tax brackets and/or increased wages for the "middle class" and the "unsustainable" part is fixed. As for Medicare, it's more or less fine with medical costs getting under control.
A few minor tweaks to tax brackets? LOL. I'm pretty sure that will stop the government from taking money out of SS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jeExycL.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ugPxNI3.png)
