|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Marxist rhetoric.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society.
Well Biff, that was a awesome post. A beautiful neo-conservative indirect troll. I'd ask if your serious or reading of a script, but a straight answer out someone like yourself might prove difficult. Almost (bill)Buckley, but keep trying.
The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving.
I love how your first insinuate he advocates the ideas that created the financial crisis. Leap of faith much? You're right on the 2008 crisis. He would not of bailed out the losers. The 3.3 trillion in spreadsheet reserves that was printed(zero's in a computer) may have still happened, but that's assuming he left Bernacke in the Fed, which I seriously doubt.I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money".
I'm nearly 100% sure you have no idea on the what when and why of expansion of the monetary base. I'm pretty sure what you do know you are attempting to twist.
The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it.
Yes. We spend too much, but the rate of growth(of the spending) is also way out of control, for our financial fragility.We've addressed 'taxes too low' in this thread, a hundred times at least. The ONLY way taxes are too low is if you insist on paying for all the ridiculous BS they continue to spend on.
Libertarians are trying to throw oil on the fire... The most laughable statement you made, possibly ever. This is for you and you alone Biffy+ Show Spoiler +
You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". First Libertarians, now Republicans? Republicans and democrats for the most part have little differences. They both at this point love the spending, only differ which pipeline to shove it down. Those two parties created the fire, and are the keeping the coals going.
Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society?
It stops when the militarism and the rampant, government sponsored speculation ends. I'm far from socialistic, but if you want progress., stop the killing, apply that money directly to social programs, and fix the system, while it's breaking, not after it's broken when tools like yourself can blame whoever you want and angry people will act on that information rather than think. I'd rather get facts into the open, not assumption, not failed monetary policy that looks more like smoke and mirrors than the bloated american criminal code(another thing due for a tune up).
Sorry, libertarians didn't make these problems. Neo-conservatives(world domination) and Neo-Liberals(social utopia) made these problems by pimping out Keynes work, and making it work a double shift in downtown detroit for union wages till no one wanted to buy her high price junk.
|
On October 31 2011 22:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 12:25 aksfjh wrote:
Higher taxes on the 1% to fund projects that we can all benefit from helps everybody. Upgrading a great deal of internet infrastructure alone would likely reduce costs for businesses as well as give the potential employees better options for employment in a sector that we could really grow globally: information service. Please clarify this proposal for me. Are you saying that you are in favor of corporate welfare (in the case of internet infrastructure)? If corporate welfare is fair game, what is the decision making process that determines which corporate welfare projects should be attempted? ***sips cup of tea; watches Biff shadow-box and declare himself winner***
Winner of what? You measuring the size of your e-penis?
|
On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society.
you're sooo wrong. The ideas that Ron Paul is promoting are those that haven't been followed in almost a century, and back when they were, they were responsible for the prosperity that we used to have.
|
On October 31 2011 22:58 Tien wrote:
Marxist rhetoric.
User was warned for this post
You have zero room to talk man. Your posts are tinged with racial hatred, and just almost enough to make my teeth clench when I read them.
|
On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them.
I have an other conception of what is a good society.
Can't tell if trolling or just stupid. (<-- I got warned for this bit. Don't use memes)
If anyone can become a big fish then it's perfectly fine. Let the small fish who deserve to become big, the ones that are clever, lucky and well-educated, let them become big and the ones who aren't pay the price.
The problem comes from when the big fish become so big that it's nigh impossible to become one of them when you start out as a little fish, or if you get to be a big fish purely by luck and none of the other things.
Our society isn't good but it's good compared to the other parts of the world.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 31 2011 23:14 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society. Well Biff, that was a awesome post. A beautiful neo-conservative indirect troll. I'd ask if your serious or reading of a script, but a straight answer out someone like yourself might prove difficult. Almost (bill)Buckley, but keep trying. Show nested quote +The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I love how your first insinuate he advocates the ideas that created the financial crisis. Leap of faith much? You're right on the 2008 crisis. He would not of bailed out the losers. The 3.3 trillion in spreadsheet reserves that was printed(zero's in a computer) may have still happened, but that's assuming he left Bernacke in the Fed, which I seriously doubt. Show nested quote +I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money".
I'm nearly 100% sure you have no idea on the what when and why of expansion of the monetary base. I'm pretty sure what you do know you are attempting to twist. Show nested quote +The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it.
Yes. We spend too much, but the rate of growth(of the spending) is also way out of control, for our financial fragility.We've addressed 'taxes too low' in this thread, a hundred times at least. The ONLY way taxes are too low is if you insist on paying for all the ridiculous BS they continue to spend on. Libertarians are trying to throw oil on the fire... The most laughable statement you made, possibly ever. This is for you and you alone Biffy + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". First Libertarians, now Republicans? Republicans and democrats for the most part have little differences. They both at this point love the spending, only differ which pipeline to shove it down. Those two parties created the fire, and are the keeping the coals going. Show nested quote +Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society?
It stops when the militarism and the rampant, government sponsored speculation ends. I'm far from socialistic, but if you want progress., stop the killing, apply that money directly to social programs, and fix the system, while it's breaking, not after it's broken when tools like yourself can blame whoever you want and angry people will act on that information rather than think. I'd rather get facts into the open, not assumption, not failed monetary policy that looks more like smoke and mirrors than the bloated american criminal code(another thing due for a tune up). Sorry, libertarians didn't make these problems. Neo-conservatives(world domination) and Neo-Liberals(social utopia) made these problems by pimping out Keynes work, and making it work a double shift in downtown detroit for union wages till no one wanted to buy her high price junk.
Ok, I'll try to make you a synthetic answer because I won't spend the three next days arguing with you, and also because the tone of your post is aggressive arrogant and annoying, and frankly, I had enough of that with TanGeng lastly.
We are in a historical movement that started thirty years ago and was initiated by Reagan in the US, Tatcher in the UK, and came from the theories of Friedman and the school of Chicago. In France we call their doctrine neo-liberalism. The idea was that the least state intervention you get, the least tax you put on company and the better the economy will do. And if the economy does well, everybody benefits.
That's what has been done.
That has been a worldwide movement of massive deregulation and of blind faith in the market to solve any problem at all. US have advocated these policy all over the world via aggressive commercial strategies, aggressive foreign policy and institutions such as the IMF.
Now. You libertarians are not very original. You advocate what is being done since the 80's, but you push the idea to the extreme. Instead of reducing the State intervention, which is already quite a bad idea, you ask for no state intervention at all. Instead of asking for deregulation, you ask for no regulation at all. You are just capitalist extremists. And you are part of the Republicans.
So yes, that's throwing oil on a fire.
Ron Paul is fashionable because he presents himself as an outsider. In fact his position is pretty much to come back to US economic and international policies of the 1920's.
If you want me to answer next time, relax, take a deep breath and stop talking like an arrogant prick. I am sure you are a civilized person and can respect people you talk with. If you can't, I won't bother.
|
On October 31 2011 22:04 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 12:25 aksfjh wrote:
Higher taxes on the 1% to fund projects that we can all benefit from helps everybody. Upgrading a great deal of internet infrastructure alone would likely reduce costs for businesses as well as give the potential employees better options for employment in a sector that we could really grow globally: information service. Please clarify this proposal for me. Are you saying that you are in favor of corporate welfare (in the case of internet infrastructure)? If corporate welfare is fair game, what is the decision making process that determines which corporate welfare projects should be attempted? ***sips cup of tea; watches Biff shadow-box and declare himself winner***
I don't see how that would be "corporate welfare" when individuals and corporations would benefit greatly from increased internet penetration and speeds. It's an investment in the sector of the economy we do well in, but has high start-up costs. They're basically e-roads.
If you want an easy-to-understand answer for your pointed question: Any corporate welfare which also gives individuals opportunities and freedoms should be attempted.
|
On October 31 2011 23:26 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them.
I have an other conception of what is a good society. Can't tell if trolling or just stupid. If anyone can become a big fish then it's perfectly fine. Let the small fish who deserve to become big, the ones that are clever, lucky and well-educated, let them become big and the ones who aren't pay the price. The problem comes from when the big fish become so big that it's nigh impossible to become one of them when you start out as a little fish, or if you get to be a big fish purely by luck and none of the other things. Our society isn't good but it's good compared to the other parts of the world.
Usually I tend to consider that people who need to start by insulting the people they talk with have a problem in life.
The problem is not that there are big fish and small fish. The problem is that big fish eat small fish. The problem is that if you are weak, in your society, you don't have a decent healthcare, access to a fair justice, or to a decent education for your kids. That you are not protected against an abusive employer. Etc etc etc...
Makes sense to you or will you keep needing insulting me?
Is it fashionable to behave like dogs in discussions among libertarians and far right people in general?
On October 31 2011 22:58 Tien wrote:
Marxist rhetoric.
User was warned for this post
I have absolutely no problem with that.
On October 31 2011 23:19 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society. you're sooo wrong. The ideas that Ron Paul is promoting are those that haven't been followed in almost a century, and back when they were, they were responsible for the prosperity that we used to have.
The good old time. When economic crisis were so violent that people were starving to death while companies were burning the food they couldn't sell.
|
On October 31 2011 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 23:14 BioNova wrote:On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society. Well Biff, that was a awesome post. A beautiful neo-conservative indirect troll. I'd ask if your serious or reading of a script, but a straight answer out someone like yourself might prove difficult. Almost (bill)Buckley, but keep trying. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I love how your first insinuate he advocates the ideas that created the financial crisis. Leap of faith much? You're right on the 2008 crisis. He would not of bailed out the losers. The 3.3 trillion in spreadsheet reserves that was printed(zero's in a computer) may have still happened, but that's assuming he left Bernacke in the Fed, which I seriously doubt. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money".
I'm nearly 100% sure you have no idea on the what when and why of expansion of the monetary base. I'm pretty sure what you do know you are attempting to twist. The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it.
Yes. We spend too much, but the rate of growth(of the spending) is also way out of control, for our financial fragility.We've addressed 'taxes too low' in this thread, a hundred times at least. The ONLY way taxes are too low is if you insist on paying for all the ridiculous BS they continue to spend on. Libertarians are trying to throw oil on the fire... The most laughable statement you made, possibly ever. This is for you and you alone Biffy + Show Spoiler +You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". First Libertarians, now Republicans? Republicans and democrats for the most part have little differences. They both at this point love the spending, only differ which pipeline to shove it down. Those two parties created the fire, and are the keeping the coals going. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society?
It stops when the militarism and the rampant, government sponsored speculation ends. I'm far from socialistic, but if you want progress., stop the killing, apply that money directly to social programs, and fix the system, while it's breaking, not after it's broken when tools like yourself can blame whoever you want and angry people will act on that information rather than think. I'd rather get facts into the open, not assumption, not failed monetary policy that looks more like smoke and mirrors than the bloated american criminal code(another thing due for a tune up). Sorry, libertarians didn't make these problems. Neo-conservatives(world domination) and Neo-Liberals(social utopia) made these problems by pimping out Keynes work, and making it work a double shift in downtown detroit for union wages till no one wanted to buy her high price junk. the tone of your post is aggressive arrogant and annoying
Hypocrisy meter is going through the roof.
|
We are in a historical movement that started thirty years ago and was initiated by Reagan in the US, Tatcher in the UK, and came from the theories of Friedman and the school of Chicago. In France we call their doctrine neo-liberalism. The idea was that the least state intervention you get, the least tax you put on company and the better the economy will do. And if the economy does well, everybody benefits.
That has been a worldwide movement of massive deregulation and of blind faith in the market to solve any problem at all. US have advocated these policy all over the world via aggressive commercial strategies, aggressive foreign policy and institutions such as the IMF.
Now. You libertarians are not very original. You advocate what is being done since the 80's, but you push the idea to the extreme. Instead of reducing the State intervention, which is already quite a bad idea, you ask for no state intervention at all. Instead of asking for deregulation, you ask for no regulation at all. You are just capitalist extremists. And you are part of the Republicans.
So yes, that's throwing oil on a fire.
Ron Paul is fashionable because he presents himself as an outsider. In fact his position is pretty much to come back to US economic and international policies of the 1920's.
If you want me to answer next time, relax, take a deep breath and stop talking like an arrogant prick. I am sure you are a civilized person and can respect people you talk with. If you can't, I won't bother.
we haven't de-regulated at all... If we were actively de-regulating, then the lobbyists would lose power not gain it.
The truth is we de-regulated some things, but regulated others even more, and in addition to that our monetary policy is trying to regulate the value of the dollar the most it ever has...
1% interest rates when the country is heavily in debt? you've gotta be kidding me
The good old time. When economic crisis were so violent that people were starving to death while Last edit: 2011-10-31 23:45:55
companies were burning the food they couldn't sell.
yeah... the late 1800's were NOTHING like that... If food has become more available to people it has only been through our advancements of technology not through government intervention.
|
On October 31 2011 23:44 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 23:14 BioNova wrote:On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society. Well Biff, that was a awesome post. A beautiful neo-conservative indirect troll. I'd ask if your serious or reading of a script, but a straight answer out someone like yourself might prove difficult. Almost (bill)Buckley, but keep trying. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I love how your first insinuate he advocates the ideas that created the financial crisis. Leap of faith much? You're right on the 2008 crisis. He would not of bailed out the losers. The 3.3 trillion in spreadsheet reserves that was printed(zero's in a computer) may have still happened, but that's assuming he left Bernacke in the Fed, which I seriously doubt. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money".
I'm nearly 100% sure you have no idea on the what when and why of expansion of the monetary base. I'm pretty sure what you do know you are attempting to twist. The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it.
Yes. We spend too much, but the rate of growth(of the spending) is also way out of control, for our financial fragility.We've addressed 'taxes too low' in this thread, a hundred times at least. The ONLY way taxes are too low is if you insist on paying for all the ridiculous BS they continue to spend on. Libertarians are trying to throw oil on the fire... The most laughable statement you made, possibly ever. This is for you and you alone Biffy + Show Spoiler +You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". First Libertarians, now Republicans? Republicans and democrats for the most part have little differences. They both at this point love the spending, only differ which pipeline to shove it down. Those two parties created the fire, and are the keeping the coals going. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society?
It stops when the militarism and the rampant, government sponsored speculation ends. I'm far from socialistic, but if you want progress., stop the killing, apply that money directly to social programs, and fix the system, while it's breaking, not after it's broken when tools like yourself can blame whoever you want and angry people will act on that information rather than think. I'd rather get facts into the open, not assumption, not failed monetary policy that looks more like smoke and mirrors than the bloated american criminal code(another thing due for a tune up). Sorry, libertarians didn't make these problems. Neo-conservatives(world domination) and Neo-Liberals(social utopia) made these problems by pimping out Keynes work, and making it work a double shift in downtown detroit for union wages till no one wanted to buy her high price junk. the tone of your post is aggressive arrogant and annoying Hypocrisy meter is going through the roof.
Well, I haven't felt the need to insult anybody here. Maybe you should reconsider your attitude?
|
On October 31 2011 23:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +
We are in a historical movement that started thirty years ago and was initiated by Reagan in the US, Tatcher in the UK, and came from the theories of Friedman and the school of Chicago. In France we call their doctrine neo-liberalism. The idea was that the least state intervention you get, the least tax you put on company and the better the economy will do. And if the economy does well, everybody benefits.
That has been a worldwide movement of massive deregulation and of blind faith in the market to solve any problem at all. US have advocated these policy all over the world via aggressive commercial strategies, aggressive foreign policy and institutions such as the IMF.
Now. You libertarians are not very original. You advocate what is being done since the 80's, but you push the idea to the extreme. Instead of reducing the State intervention, which is already quite a bad idea, you ask for no state intervention at all. Instead of asking for deregulation, you ask for no regulation at all. You are just capitalist extremists. And you are part of the Republicans.
So yes, that's throwing oil on a fire.
Ron Paul is fashionable because he presents himself as an outsider. In fact his position is pretty much to come back to US economic and international policies of the 1920's.
If you want me to answer next time, relax, take a deep breath and stop talking like an arrogant prick. I am sure you are a civilized person and can respect people you talk with. If you can't, I won't bother.
we haven't de-regulated at all... If we were actively de-regulating, then the lobbyists would lose power not gain it. The truth is we de-regulated some things, but regulated others even more, and in addition to that our monetary policy is trying to regulate the value of the dollar the most it ever has... 1% interest rates when the country is heavily in debt? you've gotta be kidding me
No deregulated anything? Maybe we live in different world?
Lobbyist exist because your companies are way too powerful and influential, and that your political system doesn't have any firewall against the interest of corporations. The simple fact that your , political campaign are financed by private interests is completely fucked up.
What you guys just don't get is that the interest of the corporations and the general interest is very often contradictory. And that society need rules to protect the general interest.
|
The problem is not that there are big fish and small fish. The problem is that big fish eat small fish. The problem is that if you are weak, in your society, you don't have a decent healthcare, access to a fair justice, or to a decent education for your kids. That you are not protected against an abusive employer. Etc etc etc...
Makes sense to you or will you keep needing insulting me?
Is it fashionable to behave like dogs in discussions among libertarians and far right people in general?
yeah you do get healthcare... Healthcare needs to be sold to people, you can't jack up the price on healthcare and still expect to compete, because it has a pretty inelastic demand. THe reason healthcare is so expensive today, is because government-supported corporatism has driven the lower class and middle-classes deep into the ground financially, and because of all the regulations that increase the price of healthcare drastically.
Way to call us dogs, and then deny hypocrisy when saying we're being aggressive in our arguments LOL.
|
On October 31 2011 23:53 Kiarip wrote:
Way to call us dogs, and then deny hypocrisy when saying we're being aggressive in our arguments LOL.
Saying that someone discusses or behave like a dog when he just insulted you isn't being aggressive. I don't think you insulted me, I haven't been aggressive one little bit towards you.
On October 31 2011 23:53 Kiarip wrote:
yeah... the late 1800's were NOTHING like that... If food has become more available to people it has only been through our advancements of technology not through government intervention.
Late 1800. You mean when workers were slaving 10 hours a day in factories without holidays.
Good old time. It was in fact so good that it's precisely when Marxism was born and that every ten of fifteen years, European armies had to repress in the blood workers insurrection...
|
On October 31 2011 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 23:46 Kiarip wrote:
We are in a historical movement that started thirty years ago and was initiated by Reagan in the US, Tatcher in the UK, and came from the theories of Friedman and the school of Chicago. In France we call their doctrine neo-liberalism. The idea was that the least state intervention you get, the least tax you put on company and the better the economy will do. And if the economy does well, everybody benefits.
That has been a worldwide movement of massive deregulation and of blind faith in the market to solve any problem at all. US have advocated these policy all over the world via aggressive commercial strategies, aggressive foreign policy and institutions such as the IMF.
Now. You libertarians are not very original. You advocate what is being done since the 80's, but you push the idea to the extreme. Instead of reducing the State intervention, which is already quite a bad idea, you ask for no state intervention at all. Instead of asking for deregulation, you ask for no regulation at all. You are just capitalist extremists. And you are part of the Republicans.
So yes, that's throwing oil on a fire.
Ron Paul is fashionable because he presents himself as an outsider. In fact his position is pretty much to come back to US economic and international policies of the 1920's.
If you want me to answer next time, relax, take a deep breath and stop talking like an arrogant prick. I am sure you are a civilized person and can respect people you talk with. If you can't, I won't bother.
we haven't de-regulated at all... If we were actively de-regulating, then the lobbyists would lose power not gain it. The truth is we de-regulated some things, but regulated others even more, and in addition to that our monetary policy is trying to regulate the value of the dollar the most it ever has... 1% interest rates when the country is heavily in debt? you've gotta be kidding me No deregulated anything? Maybe we live in different world?
read what I wrote. We've deregulated some things, but there have been more regulations than de-regulations passed.
And like I said what about our monetary system? it's more heavily regulated than ever, and it's arguably the most important thing.
Lobbyist exist because your companies are way too powerful and influential, and that your political system doesn't have any firewall against the interest of corporations.
And the only real firewall possible is to limit the power of government in the economy. Either that or just nationalize everything (which is obviously dumb.)
Lobbyists exist because the government has something to give them in return for their money... simple as that.
Maybe you want to limit the corporations profits so they can't offer politicians enough money, and then we'll turn around and wonder all our jobs went? truth is the corporations are always going to have more money than politicians.
The simple fact that your , political campaign are financed by private interests is completely fucked up.
IRONICALLY. Ron Paul's financial campaign is financed almost COMPLETELY by private individuals... says something doesn't it?
What you guys just don't get is that the interest of the corporations and the general interest is very often contradictory. And that society need rules to protect the general interest.
The interest of corporations is hedged by the interest of their revenue source as long as corporations aren't backed up by the government.
|
I can't tell which is worse, the agressive, insulting comments or the calm, condescending comments. That seems like a good example of pouring oil into a fire.
I'm not a super educated individual like yourselves with loads of research like yourselves, so I'd just like to ask: we've dug ourselves into a pretty big whole so far, and this discussion has talked a lot about how and why it happened, but are there any people here who can give realistic solutions to this? (because I sure can't)
|
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2011 23:44 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 31 2011 23:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 23:14 BioNova wrote:On October 31 2011 20:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 10:32 dOofuS wrote:On October 31 2011 09:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 31 2011 09:14 dOofuS wrote:
Money can't buy happiness. Wealth redistribution isn't going to make anyone happy.
Demanding the government take money from one group and give it to another isn't a trend I want continuing. I'd rather chop the arms off a government that's been meddling in our economy and personal lives for way too long.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no guarantee you'll be rich, but you have every right to pursue wealth and achieve personal success unhindered by government intervention. That's freedom. Money doesn't buy happiness. Keep slaving, people, and keep making more, billionaires, it doesn't change anything. What's important is your freedom. God Save America, land of the free. Look. Wealth redistribution won't make anyone happy. Wealth inequality, in the other hand is putting millions of your fellow citizen in misery every year, while one percent of corporate wankers own half of your country. If you think people should live in misery and get exploited to death because after all money is not everything that's great. I guess some people want to live decently. American "freedom" is basically "kill everybody on your way to climb on the top or stay in your ghetto". Your "freedom" is an injunction to follow the rules of competition and of the war of concurrency or suffer the consequences. It's a joke of a freedom, degree 0 of the concept of liberty. It's the freedom of the animal that has to eat or be eaten. Freedom means having the possibility to feed your family, to have an education, to be able to go to the hospital when you are sick even if you or your parents didn't "succeed", and then decide for yourself what you want to do with your life. If you think black people without any future in Harlem feel free, I think you are wrong. I don't disagree with any of this, but I think you exaggerate the 'eat or be eaten' mentality. Your last paragraph hits the problem most American's are currently engaged in debating. The federal government needs to accept the reality of our situation, and stop spending beyond its means. More borrowing, taxing, or printing of money will not help our situation, regardless of its good intent. The problem is spending, and more spending is not the solution. I am in open support of Ron Paul, and am proud that his plan begins to actually address the issue of bloated government and runaway spending. I also feel that the progress he and others have made in creating some transparency in the Federal Reserve's dealings will continue to reveal the corrupt state of our governments money printing machine. Yeah, Ron Paul is popular among young right wingers because he gives extremely simple answers that everybody understands. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money". The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it. You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". That's very convenient for the one who should be paying them, but that's a little illogical. Your debt comes from a deficit of taxes just as much as it comes from spending too much. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society? Now, in your ideal world, I'm sorry to tell you that the strong would dominate without any restriction, and the weak would be exploited without any other limit that the one of the "market". You say that's fine because the deserving ones get to the top of the ladder and anybody can in theory become a big fish. Good. What about the other ones? The one that are not clever, not lucky, not well educated? They are the small fishes, and you think it's fine to let the most greedy, the most ruthless, the most egoistic, or, to speak in your language, the "hardworking, deserving and talented" corporate people eat them. I have an other conception of what is a good society. Well Biff, that was a awesome post. A beautiful neo-conservative indirect troll. I'd ask if your serious or reading of a script, but a straight answer out someone like yourself might prove difficult. Almost (bill)Buckley, but keep trying. The thing is that if someone like Ron Paul advocates the ideas that have created the crisis we are in. And if Ron Paul had been in charge when the crisis did happen in 2008, the result would have been exactly the same than in 1928. He would have let the system crash because state intervention is evil and people would be basically starving. I love how your first insinuate he advocates the ideas that created the financial crisis. Leap of faith much? You're right on the 2008 crisis. He would not of bailed out the losers. The 3.3 trillion in spreadsheet reserves that was printed(zero's in a computer) may have still happened, but that's assuming he left Bernacke in the Fed, which I seriously doubt. I don't think people who support him even understand anything at all about the reason why the Federal government "prints money".
I'm nearly 100% sure you have no idea on the what when and why of expansion of the monetary base. I'm pretty sure what you do know you are attempting to twist. The problem with your federal spending and your debt is not only that you spend too much, but that there is not enough entries in the federal budget. Taxes on businesses, on the capital and on rich individuals have never been so low, and that is a worldwide movement. What you libertarians are trying to do is to stop a fire by throwing oil on it.
Yes. We spend too much, but the rate of growth(of the spending) is also way out of control, for our financial fragility.We've addressed 'taxes too low' in this thread, a hundred times at least. The ONLY way taxes are too low is if you insist on paying for all the ridiculous BS they continue to spend on. Libertarians are trying to throw oil on the fire... The most laughable statement you made, possibly ever. This is for you and you alone Biffy + Show Spoiler +You, Republicans, complain basically all the time about the debt but you start crying every time someone says the word "tax". First Libertarians, now Republicans? Republicans and democrats for the most part have little differences. They both at this point love the spending, only differ which pipeline to shove it down. Those two parties created the fire, and are the keeping the coals going. Now my question: where does it stops? Inequalities are growing since thirty year at an incredible rate, taxes on businesses are decreasing, corporations get more and more powerful. That's how it's evolving and how it has been evolving for a long time because of the policies you advocate. So what do you guys want? Even more inequalities? Where does it stop? Is that your vision of a fair society?
It stops when the militarism and the rampant, government sponsored speculation ends. I'm far from socialistic, but if you want progress., stop the killing, apply that money directly to social programs, and fix the system, while it's breaking, not after it's broken when tools like yourself can blame whoever you want and angry people will act on that information rather than think. I'd rather get facts into the open, not assumption, not failed monetary policy that looks more like smoke and mirrors than the bloated american criminal code(another thing due for a tune up). Sorry, libertarians didn't make these problems. Neo-conservatives(world domination) and Neo-Liberals(social utopia) made these problems by pimping out Keynes work, and making it work a double shift in downtown detroit for union wages till no one wanted to buy her high price junk. the tone of your post is aggressive arrogant and annoying Hypocrisy meter is going through the roof. Well, I haven't felt the need to insult anybody here. Maybe you should reconsider your attitude?
Fallacy brings a rebuke. You cannot insult anyone here, cause the point of origin of the insult will make it a compliment on those you bestow. That nice enough for you? You still are here insisting libertarians caused,support,facilitated the crisis, or supported the policies that you believe made the mess. How am I to either take you seriously, or not see you as a burr in the saddle? Paul left the republican party, and ran for president as a libertarian in 88 because of his views that reaganites had lost their way. Everything you say is perfectly skewed, and quite childish to suggest that libertarians have supported/influenced monetary policy for the last 30 years. Tell me more parables from this neo-liberal doctrine, so that I might understand from where your delusion intrude on our reality!
While I'm at it, show me those great libertarian doctrines that promote excessive spending, unconstitutional wars, social programs and the like. What you're trying to tell me is something like conservative christians have been supporting and endorsing gay-marriage proposals for 30 years in secret. It's projectionsim!
|
On November 01 2011 00:00 Dark_Chill wrote:
I can't tell which is worse, the agressive, insulting comments or the calm, condescending comments. That seems like a good example of pouring oil into a fire.
I'm not a super educated individual like yourselves with loads of research like yourselves, so I'd just like to ask: we've dug ourselves into a pretty big whole so far, and this discussion has talked a lot about how and why it happened, but are there any people here who can give realistic solutions to this? (because I sure can't)
Pouring oil of fire is a way of criticizing his ideas. It's not an insult, it's not condescending. It's just saying it would make things worse. How is that worse than asking if someone is an idiot as an introduction to your post?
|
On October 18 2011 23:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 23:30 Taekwon wrote:
TBH, I'm becoming more and more lethargic towards these Occupy protests. Granted, it's only been a few weeks since they started and although they may be spread out throughout the world, they simply lack the critical elements that are included within revolutions of the past to actually precipitate a difference. And those factors are simply impossible to achieve in a world where globalization is near inescapable to live comfortably within society. The military won't budge and the majority of people are clearly unwilling to risk their lives via violence. Rome is simply a drop in the bucket. To be clear, I don't at all doubt the motivations and purposes these people are committing themselves too. It takes ample dedication to sleep outside for weeks and protest restlessly. However, civil disobedience of this magnitude and scale can't create change in entire socio-economic systems. The governments wax poetry about their sympathies and continue to gloat greed, and politicians will signal their support for mere politics sake and throw the whole event out like used up chewing gum.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and quote me and mock me incessantly should this movement actually does something but for now, I'm only seeing protestors flock and flee to the warmth of their homes when the dead beat of winter comes - case in point, the entire thing will be nothing more than a fleeting caper. Are you suggesting the protests turn violent? Really what more are the supposed to be doing as part of a peaceful protest?
I think the major issue stems from the lack of a cohesive and comprehensive offensive strategy. As quoted sporadically throughout the thread, many people have no clue what they're even protesting about. Another significant factor is the lack of leadership. Although I can see what effect they're trying to achieve via dumping the unnecessary bureaucracy, organization in separate areas of the world is indisputably essential for a case as globalized and interconnected as this.
I'm not suggesting they act irrationally and practice civil disobedience; Martin Luther is the nonpareil movement maker. He knew what he had to do and how to do it. Something occupy doesn't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
