User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 32

  1. #11
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Do you actually trust beaurocrats and journalists?
    I don't trust anyone who is unchecked. Corporations, government, or media. Our political difference is that I think it's easier to check government and media than it is corporations. And I'm not even being biased in saying that. Our economic model is founded on a belief that markets don't need interference and can regulate themselves. That is their own case they make for themselves.

  2. #12
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't trust anyone who is unchecked. Corporations, government, or media. Our political difference is that I think it's easier to check government and media than it is corporations. And I'm not even being biased in saying that. Our economic model is founded on a belief that markets don't need interference and can regulate themselves. That is their own case they make for themselves.
    Our economy is a Keynesian/crony-capitalist clusterfuck.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  3. #13
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I don't trust anyone who is unchecked. Corporations, government, or media. Our political difference is that I think it's easier to check government and media than it is corporations. And I'm not even being biased in saying that. Our economic model is founded on a belief that markets don't need interference and can regulate themselves. That is their own case they make for themselves.
    Actually, I want to make another point about our difference in political opinion. My opinion is that government, media, corporations, and any other centers of power needs to be checked. The problem is, who should do the checking? At the scale that our nation functions on I don't think you can check any power effectively without creating more problems. This is very clear with our regulating bureaucracies where much of the time the wolves are guarding the hen house. We simply can't rely on a large centralized state to ensure powerful people don't misbehave. Nor can we rely on the free market to deliver a just society as people acting purely in self-interest will do nothing for the common good which should be sought. The only answer seems to be a third way which is to scale back, decentralize, and allow local relationships and social norms restrain evil and promote the common good in an otherwise free marketplace.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #14
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Our economy is a Keynesian/crony-capitalist clusterfuck.
    There's not much Keynesian about it, at least nothing like what the man himself thought, he was culturally a classical liberal and all his policies were aimed at protecting property owning democracy as and end and a means to prosperity, unchecked unemployment and the waste presented by it and money which doesnt circulate in the economy were once issues for the public, perhaps under other guises like "justice", "equality", "a fair deal", "a new deal" but it amounted to the same thing.

    Now its all capitalist ideology, it ignores the crony capitalist nature of things or suggests, ironically, that more of the same will some how make it disappear, its like trotskyism's or marxism's attitude to "whithering away the state" by making it all powerful.

    There were conservatives in the UK before monetarism and thatcherism who I respected and could believe, like Ian Gilmour, genuine unmistakeable conservatives who were scathing in their attacks on socialism and equality but also capitalism, suggesting that keynesianism was the apolitical alternative to either extreme. That sort of attitude I can respect. Its not my creedo, I'm always going to be the left wing's loyal opposition, I can see the left wing causing me to come to grief the sooner than the right wing too.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I say let the Rand adherents run amok, let corporate tax evasion completely destroy the middle class, and then we'll all get to see what the end result of unchecked greed is.

    Did you know Google technically only pays 2.4%? That's just one corporation. The rest of the taxpayers either end up taking up the slack, or.. Republicans get their spending cuts, and over time we get shittier roads, shittier education, shittier law enforcement.. take your pick, or all of the above. If that's the long term plan, then the whole country will end up looking like Detroit in no time. The one thing this shitty scenario has going for it is that, more than likely, we can all still own guns - and have nothing left to lose. OTOH, this has happened in many populations before and the people usually turn to drugs. It's a crapshoot. Revolution or rampant drug addiction.
    Revolution is never going to happen in any positive sense, its either fascism or destitution, the Randian future is already in material existence in the sprawling shanties and slum dwellings of the underdeveloped world were the checks and balances never got off the ground and there's still unmitigated class struggles of the worst variety.

    I think that in the first world its more likely that there will be destitution and despair, the examples of the pit mining and heavy industry communities in the US and UK destroyed by Thatcherism and Reaganomics are testamony to what will happen. None of those communities are likely to ever have mass rallies and movements rioting looking for jobs and work, any sort of work, now. Ali G satirised it in his show when he visited museams dedicated to the pits and coal miners in the UK and remarked that it was "shit work" and "why would anyone want to do that?" and suggesting it was good that it'd finished and no one was required to do it anymore.

    I dont know what kind of bollocks fuedalism is likely to arise when the the corporate/board room fifedoms and sychopanty to the rich become the only way to support yourself and your family or if that'd even last, I personally suspect that eventually that accumulated wealth, those legacies, will become depeleted and with it the cultural underpinnings which lead to their accumulation too.

    Although I dont take the attitude of let them have their day and let them deal with the consequences, they've done a hell of a lot ot externalise and dump the consequences elsewhere or on other people already, they'll do it then, even if they have to live in prison like compounds armed to the teeth defending themselves they'll do that. And like it.

  6. #16
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    State governments still depend on the Federal handouts. Some more than others.

    And besides that, there's still a whole network of Federal law enforcement at stake. Hell, both the Attorney General and FBI just warned of disaster if the spending cuts coming next month see the light of the day.
    So would these cuts present the exact same type of "disaster" (damn I wish there was a sarcasm font) as spending cuts to the military?

    The cuts, in either case, represent a disaster only if conditions exist to require the FBI (or the military for that matter) to be that size.

    Cuts to our military will only be a disaster if you view any decrease in our military capabilities as a grave national security issue.

    I would posit, and I think most rational individuals would agree that Terrorism poses no where NEAR the threat to our way of life that Soviet Russia did (Cuban missile crisis anyone).

    To argue that we need as much (or more) military spending now as we did then is frankly ridiculous.

    In that same vein, to portray any decrease in funding for the FBI as a disaster represents the same kind of tone deaf bullshit argument we're hearing from the hawks at the moment.

    The world wont end if government spending in general decreases. The problem is that for many of the talking heads we hear on TV (who not incidentally have a vested interest in the continued growth of these agencies) it will.

  7. #17
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There's not much Keynesian about it, at least nothing like what the man himself thought, he was culturally a classical liberal and all his policies were aimed at protecting property owning democracy as and end and a means to prosperity, unchecked unemployment and the waste presented by it and money which doesnt circulate in the economy were once issues for the public, perhaps under other guises like "justice", "equality", "a fair deal", "a new deal" but it amounted to the same thing.

    Now its all capitalist ideology, it ignores the crony capitalist nature of things or suggests, ironically, that more of the same will some how make it disappear, its like trotskyism's or marxism's attitude to "whithering away the state" by making it all powerful.
    Well it's all really a bit convuluted in practice isn't it?
    Republicans are for free-markets when it comes to taxes, but they are also for Keynesian justified deficit spending (don't let the current fight in DC fool you).
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #18
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    In that same vein, to portray any decrease in funding for the FBI as a disaster represents the same kind of tone deaf bullshit argument we're hearing from the hawks at the moment.
    You're equating it military defense spending. I'm talking about domestic spending. That needs to be addressed on it's own terms.

    talking heads we hear on TV.
    I guess that'd be relevant if these were pundits, but we're talking about the heads of the DOJ and FBI speaking to the Senate. I think the closest they got to theatrics is sending out a press release through a third party.

  9. #19
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    You're equating it military defense spending. I'm talking about domestic spending. That needs to be addressed on it's own terms.
    I am equating it because the arguments are equatable.

    Characterizing any reduction in DOJ or FBI funding as a "disaster" is as crazy characterizing any reduction in military spending as a "disaster".

    Pretty much every government agency has at this point become adept at claiming that no reasonable person would consider reducing funds to their department. And more worryingly that any reduction in the same constitutes an unacceptable threat to Americans on grounds of national security or whatever it may be.

    Show me a compelling reason why any reduction in funds to the FBI constitutes a disaster for the American people.

    I guess that'd be relevant if these were pundits, but we're talking about the heads of the DOJ and FBI speaking to the Senate. I think the closest they got to theatrics is sending out a press release through a third party.
    They are talking heads on TV.

    And the fact that they are the heads of the FBI and DOJ lead me to believe that they have every reason to choose self interest (proclaiming that America will only be safe if their pocket fiefdoms are increased) over whats right for the country (admitting that minor reductions in funding would lead to lay offs, but that the functional capability of the agencies would hardly be reduced and the safety of the average American would not be effected in any way).

  10. #20
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I am equating it because the arguments are equatable.
    Nice. I'm going to ignore the rest of your post then. Your is premise based on abstract equivocation.

    Lets chalk it up to "type". You're just not detail oriented enough for me.

Similar Threads

  1. The Progressive Income Tax: A Tale of Three Brothers
    By Bilateral Entry in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 09:21 PM
  2. Is A 100% Income Tax Achievable or Desirable?
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-28-2013, 10:10 PM
  3. What Grandpa Grandma stories would you be sharing when you reach a 100 years old?
    By Tantive in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 07:12 PM
  4. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-14-2007, 03:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO