Politics

[Bluto]

Justice Scalia said we need to stop raical entitlement. Since when is voting an entitlement. I have many friends of many different races I work at an office were as white guy I am in the minority and I have never heard any ever expect something extra because they were a minority.

Voting rights should not be a political issue but I am afraid that this clearly has not been the case. Not only here but in these voter ID laws and early voting changes that strangely seem to affect urban black areas the most.

Scalia is a jerk off.

 

[Downinthebend]

You have been throwing around the term "violence" in a pretty haphazard manner to describe everything from taxation to law enforcement. I'm just curious as to how you would define this term?

The "free market" can be a pretty "violent" place can it not?

One example of violence is when people with guns come to your house and take away your property or imprison you, or shoot you. I don't agree that I've been using it haphazardly: the standard for (criminal) laws is whether we think penalties should be enforced upon people who break the laws. That "enforcement" obviously must include violence. Some laws deserve to use violence as a mean, like keeping drunks from driving, or keeping people from stealing from each other, on the other hand, (as i've said before) I don't think drinking is a worthy cause for violence regardless of how much damage one does to themself.

And the free market can be a terrible place, just the potential for injury from the government is MUCH more than the potential for injury by the market as, one has an army to force me to do things, and the other does not.

 

[Redbar]

Scalia is a jerk off.

Judicial activism at it's finest. It is intellectually dishonest to call him a strict constructionist. He has an agenda and a persona greater than any justice in my lifetime and his lifetime appointment allows him to impose a tyranny that no politician could. Congress is supposed to be the 800lb gorilla in our system of checks and balances, they have abdicated much of their power and authority to the executive on their own, guys like Scalia and comments like those he made yesterday, look to further empower the executive. Their problem is their hatred of democracy and embrace of corporatism have become apparent and hindered their ability to get the right guy in the executive.

 

[Bluto]

One example of violence is when people with guns come to your house and take away your property or imprison you, or shoot you. I don't agree that I've been using it haphazardly: the standard for (criminal) laws is whether we think penalties should be enforced upon people who break the laws. That "enforcement" obviously must include violence. Some laws deserve to use violence as a mean, like keeping drunks from driving, or keeping people from stealing from each other, on the other hand, (as i've said before) I don't think drinking is a worthy cause for violence regardless of how much damage one does to themself.

And the free market can be a terrible place, just the potential for injury from the government is MUCH more than the potential for injury by the market as, one has an army to force me to do things, and the other does not.

So let's be honest, who are the big time power players that control the political process? It's pretty easy to make the argument that it is the same small group of individuals and or corporations that wield the overwhelming majority of power in the so called "free market" economy.

Now, does it qualify as "violence" if said individuals and entities knowingly tank the economy (financial crisis of 2008) and or manipulate markets (Enron) and the end result is people loosing everything? If you don't think that players in the "free market" aren't as equally keen as governments to deploy the use of violence in all of its forms you need to read or re-read some history books that deal with industrialization and the rise of unions in the US as well as some histories of Mexico, Central and South America. Looking up the origins of the term "banana republic" would be a good start.

 

[Downinthebend]

So let's be honest, who are the big time power players that control the political process? It's pretty easy to make the argument that it is the same small group of individuals and or corporations that wield the overwhelming majority of power in the so called "free market" economy.

Now, does it qualify as "violence" if said individuals and entities knowingly tank the economy (financial crisis of 2008) and or manipulate markets (Enron) and the end result is people loosing everything? If you don't think that players in the "free market" aren't as equally keen as governments to deploy the use of violence in all of its forms you need to read or re-read some history books that deal with industrialization and the rise of unions in the US as well as some histories of Mexico, Central and South America. Looking up the origins of the term "banana republic" would be a good start.

As to your first paragraph, then shouldn't we want it to be as small as possible so that the power bought by money can't affect us much?

Uh, to be clear, when I mention "violence" i'm talking about literal violence (People threatening force to coerce actions), I'm not sure that what your describing is violence, but it possibly could be fraud. And also, I think the circumstances leading to the rise of unions was a huge fault of government: they were letting corporations literally kill people. I'm glad that unions were able to fix that problem, but if the government was "doing their job" in that instance, they wouldn't have had needed to fix as drastic of a problem.

 

[Bluto]

As to your first paragraph, then shouldn't we want it to be as small as possible so that the power bought by money can't affect us much?

Uh, to be clear, when I mention "violence" i'm talking about literal violence (People threatening force to coerce actions), I'm not sure that what your describing is violence, but it possibly could be fraud. And also, I think the circumstances leading to the rise of unions was a huge fault of government: they were letting corporations literally kill people. I'm glad that unions were able to fix that problem, but if the government was "doing their job" in that instance, they wouldn't have had needed to fix as drastic of a problem.

You seem to present opposing views here. First you claim government should be as small as possible so that power that can be bought within it does not effect the average person. Then you say the government needs to do its "job" to prevent people from being killed by those with too much power. If the government is "as small as possible" then said individuals and entities with money and power will impose their will unimpeded on the average citizen as they did during much of the industrial age. Unfortunately, it seems as though the Supreme Court does not understand that "money" is power and for our Republic to function as intended money needs to have restraints placed on it.

As to how you choose to define "violence", I think you're referring to physical violence. There are all kinds of "literal" definitions of violence. For example, is psychological violence more acceptable than physical violence? If so to what level? What about symbolic violence?

 

[irishff1014]

No, its the law ****ing (f-u-c-k-i-n-g) up people's lives when they penalize actions that don't affect anyone except the consenting. Unless of course, you think laws should be followed regardless of what they penalize, I'll create some absurd scenarios if you think that.

What is the role of (criminal) laws? Laws should be made to penalize and stop violence and fraud, and not too much more

Why do you want to point guns (or have guns be pointed at) people who do actions you dislike? One of the major principles of the Christianity that I subscribe to is to treat people how I would like to be treated: I don't want other people pointing guns at me for my lifestyle, so I won't do the same to others. I don't think drugs are moral, I don't think they are healthy, I don't want to do drugs. I don't think violence is the answer.

If you think laws should be made to enforce morality, or lifestyles, then lets make clear that you support the government running the lives of people.

First off i am not a cop just work with them and have a lot of friends that are them.

You all have been watching tom many cop shows. I don't know the exact numbers but i would bet that the average cop doesn't even take their gun out of their holster but 1 into weeks. And i would be surprised if it was even that often.

Like i said earlier yes i know there are dirt bag cops. Just like there is dirt bag teacher, bankers, salesman and on and on.

 

[irishff1014]

I assume you mean "don't," and that is horseshit considering how police unions and drug enforcement budgets created the incredibly wasteful Drug War to employ cops and dogs. It's disgusting. I'd jump off a bridge before I arrested a kid for possession marijuana.

"Oh, not my fault. It's the law." Billions upon billions of dollars to play Cowboys and Indians; what a joke. Those *******s made the law. Read up on it. So, again, **** the police.

The really sick part is that you've all convinced yourself that you're keeping people safe. Never mind that facts:





Then when you take into account the 1,300,000 people behind bars right now for marijuana offenses. Those people put 1,300,000 people behind bars so you can stay employed (gotta have those dogs!) at the cost of ~$45,000/yr per person. You're doing a great job for society!!

And now I'm pissed. I'm taking a break from this malarkey.

And how many of them are in jail because they chose not to go to court? so then they get a warrant for the arrest for failure to appear. So they turn a slap on the wrist into a sentence.

 

[chicago51]

This is going to be a big rant:
Part I is me complaining about the sequester, part II is about inflation.

So it looks like the sequester will go into effect. I guess the big effects may not happen right away. So right wingers may get their chance it looks like. The theory is that if the government just cuts back the private sector is going to take off like a rocket. I hope they are right honestly because I don’t people to get hurt and be out of work because of this.
The big thing about the sequester is that nobody seems to care that it is happening. Unless you are that employee forced to take a furlough, the frequent traveler get may be getting delayed at the airport, or the mom whose son or daughter got that will get kicked out of Head Start.

I have to say I think we have become a very selfish society, myself included at times. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem this is our problem. I think the only thing people look at is how it affects them. Hey if I got a job, if I am healthy then all is well. An individual who holds down a steady job, one day gets laid off, gets sick, can’t afford COBRA, next thing you know he or she is out on the street. We don’t care about that person as society because it may would cost us the tax payers a bit more money. The conservative economic theory that if cut the top end taxes that the economy would take off might actually work if the richest of the rich invested in America and not in Swiss Bank accounts.

Then the worst part is everything is done through fear. There is this idea that there is not enough pie to go around. The idea is well we simply don’t have enough money, we are going to run out of money, and we are spending too much. I say we are the richest nation on earth, we can issue as much currency as needed (not as we want but as needed), and are spending about 20% of GDP when many developed nations are well over 40% some 50%.

 

[chicago51]

Part II
So the idea is that if we run up the debt so high we will get inflation. Yes if we gave every American a billion dollars I am sure we would have inflation but money in circulation is not the major cause of inflation. The United States created trillions of dollars out of thin air just to give to banksters and the dollar is pretty strong right now. Inflation is caused by a dip in supply of essential economic comoditities that drive the economy at such a level that it can’t meet demand. Like oil; what happened during the Carter inflation? The oil embargo, now provides the vast majority of transportation, at that time good amount of electricity, and it use in making plastics and other materials. So since oil drove the economy and the available supply was low we got inflation.

Yes excess money in circulation does cause inflation in fact the government inflates its currency at a set rate over time on purpose, so it can borrow now and pay itself back at essentially a lower rate because the currency has a gone just a bit in value. We are not close to inflation right now. When have $22 million people out of work and low consumer spending it indicates not enough demand or money in circulation. If our unemployment was way down and we just made everyone millionaires then demand would be more demand than resources available that we would have inflation. Again we are not even close to that. All this talk about the debt destroying is mainstream media on the left, right, and center.

Bottom line: Inflation is not because of the number of dollars but the capacity of resources.

There was big time inflation in Zimbabwe just a while back I believe it was 2008 to 2009. Why because the guy that took over was mad that all the farmers were white. So he got rid of all the white farmers. That would have been fine if he replaced them with guys that knew how to farm and not his best buddies. There was a major food shortage so what happened? Inflation

 

[irishpat183]

Part II
So the idea is that if we run up the debt so high we will get inflation. Yes if we gave every American a billion dollars I am sure we would have inflation but money in circulation is not the major cause of inflation. The United States created trillions of dollars out of thin air just to give to banksters and the dollar is pretty strong right now. Inflation is caused by a dip in supply of essential economic comoditities that drive the economy at such a level that it can’t meet demand. Like oil; what happened during the Carter inflation? The oil embargo, now provides the vast majority of transportation, at that time good amount of electricity, and it use in making plastics and other materials. So since oil drove the economy and the available supply was low we got inflation.

Yes excess money in circulation does cause inflation in fact the government inflates its currency at a set rate over time on purpose, so it can borrow now and pay itself back at essentially a lower rate because the currency has a gone just a bit in value. We are not close to inflation right now. When have $22 million people out of work and low consumer spending it indicates not enough demand or money in circulation. If our unemployment was way down and we just made everyone millionaires then demand would be more demand than resources available that we would have inflation. Again we are not even close to that. All this talk about the debt destroying is mainstream media on the left, right, and center.

Bottom line: Inflation is not because of the number of dollars but the capacity of resources.

There was big time inflation in Zimbabwe just a while back I believe it was 2008 to 2009. Why because the guy that took over was mad that all the farmers were white. So he got rid of all the white farmers. That would have been fine if he replaced them with guys that knew how to farm and not his best buddies. There was a major food shortage so what happened? Inflation

Just look at South Africa....My wife and her family left there after aparthied because of the, I guess you'd call it, reverse racism.

They're glad that aparthied ended...but not with how the government cleaned it up. Like you said, giving jobs to people, based on their skin color and not their experience, is what lead to the mess.

 

[irishpat183]

This is going to be a big rant:
Part I is me complaining about the sequester, part II is about inflation.

So it looks like the sequester will go into effect. I guess the big effects may not happen right away. So right wingers may get their chance it looks like. The theory is that if the government just cuts back the private sector is going to take off like a rocket. I hope they are right honestly because I don’t people to get hurt and be out of work because of this.
The big thing about the sequester is that nobody seems to care that it is happening. Unless you are that employee forced to take a furlough, the frequent traveler get may be getting delayed at the airport, or the mom whose son or daughter got that will get kicked out of Head Start.

I have to say I think we have become a very selfish society, myself included at times. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem this is our problem. I think the only thing people look at is how it affects them. Hey if I got a job, if I am healthy then all is well. An individual who holds down a steady job, one day gets laid off, gets sick, can’t afford COBRA, next thing you know he or she is out on the street. We don’t care about that person as society because it may would cost us the tax payers a bit more money. The conservative economic theory that if cut the top end taxes that the economy would take off might actually work if the richest of the rich invested in America and not in Swiss Bank accounts.

Then the worst part is everything is done through fear. There is this idea that there is not enough pie to go around. The idea is well we simply don’t have enough money, we are going to run out of money, and we are spending too much. I say we are the richest nation on earth, we can issue as much currency as needed (not as we want but as needed), and are spending about 20% of GDP when many developed nations are well over 40% some 50%.

GOOD. We need a reality check. And the cries of "the sky is falling" from the left need to stop (in fact, they've backed off a ton since as they know they're bullsh*ting about the effects). Talk about fear mongering....Gimmie a break.


Defense is getting cut, the lefties shoudl love that....And at the end of the day, 85 million compared to our debt? LOL. Drop in the bucket.

I wish people would wake up. This cry baby "OMG THE CUTS!! TEACHES WILL BE FIRED!! SCHOOLS WILL CLOSE"

Or my favorite, Maxine Waters, We'll lose 170 million jobs. (according to the Labor office, there are only 134 million working in our country)

How the hell does she keep getting elected?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

GOOD. We need a reality check. And the cries of "the sky is falling" from the left need to stop (in fact, they've backed off a ton since as they know they're bullsh*ting about the effects). Talk about fear mongering....Gimmie a break.


Defense is getting cut, the lefties shoudl love that....And at the end of the day, 85 million compared to our debt? LOL. Drop in the bucket.

I wish people would wake up. This cry baby "OMG THE CUTS!! TEACHES WILL BE FIRED!! SCHOOLS WILL CLOSE"

Or my favorite, Maxine Waters, We'll lose 170 million jobs. (according to the Labor office, there are only 134 million working in our country)

How the hell does she keep getting elected?

+1 there. I love the sequester -- agencies don't know how to trim their own budgets anymore. So they have to re-learn somehow.

No president has ever spent less than his predecessor, and it's time to question that tradition.

 

[chicago51]

Like I said it is the rights chance prove they are right. The private sector should soar and should be creating a ton of jobs now more than enough to offset loss of government jobs. I mean that is the conservative talking point has been that we need cut government spending to promote economic growth. We'll see what happens.

I'll say this about the sequester it may be better for the bases of each party than the alternative. Even though I don't understand why.

In any grand bargains scenario the following would have to happen. 1- The entitlement benefits would have to decline over time 2- Loopholes that benefit the multi-millionaires would have to be closed. Each parties hardcore base see this worse than the sequester.

I'll say this as a lefty. Food stamps, pell grants, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were untouched by the sequester.

I find the rights point of view the sequester interesting. I assume that the rights goals are basically the following:
1- Lower the deficit
2- Cut entitlement spending
3- Protect defense
4- Simplify the tax code
5- lower tax rates

Now with the sequester the right gets #1 essentially 20% of what it wants. # 5 stays the same so I guess you could say they are getting 40%.

Now with a grand bargain the right would get more of #1, some of # 2, more of #3, #4, and would lose on #5. So basically a grand bargain would get the right 80% of what they want.

Now the goals on the left are:
1- Lower the deficit
2- Protect entitlements
3- Trim the defense budget
4- Simpify the tax code
5- in way that brings in more revenue at the top.

So with the sequester the left is getting #1, #2, at bit too much of #3. So the left is getting 40% to 60% of what it wants on the sequester. Although they are losing domestic investment in green energy and education so I call it 30%-45%.


Now with a grand bargain the left would get more of #1, along with #3, #4, #5 and lose out on #2. So they too would get 80% of what they want.

I think both sides get more out a grand bargain. Even though I am not sure they see it that way.

 

[chicago51]

I think the point of fear mongering on both sides is true. The sky is not going to fall with the sequester.

Also the deficit hawks need stop the fear tactics too. There is no risk of inflation or running out of money at least at our current investment levels.

 

[Black Irish]

I don't remember who said it, but a commentator summed up the sequester by saying "these aren't really cuts, they are just decreases in the increases." The spending baseline for government agencies just goes up and up. The problem is that the cuts are just as mindless; take a certain percentage off the top. It's like no one actually looks to see what can be sensibly cut. Oh, yeah, because that would involve thinking and making good decisions. We can't have that, no time left over for posturing and finger pointing.

 

[chicago51]

I don't remember who said it, but a commentator summed up the sequester by saying "these aren't really cuts, they are just decreases in the increases." The spending baseline for government agencies just goes up and up. The problem is that the cuts are just as mindless; take a certain percentage off the top. It's like no one actually looks to see what can be sensibly cut. Oh, yeah, because that would involve thinking and making good decisions. We can't have that, no time left over for posturing and finger pointing.

Some senate republicans think as you do.

The Senate republicans actually tried to pass a bill to give Obama the power to basically move the money around. It failed as it only got 38 votes with several republicans not voting for it either.

Polictically it is not a bad strategy for them if it would have past. Every cut then is technically an Obama cut that he can be blaimed for.

The Democrat plan also failed as it only got 51 votes (unoffically 52 but Harry Reid changed his vote for procedural reasons so he cold bring it up again; some Senate rule that I don't understand). The Democrat plan was a fix of cuts and the buffet rule which offset the sequester for this year and put it off till 2014.

Neither idea had a chance of passing but I think they did to show their base they tried.

 

[irishpat183]

+1 there. I love the sequester -- agencies don't know how to trim their own budgets anymore. So they have to re-learn somehow.

No president has ever spent less than his predecessor, and it's time to question that tradition.

Exactly. People are complaining about the jobs and defense....but we've lost sight of the real issue. We need to stop handing over money to our government without accountablity.

And It's not gonna juice up the economy like republicans are saying. But it's a step in the right direction. Just like it's not gonna cause mass unemployment like our POTUS is claiming.

Releasing criminals from prison? Mass unemployment? Troops will be killed because of the cuts?

GIMMIE A F**KING BREAK.

 

[irishpat183]

I don't remember who said it, but a commentator summed up the sequester by saying "these aren't really cuts, they are just decreases in the increases." The spending baseline for government agencies just goes up and up. The problem is that the cuts are just as mindless; take a certain percentage off the top. It's like no one actually looks to see what can be sensibly cut. Oh, yeah, because that would involve thinking and making good decisions. We can't have that, no time left over for posturing and finger pointing.

EVERYTHING in Washington can be "sensibly cut".


The red tape and bureaucracy has it's grips on everything. It must be trimmed down. There is no reason that our government, with the money they take in, can't balance a budget and work within their means. THAT is the problem.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Exactly. People are complaining about the jobs and defense....but we've lost sight of the real issue. We need to stop handing over money to our government without accountablity.

And It's not gonna juice up the economy like republicans are saying. But it's a step in the right direction. Just like it's not gonna cause mass unemployment like our POTUS is claiming.

Releasing criminals from prison? Mass unemployment? Troops will be killed because of the cuts?GIMMIE A F**KING BREAK.

lol. This is what they call Washington Monument Syndrome -- if you ever have to cut something, tell the public you're going to cut the thing they like best.

Then, they'll give you back your budget and you can keep on spending $2.6 million educating Chinese hookers on the dangers of alcolholism. (I wish I were making that up...)

Washington Monument Syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[chicago51]

So you guys think the jobs are going to sky rocket now that we cut all this government spending?

 

[DSully1995]

So you guys think the jobs are going to sky rocket now that we cut all this government spending?

I think too much spending is like coke, its awesome when your high, but you can stay high forver and the longer you try to the worse it is when you come down

 

[chicago51]

I think too much spending is like coke, its awesome when your high, but you can stay high forver and the longer you try to the worse it is when you come down

Spending is kind of like that but not investing.

When build a bomb. Yea there is a temporary job increase. After you drop that bomb though you get nothing back.

Now you rebuild (which has to be done at some point all we are doing is putting it off) and update your critical infastructure. That investment is going reused by the citizens over and over.

For exampe when the United States built the transcontinental railroad. It set the staging ground for the industrial revoluation in the United States. We recovered every single dollar we went on the transcontinental railroad and then some.

Also the trying to stay high forver point does not necessarily apply. If demand in the economy picks up you will not have to spend as much plus you will be getting more revenue back in return.

You say your initial investments generates X amount of new jobs. Well those people with new jobs are going spend their money on goods and services in the economy. When that happens business are going to have to meet that increased demand. They are going hire more people, buy more raw materials, and that means more delivery drivers. So that means more new jobs that means more people spending money and the cycle contiunes.

Now if you cut back when their is no growth. Then that jobs loss means less demand. Less demand means less hiring or even law offs. That means even less demand. Suddenly the cycle is headed the wrong direction.

Also when less people are working what does it mean? Less taxes. Less taxes mean higher deficits and if you are following the austerity plan that means more cutting back. Hence more job loss, less demand, more job loss, less taxes and the cycle continues.

The narrative in the United States national media has been all about the debt. We need to be talking about jobs. If the 1990s taught Americans anything is that the fastest way to shrink the deficit is a booming economy.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So you guys think the jobs are going to sky rocket now that we cut all this government spending?

Well its not real economic activity if ita created from taxation.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think too much spending is like coke, its awesome when your high, but you can stay high forver and the longer you try to the worse it is when you come down

Which by analogy makes Obama a crack-dealer.

"Now is not the time for Americans to stop smoking crack. My plan is a smoke-as-you-go proposal. What we're asking for is the wealthiest Americans paying their fair-share so the middle-class doesn't have to go without the rocks they're accustomed to."

 

[chicago51]

Which by analogy makes Obama a crack-dealer.

"Now is not the time for Americans to stop smoking crack. My plan is a smoke-as-you-go proposal. What we're asking for is the wealthiest Americans paying their fair-share so the middle-class doesn't have to go without the rocks they're accustomed to."

Working stiffs actually pay a higher effective tax rate than the wealthy. After all the write offs, loopholes, figuring the payroll tax: a 50k worker actually pays a higher percentage than the wealthiest individual.

Again federal spending is 22% of GDP. Canada is like 40%. Not saying we should be Canada. The facts that the US is over taxing and over spending just are not there.

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k71DYM20WRM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bluto]

Well its not real economic activity if ita created from taxation.

Sure it is, it just redefines by who and on what that money is going to be spent.

 

[irishpat183]

Sure it is, it just redefines by who and on what that money is going to be spent.

Unsustainable. You can't stimulate the economy with artifical (government) spending. It doesn't work.

How'd this exact plan work out for GM and Volt?? Or Solyandra?

 

[chicago51]

Unsustainable. You can't stimulate the economy with artifical (government) spending. It doesn't work.

How'd this exact plan work out for GM and Volt?? Or Solyandra?

Why is it unsustainable?

It worked out fine during the FDR, and Eisenhower (republican) adminstrations. Once you spend enough to get demand going, you are going to get provide sector growth. As the private sector grows the government spending gets cut back.

Government spending got us out of the Great Depression did it not?

 

[DSully1995]

Spending is kind of like that but not investing.


You say your initial investments generates X amount of new jobs. Well those people with new jobs are going spend their money on goods and services in the economy. When that happens business are going to have to meet that increased demand. They are going hire more people, buy more raw materials, and that means more delivery drivers. So that means more new jobs that means more people spending money and the cycle contiunes.

Now if you cut back when their is no growth. Then that jobs loss means less demand. Less demand means less hiring or even law offs. That means even less demand. Suddenly the cycle is headed the wrong direction.

Also when less people are working what does it mean? Less taxes. Less taxes mean higher deficits and if you are following the austerity plan that means more cutting back. Hence more job loss, less demand, more job loss, less taxes and the cycle continues.

The narrative in the United States national media has been all about the debt. We need to be talking about jobs. If the 1990s taught Americans anything is that the fastest way to shrink the deficit is a booming economy.

Exactly, but Id prefer investment through personal savings, since any saving is invested into the economy theres no need for the government to spend (other than public goods)