frankly, how to "fix" the banking problem is beyond me.
but the bigger issue to me even than the banking problem itself is that no one in government seems to be even addressing it as a truth and something that MUST be combated. for that reason, as a start, i think, quite frankly, that all of them need to be replaced. every. single. one. our current government, our media for a large part, turn a blind eye to it because they're all bought, and frankly don't give a fuck about the people of the country or the world beyond what it benefits their own pocket.
i am not an advocate of violence, and i do not think violent action needs to be taken. but it is beyond apparent that they have no intention of addressing or changing anything, and are happy to just forcibly shut thier population up and walk all over them. nothing will change until they are all removed.
-
also, the reason martin luther got his message out was because the media didn't entirely black it out. they couldn't.
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
the only difference between democracy and dictatorship is this, in a dictatorship the dictator says nothing and is silent, in a democracy our politicians lie.... simple, how can any part of our system be working if the people we elect to make 6 figure incomes as it is in my country can lie to us about how our money will be used and retain theyre jobs???? also one should consider this a chronic criminal will almost always be picked up for questioning if they are in the area of a crime being commited but we allow again and again the corporations and governmental entities that say they are working for human kinds benefit, fuck around pollute th earth pay less then reasonable wages and create products designed to fail or need replacing but we keep letting these people and their children and theyre friends run our shit
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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 +
HaHaHaHaHa
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?
I stopped reading here. I'm not interested by discussing with you.
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
I wouldn't say corrupt as if bought and paided for like early 19th century America but flawed as if a person is well rich then their interests aren't likely to cross paths in the same manner as those who aren't and thus if given a choice would try to benefits themselves, and so what 60% of congress is unlikely to think much to raising taxes on themselves.
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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 +
HaHaHaHaHa
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?
I stopped reading here. I'm not interested by discussing with you.
"Nothing in all the World is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blaming the only side addressing a problem, is pretty weak..that's the bottom line.
lotta MLK, so i thought I would add his statement, and produce evidence+ Show Spoiler +
On November 01 2011 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
I wouldn't say corrupt as if bought and paided for like early 19th century America but flawed as if a person is well rich then their interests aren't likely to cross paths in the same manner as those who aren't and thus if given a choice would try to benefits themselves, and so what 60% of congress is unlikely to think much to raising taxes on themselves.
Of course, but if you define corruption as the collusion between private interest and political power, then any political system funded by private individuals or corporations is structurally corrupt. The more dissociated political power is from private interest, the better.
America really has a problem in its institution that comes from a blind faith in the idea that what is good for corporations is good for everybody, which for me is an absurdity.
On November 01 2011 00:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:02 BioNova wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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: [quote] 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 +
HaHaHaHaHa
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?
I stopped reading here. I'm not interested by discussing with you.
"Nothing in all the World is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blaming the only side addressing a problem, is pretty weak..that's the bottom line.
lotta MLK, so i thought I would add his statement, and produce evidence+ Show Spoiler +
The bottom line is you can't discuss without making ad hominems every two sentences and that therefore, I am not remotely interested in exchanging divergent point of views with you.
On November 01 2011 00:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:02 BioNova wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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: [quote]
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 +
HaHaHaHaHa
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?
I stopped reading here. I'm not interested by discussing with you.
"Nothing in all the World is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blaming the only side addressing a problem, is pretty weak..that's the bottom line.
lotta MLK, so i thought I would add his statement, and produce evidence+ Show Spoiler +
The bottom line is you can't discuss without making ad hominems every two sentences and that therefore, I am not remotely interested in exchanging divergent point of views with you.
Bye.
I'm trying to understand you, so I apologize for my gruff manner as you slam Libertarians, and republicans(mostly deserve it, as well as democrats) without any basis. I'm calm as can be, and still trying to learn something from this, so I went with your signature, then started nosing around like I always do. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and if that's the case, I will apologize. I've been wrong so many times, but I learn, and grow. Things I know, clash with what you suggest. Facts I know, versus your undocumented opinion. Prove what you say, not just believe what you say.
Žižek flouts standards of reasoned argument. Harpham calls Žižek's style "a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention." O'Neill concurs: "a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance." Source
On November 01 2011 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:21 BioNova wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:02 BioNova wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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: [quote] 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 +
HaHaHaHaHa
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?
I stopped reading here. I'm not interested by discussing with you.
"Nothing in all the World is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Blaming the only side addressing a problem, is pretty weak..that's the bottom line.
lotta MLK, so i thought I would add his statement, and produce evidence+ Show Spoiler +
The bottom line is you can't discuss without making ad hominems every two sentences and that therefore, I am not remotely interested in exchanging divergent point of views with you.
Bye.
I'm trying to understand you, so I apologize for my gruff manner as you slam Libertarians, and republicans(mostly deserve it, as well as democrats) without any basis. I'm calm as can be, and still trying to learn something from this, so I went with your signature, then started nosing around like I always do. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, and if that's the case, I will apologize. I've been wrong so many times, but I learn, and grow. Things I know, clash with what you suggest. Facts I know, versus your undocumented opinion. Prove what you say, not just believe what you say.
Žižek flouts standards of reasoned argument. Harpham calls Žižek's style "a stream of nonconsecutive units arranged in arbitrary sequences that solicit a sporadic and discontinuous attention." O'Neill concurs: "a dizzying array of wildly entertaining and often quite maddening rhetorical strategies are deployed in order to beguile, browbeat, dumbfound, dazzle, confuse, mislead, overwhelm, and generally subdue the reader into acceptance." Source
Another laugh or cry moment for me
Edit- adding source
The funny thing, I could say exactly the same about you. I haven't heard a single libertarian argument that made me change my idea that any of this made any sense at all.
Difference between you and me? I don't call you an idiot.
About Zizek, and what? Ok, Harpham doesn't like Zizek and think he's a joke. Big deal.
This thread's getting derailed. This is "Occupy Wall Street", not "Passive-Agressive Thoughts on Republicans and Libertarians". Make a new thread or use PM's.
I have a job, and took a month off of work to be there!
Teachers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, disabled, students .... it is a beautiful thing to be a part of. I do not know if real change is possible, but I will dream and bleed because the world is worth even 1% of a change forward.
If you believe a better world is possible, in anyway, then you are almost one of us already.
(for the record, I am not struggling, I did not lose my home, I am not politically active, I am not trying to burn the world, I am just being a dreamer... and if feels so damn good!)
On November 01 2011 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
I wouldn't say corrupt as if bought and paided for like early 19th century America but flawed as if a person is well rich then their interests aren't likely to cross paths in the same manner as those who aren't and thus if given a choice would try to benefits themselves, and so what 60% of congress is unlikely to think much to raising taxes on themselves.
Of course, but if you define corruption as the collusion between private interest and political power, then any political system funded by private individuals or corporations is structurally corrupt. The more dissociated political power is from private interest, the better.
America really has a problem in its institution that comes from a blind faith in the idea that what is good for corporations is good for everybody, which for me is an absurdity.
Political power is Always colluding with private interests.
You vote for someone or campaign for them or give to their campaign because you believe they will serve your private interests.
On November 01 2011 00:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:19 semantics wrote:
On November 01 2011 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
I wouldn't say corrupt as if bought and paided for like early 19th century America but flawed as if a person is well rich then their interests aren't likely to cross paths in the same manner as those who aren't and thus if given a choice would try to benefits themselves, and so what 60% of congress is unlikely to think much to raising taxes on themselves.
Of course, but if you define corruption as the collusion between private interest and political power, then any political system funded by private individuals or corporations is structurally corrupt. The more dissociated political power is from private interest, the better.
America really has a problem in its institution that comes from a blind faith in the idea that what is good for corporations is good for everybody, which for me is an absurdity.
Political power is Always colluding with private interests.
You vote for someone or campaign for them or give to their campaign because you believe they will serve your private interests.
No, no, that's not the problem. Corruption is basically when you buy political power. That people vote for their interest that's fine. It's democracy. The problem is when some people can massively influence the elections because they have the money to do so. Then, the game is rigged.
McClatchy newspapers report many lawyers are coming to the defense of Occupy Wall Street protesters free of charge.
The resulting legal skirmishes have spurred the largest mobilization of pro bono protest attorneys since the anti-war movement of the 1960s and '70s.
"It's probably bigger than the anti-war movement, because there are so many simultaneous demonstrations. I've never seen anything like it," said Carol Sobel, co-chair of the Mass Defense Committee of the National Lawyers Guild.
Some of the volunteer lawyers draft and file motions, or simply monitor the protests as legal observers. Some advise the activists on how to negotiate with city leaders. Others show up in court - usually on short notice - to represent jailed protesters at their initial court appearances.
Through the pro-bono defense, Occupy protesters in Texas have won small battles to allow sleeping bags, but not tents, while protesters in Colorado and California have had help getting out of jail.
Not all lawyers are from the Lawyer's Guild either.
Over the weekend, at least 100 protesters were arrested nationwide for Occupy events, bringing the total number of arrests of Occupy protesters to 2,963 since the movement began.
The roommate of an Iraq War veteran seriously injured in a clash with police during an anti-Wall Street protest says Scott Olsen is doing well and doctors say he'll make a full recovery.
Keith Shannon served with the 24-year-old former Marine in Iraq.
He tells The Associated Press that he visited Olsen at a medical facility Sunday and he "seems to be doing well."
Shannon says Olsen still can't talk but doctors expect him to make a full recovery.
Olsen suffered a fractured skull and other head injuries during the clash Tuesday.
Police are investigating how Olsen was struck by a projectile.
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
Because Spain/Greece/Italy is an example to go by for financial advice right now. No offense to anyone from those countries. Riots have been going in Greece forever now. riots are just starting in Rome and Spain's economy is going into a major downturn. EU is in a worse state than America at this moment but it probably won't stay like that for long
SEATTLE – A day after Occupy Seattle moved to the campus, instructors at Seattle Central Community College planned to begin teaching classes in support of the group.
The classes, scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. Sunday, were to be held on the Plaza at SCCC and include such subjects as "Why We Support Occupy," "Legislative Lobbying," "The Art of the Protest Sign" and "Filming to Document Human Rights Violations."
Classes will continue throughout the night.
Karen Strickland, Seattle President of the American Federation of Teachers said in an open letter to Paul Kilpatrick, President of SCCC that the board is in support of SCCC accommodating the request of Occupy Seattle for a number of reasons.
“The students and employees of the SCCD are the 99 percent and are suffering because of the economic inequity that characterizes our society and which has dramatically worsened since the 1970s,” she said.
Occupy Seattle says they adopted a “Good Neighbor Policy” In preparation for the move to SCCC.
They say the policy is includes provisions to ensure that the learning environment will not be interrupted, the Farmers Market will not be disrupted and neighbors will be respected.
Some of the specifics:
- Occupy Seattle respects the work of the custodial staff and request that all people associated with Occupy Seattle agree to clean up after themselves so as not to overload the custodial staff. The porta-potties will be provided. - Camping on the plaza should cease on Sunday during Farmers Market and breakdown hours will be 6:30am-5pm on those days. - Occupy Seattle will limit excessive noisemaking (i.e. drumming/music/loud behavior) to the following hours: Mon-Thurs : 5pm-9pm; Fri 5pm-11pm; Sat 10am-11pm; Sun 10am-9pm - Occupy Seattle is aware of SCCC's policy of no drugs or alcohol on campus and we will do our best to inform new occupiers of this. - We will inform new occupiers that at SCCC, smoking is limited to designated areas - Occupy Seattle will refrain from tagging or the defacement of land or structures at SCCC.
On November 01 2011 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 31 2011 23:58 Kiarip wrote: 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.).
That's interesting.
You see, instead of castrating political power, you can put certain very basic rules. For example, in France and most of Europe, the campaign are not funded by individuals and corporations. Means you don't need to be backed by companies that will obviously sponsor you because they have interest to you getting elected or rich individuals who then get a political power much bigger than someone who own little.
That's pretty basic and logical. A system in which politicians depends on private interest to fund their campaigns is basically a structurally corrupt system.
Because Spain/Greece/Italy is an example to go by for financial advice right now. No offense to anyone from those countries. Riots have been going in Greece forever now. riots are just starting in Rome and Spain's economy is going into a major downturn. EU is in a worse state than America at this moment but it probably won't stay like that for long
You are mixing things that have nothing to do with each other.
I am not talking about the economical situation, but about how structurally corrupt the political system is. Spanish institution are more healthy than american institution regarding the distinction between political power and corporations.
The fact that Spain is doing terrible is another topic. Please do consider that Scandinavian countries or Germany are doing wayyyy better than the US right now.
On November 01 2011 02:23 AttackZerg wrote: I occupy Downtown Sacramento.
I feed homeless people.
I dream of change.
I have a job, and took a month off of work to be there!
Teachers, lawyers, nurses, doctors, disabled, students .... it is a beautiful thing to be a part of. I do not know if real change is possible, but I will dream and bleed because the world is worth even 1% of a change forward.
If you believe a better world is possible, in anyway, then you are almost one of us already.
(for the record, I am not struggling, I did not lose my home, I am not politically active, I am not trying to burn the world, I am just being a dreamer... and if feels so damn good!)
EPT
