Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ukit0
We have the opposite of socialism - a government heavily influenced by corporations.
Who is behind the rise of the Dems to power? Is it fucking Karl Marx? No, it's the financial companies, health care industry and technology industry. Look at Obama's economic guys. All free market guys put in there because they are friendly with Goldman Sachs and the banking industry. Do you really think all of these interests support the Dems because they think they are going to implement a socialist system?
I bet Obama, sitting around with his banker friends, was laughing his ass off when they called him a socialist.
- designbot0
Correction SillyBilly, anyone who thinks socialism works, needs to take their head out of their ass!
- damn what a sorry ass you are.Mirpour
- says the man who thinks Sweden is the best country in the world...wake up man Sweden is just coming out of economic turmoil like the US.designbot
- economic turmoil like the US.designbot
- how's that 55% income tax your paying?designbot
- isnt the entire world in recession`? taxes are high here but so is the living standard therefore cant complain reallyMirpour
- you should take a trip over here during the summer.. its clean, safe and blonds are fun.Mirpour
- .. and its the Bestes ok? get it right.Mirpour
- Designbot, ever been to Sweden? Doubt it.DrBombay
- I don't doubt Sweden is an awesome place, I would love to visit...but the form of government is less than awesome.designbot
- Why, what benefit do you have that they do not? This ignorant America #1 shit is tired.DrBombay
- what benefit do I have? How about not being taxed to death to for the government to take care of me...one that hinders small businesses and entrepreneurship..no thanks.designbot
- small businesses and entrepreneurship. How about taking care of yourself yo!designbot
- U.S taxes are called FEES , drivers license, marriage license , register a business, yup fee for thatBattleAxe
- TheBlueOne0
You know the US Constitution, in it's preamble, specifically says of the reasons the country exists at all is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare".
We have witnessed the slow erosion of any idea of the Commons in this country, especially in the last thity years. Sometimes protecting the health of the whole is the best route for protecting everyone one of us as individuals. And since when did the concept of "freedom" come to mean only the ability to grab as much stuff before your neighbor grabs it? (See Plumber, Joe Theory Of America). And you know, maybe "insuring domestic tranquility" is accomplished by making sure that wealth and it's attending ability to distort the power of the government isn't concentrated into too few hands. We had a goddamn revolution to make sure a few men couldn't rule over all, yet it seems like America just wants to sit back and let the power get more and more concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And the minute someone starts saying "Hey, this ain't right.." the whole "You must be a communist/socialist! Unamerican!"
really? There is two hundred years of history of good, red blooded americans who have given up life and limb to make sure that the Commons isn't handed over to the monied and the powerful, that the poor have justice, that the defense is for everyone and not to protect merely the property of the rich, and that the general welfare remains more general than specific.
These aren't "socialist" values. They are American values. Old, sturdy, plain and simple. But just like how it took a Civil War and a Lincoln to make us realize that either all men truly are free, or none of us are. Just like establishing justice and tranquility and caring about the common welfare actually is fucking american and not "socialist" or whatever..
Now if you think that by sacrificing a bit of my money to ensure my fellow citizen can be healthy and strong is a slippery slope to tyranny, well, you have the right to think that. But I would say you're wrong.
But go on and call these values "socialist"..there's always been a royalist/elitist strain in the US, from the Torries on down..they've been trying to roll back the rights and powers of Free men to attend to their own government since the beginning. If you think that a government of free men voting for policies to protect the weakest among us, so they can come to rise and stand with us protecting liberty is equal to the tyranny of kings or the evil of dictators, I'd say you've been deluded and corrupted.
- +1 True American PatriotMirpour
- snap!DrBombay
- I don't cotton too much to the word "patriot". Kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like citizen.TheBlueOne
- fair enough citizen it is!Mirpour
- ukit0
Steele: GOP needs 'hip-hop' makeover
The RNC chair says an upcoming "off the hook" PR offensive will target urban minorities and young people, among others.
- 0% capital gains tax, yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yoDrBombay
- Tha Death Tax be whack.waterhouse
- ukit0
Swiss banks will name names
- please let some dick cheney be on that list.DrBombay
- Now, for the Caymans!TheBlueOne
- Ramanisky20
wait for it
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/WEnotr…
- slinky0
The Governator just revised his role as the Terminator and terminated 10,000 jobs in California... breaking CNN news.
- DrBombay0
California has had their property taxes capped since 1978. Great if you are a homeowner there, but not very practical considering the price of everything goes up and a vital revenue source doesn't.
- ukit0
I was reading somewhere that ballot initiatives eat up 30% of the budget in CA. LOL
- TheBlueOne0
- This is also a great listen, esp. for the Lincoln stuff:
http://www.radioopen…TheBlueOne - Thanks man. I like RP a lot. Makes the most sense out of any of the other politicians I've heard speak. imo of course.tommyo
- This is also a great listen, esp. for the Lincoln stuff:
- TheBIueOne0
If you got four hours to kill, in one hour increments, this - "The Century of Self" by Adam Curtis is an aweseme bit of film:
- designbot0
Hey TBD, too busy yesterday to respond...so here it goes.
Your comment:
"And you know, maybe "insuring domestic tranquility" is accomplished by making sure that wealth and it's attending ability to distort the power of the government isn't concentrated into too few hands."The problem with this is that it is purely subjective. At it's root this really sounds like wealth distribution to me, though you will probably deny it and say it's only being taken from the "evil" or "corrupt" people with high government influence.
You say we are not headed towards socialism, yet as we speak the banks are pretty much already nationalized, health care nationalization is just around the corner....and the government is now bailing out private entities and taking at least partial ownership (socialism at it's finest). You might argue this point as well, but it has become pretty obvious when government is now using it's muscle to dictate how the bailed out entities should spend the money and run their business.
Also look what Obama is doing with helping people on their mortgages....why should I have to pay for someone elses screw up? It's true some of these people were taken advantage of through adjustable rate mortgages, but I shouldn't be paying for it. Isn't this also wealth distribution? Seems to me, most of the people that will get help on their mortgages are the ones who simply can't afford the home to begin with. So you are taking money mostly from the upper and middle class who pay the most taxes, and using it to bail out these "unfortunate" (to use Obama's word) folks.
"Now if you think that by sacrificing a bit of my money to ensure my fellow citizen can be healthy and strong is a slippery slope to tyranny, well, you have the right to think that. But I would say you're wrong."
You are missing an important point here, not many people would argue against such a statement (myself included), but that sounds like the work of charity....not the government. Which is my main point here, forget about the term socialism, the government is simply getting involved in things they shouldn't be touching with 100 foot pole. Why would you or anyone want to be forced to give money to the most inefficient charity in the world (the US government) and expect it to do any good? The government does not know what's best for us.
- I agree with every word of this. No surprise I'm sure. All this gov intervention is way more than I feel comfortable with.tommyo
- RED SCARE!DrBombay
- If the bottom drops out of our economy, you won't have to worry about money, you will need a wheelbarrel full of it to go to McD'sDrBombay
- go to Taco Bell.DrBombay
- DrBombay0
The alternative is what? No intervention at all, the market will figure it out? It has been proven that the market is as corrupt or more than the US government. So I would really like to know exactly what the alternative is. I guess everything is a handout until you lose your job and your kids need to eat.
- DrBombay0
There is an estimated 800-900 trillion of toxic assets out there. Without government intervention what is the solution to this?
- waterhouse0
It seems to me the ebb and flow of time is a capital market society. Chicken or the egg?
The market economy booms concurrently with moments of job creation. Increasingly deregulated business follows to keep the momentum. People cheat, extensive spoil is uncovered, and rage, and markets crash. New politicians are elected to clean up. Regulations, and new government programs and bureaucracies are created. Gradually, a generation passes and the great panic is but a historic era.Repeat.
- tommyo0
I feel like all of this new government intervention can only lead to one gigantic slip and slide of slippery slopes. Government deciding which companies are 'too big to fail.' Government ownership in corporations and our health. That people are no longer responsible for their own mortgages, even though as designbot pointed out, I'm sure a good percentage of these people were taken advantage of ... responsibility is what seems to be lacking these days (in both corporations and individuals) and how does this course of action help solve that issue and not in actuality perpetuate it? I mean, just look at how some people are interpreting it .. a couple posts up there is a lady who had her car repo'ed but fully expects to be 'rich' this year because of Obama. This kind of mentality doesn't help anyone does it? Doesn't help her, doesn't help her creditors (which affects all of our economy), it just seems to me like the final straw of this liberal experiment where gov promises to help the poor and unfortunate, they become more dependent and actually feel less responsible for themselves, because in all reality there is no way the gov can follow through and meet their expectations. The quickest way for someone to change their position in life is to accept responsibility for themselves and make the choices that lead them to where they want to be. I'm stereotyping a bit of course. I know Rick is going to come at me with his 'you're a selfish asshole' knife. So with that in mind, Rick, I know there are some people who have no choice for their position. I hope this acknowledgment at lest keeps your pot from boiling over. But the fact is, we all do have choices we make every day. This is an important part of a free society. When I was a kid my mom was on welfare as she went to school. She made a life for herself even though every day was a struggle. I bought a house when I was 20, no help from anyone. I made choices that have helped secure my finances and I'm extremely proud of what I've been able to accomplish. When I look back .. all it was was a bunch of choices. I just can't help but feel like all this government intervention will only serve to undermine the virtues of leading responsible lives (and running responsible companies). Because now we're all 'too big to fail.' Now we're not truly free to succeed or fail.
TBO made mention to the US Constitution and quoted: "You know the US Constitution, in it's preamble, specifically says of the reasons the country exists at all is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare"."
I think it's the interpretation of the last reason, to "promote the general Welfare" where most of us differ in our expected role of our government. This difference in interpretation makes sense of course due to the intentionally general wording. To me it means, more or less, 'ensure we all have the same general ability to a normal way of life.' Which I think we all, for the most part, have. I do not take this to mean that our government is supposed to provide our health care or any other such action they may deem necessary outside of simply making sure we all have the same access to the necessaries of living equally. In my opinion, and from what I've read, government overstepped their bounds to begin with by basically legislating medicine into a defensive and adversarial position against insurance companies. Which in turn boosted costs to us and to our employers thus placing it out of reach to many people ... in effect, by not promoting a neutral 'general welfare' to begin with, but instead mandating and validating a middle man insurance industry to a level of power that now effects all of us greatly - they shifted the access to a select group (those who had employer paid benefits) and virtually destroyed the ability for 'general welfare' (access to medicine). Thus creating what we have now. No matter how unintentional the consequences of governmental decision, we should view the charge that government is to 'promote general welfare' with a more conservative expectation. Because there is no way that health coverage would be as expensive as it is now if our politicians had decided that this sort of legislation was outside of their jurisdiction. The market and individuals would be driving the prices to where it was affordable, just the same as every other necessity such as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation are obtainable to all but the very poorest.
- lowimpakt0
I'm still not hearing any solutions from Tommyo or Designbot other that a vague "personal responsibility" and a vague "magic hand"
GENERALLY, there are a two rationales for government intervention in economic systems.
The first being Market Failure (neoclassical perspective) - The second being System Failure (evolutionary perspective)
What is happening is a massive convergence of market failures (combined with global system failures e.g. structured co-ordination, network failures). This would count as a rationale for state intervention. An important consideration is whether or not the state is able to rectify the situation. In lots of policy areas the role of intervention can be decentralised to other bodies, intermediary organisations etc. What we have at the moment is a global market failure which no decentralised organisation can deal with hence the level of global state intervention.
There are only certain circumstances where you allow the market to correct market failures and I would suggest these are when the market failure doesn't involve massive negative externalities.
- lowimpakt0
The nationalisation of banks, massive state intervention is happening everywhere so it is hardly some socialist conspiracy.
