patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Actually no. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

LOL... For such a self-proclaimed highly intelligent person, this is quite a claim from you!

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Besides, aren't you conservatives for small government, getting rid of public sector employees, and for moving employment to the private sector? If you fight my proposal, you are contradicting everything you said you are for.

No. Because paying people to work is always better then paying them not to work.

Dodge. The choice wasn't between paying people to work or paying them to be idle. The choice was between paying people to work in the public sector or paying people to work in the private sector.

You conservatives and Fox "News" claim that the private sector is always the better employer and that we need to slash public sector jobs.

I guess you're only talking about teachers, fire fighters, and paramedics. Well, honey, it applies to the people making tanks the army doesn't want or need as well.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/TxodWMRgyUs
http://www.youtube.com/embed/iX4euUmtK2s
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9EqnyTDx3DA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/6ln_azcKMkU
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9LWNTUK8KtA

Oh, I could go on forever in supplying videos of conservatives arguing that we need to slash public sector jobs to the bare minimum in order to create more private sector jobs.

zzyzzx says

Actually imposing stiff import duties, while eliminating all immigration would cause nearly full employment, and that could easily balance the budget with no cuts.

Not without banning all outsourcing of tech job and H1B Visas. That's like importing workers.

SoftShell says

4 hour minimum response time limit has expired.

I am not on your schedule. You should consider it a privilege to hear my words of wisdom whenever they come.

Dan8267 says

Actually no. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one.

Ironically there is in fact such a thing as "economic liberalism" and this is the opposite of what Americans think it is: it's basically free enterprise, free markets, and MINIMUM government intervention.

If you go in Europe and talk to people about liberalism: people will understand it's the right wing, the opposite of socialism.

But in the US , liberalism became focused, as Dan says, on social liberalism: initially this was still the same kind of ideas: freedom from government interventions. Hippies were liberals. They didn't want anyone, and even less the government, to tell them how to live. By contrast, the republicans were traditionally the party of order: for law and order, against drugs, against certain things in the bedroom and all ready to regulate it.

Only recently, people who are basically socialists called themselves "liberals" (probably to escape the socialist tag) and the right wing happily conflated "liberals" with "socialists". So the two initial opposites became typical big-government left wing tags.

zzyzzx says

You're undocumented chart is contradicted by usgovernmentspending.com which has the accurate and detailed numbers. Generate a graph based on that data. The real data clearly shows the warfare spending is out of control. Are you refuting the accuracy of the data at usgovernmentspending.com? If so, where is your counter-evidence.

Heraclitusstudent says

Only recently, people who are basically socialists called themselves
"liberals" (probably to escape the socialist tag) and the right wing happily
conflated "liberals" with "socialists". So the two initial opposites became
typical big-government left wing tags.

Yep... And to claim that liberalism is a social philosophy, not an economic one, is ridiculous given that the primary method they seek to implement their social philosophies, including exactly what Dan is talking about in this thread, is through economic policy...

Heraclitusstudent says

Ironically there is in fact such a thing as "economic liberalism" and this is the opposite of what Americans think it is: it's basically free enterprise, free markets, and MINIMUM government intervention.

That's called Libertarianism. See Ron Paul.

Heraclitusstudent says

If you go in Europe and talk to people about liberalism: people will understand it's the right wing, the opposite of socialism.

Correct. The terms right and left refer to arbitrary groupings of political positions. What constitutes the right and left in America is not the same as what constitutes the right and left in other countries.

I am neither a rightist or a leftist. I am a liberal. Although there is some appeal in Libertarianism, I also find two fundamental flaws in that philosophy, so I'm not a libertarian.

So, Dan, pretty much anyone who serves in the military, either enlisted or officer, is a war profiteer or a parasitic killer who causes death?

Heraclitusstudent says

Gov spending is less than 3600 billions against a GDP of 16,800. That's less than 22%.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=M318191A027NBEA

Beware the Fed. That chart shows only federal "budget" spending, not total government spending. Much federal government spending occurs off budget, e.g. W administration wars were off-budget. There are federal supplemental spending bills, unfunded mandates on states, plus state and local spending, etc. Try Dan's link instead, and notice it reports total government spending is much higher than federal budget spending:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2002_2018USr_15s1li211mcn_F0t

Even those links don't count federally mandated non-government spending, i.e. indirect taxes for example Obamacare where instead of spending money directly the federal government requires you to spend the money instead. With Fed ZIRP and QE bailing out member banks, some share of CEO bonuses and corporate jets should also be counted as a type of federal spending, and btw it could have been better spent on other things. Looking ahead, medical is the only single category where reform could eliminate the debt.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Dan8267 says

If they break the law, jail them. Better than having pot smokers in jail.

To do which you depend on those same thuggy cops you lambast in so many of your posts.

Fire them. Hire honest ones. Last time I checked, there's no shortage of people looking for jobs.

New Renter says

Both would immediately relocate to China and sell to anyone with enough money.

Don't like it America? Whattya gonna do about it?

If the U.S. government can cease any person's assets anywhere in the world for something as little as growing pot, it can do so for selling weapons to enemy states.

To point 1 - if it was that easy to eliminate the bad cops and hire good oenms why don;t you think that action has not ALREADY been taken, also why do you think it would be taken with a greatly reduced military?

To point two. The US government doesn't even bother prosecuting big banks that admit to having laundered money for the big drug cartels, why do you think they'd go after big arms dealers?

Paralithodes says

So, Dan, pretty much anyone who serves in the military, either enlisted or officer, is a war profiteer or a parasitic killer who causes death?

Soldiers get paid shit. The vast majority of the war industry's profits go to parasitic scumbags like defense contractors, lobbyists, and mercenaries. The 10% of the defense budget I keep in my plan above is enough to pay for soldiers in peace time.

Nice attempt at bait-n-switch though.

In any case, we shouldn't be sending our young men and women to get their limbs blown off by IEDs planted by people who were made into our enemies by the warfare industry. You want to keep soldiers safe? Turn them into engineers, construction workers, teachers, scientists and other professionals we desperately need in this country. The scientist who finds a cure for even one cancer will save more lives than all the soldiers in all of history.

curious2 says

Try Dan's link instead, and notice it reports total government spending is much higher than federal budget spending

Yep. USGovernmentSpending is a great, non-partisan, no-b.s. site. It has very detailed and clearly laid out spending data. So far, it's the best damn source of information on government spending at the federal, state, and local level I've found anywhere on or off the Web.

I find it interesting that conservatives are so much more adverse to using data from this site than liberals, socialists, leftists, or Democrats. To me that suggests that conservatives don't like accurate, truthful data as it doesn't support their crazy perceptions of reality. It's hard to make the case that welfare costs us 3 times what the warfare industry does when hard data shows the exact opposite.

New Renter says

if it was that easy to eliminate the bad cops and hire good oenms why don;t you think that action has not ALREADY been taken

Currently, who hires cops? Cops do. If even 10% of cops were honest, the systematic crime in police force would be exposed and prosecuted, thus we can conclude that at least 90% of cops are complacent in police crime. Why would such criminal cops hire honest cops? They'd prefer cops who stick up for other cops no matter what.

Firing and hiring must be done by people outside the police force.

New Renter says

why do you think it would be taken with a greatly reduced military

I do not know what you are asking here.

New Renter says

The US government doesn't even bother prosecuting big banks that admit to having laundered money for the big drug cartels, why do you think they'd go after big arms dealers?

Politicians are in bed with the big banks. I doubt these politicians would be OK with Boeing selling U.S. military secrets and products to the Russians, the Chinese, and North Korea. If they are, kick them out of office.

I can only provide solutions, not the fiat or the political will to implement them.

Dan8267 says

To me that suggests that conservatives don't like accurate, truthful data as it doesn't support their crazy perceptions of reality.

Most people are instinctively tribal, and substitute tribal loyalty for the hard work of analyzing data. The question, "What do the data say?" requires much effort to answer, and there is a risk of error. The question, "What do my tribal leaders say?" is much easier, and the brain tends to substitute easier questions for harder ones. Sadly, people don't notice the substitution, and believe they've answered the harder question when they haven't. Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow is fascinating on intellectual substitution.

It is a peeve of mine that the discrete words "conservative" and "liberal" have both been hijacked as tribal labels for policies that are neither conservative nor liberal. Even more bizarre, self-styled "Christian conservatives" hijack the phrase "natural law," substituting (of all things) Biblical law instead. When the founders of the republic, enlightenment thinkers who considered themselves liberal and conservative and who tended to believe in natural law, wanted somebody to write the Declaration of Independence, they turned to Thomas Jefferson (a lawyer), who would never have mixed up words like that. Alas, in their name, lesser lights stir these words into such mud that the concepts get lost; George Orwell warned about misuse of language rendering proscribed thoughts impossible. As he wrote, try to imagine a "not ungreen" field, and you'll see what sloppy language can do to the thought process.

Dan8267 says

Why would such criminal cops hire honest cops? They'd prefer cops who stick up for other cops no matter what.

Police departments tend to have a culture of loyalty; though I don't know what % are criminal, cultures of loyalty can enable that. The same can be said of politicians though, which is why I remain skeptical of campaign finance reform: if you ask incumbent politicians to write the rules by which challengers can unseat them, you'll tend to get rules favoring incumbency and the same type of patronage networks that put the incumbents in office.

Dan8267 says

I can only provide solutions, not the fiat or the political will to implement them.

And this is where the comment returns to the OP. Solutions are comparatively easy; probably most people of reasonable intelligence and education can draw up a balanced budget that would eliminate the debt. The issue is, the budget is written by politicians whose patronage networks receive the spending and depend on it, and those politicians are elected by people who don't want to pay taxes. So, you get more spending and lower taxes. To eliminate the debt, one would need to reform the process that produced it. Figuring out how to do that is a hard question; balanced budget amendments can help, but there can be ways around those, e.g. pensions and other unfunded commitments (loan guarantees, etc.), and so an amendment would require careful drafting to prevent circumvention.

Well said, curious2.

Soldiers get paid shit. The vast majority of the war industry's profits go to parasitic scumbags like defense contractors, lobbyists, and mercenaries. The 10% of the defense budget I keep in my plan above is enough to pay for soldiers in peace time.

Nice attempt at bait-n-switch though.

And here's another reason conservatives wouldn't go along with your plan. You don't know shit about what % of the defense budget goes to service member pay and benefits, not even what they are paid.

You said cut the defense budget by 95%, but have absolutely no idea what impact this would have on those serving.

One would think such a highly intelligent person as you proclaim yourself to be would think through your plan just a little bit.

There is no bait and switch here - just an exposition of your ignorance of the facts behind your plan to cut defense spending by 95%.

Dan8267 says

Firing and hiring must be done by people outside the police force.

Again Dan you are mixing arguments. Decimating the military will not reform the police forces. I am not arguing such reform is not necessary, just pointing out one does not lead to the other.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

why do you think it would be taken with a greatly reduced military

I do not know what you are asking here.

I am pointing out that without a strong military there is no check for the corrupt police. None.
Dan8267 says

New Renter says

The US government doesn't even bother prosecuting big banks that admit to having laundered money for the big drug cartels, why do you think they'd go after big arms dealers?

Politicians are in bed with the big banks. I doubt these politicians would be OK with Boeing selling U.S. military secrets and products to the Russians, the Chinese, and North Korea. If they are, kick them out of office.

I can only provide solutions, not the fiat or the political will to implement them.

Think so eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/22/opinion/submarined-by-japan-and-norway.html

You probably don't remember this but in 1987 it was discovered Toshiba of Japan and Kongsberg Vaapenfabrikk of Norway sold equipment for making ultra quiet submarine propellers to the Soviet Union. Up to that point Soviet boats were noisy and easy to track.

...The president of Toshiba Machine. MITI and the Chairman the Japan Machine Tool Industry Association, in knee-jerk reactions all called American charges trumped up. Later after employees of Toshiba Machine admitted installing the devices in Soviet shipyards, two presidents and one chairman in the Toshiba group had resigned and Prime Minister Nakasone had claimed that Toshiba had betrayed Japan, the government of Japan has prepared new legislation to be implemented to make certain that "what didn't happen" never happens again. Nevertheless, one of the leading business experts an Japan, Professor Gregory Clark (not an American, but an Australian), has called the new measures totally inadequate. Under the new legislation, if Toshiba were to do the same thing again, i.e. make a $17 million sale to the Soviets and inflicting $30 billion in damages to American security, the company would be subjected to a fine of 2 million yen ($14,000)...

...The Japanese may have the last laugh however. Toshiba may have lost the $100 million contract to sell lap-top computers to the Pentagon, but in essence the Japanese still got the contract. Zenith ultimately won the contract, but the machines will be made by Sanyo Electric of Japan, and provided to Zenith on an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) basis. Indeed, according to Japanese press reports the Pentagon discretely asked Toshiba if it could build the computers at its US factory before the Pentagon backed down due to possible negative publicity ramifications. ...

http://japanlaw.info/lawletter/april87/fdf.htm

Paralithodes says

You said cut the defense budget by 95%, but have absolutely no idea what impact this would have on those serving.

There would be fewer of them. Again, public sector jobs bad, private sector jobs good. Having so many public sector jobs hurts private sector jobs. All conservative politicians, radio, and news programs repeat that mantra ad nauseam. Are you saying that conservatives have been lying for the past 50 years?

There is no reason we can't cut our military to the same levels as the British empire (a 90% cut) or even further as we have massive stockpiles of weapons.

Plus, public sector employees New Renter says

Again Dan you are mixing arguments. Decimating the military will not reform the police forces.

Agreed. They are separate issues.

New Renter says

I am pointing out that without a strong military there is no check for the corrupt police. None.

I've never seen the military stop corrupt police forces in my lifetime. I'd like to see that, but I don't buy the argument that the military keeps us safe from the police.

I also think there are other ways to keep us safe from the police like having a civilian taskforce that can issue arrest warrants for cops, having cops tried by civilians outside the existing court system in order to avoid inherent conflicts of interests, and using cameras extensively to record police action.

Also, we can disbar judges who issue warrants that should not have been issued. We can limit the number of warrants the state can issue to x% of the population per year, thus making warrants rare and valuable and thus less prone to be wasted on fishing expeditions and harassment. There are lots of reforms we can make.

New Renter says

Think so eh?

The U.S. has the exact same problem to deal with as the U.N. considers lifting the sanctions on Iraq. It's a matter of law enforcement, no different than preventing loose nukes from getting in the hands of enemy states.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

Think so eh?

The U.S. has the exact same problem to deal with as the U.N. considers lifting the sanctions on Iraq. It's a matter of law enforcement, no different than preventing loose nukes from getting in the hands of enemy states.

You lost me, how is lifting sanctions on Iraq, (who as we all know does NOT have nuclear arms) exactly the same as punishing a private company guilty of selling crucial technology to our cold war foe?

New Renter says

I've never seen the military stop corrupt police forces in my lifetime. I'd like to see that, but I don't buy the argument that the military keeps us safe from the police.

Because officially the US military has been prevented from doing so since 1878

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Officially anyway.

New Renter says

You lost me, how is lifting sanctions on Iraq, (who as we all know does NOT have nuclear arms) exactly the same as punishing a private company guilty of selling crucial technology to our cold war foe?

A few days ago on NPR -- I think it was the Diane Rehm Show -- they were discussing how the lifting or easement of sanctions against Iraq will let some French companies that are very interested in doing business there potentially increase Iraq's warfare capabilities. I don't have a link, but the gist of the story was that foreign and transnational corporations may, without even intending to do so, create regional instability and undermine U.S. or even world interests.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

You lost me, how is lifting sanctions on Iraq, (who as we all know does NOT have nuclear arms) exactly the same as punishing a private company guilty of selling crucial technology to our cold war foe?

A few days ago on NPR -- I think it was the Diane Rehm Show -- they were discussing how the lifting or easement of sanctions against Iraq will let some French companies that are very interested in doing business there potentially increase Iraq's warfare capabilities. I don't have a link, but the gist of the story was that foreign and transnational corporations may, without even intending to do so, create regional instability and undermine U.S. or even world interests.

That's still very different from selling secret US military tech to its cold war foes for profit.