Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

It starts with the Israel lobby and sort of goes from there (AIPAC, etc.). A lot of military spending is also Pork (gov't jobs and whatnot). Not that I'm in favor of it, there just tends to be a lot of well-connected special interests driving that ship. Farm subsidies also come to mind.

This is why centralization is so dangerous. A handful of wealthy special interests are able to direct a multi-trillion dollar death machine against the interests of those paying for and fighting in it.

2) Jefferson would remind you that as much as he might dislike Wal Mart or Home Depot, the country was built on free trade and a free market. Had the market not responded positively or their services had become outdated or no longer needed, they would not exist.

That sounds a lot more like Hamilton to me.

 

[Cackalacky]

What is this mythical free market I keep hearing about.

 

[wizards8507]

What is this mythical free market I keep hearing about.

I don't know about "mythical." Maybe "theoretical." "Mythical" implies that it could never exist. "Theoretical" at least maintains that it COULD exist, even if it never will.

 

[ACamp1900]

What is this mythical free market I keep hearing about.

It's on the bench next to that mythcial free health care...

 

[connor_in]

OH

MY

WORD

WHAT happened to ACamp's avatar!

as the baby in the state farm mim commercial says "FREAKY"

 

[Cackalacky]

It's on the bench next to that myhcial free health care...

I'm starting to come around....

 

[Cackalacky]

OH

MY

WORD

WHAT happened to ACamp's avatar!

as the baby in the state farm mim commercial says "FREAKY"

Ballz.... Big Ballz.

 

[chicago51]

1) Outside of the touchy feely stuff of companies dumping crap in Lake Michigan, how about...

a) single payer health care?
b) government run auto companies?
c) Fannie and Freddie?
d) Sallie Mae?
e) economy focused on state workers for roads, bridges, and teachers?
f) progressive taxes for social justice?

2) Jefferson would remind you that as much as he might dislike Wal Mart or Home Depot, the country was built on free trade and a free market. Had the market not responded positively or their services had become outdated or no longer needed, they would not exist.

Jefferson used tariffs in fact they were the only federal tax he had as POTUS albeit it was a different world. Free trade as some merits. However President's like Teddy Roosevelt and Jefferson if were alive today during the industrial revolution would have broken Wal Mart up into multiple companies.

This countries revolution started partially because of crony capitalism. The Tea Act wasn't just an increase in the sales tax on tea. It also gave a huge tax break to the East India Tea Company.

b) government run auto companies?
c) Fannie and Freddie?
d) Sallie Mae? Never said anything about that.

Never said anything about any of these. I think if bailing out GM and Chrysler was right but we should have broke them into small companies as well. I feel the same way about the banks. Not saving these institutions would be catastrophic for the economy but that also means companies that big are too big to exist.

Progressive taxes are to protect democracy itself so we wouldn't have the corruption we have now.

Jefferson quotes:

I hope that we crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Sounds like progressive taxation.

Here is what Jefferson would do with the unemployed according to his letter to James Maddison only to watch last 3 minutes to get the jist of the clip:

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

Keep in mind the economy of the day was agriculture. I think today Jefferson would be in favor of unemployment insurance or giving unemployed people some sort of work.

 

[Ndaccountant]

We could cut our current defense budget by 75% and still have world's largest military. Based on the absurd numbers involved, cuts would have to be incredibly dramatic to have the sort of negative effect you're anticipating. And the benefit that goes largely unnoticed is stability-- the Pax Americana-- but I see no reason to believe that the world order would descend into chaos if we took a big step back. Other nations, including many of our allies, would immediately step up to fill the void, thereby creating a new equilibrium.



I question why we as a country continue to put up with this arrangement. We spend so much blood and treasure overseas for minimal domestic benefit. Why not tell our politicians that they're beholden to us, not some Saudi prince, and that we'd rather see that money invested domestically going forward?

1. I guess I am not nearly as certain as you on the outcome. Today, there is an overhanging threat of the US. The power of this threat has variation over time, but it's still there. To slash the budget by that amount, in my mind, makes that threat much less severe. The only way to address that is for other nations to step up. I think some would and some would not.

2. I don't disagree, but I am not sure people view it in those terms. Instead, they see people being shot and bombed by their own government and call on the military to respond. The humanitarian side is where I see the biggest issue.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This Jefferson stuff is getting way out of hand.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.

 

[chicago51]

What is this mythical free market I keep hearing about.

There was an unchecked free market in 1970s in Chile.

In 1973 the dictator of Chile pretty much outsourced the building economy to Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys". It was an epic disaster it basically turned into a monopolistic economy and unemployment went from 3 to 10 percent, GDP declined 15 percent, it was a disaster.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm all for cutting ALL sectors of government.., including the military, by a lot. I'm not okay with slashing the military by half or more while at the same time growing every other government sector. Just my two cents.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

There was a unchecked free market in 1970s in Chile.

In 1973 the dictator of Chile pretty much outsourced the building economy to Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys". It was an epic disaster it basically turned into a monopolistic economy and unemployment went from 3 to 10 percent, GDP declined 15 percent, it was a disaster.

The disaster was due to Chile pegging their currency to the dollar, which Friedman was against. In the early 80's the dollar collapsed, which caused a bank-run in Chile.

I mean, c'mon man...

 

[Cackalacky]

There was a unchecked free market in 1970s in Chile.

In 1973 the dictator of Chile pretty much outsourced the building economy to Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys". It was an epic disaster it basically turned into a monopolistic economy and unemployment went from 3 to 10 percent, GDP declined 15 percent, it was a disaster.

You shut your unamerican whore mouth.

 

[chicago51]

The disaster was due to Chile pegging their currency to the dollar, which Friedman was against. In the early 80's the dollar collapsed, which caused a bank-run in Chile.

I mean, c'mon man...

Chile's economy was experienced ill effects within a short time well before the 80s.

I honestly don't think I know of any instances were Friedman economics of 100% free market capitalism without any safety net to encourage risk taking along with protecting people from catastrophes and without antitrust regulations as worked anywhere. At least not for wage earners and small business owners.

Show me a Friedman economy where median income grew and were small locally owned businesses flourished. You won't find any.

This isn't to say that Marxist communism is the answer. It is not.

I think history showed us though that mixed economies like the one's from the progressive era of the 1900s and 1910s and the post New Deal era of the 1940s-1970s produce growth for all income classes. While deregulation (no anti trust legislation) and less progressive taxation from 1920s, 1980s-present has produced boom and bust cycles; most importantly it has destroyed small business and has decreased real wages.

People like to call FDR a socialist. During the depression which was world wide and WWII the world saw the rise of extreme right (fascism) and extreme left (communism) parties. The United States was not immune from these influences and I think having a strong leader like FDR (who many call a socialist) to take on the economic royalist injecting some Keynes polices and while controlling the far left probably saved capitalism as we know it.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Chile's economy was experienced ill effects within a short time well before the 80s.

Well, they did just have a military coup d'etat...and of course almost the whole world was in a recession and energy crisis.

And don't forget that the reason Pinochet was able to take power in the first place (and the reason they sought Friedman's advice) was because inflation was already at 150%.

But you're right: something, something, Milton Friedman.

[Facepalm]

 

[Wild Bill]

Show me a Friedman economy where median income grew and were small locally owned businesses flourished. You won't find any.

Estonia.

 

[chicago51]

So I wanted to post some stats on monopolies. This from Tom Philpott at Mother Jones or professor Susan Crawford who wrote "Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age"

4 companies control percent of the grain trade

3 companies control 70 percent of the beef industry

4 companies control 58 percent of the pork and chicken industry

Walmart alone controls 25 percent of the grocery market

4 companies control 75 percent of the breakfast cereal market

4 companies control 75 percent of the snack market

In the health insurance market 4 companies United Health Group, Well Point, Aetna, and Humana control 75 percent of the market. Obamacare's crony captialism somewhat facism will make this worse.

According to Health Care America in 38 states 2 insurers control 60 percent of the market

Just 4 companies Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint control 89 percent of the cell phone market.

Same with internet market and now Comcast and Time Warner are trying to merge.

This all leads to higer prices. South Korea pays $27 a month for high speed internet that is twice as fast.

American pay an average of $90 for cell service in Europe it is $19.

This is a return to the days of the Robber Barons except it is worse because the Robber Barons of the late 1800s were at least national oligarchs loyal to the United States not transnationals with no sense of loyalty.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Wouldn't it be nice if the Antitrust Division did its job? We'd all have Google Fiber by now.

 

[irishog77]

This has got to be Exhibit 1A for why no one in Washington gives a shit about individual voters. Virtually everyone in this country gets hosed by the telecom monopolies-- we pay way more than others for relatively terrible service. So where are the Congressmen looking to take on these assholes? This is low-hanging fruit! Imagine being able to show up at a local town hall meeting to tell your constituents that you halved their cellular/ cable bills and doubled their internet speed? They're nowhere to be found, because the leeches in Washington would rather take campaign contributions from Verizon and Comcast than look out for the best interests of those they ostensibly work for.

I can't wait for Comcast and Time Warner to merge. Hopefully they can squeeze another buck or two out of us in our monthly bill.

 

[chicago51]

I know a lot Democrats assume it will be Hillary in 2016 but I am hoping Brian Schweitzer former Democrat governor from red state Montana decides to run because of his admiration for Teddy Roosevelt and speaking out on monopolies and corporate royalism.

Democrat may run in 2016 as the anti-Obama

I'm not a fan of his connection dirty energy although he has spoken out on conservation and reducing our energy consumption.

I'm not a fan of his excessive friendship with the gun lobby but it is not the biggest issue the country faces.

I am hoping he runs against Hillary as I think once the debate begins his positions on healthcare, big business, and being antiwar anti military industrial complex will be popular with primary voters. He was also one of the biggest critics of NSA surveillance programs.

I think he is someone that can at least get issues that need to be debated some attention even if he can't win his first time around. Personally I'm not big on Hillary as I think she is pretty much the same as Obama and Bill Clinton although she may face less obstruction than Barack I just don't see her as revolutionary political figure that will fundamentally transform our economy into one that works for wage earners and small business owners.

 

[irishog77]

I know a lot Democrats assume it will be Hillary in 2016 but I am hoping Brian Schweitzer former Democrat governor from red state Montana decides to run because of his admiration for Teddy Roosevelt and speaking out on monopolies and corporate royalism.

Democrat may run in 2016 as the anti-Obama

I'm not a fan of his connection dirty energy although he has spoken out on conservation and reducing our energy consumption.

I'm not a fan of his excessive friendship with the gun lobby but it is not the biggest issue the country faces.

I am hoping he runs against Hillary as I think once the debate begins his positions on healthcare, big business, and being antiwar anti military industrial complex will be popular with primary voters. He was also one of the biggest critics of NSA surveillance programs.

I think he is someone that can at least get issues that need to be debated some attention even if he can't win his first time around. Personally I'm not big on Hillary as I think she is pretty much the same as Obama and Bill Clinton although she may face less obstruction than Barack I just don't see her as revolutionary political figure that will fundamentally transform our economy into one that works for wage earners and small business owners.

She won't be. While perhaps a little different than Willie, she is seeking to bolster her own biography and legacy...not actually do anything for the American people. Like when Bill was actively seeking out the Secretary General of the U.N. job. Quite pathetic.

On the plus side, like Bill, she will be so desperate to be liked and approved, she probably will reach out across the aisle and actively work with Republicans to get some stuff done.

 

[chicago51]

She won't be. While perhaps a little different than Willie, she is seeking to bolster her own biography and legacy...not actually do anything for the American people. Like when Bill was actively seeking out the Secretary General of the U.N. job. Quite pathetic.

On the plus side, like Bill, she will be so desperate to be liked and approved, she probably will reach out across the aisle and actively work with Republicans to get some stuff done.

Bill Clinton was extremely intelligent guy but he cared more about his own legacy and only tinkered at the margins and did what he could to pump the economy in the short term.

Bill ran on the "new covenant" of taking government back from the powerful interest and giveit back to ordinary people. This is what he believed in. Then he got elected.

The corporate American media won't cover this but BBC did it was entitled "The Trap". Royalist Rober Rubin former Goldman Sachs CEO and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan sat the young President down on their laps and explained they (the economic royalist) are in charge and if he wanted any chance getting anything done he had to play by their rules.

 

[DSully1995]

Congressional Budget Office Report Finds Minimum Wage Lifts Wages for 16.5 Million Workers | The White House
CBO says the wage will help 16.5 milion workers, while mentioning a 0.3 decrease in employment, I dont work at the illuminated CBO but: 152 million (employed) x 0.003= 456 000 jobs...

 

[Ndaccountant]

Not sure how many of you have been following the Ukraine fighting, but this is a big deal. Putin's vision of a "Euroasian Union" (AKA, bring back the Soviet Union) cannot be achieved without Ukraine. Russia wielded its power to coerce Ukraine into a deal and it's no coincidence that the latest infusion of cash from Russia preceded the violence (and Putin's quotes of needing to squash the protests). Once over, Russia announced last year it would increase military spending by 25%, pushing it, which would put it above France and Great Britain.

Who knows where this ends up going, but the intentions are quite clear. The sad part is that the will of the people isn't clear. There seems to be a big divide on the policies both inside Russia and the countries joining this "union".

 

[Cackalacky]

Not sure how many of you have been following the Ukraine fighting, but this is a big deal. Putin's vision of a "Euroasian Union" (AKA, bring back the Soviet Union) cannot be achieved without Ukraine. Russia wielded its power to coerce Ukraine into a deal and it's no coincidence that the latest infusion of cash from Russia preceded the violence (and Putin's quotes of needing to squash the protests). Once over, Russia announced last year it would increase military spending by 25%, pushing it, which would put it above France and Great Britain.

Who knows where this ends up going, but the intentions are quite clear. The sad part is that the will of the people isn't clear. There seems to be a big divide on the policies both inside Russia and the countries joining this "union".

I watched a limited live stream last night. I wish I had not. I have no words.

 

[connor_in]

+106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt | CNS News

Please Note: This article also points out W increased it 93% while in office 8 years as well.
and..."During the time that Bush and Obama have been in office, the marketable debt of the U.S. government has nearly quadrupled, increasing by $8,847,994,000,000. " So, its not really a good R bad D story, but an indictment of both sides. This is one of the reasons many conservatives were not big fans of W despite what those on the left think.

 

[chicago51]

Not sure how many of you have been following the Ukraine fighting, but this is a big deal. Putin's vision of a "Euroasian Union" (AKA, bring back the Soviet Union) cannot be achieved without Ukraine. Russia wielded its power to coerce Ukraine into a deal and it's no coincidence that the latest infusion of cash from Russia preceded the violence (and Putin's quotes of needing to squash the protests). Once over, Russia announced last year it would increase military spending by 25%, pushing it, which would put it above France and Great Britain.

Who knows where this ends up going, but the intentions are quite clear. The sad part is that the will of the people isn't clear. There seems to be a big divide on the policies both inside Russia and the countries joining this "union".

This a huge deal!!

I it would be a near unanimous agreement world wide that Hitler was the clear "bad" guy in WW2. However in WW1 there was no clear villain it was more a result of entangling alliances and problems of little countries escalating.

The fact that you have the US and its EU allies intervening for one side and Russia intervening on behalf of the other creates a potentially dangerous situation. Not saying by any means this start WW3 it in all likelihood.

What I am saying is this is the kind of situation to could escalate in a worst case scenario ala "Guns of August". Russia gets into a conflict from with EU then because of alliances others including the US gets involved and things can get out of hand.

I still the biggest threat of a world conflict is in east Asia. China and Japan and the US by association are having dispute control of the South China Sea. Plus there is always the Twain situation who we sympathize for, and the North Korea situation who China remains sympathetic for to an extent.

I think having the UN and the knowledge of nuclear destruction helps keep peace but I figure if another world war does happen it will be a WW1 style of escalation. Certainly Ukraine has the potential for this spark to ignite. There is also alot of instability in eastern Europe and fascist and communist parties are on the rise in places like Greece were the economy has really taken a down turn.

 

[chicago51]

+106%: Obama Has More Than Doubled Marketable U.S. Debt | CNS News

Please Note: This article also points out W increased it 93% while in office 8 years as well.
and..."During the time that Bush and Obama have been in office, the marketable debt of the U.S. government has nearly quadrupled, increasing by $8,847,994,000,000. " So, its not really a good R bad D story, but an indictment of both sides. This is one of the reasons many conservatives were not big fans of W despite what those on the left think.

Yes and Reagan added more to the debt than any President before him combined.

HW Bush added another 1.5 trillion

Clinton added to the debt early on. We never actually had a surplus although it was virtually balanced at the end of the Clinton years. That was more so because of the booming economy from the tech boom.

You mention GW Bush and Obama.

We (Democrats and Republicans) have done pretty much everything wrong since the 1980s. We've had unpaid for tax cuts mostly on the wealthy (inflation adjusted rates on the middle class are pretty similar to the rates in the mid 1960s). The Bush and Reagan tax cuts needed to take a lesson from Kennedy and actually pay for cutting the rates. The Kennedy tax cuts if you want to call them "cuts" actually in a slight of hand way was a tax increase because limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes actually forced the very wealthy of the day to pay higher effective tax rates.

We also ushered in an era of uncontrolled military spending. We spending is much more on defense now than the Cold War levels.

What is ironic is that everyone of these Presidents mentioned the national debt as a big priority in their inauguration address'.

 

[wizards8507]

Yes and Reagan added more to the debt than any President before him combined.

HW Bush added another 1.5 trillion

Clinton added to the debt early on. We never actually had a surplus although it was virtually balanced at the end of the Clinton years. That was more so because of the booming economy from the tech boom.

You mention GW Bush and Obama.

We (Democrats and Republicans) have done pretty much everything wrong since the 1980s. We've had unpaid for tax cuts mostly on the wealthy (inflation adjusted rates on the middle class are pretty similar to the rates in the mid 1960s).

We also ushered in an era of uncontrolled military spending. We spending is much more on defense now than the Cold War levels.

What is ironic is that everyone of these Presidents mentioned the national debt as a big priority in their inauguration address'.

The bolded is silly on a fundamental level. You don't have to "pay for" tax cuts because tax cuts aren't spending. Tax cuts are letting people keep more of the money that was theirs in the first place.

I know it comes down to semantics because the point you were trying to make is about replacing that revenue in the budget, but please don't say "unpaid for" tax cuts.