WatchThose of you who do.
I don't understand this.
Please post a quick note, whatever you care to express. I don't mind if you're sarcastic or derisive, its just that I'd just like to hear some thoughts and this seems like a good place to ask, people on this list are articulate and seem to have a lot of personal experience.
I actually kind of don't expect much of a response, its a touchy subject to come right out and ask about, but I hope so.
Its healthy to be skeptical and all, but I see so much hate of "gov" here in the US, so much unfocused rage. What exactly is the issue/s?
I appreciate anything anyone cares to offer.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
According to wikipedia and other google sources, the military budget is 800 to 1000 billion dollars. The President's proposed budget is 4Trillion. So that means, at most, military spending is 25%. I guess you get your cites from Air America. You can claim that debt it ALL military debt but that would be a stretch, but hey, you expect us to believe that weather getting colder is due to global warming, eh?
Regarding calling me a woe-is-me victim. Indeed, the left smugly claims to be "caring" and smart yet they openly sneer at those they view as no longer politically useful being pushed in front of the bus. Looks like white Massechusettes voters have woken up, eh? Pennsylvania and New York voters aren't as smart, but they'll play catch up!
Follow
Befriend
1 comments
I THINK THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE 15%.WHAT I MEAN HERE IS 85%OF US HAVE NO PENSIONS WE GET A PALTRY SOC.SEC CHECK AT 68-70 YEARS(FULL BENEFITS).WHILE POLITICIANS ,STATE ,AND CITY WORKERS GET OUT AS EARLY AS 48.LOOK AT WHAT THEY GET FOR WHAT THEY PUT IN VS US WITH SOC.SEC. IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK.REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS ARE AGAINST SOC.MEDICINE BUT THEY THEMSELVES GET IT.DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS ARE FOR THE COMMON GUY BUT GET LUSH PENSIONS FOR 2 YEARS OF SERVICE.THEN THERE ARE THE TEACHERS AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO GET SO MUCH AND WHINE HOW SCREWED THEY ARE.THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS IN PLACE A POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT USES THE SERVANTS OF THE STATE -WITH THE MEDIA HELP-TO PROTECT THERE UNBELIEVABLE BENEFITS.IF 401K ARE SO GREAT FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF US WHY ARE THE POLITICIANS ,UNIONS ,AND OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS ON IT?GET REAL ITS THE PRIVATE(THE MAJORITY) GETTING SCREWED BY THE PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO USE DEM AND REP POLITICIANS TO DIVIDE US.GUESS WHAT IT WORKS.I COULD GO ON BUT I HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK .
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
Polish--
Here's a different take on the budget and military spending.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
A rejection of laissez faire economics is NOT AN EMBRACE OF SOCIALISM.
This is a blind spot that most right wing nuts will never acknowledge.
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
PolishKnight says
I'm also a white male, and I have never, every been targeted for it. Not once. Ever. Can you please explain how you have been personally targeted for being a white male?
Let's face it, you have NEVER been targeted for being a white male. You are just making it up. Why do the self-described "conservatives" always seem to have this victim mentality?
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
PolishKnight says
I called "Honest" Abe a victim. Ooops.. Looks like you have at least THREE different screen names now so you can give your own posts a hand job.
The more deceitful you become, the harder it is to keep track of it all, "Honest" Abe.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
645 comments
tatupu70 says
Rofl, why don't you look them up for yourself. You act as if my point was not valid because I didn't post the budgets. As far as accomplishing this...it's pretty simple. Stop spending 1 trillion dollars on the overseas military budget. There, I just eliminated 33%. Want another 33%? Eliminate all subsidies for corporations. Do you need another 20? Roll back the budgets of all Federal Government Agencies to their 1998 levels. Oh yeah, and I would eliminate the Department of Homeland Security. I'm pretty sure that would be more than enough.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
theoakman says
Your point wasn't valid because it was incorrect. I challenged you to post the actual budgets because I knew you wouldn't--it would show how wrong you are.
theoakman says
We agree on that much anyway. Cutting the military budget is the only way to make a meaningful change in the budget. The FDA, SEC, FCC consume very little of the budget...
theoakman says
While I don't necessarily disagree with that option it doesn't reduce the budget. It would raise our tax base and increase government revenues. Which is just as good at reducing deficit, but we were talking about reducing spending and not increasing revenues.
theoakman says
Would you adjust the budgets for inflation or roll them back to their actual 1998 levels? Either way, that most certainly wouldn't give you 20%. Maybe 1%.
Again--Take some time to actually research the budget. You might be surprised at where the real spending goes..
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
First, in response to tatupu70's link. It's from a war resister league and, get this, lists NASA as a "military" agency as well as the State Department. Do you really expect the USA to close down it's Embassies across the world?
I used numbers from Wikipedia which few would accuse of being a hotbed of right wing politicos. They refer to the cbo numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_federal_budget Here's the CBO breakdown of 2007 (GW Bush year)
Military+VeteransBenefits: $654B
SS/MC/MC: $1,256B
Everything else (plus debt): $710.9
That comes out to the military comprising 25% of the overall budget.
In regards to Nomograph's asking: "Can you please explain how you have been personally targeted for being a white male?" This reminds me of New Jersey politicians who used to say to the press: "What's the Mafia?" Let's play a little game: If universities and large corporations advertise saying "women and minorities encouraged to apply", then who doesn't qualify under that critera to be encouraged to apply? For someone who claims to lecture me about deceitfulness (unfounded, of course), you're playing dumb and Orwellian doublespeak games. Accusing conservatives of having a victim mentality is a laughable projection when the whole leftist agenda is about robbing Peter, whose "rich" because he's baaad, to pay Paula and various other victim entitlement groups.
I'm merely (ok, not just merely) observing that if you slush out goodies like welfare Santa to other leftist welfare groups, why not me too? Oh, wait, that won't work because socialist democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. Oh, wait, Obama is slushing money over to Wall Street, mostly white males. Tee hee. So the system works after all! Doesn't that make you happy to know how great the system is working out for you? Good luck with that "free" health care (Oh, wait, it's just taxing your own insurance.)
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
tatupu70 demonstrates selective logic: "The FDA, SEC, FCC consume very little of the budget…"
Agreed. And if the FDA, SEC, and FCC were the ONLY parts of the budget besides the military then you'd have a great point. You seem to have forgotten about social insecurity (thanks FDR) and medicare/medicaid (thanks LBJ). So if you totally ignore real numbers than your commie paradise will work out just fine.
As I said above, that's a neat allegory for your whole crazy, granola eating, hypocritical racist, sexist, corrupt agenda: You claim to "care" about everyone, except only to rob from the rich, while sneering about how you'll rob from stupid white male working class voters. Oh, except in Taxachusettes where they have OFFICIALLY woken up! Oh, and you'll also get a perfect government to take care of you except that the politicians you elect to rob and steal are dishonest and rob from you to send money to Iraq and wall street!
And that's the world YOU DESERVE tovarisch!
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
SF ace says
That "partner" is a fucking idiot if his take home is only $6k on $15k coming in. More likely you're just making this up, but I'll bite:
The top tax rate that you'll ever pay in CA is ~45% (35% federal, ~10% state)
Anyone who thinks you pay 9% for FICA has clearly never seen a pay stub of a highly paid individual. At $780k a year this guy is paying less than 3% for FICA.
Assuming he has absolutely no deductions (he's single, he doesn't contribute to his 401k, he doesn't own a home..) -- his take home pay will be a minimum of about $8500 a week -- and I highly doubt that someone who is smart enough to be earning $15k a week is dumb enough to not have significant tax shelters.
...and this is A LOT more money than he would have taken home at any time in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s.
This really is public information, you know. We don't have to debate and argue over whether taxes were higher at some other time between WWII and now -- google can tell you what taxes you'd be subjected to at any of those times.
Why is it that the only people I ever see complaining about taxes are people who hardly pay any?
PolishKnight says
The military is gravy? $1T+ is *gravy*?
SS and Medicare are definitely big items -- and if we didn't have them the deficit would be *larger* than it is today (because SS still runs a surplus).
The proposed budget for 2010 puts "defense" spending at about 28% -- a larger component of the budget than any other item.
Add those three things together and you're looking at about 85% of the budget.
Pretending that defense spending isn't the largest component of the budget doesn't make it true.
You can't fix the budget without drastically reducing defense spending -- by at least 50% (well, you could always raise taxes...)
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
A few observations:
Including SS/MC/MC in the discussion is debatable. As they are trust funds, theoretically outside the budget, an argument can be made that they shouldn't be included in this discussion. After all, the SS trust fund buys government bonds--so they are really a separate entity.
Next--we are talking about ways to reduce spending. The debt service is not an appropriation--you can't really reduce your spending there, so it's not relevant either. But, even if you want to include the debt service, we're still at just under 50% using your numbers. And I guarantee you that there is military spending hidden in the areas you call "everything else"
PolishKnight says
Polish-- The Oakamn brought up the FDA, SEC, and FCC--not me. I was only trying to show him where he is wrong...
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Leftist logic 101: the statement: The proposed budget for 2010 puts “defense” spending at about 28% — a larger component of the budget than any other item." refutes the claim: "The “50% of the budget is the military” is a popular, usually leftist, fib." Ok...
In any case, even that specious logic is untrue since, according to the CBO, social security spending was still greater than military spending.
Regarding the military being gravy and SS bringing in a "profit." Note that many politicians on the left benefit from domestic "green jobs" (so to speak) with local jobs and spending for military contracting. I remember the mini recession after the GHB post cold war military layoffs.
All that said, I happen to agree that there's a lot of room to cut in military spending but that's not going to pay for the great socialist utopia. Even in Western Europe, which has a lot more white males to fleece than here, it's still just sputtering along (care to ride the big airbus?)
Which brings up IWOG's point: Why don't you hippies move to Europe if you love their model so much? You can still be a limosine liberal and preach tree hugging energy while running your computer from French nuke plants AND live in lily white neighborhoods while preaching diversity (and bashing the right wingers for "hypocrisy.") If I were you that's really what I would do. Honestly. Good luck finding a job though.
Follow
Befriend (1)
117 threads
971 comments
Thanks for all the posts, I should have checked back sooner! I need a bit to read and digest all of this...
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
There's a huge unemployment problem in Europe? That's funny, last time I checked they were doing quite well. Several European nations have a higher per capita income than the United States. I wonder how that's possible given the lie that taxes and government controls squash productivity?
The reason I brought up Somalia is because it's a nation without government regulations and taxes. If you people actually believed what you preached, you'd embrace it and move there. It's an absurd suggestion because the entire premise is absurd.
HOWEVER suggesting a liberal move to a more liberal Europe is not an absurd suggestion because Europe can be a great place to live. I might favor California, but moving to Canada or Germany (if I bothered to learn German) wouldn't scare me a bit.
Don't you understand why these two examples DESTROY your argument? YOU are pushing us to be more like Somalia or Haiti or 19th century Robber Baron USA. BUT OMG LIBERALS WANT US TO BE MORE LIKE CANADA! A lot of you really need to turn off Fox and start thinking things through.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Iwog, once again, if such nations have such a high per capita income, why not move there? Oh, wait, they have strict immigration requirements. Does that answer your question? That "problem" is being solved though in North Paris, Germany, and even Sweden...
As I said before, you're equating conservativism with anarchy. There is a difference between a government PROTECTING property rights versus being on the main culprits in redistributionist schemes. That leads us to the opposite extreme: You paying for the Iraq war is due to government regulations and taxes. You should be happy about such a great "socialist" program! Tee hee! Oh, and money from Obama to Wall Street and banks! Aren't you happy about that "socialist" program too?
Finally, simply because someone disagrees with you don't mean they aren't "thinking". This is a wonderful example of unthinking liberal bigotry itself. Did you even think about how bigoted, and hypocritical that sounds? Oh, wait, you're a True Believer so you are automatically smart by default! Let me know how that works out. Oh, and moving to Canada and Germany and getting a high paying job.
Because, as you know, your socialist utopia isn't going to happen here. At best you'll get the worst of all systems only to save face from embarassing lily white Europe.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
SF Ace--
The point is that it's not taxes making his take-home pay so low.....
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
I don't know what point you were trying to make about immigration to Europe and strict limits. Are you trying to argue that things are great there but it's unrealistic to try to move? That doesn't really help your point.
You repeat a very common lie about Obama and money to Wall Street and the banks. I've said it here before and I'll say it yet again. The ONLY significant bailout that president Obama was party to was the GM bailout. The money to Wall Street and banks was ordered and paid for in 2008. It's not a minor point since your intent is to slander Obama.
Regarding bigotry, I think you're dead wrong. A person who takes my example and perverts it to the opposite point that he intends to make, then doesn't realize it, isn't thinking. It has NOTHING to do with my pre-conceived notion of your politics or party. I'm not a socialist and I'm only partially a liberal. I love capitalism. I find lots of fault with Democrats and liberals. All that being said, our nation and our society is being destroyed by a VERY ignorant movement that embraces aspects of fascism and laissez faire capitalism. ALL HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF AN UNREGULATED FREE MARKET END IN BLOODY REVOLUTION OR POVERTY FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIZENS!!!!
All. Not many, not most, but ALL. Do you know why Russia turned communist? Because unregulated capitalism created an aristocracy that was slaughtered by the revolution. Do you know why China turned communist? Same reason. Do you know why the French revolution made liberal use of the guillotine? Same reason. Do you know why the American revolution happened? Same reason. Do you know why 8 year old children worked in coal mines and the average American lived in squalor around 1900? Same reason.
Unregulated untaxed capitalism is a DESTRUCTIVE ECONOMIC SYSTEM. You either learn this, or you're a tool being used by the aristocracy to further their agenda at your own detriment. This doesn't mean the alternative is socialism any more than Americans were socialists after the Great Depression and World War II, but it does mean that you're helping to destroy this nation if you continue with this belief system. Taxes are NOT evil, they are necessary. Regulations are NOT evil, they are necessary. You want a communist revolution in America? Keep making this country look like Czarist Russia or 18th century France.
Follow
Befriend (4)
159 threads
2,826 comments
Iwog, I'm basically in agreement as to how we got to this point, where we differ is you have faith in at least one of the parties that got us here. So much so you passionately defend the party as a whole. I don't get what you see in the Liberals that you think they are capable as a "Party" of making the change you think this country needs.
At the end of the day the republican party is a party full of wide range of politicians with political goals and aspirations that represent a wide range of issues that have been cajole into an affiliated party issue. And the same goes for Democrats.
These issues are not meant to be resolved, they are distractions so business as usual in Washington and big biz can continue their comfortable relationship.
Any real reform will not come from either party. Or Wolf from either party parading around as an independent Sheep. But a radical independent, that both parties fear.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
35 comments
LOL, just got sent this video. Apparently this is an official video put out by the Carly Fiorina (former CEO of HP) campaign in her bid for office in CA. I post it here because of the last comment's discussion of sheep and wolves. They're featured prominently in this video
FCINO.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA
The youtube site is the same video, just funny unfiltered comments appearing below the video. Remember, this is official campaign material!
Follow
Befriend (4)
159 threads
2,826 comments
"Seriously the message gets lost in the flowery crap and personal attacks."
nuff said.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
iwog asks: "I don’t know what point you were trying to make about immigration to Europe and strict limits. Are you trying to argue that things are great there but it’s unrealistic to try to move?"
Nope. I'm "arguing" or observing a number of things including that there aren't too many people who look like Obama or Wise Latina S.C. justices there. So I'm wondering how socialists think that Europe is so great when it's such a non "diverse" place! So perhaps we should switch your summation of my point around: Perhaps European socialism wouldn't work here because... it's so easy for NON-EUROPEANS to get into! The current leftist hail-Mary (I know, huge irony there) ploy of the left to try to survive demographically is to import people of non-European ancestry because European-Americans are rejecting socialism. Indeed, it's not just unrealistic to "move" there literally, but also figuratively. You have to change the United States into someplace like... Mexico to make it into Scandinavian Europe. Does THAT sound workable to you?
Regarding me "slandering" Obama (that sounds like whining on your part. Chuckle) It's not just me. Consider this from The Rolling Stone, a hotbed of right wing extremism: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout
"What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside."
Iwog puts in all caps (it must be true): "ALL HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF AN UNREGULATED FREE MARKET END IN BLOODY REVOLUTION OR POVERTY FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIZENS!!!!"
Of course, if you define such a thing as anarchy such as Somalia, you have a point but that's not the same as a free market with protections for private property which describes the United States itself, the greatest economic powerhouse in history and where YOU continue to choose to live. On the other hand, you aren't rushing to live in "regulated" "capitalistic" paradises such as China nor would you want to move to the Soviet Union or even Germany during National Socialism. The BLOODIEST regimes in human history have been SOCIALIST. All doing "good" because they "care" of course.
History lesson: "Do you know why Russia turned communist? Because unregulated capitalism created an aristocracy that was slaughtered by the revolution"
Hahahaha! You're talking to a Pole and I can tell you that is quite laughable. Yeah, the aristocracy of Russia was created by... capitalists! It had nothing to do with a centralized power grab out of chaos not just economic, but military as well. But even so, let's take your claim to the next level: Wouldn't the aristocracy be a step UP from free market capitalism then? Shouldn't the Russians have been happy with a leader to "regulate" things?
This leads to the great myth of leftism: "It's ok to have a big bad government steal from people because A) it's elected by the people (when they agree with me, if they don't, then the election was "unfair") and B) the guys in office will be dishonest enough to steal from stupid saps but honest enough to share with me. Er, wrong on both counts. As Barry Goldwater put it: The government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take it all away (and give it to wall street, tee hee) After all, you continually love (and crave) to think that people such as me are being trammeled by government and are "whiners", but when YOU whine, sniff, it's unfair! Hope you enjoy the war in Iraq YOU agreed to by living here, citizen.
More ponficating: "Do you know why 8 year old children worked in coal mines and the average American lived in squalor around 1900? Same reason."
Oh yeah, let's address that. How are the kids in the inner cities doing who were supposed to be helped by all those great "war on poverty programs?" Is that done yet? Oh, and illegal immigrants working in sweatshops and mowing lawns at cut rates, the dems are against that even if they later vote Democrat, right? And, well, we ALL know how you feel about working class whites that vote against YOUR agenda. Your heart really bleeds for them, right?
You're a huge hypocrite. A George Soros without blood money.
Finally, I never said I was an anarchist or anti-government or believe that ALL taxes are unnecessary. On the contrary, the existence of taxes themselves illustrate that the government programs are simply NOT profitable (otherwise they'd pay for themselves, silly). I understand that to have police come to my door is someone is partying in front of my house, I have to pay them taxes. On the other hand, it's SOCIALISTS who want big government and then whine when GW spends their money in Iraq.)
Ok, one more tidbit (and a repeat at that). Lecturing me condescendingly about what's good for me and how you're here to save me from myself would be a lot more convincing if you and your buddies weren't whitewashing (pardon the pun) the outright racist and sexist identity politics that the American socialists engage in as well as overlooking the failure of nearly all socialist (redistributionalist) programs already in place.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
#1 Straw man. I've never posted once on diversity in any context. Your main point seems to be racist: "Socialist Europe might work well because it's all white people" which I think is absurd. Furthermore you attempt some kind of connection between liberals and ethnic immigration, which is complete nonsense and totally ignores the reality of illegals in this country. The ONLY instance of amnesty remains the one promoted by the administration of Ronald Reagan. Once again you're alluding to facts which don't exist.
#2 So you don't like me accusing you of slandering Barack Obama? How about we just agree that you lied? Otherwise please tell me the polite way to "correct" your fantasy: "...and money from Obama to Wall Street and banks!" In my experience, people who complain about whining aren't willing to be honest about their own bullcrap so they divert. So once again.....tell me how to correct your misrepresentation (lying) without sounding like a whiner? Try being accurate for once and it wont come up.
#3 The free market resulting in revolution and poverty. How in hell can you write so much without contradicting my basic premise? SHOW ME ONE HISTORICAL EXAMPLE OF A FREE MARKET UTOPIA! That fact that you refuse to name any is the clearest sign that you don't know what you're talking about. In fact I'll challenge you to provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a laissez faire economy prospering. Can you do this or must you resort to naming socialist societies that represent the very revolution that laissez faire aristocracy forced in the first place? Do you see how utterly absurd your position is? Everything from a simple game of Monopoly to the United States of America CRASHES under the conditions which you desire, and you can't find one counter example.
After that you go into a number of talking points which are nonsense and unsupportable. 8 year old children worked in coal mines because your glorified free market made it legal, and corporations soon discovered that paying slave wages to adult men brought the kids in to help the family. You won't address this (you can't) therefore you talk about inner city children and illegal aliens, topics which I haven't addressed. However even though I haven't addressed them, you call me a hypocrite. (without even explaining why) You also include positions I don't hold, talked about socialists who don't exist, (once again totally unsupported) and bring up Iraq for some idiotic reason which has nothing to do with the economics discussion.
I'm not lecturing you neither am I trying to save you from yourself. YOUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM fails in every society it has ever been tried in. How do I know this? By your complete and utter failure to give me examples otherwise. Furthermore it's the height of ignorance to admit the success of Europe in one paragraph, then preach the failure of LESS SOCIALIST PROGRAMS IN AMERICA in a different paragraph. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about since your positions clearly contradict. When stranded, you inject race. When looking for ways to vilify a well regulated capitalist system like we had in 1946, you invoke China and the USSR. You hold extreme views, then use extreme counter-examples that don't even apply in a reckless attempt to bolster your opinion. Finally, and this is the most telling, you call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist. Not only are you totally ignorant about what the word means, but you use it as a crutch to attack with. I'd be just as wrong to call you a fascist, but you'd literally have no cause to complain.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Tenouncetrout says
I very rarely talk about the Democrats and I don't make it a blanket policy to defend them.
However when it comes to progressive taxes and deregulation, the Republicans aren't only dead wrong and unified, they are destructive and dangerous. This cannot be said for the Democrats who harbor both free market zealots and outright socialists.
NOTHING is more dangerous to this country right now than the new aristocracy and the fascist movement being stoked by Fox and Rupert Murdoch. Do I think far left liberals are a problem? Certainly. Do I think they are a clear and present threat to the country? Not even close. They piss people off but they will not fundamentally change our society nor will they lower our collective standard of living to that of a 3rd world nation. The stakes are much higher than you realize.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Iwog, it wasn't a strawman. It was BAIT. And you ate it up, quack quack! Why should it be "absurd" to suggest that race would be a factor in Europe when it's CONSTANTLY a factor for the left in the USA? (Rhetorical, of course. Because it exposes leftist racist double standards and uncomfortable truths I'm been pecking at you on this whole time.)
While Ronald Reagan promoted amnesty, he did so based upon the (mistaken) presumption by him that it would be one time. Nobody, even on the right, ever said RR was right on everything. While there are elements of the right in favor of amnesty, most opposition to illegal immigration is now coming from the right (while support from the left) for the reasons I mentioned.
As usual, you engage in sublime hypocrisy and projection. You shriek about me slandering Obama while claiming I'm the whiner and demanding I admit I'm a "liar". The world (especially the USA) is full of unreasonable people who have the nerve to not automatically agree you're right and they're wrong. That's life. Deal with it.
It's common knowledge that Obama voted for the original bailout AND has continued via the fed to support even more funds going to buy bad loans to bail out banks. We can get into the logistics of how that happened, but he's in the hot seat. I'm reminded of a similar discussion about 10 years ago when liberals gushed about the "genius" of the Clinton years. I asked for specifics and they said that he, and I quote, "Let Greenspan run things." In other words, Greenspan's water boy. "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have the facts of life..."
I've already addressed your challenge for me to show you ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a "laissez faire economy prospering" but you disingenuously ask as if I hadn't. Heck, even Somalia isn't really a "laissez faire economy" since there are warlords, etc. who run things. I've already clarified the difference between anarchy and free markets with protections on private property. This brings us back to the original point I made above: You chose Somalia as an example of a "bad" "laissez faire economy" while ignoring the demographic racial makeup of the most successful socialist economies. Sorry if that's un-Politically Correct.
I'm aware of how Monopoly was used as way to educate people of the inevitability of the concentration of wealth. Of course, that game is a closed system that doesn't allow people to move away (Hmmm, like the US going after "tax cheats" who dare to leave the country or slaves running away from the South before the civil war...) but in REAL markets, people have the right to leave the game altogether and they do. How many companies choose to pay for overpriced environmental regulations and operate in the USA rather than go to China? Yep, it works BOTH WAYS!
Claiming that my economic system fails in every country we live in implies that the USA has been a socialist paradise all along. Yes? So I guess we don't need any further socialism since the USA already is one. Done deal. Thanks for saying that Obama is wasting his time.
Saying when I'm stranded I inject race is truly the pot, er, calling the kettle black. As I said, it's the left that now uses race based privileges to buy votes. I'm merely the messenger.
You pull out nearly all the leftist bag of tricks including accusing me of extremism. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! So I guess nationalized health care is a bad idea because it's extreme! Also, curing cancer is extreme. Oh, and green energy. So they must all be bad! Oh, wait, extreme is "bad" because people who disagree with you are that and "bad". Got it. I won't say you're "ignorant" for holding such views. On the contrary, I think you go to a great deal of trouble to selectively seek out facts to justify and excuse your faith and worldview. You clearly desperately need to feel and express how superior you are to others. It's the foundation of all religious faiths. Nobody believes in a religion to be LESS enlightened than others.
Finally, (simultaneously with yours), you resort to equating my idea of government with Somalia and then "whine" that I'm calling you a socialist. You're hypocritical and shrill due to your self-centeredness and insecure ego. Unlike you, I accept that the world, and my fellow human beings, are imperfect creatures but don't expect them to simultaneously be perfect and agree with me. If you want to believe in such silliness, go right ahead. I think you'd be better off going to pancake dinners and eating wafers on Sunday. It's just a lot more relaxing. Try it sometime.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
I must have missed it. What is the laissez faire economy that is prosperous?
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Tatupu, I said your question is loaded similar to: "Have you stopped beating your mother?" You equate "laissez faire economy" to anarchy when I am not proposing such a thing. This is while you whine that I'm unfairly catagorizing you as a socialist. Amazing.
For the record, I do think that socialist economies enjoy limited success just as so-called "laissez faire economys", as you define them, enjoy limited success. The Russian Czars, for example, were around for almost a thousand years and ushered Russia from a primitive backwater to a world power and this is BEFORE Josef Stalin took credit for "modernizing" Russia (which really meant he starved half the population to death, bungled an attempt to invade Germany and got outsmarted, and barely survived due to help from the capitalistic west!)
Lest we need to remind you, the housing bubble was propped up due to easy government money and continues to cost taxpayers as Obama just announced a policy to "lift" home prices. I'm sure that's evil GW's doing somehow...
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
No, actually it was caused by poor oversight and regulation, allowing underwriting standards to go to crap.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
Can you answer a question without putting words in my mouth? I don't equate laissez faire economy with anarchy. I equate it to a free market economy with little to no government regulations.
And I don't recall complaining about you calling me a socialist, either. How about you just worry about answering a question instead of telling me what I believe...
So-the question is: Do you have an example of a laissez faire economy prospering?
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Hahaha! This is like saying that the problem with the foxes guarding the henhouse was that there weren't ENOUGH foxes! Yeah, the way to stop Obama from blowing more money is to give him more money.
Ok...
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
Your analogies leave a little to be desired. Are you saying the SEC was in bed with the banking industry? Because I would probably agree that was the case--and was part of the problem.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
More pot calling kettle activity: You whine about me putting words into your mouth and then restate that I have to use your definition of a free market economy with Somalia being an example of such yet not it's not an anarchy.
I don't buy into your claim you're not a socialist. Your silly denial of the obvious only shows that you're engaged in congative dissonance mental gymnastics. The truth will set you free! Embrace your inner commie!
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"Are you saying the SEC was in bed with the banking industry?"
No. I'm not saying that. Read for comprehension. I said Obama and the Democrats were and are in bed with the banking industry. I never mentioned the SEC.
However... with all of Obama's huffing and puffing, we'll have to wait and see what he does with the SEC... Good luck waiting on that.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
Well, that's completely ridiculous. In case you've forgotten, the housing bubble occured long before Obama was President. So, Obama had nothing to do with how the housing bubble happened.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,626 comments
PolishKnight says
I've never mentioned Somalia. I think you're confused. I just want you to name one country that is prosperous with little to no government regulation. It's pretty simple.
Follow
Befriend (2)
26 threads
502 comments
Chicago, IL
tatupu70 says
The US in the 1800's is the best example.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
645 comments
"laissez faire"? What is so hands off about 1% interest rates in 2001-2003 and 2 government backed enterprises buying up trillions of dollars in mortgages? And in case you forgot, George Bush had a couple of "stimulus" packages of his own.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Sorry, I had you confused with IWOG (understandable mistake) wrt Somalia.
Regarding your question, it's already been answered by CBOEtrader. In addition, if you simply ask about prosperity without government regulation, that would include nearly all of human history unless you want to argue, as I said before, that socialism is "natural" and normal and, therefore, modern socialist ideas are merely superfluous.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
It's becoming increasingly obvious that PolishKnight can't answer the one simple question I put to him because the
CBOEtrader says
Which part? Pre-slavery when the cost of doing business could be measured in blood, or post-slavery when corporations murdered union members with impunity and 8 year old children were forced to work in sweat shops?
I do not consider the 1800's to be an example of a laissez faire economy prospering, at least not in the post-industrial world where most people are forced to work for large corporations. In fact any student of United States history knows that the 1800's were an endless chain of DEPRESSIONS occuring every 20 years or so. The success and progress this country did enjoy was almost entirely due to small scale agriculture, and expansion into conquered territory.
The fact is that modern examples of successfullaissez faire economic systems are ENTIRELY LACKING in the modern world. In addition, it's an embarassing fact to the free market zealots that the most powerful and successful nations in the last 100 years were STRONGLY CONTROLLED AND TAXED by government.
Examples include post WWII United States, Germany, and Japan. Most of Europe and Canada. Nazi Germany is even an example of tight government control leading to prosperity.
The failures? Those are nations with weak or missing central governments. Haiti, Somalia, Lebanon, much of Africa, even Russia after the Soviet break up.
Follow
Befriend (48)
273 threads
12,517 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight isn't going to answer the question, is he.
That begs another question. Since he can't name a single country that has enjoyed economic prosperity under his laissez faire conditions, how can he believe it's going to work THIS TIME??
Most rational people would learn from history and not promote such failure.