Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arachno-capitalist]

I'm trying to not get involved , but seriously... Let's blame social welfare programs and not, say, the war. Tallies like $100,000 a minute, and $5.8 billion per month, and you blame social welfare - which you know, actually helps people - for your governments debts.
We are in Europe, we have universal health care, new deal programs for new business, guaranteed income for the unemployed and support for asylum seekers and refugees, and we are in the same war as you guys...

Sorry, but letting more people die at home so you can kill more elsewhere just seems really, really fucked up to me! It may seem like hyperbole, but, you know, not so much.

And the quoted debt - well, your current administration raised the possible debt level to 9 trilliion so it could pump more money into the war, so that debt is only even possible thanks to their dedication to wasting your money abroad.

I don't blame social welfare- I blame government mismanagement. I am absolutely opposed to government waging war with my money in my name. The fact is that social welfare is about half of the federal budget and defense spending is closer to 20%. War does nothing good for economies. It appears to do so when the economy is flooded with deficit spending but these artificial surges have no real long term benefits (the debt is passed on to the next generation who then has the burden of dissaving to pay it back. See: now)

I am not in favor of buying guns for my oppressors nor am I in favor of them telling me how to allocate my philanthropic spending.

But in the words of the great Jay-Z: Fuck this I'm going golfing.   (the weather is amazing here today)

[littlefallsmets]

Well, like I say, we've each kind of established our positions and to go much further would turn into Point-CointerPount bullshit.

But I will say, man, if you're worried about strengthening your oppressors... the eventual result of a completely free market would end up a far more effective and brutal oppressor than any mixed-economic-model representative-democracy could ever be.

If I have to choose between the oppression of a mosaic of corporate fiefdoms or the mild economic stifling of the Northern European mixed-economic model, if those are the only two choices on the table, I'm taking Norway in a New York minute.

Anyway, the "hand up/hand out" false dicotomy has always rung as really short-sighted to me. If our lifetimes were the only thing we were worrying about, I'd be more sympathetic to that "well, everyone needs to just hit their bootstraps" thing...

But it doesn't work like that. We have to think trans-generationally and... unless there are some leveling counter-balances to the free market, economic momentum will barrel us toward a tiny near-oligarchic class and one vast unskilled underclass without the resources to "bootstrap" and will eventually revolt out of blind frustration with their suffering.

Yes, in many situations for certain windows of time, an unfettered free market seems like the scenario that grants the most liberty and democracy. But we're talking about an entire society and an entire society hopefully over five, ten, fifteen more generations.

Framing social safety nets as the government forcing you to make hand-outs is... convenient and possibly even sounds correct, when viewed at the individual level and in the short-term. But in the wider view, social safety nets are a collective investment in the preservation of the stabilizing forces that are the middle classes... as well as a buffer against the free market spiraling out of control and crushing competition/innovation/etc.

I'm a bleeding heart, yeah, but I have rational arguments for that way of thinking as well.

I think the arguements against my earlier point miss the long-view. In the short term, a completely free market sounds great... but money begets more money begets even more money... and that's the rub. It quickly spins out of control. That's why at the start of the American Experiment, corporations were only allowed to exist for the span of a man's adult working life, they were incorporated with the public good as the primary goal by law and state officials dissolved corporations on a regular basis.

Unregulated business can metastasize into an oppressive force as least as nasty as government can become.

Again, it's about balance.

[Sub_Topical]

I disagree with you long view in regards to the preference you've stated.

I'd posit that the cumulative effects from let's say FDR & the New Deal on have been to initially grow govornment in a direction beneficial to society as a whole. From LBJ on though it's taken a nasty turn towards behemoth government overhead, congestion and waste supported by two classes, those benefitting from it and those aquiring socio-political power through the implementation of those benefits. Still the under/over class dichotomy that you purport to dread. Growing and expanding the reach and scope of these policies is only going to further promulgate the extremes of the current situation.

I'm trying to get out of the capitalist/socialist box here.

I want:

A support structure leanly administrated that provides people don't die in the streets or go hungry and if they have an expensive or tragic malady they receive aid. Basic health services need to be available to avoid the growth of simple ills into major crisis and to alleviate the impacts of those issues affecting large communities.

A business environment friendly to entrepnuers while defining and monitoring with a light hand until necessary the effect and influence of pan-national corporations based in this country.

A domestic agenda focused on the development of infrastructure.

An increased focus on education with emphasis on academic success support and particularly retention.

Less jail and more diversion and treatment sentencing. (Second offenders get whacked in my world, but if I don't get it I won't have a cow).

Political reform involving term limits, redistricting courts and funding (less is better). Naked debates.

None of these things need be done within any particular -ism. None of these things are unnattainable right fuck*ng now.

I've spent my political time finding and supporting local canidates with this kind of focus. You want long view? Majo change in this country is going to come about through dedicated people helping to push like minded folk that aren't chained to the donkey or the elephant (RINO/DINO) from a local level up the ladder until they can reach a broad base.

I'm not a bleeding heart, but I'm not a cruel son-of-a-bitch either.

[Doc]

See it's funny when people actually talk about what they want instead of -isms they tend to get along better, from his earlier posts I would have assumed I'd disagree with Sub but I agree with just about every point (I don't like to whack people no matter what they've done, we remove them from society if we have to but I don't like to take away something I can't give back).

Socialism seems to be based on the idea that we can give everyone a good life (by our rather high standards), and really we don't have enough money.

Capitalism tells people they can do whatever they want if only they try hard enough. This too is bullshit.

In my ideal society people can be educated (preferably to the university level but that's not always doable) for free, likewise people should also not have to agonise about going to see the doctor when they have the flu let alone when they have a more serious injury so there should be some level of free healthcare too.

I think the fact that we have a level of luxury that we can even debate this point means there is some onus on us to do something to pass our good fortune on to others. And despite all the horatio alger stories we are fortunate, if only to be born in the part of the civilised world we are if not for any of the people who have helped us out in our own life. I want to have a good life for myself, and I have no illusions that if push came to shove I would look after me and mine first but while push isn't coming to shove I don't see why I shouldn't give a little of what I have to others. Frankly I think a government can be trusted to do this better than any private organisation, at least they are accountable to the people at large.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Where is all this money coming from?
In my ideal society we all have computers made of gold and ***** house pets that dont poop on the floor!

Lots of things sound good feel good and thats why Obama has so much momentum. In reality things cost money. Money we don't have. How can we afford to pay the unemployed when the employed can't even pay their nation's debt?

[Sub_Topical]

 

Where is all this money coming from?
In my ideal society we all have computers made of gold and ##### house pets that dont poop on the floor!

Lots of things sound good feel good and thats why Obama has so much momentum. In reality things cost money. Money we don't have. How can we afford to pay the unemployed when the employed can't even pay their nation's debt?

A-CAP, I call bullshit. There is not one thing on my list that has co$t attached to it that is not currently part of the federal and (in my state) budget.

The tough work is going to be the leaning out or outright end of other wasteful and unproductive programs and overheads to achieve a better allotment of existing funds. Basiclly, to hit the things I want it's not going to take moremoremore, but it will reqire a fundamental shift in the way government does business. Hence, the tough part of the cow.

[Nabubrush]

You know, there was a little bit of discussion about whether people should listen to the political opinion of folks in the entertainment industry earlier. I would like to point out that I am old enough to be elected president of this great country, and I certainly woudn't respect the opinion (on first blush) of anybody my age pretty much at all. We can talk about this stuff until we are blue in the face, but no extra cachet should be attached to anyone's opinion just because of what they do for a living.

I think on the continuum, the space between chowderhead yokel and ivory-tower egghead is very small indeed. People talk about the folks in the think-tanks being out of touch with the common man, and then turn around and talk about country bumpkins not knowing what is good for them.

However, when you are famous, it is a lot easier to get a soapbox for you idiotic backwards ideas. Or smart ideas, if that's what you have, but what are the odds of that?

[jaydub]

when you are famous, it is a lot easier to get a soapbox for you idiotic backwards ideas. Or smart ideas, if that's what you have, but what are the odds of that?

From all available evidence, it is low indeed.

[Arachno-capitalist]

A-CAP, I call bullshit. There is not one thing on my list that has co$t attached to it that is not currently part of the federal and (in my state) budget.

The tough work is going to be the leaning out or outright end of other wasteful and unproductive programs and overheads to achieve a better allotment of existing funds. Basiclly, to hit the things I want it's not going to take moremoremore, but it will reqire a fundamental shift in the way government does business. Hence, the tough part of the cow.

The current federal and state budgets will have us bankrupt within our lifetime. No one wants to believe that we are spending money at such a rate that the government will break. In our political system congressmen and senators are given every incentive to spend money as fast as possible for the time they are alive and in office. There is no incentive for them to care about the next generation's debt and how they will repay it. The result is literally a pyramid scam on the world.
There are two ways government can generate revenue. Taxes and debt instruments (bonds). The current debt pays interest at such a rate that even more debt has to be sold pay off the old debt. And when it comes time to pay that off yet another round of debt will be sold. The natural conclusion is that of any other pyramid scam. Only this time the scammers have guns and can steal your money (taxes). Now just sit back and imagine how much tax has to be collected to fund all that pyramiding debt.

[Sub_Topical]

Are you elaborating on my post or trying to state a new position?

Your pyramid run is part of the underlying assumption of the second part of my quoted post.

ALSO: Nabu had a point, I'm on short hiatus from this topic.

HENCE: You owe me a response in the shooting sports thread as to what you took out to the range the other day...I need to talk grains, FPS, CUP/PSI, twist rate, BC, SD, meplat, ogive, factory crimp dies and ballistic trajectory. If none of y'all'll do it I'm off to Levergunluvers, Marlin Owners or Bear Tooth Bullets...

[Teatime]

I think it is strange that the expenditure used for war has been largely ignored, particularly considering its relevance to the current discussion. Looking at countries that have succeeded in being both socialist and wealthy (mostly West European nations, particularly Scandinavia), the status that I believe is ideal, they have universally avoided military expenditure. Their military endeavors are almost exclusively defensive in nature. If America were to adopt a similar isolationist policy, imagine how much money could be spent on improving the general standard of living in the nation. Regardless of where the money is spent, it seems to me that reconsidering the way the military is funded benefits both right and left wing ideology.

To clarify, I'm not talking about the Iraq war in specific, but the general philosophy surrounding military spending. Nor am I suggesting that the US is in the same position as, say Finland as far as threat to the populace is concerned (though I believe that threat is infinitesimally small). However, history has shown that wartime economies will rise to the circumstance. It seems to me that since the glory achieved in World War II, America has treated the military as if there is constantly a war going on, and has sought wars to justify it, instead of following the traditional order.

Other than this, there is not much I can add to the thread that has not been said far more eloquently by littlefallsmets.

[Doc]

I'd like to point out that I live in a country with universal health care and that had free education up to the university level till about 15 years ago. We no longer have the free university stuff but we do have interest free government loans available to anyone who can qualify to get into a university which are automagically added onto your tax once you start earning above a certain amount.
We also have a 10  billion dollar surplus.
These things are not fantasy, they are extremely doable. The people who are getting your money now just want you to believe otherwise.

Damn that last line just made me look like a total fruit loop and undermined my argument didn't it?

[jaydub]

Also, your entire country has the population of Texas in an area the size of the contiguous US.  Admittedly, a lot of its pretty harsh livin'.  Not that Texas isn't.

Edited to replace California with Texas.  Cali has 33 million now!

Also:
         California     Australia
1980  23.6M        15.0M
2006  33.8M        20.7M

I was chatting with my wife about this and she asked me where I got the impression that the two regions had the same population.  I said, "My Dad, but apparently he was pulling it out of his ass" and she said, "Oh, but isn't he a businessman?  That shouldn't surprise you".

[Ruta Bagas]

Damn that last line just made me look like a total fruit loop and undermined my argument didn't it?

I am really not feeling up to entering into a political debate right now, but I wanted to thank you for finally prompting me to find out what Froot Loops actually are. That's been bugging me just enough to not be worth chasing up for about eight years.

[Arachno-capitalist]

Does anyone think Obama or Clinton will actually get the nomination?
They say a lot of things that liberal democrats love to hear but will the democrats risk such an important election by trying to make history?