I want my country back....

[King Nupe]

White people/ tea partiers, what do you mean when you say this or hear this. Colored people/ liberals want to know...

[DeadlyDynasty]

Pre-1863 America, Kool.

Those were the days

[pikkiwoki]

Let's say the situation was reversed. Let's say instead of whites, it was blacks who had geographic history on their side and it was they, not whites, who developed and leveraged guns, germs and steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_Germs_Steel#The_theory_outlined) to technologically and economically dominate the world and enslave whites. In this hypothetical situation, would blacks have eventually freed their white slaves?

[Trainwreck2100]

an impossible scenario, whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates that made them white. Africans didn't develop said tech because they never had to.

[hater]

white ppl are in for a rough ride.

enjoy it while it last white ppl. it's coming. and soon

[pikkiwoki]

an impossible scenario, whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates that made them white. Africans didn't develop said tech because they never had to.

but hypothetically if blacks, instead of whites, by some confluence of historical circumstances did develop said tech, would they have freed their white slaves, like whites eventually freed their black slaves?

philosoraptor wants to know.

[Stabula]

an impossible scenario, whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates that made them white. Africans didn't develop said tech because they never had to. Advanced technology, culture, and civilization occurred roughly 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia where it is not very cold.

[King Nupe]

but hypothetically if blacks, instead of whites, by some confluence of historical circumstances did develop said tech, would they have freed their white slaves, like whites eventually freed their black slaves?

philosoraptor wants to know.




if the circumstances were the same I say yes. There would have been some like the south that didnt want to, but natural progression Demands it. The US would not be what it is today if slavery still existed. Slaves aren't allowed to own land or even pursue wealth. Slavery destroys capitalism because if you're a slave you have no incentive to invent things or create businesses that would eventually propel the prosperity of a person and in turn a country. I would even say that slavery is a form of communism, except on an individual scale. You're only depending on the slave masters to come up with all the technology and business's which makes the 20 century impossible.

[capek]

but hypothetically if blacks, instead of whites, by some confluence of historical circumstances did develop said tech, would they have freed their white slaves, like whites eventually freed their black slaves?

philosoraptor wants to know.

Yes. The reasoning is as follows. The development of said technology allows for a leisure class to exist, who have the free time to contemplate existence, and all that that entails. If you acknowledge that blacks are simply humans with a higher melanin count in the epidermis layer of their skin, then you have two options. Either melanin has some influence on how one would "contemplate existence," or it doesn't. There seems to be no justification for the former, so let's assume the latter, in which case there would be no reason to assume that the content of their "contemplating existence" would be materially different from groups with a lower melanin count in the epidermis layer of their skin. What we know from our knowledge of history is that when a leisure class exists, who are to some degree free from the everyday struggles for existence, some number of that leisure class will develop notions of tolerance, and in general the tenets of humanism. That is because those tenets are based upon empirical values, which are not based upon any ideology, but instead on what can be asserted based upon observations from sense data. And we also know that such speculation is very attractive to the working class, as it's a way of mitigating the hold on power of the upper classes. So, once developed, such notions spread amongst a large and large percentage of the population, eventually leading to the flowering of democratic ideals and a notion of our shared humanity, which find the existence of slavery as untenable. Which will eventually convince any developed society of human beings to outlaw slavery, regardless of the level of melanin count in the epidermis layers of the members of said society.

[capek]

an impossible scenario, whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates that made them white. Africans didn't develop said tech because they never had to.

Greece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen. :tu

[King Nupe]

Exactly. Slavery is counterproductive to a society's growth, sustainability and evolution. You don't get some of the technology of today if the inventors were slaves. You can maybe argue that the 20 century could've happened in the 19th century had slavery not existed then.

[capek]

Exactly. Slavery is counterproductive to a society's growth, sustainability and evolution. You don't get some of the technology of today if the inventors were slaves. You can maybe argue that the 20 century could've happened in the 19th century had slavery not existed then.

I think there's an even better argument that the "20th century" would have happened in, I don't know, the 2nd? 5th? 10th? century, if Plato and Christ had never existed. Seriously. :lol

[King Nupe]

Greece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen. :tu



You mentioned Gallileo, he and Homer, pythagerous, and other Greek scholar actually gained their knowledge from the libraries in Kemet. Of course, as white people have always done, they stole knowledge and didnt give credit to the originators. But you inadvertently have a point. A lot of the worlds knowledge comes from Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Asia. Not the northern climates.

[Trainwreck2100]

Greece can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where an empirical outlook was first developed by Democritus; an empirical outlook is extremely fundamental to scientific work. And Italy can't be said to be a "harsh norther climate," and that's where Galileo did his observational work in astronomy, which brought back into legitimacy an empirical outlook that had floundered for centuries under the reign of a Christian Platonism which had dismissed evidence from the senses as any kind of legitimate source of knowledge. And the middle east can't be said to be a "harsh northern climate," but that's where all the knowledge of Greek science and mathematics were kept alive while the Christian religion ran roughshod over empiricism in the medieval period in the West. So really, the notion that "whites developed their technology and superiority due to the harsh northern climates" is maybe fit for school children, who don't know any better, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what actually happen. :tu
but they were all white, and they were more north than where they got their slaves from. OP is using this country as his topic so I'm just restrciting my whites to the whites that founded this country

[King Nupe]

I think there's an even better argument that the "20th century" would have happened in, I don't know, the 2nd? 5th? 10th? century, if Plato and Christ had never existed. Seriously. :lol



If all humans did was focus 100% of their energy in science, then you're probably right.

[capek]

You mentioned Gallileo, he and Homer, pythagerous, and other Greek scholar actually gained their knowledge from the libraries in Kemet. Of course, as white people have always done, they stole knowledge and didnt give credit to the originators. But you inadvertently have a point. A lot of the worlds knowledge comes from Africa, the Middle East, and eastern Asia. Not the northern climates.

:lol

Well, there's no records that exist that detail what documents existed in Alexandria, but what we do know is that the Egytians got their knowledge of mathematics from the Babylonians, and that the Babylonians can only really be said to have developed rules of thumb, they were not responsible for the invention of mathematical deduction. That was invented by the Greeks, which is an unassailable fact. So you're statement speaks to your own biases on the subject, and is not an accurate description of what actually happened. The Arabs, though they possessed their own high level of culture, were not innovators, but instead "merely" collectors and maintainers of knowledge.

[King Nupe]

:lol

Well, there's no records that exist that detail what documents existed in Alexandria, but what we do know is that the Egytians got their knowledge of mathematics from the Babylonians, and that the Babylonians can only really be said to have developed rules of thumb, they were not responsible for the invention of mathematical deduction. That was invented by the Greeks, which is an unassailable fact. So you're statement speaks to your own biases on the subject, and is not an accurate description of what actually happened. The Arabs, though they possessed their own high level of culture, were not innovators, but instead "merely" collectors and maintainers of knowledge.





Geometry, the foundation for mathematics was developed and studied in Egypt. Not Greece. I know it doesn't fit your agenda, even Pythagorous acknowledged that he studied and developed his theorem in Africa. Africans were astrologist thousands of years before Greece became 1 city state. They used mathmatecis to Navigate the oceans and desert and to sustain a viable banking and trade system.

[capek]

but they were all white, and they were more north than where they got their slaves from. OP is using this country as his topic so I'm just restrciting my whites to the whites that founded this country

Ya, but why should we limit our inquiry to the vagaries of the OP's biases and assumptions? The abolitionists in this country used an empirical outlook to reach their conclusions that blacks are humans just like them, and that empirical outlook was maintained and developed, sometimes at great personal peril, by men of science, who represented a minority community through a history filled with exponentially more barbarous examples of humanity who held power. It is not possible to draw a definite line, prior to which this development is not relevant to more modern concerns.

[King Nupe]

Further proof, look at the pyramids built 5,000 years before whites crawled out of their caves in the baltics. Architectural is based on geometric fundementals developed in Egypt.

/thread

[TampaDude]

Religion is like a huge ball and chain on the leg of progress.

Less religion and more science will propel us to the stars.

[capek]

Geometry, the foundation for mathematics was developed and studied in Egypt. Not Greece. I know it doesn't fit your agenda, even Pythagorous acknowledged that he studied and developed his theorem in Africa. Africans were astrologist thousands of years before Greece became 1 city state. They used mathmatecis to Navigate the oceans and desert and to sustain a viable banking and trade system.

Well, I'm not interested in educating random strangers on the internet, just know that what you assert is not based upon the rigorous scholarship that exists on the subject. It would be just as wrong to say that the Babylonians had no mathematical knowledge as it would be to say that the Greeks were not responsible for significant innovations in the subject. I'll just quote Bertrand Russell on the subject, so you know who you're contending with: "Arithmetic and some geometry existed among the Egyptians and Babylonians, but mainly in the form of rules of thumb. Deductive reasoning from general premisses was a Greek innovation." If you want to challenge Russell be my guest. :lol

[TampaDude]

Further proof, look at the pyramids built 5,000 years before whites crawled out of their caves in the baltics. Architectural is based on geometric fundementals developed in Egypt.

/thread

There are huge earthworks in the British Isles that predate those pyramids by thousands of years. White people built them.

[pikkiwoki]

Further proof, look at the pyramids built 5,000 years before whites crawled out of their caves in the baltics. Architectural is based on geometric fundementals developed in Egypt.

/thread

If America is so racist, why not just go back to Africa?

[capek]

Further proof, look at the pyramids built 5,000 years before whites crawled out of their caves in the baltics. Architectural is based on geometric fundementals developed in Egypt.

/thread

A prime example of a statement made by someone with no knowledge of mathematics. It's not exactly untrue, as some rules of thumb of geometry are of course necessary for the building of such amazing monuments. But it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the HUGE gap between such rules of thumb, and a rigorous, systematized knowledge of deductive reasoning. Let me put it in terms you should be able to understand. The difference between the level of geometrical knowledge of the Egyptians and Euclid is equivalent to the difference in level of quality of basketball between this season's Lakers, and Spurs. In other words, A HUGE MASSIVE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. :lol

[TampaDude]

A prime example of a statement made by someone with no knowledge of mathematics. It's not exactly untrue, as some rules of thumb of geometry are of course necessary for the building of such amazing monuments. But it shows a complete lack of knowledge of the HUGE gap between such rules of thumb, and a rigorous, systematized knowledge of deductive reasoning. Let me put it in terms you should be able to understand. The difference between the level of geometrical knowledge of the Egyptians and Euclid is equivalent to the difference in level of quality of basketball between this season's Lakers, and Spurs. In other words, A HUGH MASSIVE FUCKING DIFFERENCE. :lol

Who is HUGH? Is he HUGE? :lol

[capek]

Who is HUGH? Is he HUGE? :lol

fucker :lmao

[pad300]

On the original topic, what I suspect "White people/ tea partiers" mean, is a limited, constitutional, government. A "small" government: one with very limited activity in the economy, who doesn't interfere much with general life (unlike what they see today). One that applies the laws on the books (and only the laws on the books) equally to all people. You probably wouldn't mind it all that much once you got used to it...

[Slutter McGee]

On the original topic, what I suspect "White people/ tea partiers" mean, is a limited, constitutional, government. A "small" government: one with very limited activity in the economy, who doesn't interfere much with general life (unlike what they see today). One that applies the laws on the books (and only the laws on the books) equally to all people. You probably wouldn't mind it all that much once you got used to it...

This.

What dumbass liberals don't seem to understand is that the tea-party ain't just a bunch of religious nuts trying ban gay marriage and re-institute slavery.

Its an alliance between religious nuts and pot head libertarians on economic matters and smaller federal government. The only way the left can spin it as racist is by portraying the idea that you should spend less than you make as somehow indicative of racism.

Stupid fucking liberals.

Slutter McGee

[King Nupe]

On the original topic, what I suspect "White people/ tea partiers" mean, is a limited, constitutional, government. A "small" government: one with very limited activity in the economy, who doesn't interfere much with general life (unlike what they see today). One that applies the laws on the books (and only the laws on the books) equally to all people. You probably wouldn't mind it all that much once you got used to it...


But why didnt say this when bush was president? He's the one that Stepped on our laws and freedoms and dragged us into 2 wars, while crushing our economy. Why does Obama get the blame?

[King Nupe]

This.

What dumbass liberals don't seem to understand is that the tea-party ain't just a bunch of religious nuts trying ban gay marriage and re-institute slavery.

Its an alliance between religious nuts and pot head libertarians on economic matters and smaller federal government. The only way the left can spin it as racist is by portraying the idea that you should spend less than you make as somehow indicative of racism.

Stupid fucking liberals.

Slutter McGee





Why you so mad man?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

They say that because they've been brainwashed into thinking the 1950s was some libertarian/small government utopia when it wasn't aside from segregation. Tax rates were as high as 90%, there was massive regulation on trade and the financial industry, and unions had tons of power. Tea party idiots would consider what America actually was in the 1950s socialism.

Mostly the "I want my country back!" stuff stems from them shuttering at the site of a black guy on Air Force One. It's the same reason why the amount of redneck militias has grown exponentially since 2009. It's bullshit that keeps the tea party masses distracted from the plutocrats who fund the tea party that are actually destroying America.

[Chinook]

but they were all white, and they were more north than where they got their slaves from. OP is using this country as his topic so I'm just restrciting my whites to the whites that founded this country

Most of those ancient societies got their slaves from the Northern hinterlands. Romans had way more slaves from Gaul than they did from Africa. For the longest time, societies enslaved the people around them. Slavery didn't become a racial thing until the sixteenth century or so. Even in the U.S., blacks weren't considered a slave people until the Law of Maternal Descent was passed. It's pretty insane how much racism took off after that was passed in Virginia.

In general, the only thing we know with any certainty is that Indo-European people developed a preservable writing system first. We don't know which societies came up with most advances; we only know who wrote them down first. We know, though, that Africa was much more developed throughout history than most people give it credit for. The idea that they were sitting in huts eating bugs while Europeans were advancing human knowledge and culture is not true at all.

[Slutter McGee]

Why you so mad man?

I'm not mad. I think everybody of all political persuasions are idiots. I just think liberals are the worst for their inability to do simple math.

Slutter McGee

[Clipper Nation]

Its an alliance between religious nuts and pot head libertarians on economic matters and smaller federal government.
:lol No it isn't.... it's a bunch of neocons who promote the same old establishment GOP talking points while pretending they're "rebels" or "outsiders" somehow, tbh.....

The libertarians were shoved out not long after it started since we ACTUALLY want small government, but that means no SOPA/PIPA, no wars, no fiat money, etc....

The GOP doesn't want smaller government, they just want money going to their special interest cronies instead of the Democrats'....

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol No it isn't.... it's a bunch of neocons who promote the same old establishment GOP talking points while pretending they're "rebels" or "outsiders" somehow, tbh.....

The libertarians were shoved out not long after it started since we ACTUALLY want small government, but that means no SOPA/PIPA, no wars, no fiat money, etc....

:lol the tea party pretending they want smaller government but also saying military spending decreases should be off the table

[midnightpulp]

:lol No it isn't.... it's a bunch of neocons who promote the same old establishment GOP talking points while pretending they're "rebels" or "outsiders" somehow, tbh.....

The libertarians were shoved out not long after it started since we ACTUALLY want small government, but that means no SOPA/PIPA, no wars, no fiat money, etc....

The GOP doesn't want smaller government, they just want money going to their special interest cronies instead of the Democrats'....

Yep.

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) are supposed to be the new faces of the Republican Party—young, Latino, and a living symbol that the party can change. But when it comes down to it, on matters of substance, they are no different than the same old Republicans.

Yes, politics has not changed, politicians have not changed, The Republican Party has not changed. The only thing that has changed, is a bunch of young, libertarian, Ron Paul supporters find themselves actually supporting the big government monster.

http://lewrockwell.com/rossini/rossini14.1.html

[midnightpulp]

:lol the tea party pretending they want smaller government but also saying military spending decreases should be off the table

“While the President’s budget attempts to address some of the defense cuts imposed by sequestration, I am concerned that it does nothing to reverse the damaging impact that cuts have already had on our military readiness. America is becoming less capable of projecting power and deterring conflict wherever it arises. For example, despite almost daily evidence of the increasing threat to the United States posed by rogue states with ballistic missiles, the president’s budget cuts spending on missile defense.”

- Marco Rubio

[PingPong]

The Roman empire brought civilization to the barbarians who lived in the Islands known as Great Britain nowadays. And as everyone knows, the britons are the ancestors of most WASP.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

POweJigpUN8

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lol Marco Rubio
:lol zionist spic who panders to Jews in Florida
:lol tea party's newest minority they're whoring around
:lol gonna turn out the same as Bobby Jindal, Herman Cain, and that black surgeon who talks about bestiality
:lol him being their attempt at "inclusiveness"
:lol only a matter of time before he says something retarded about rape

[capek]

They say that because they've been brainwashed into thinking the 1950s was some libertarian/small government utopia when it wasn't aside from segregation. Tax rates were as high as 90%, there was massive regulation on trade and the financial industry, and unions had tons of power. Tea party idiots would consider what America actually was in the 1950s socialism.

Mostly the "I want my country back!" stuff stems from them shuttering at the site of a black guy on Air Force One. It's the same reason why the amount of redneck militias has grown exponentially since 2009. It's bullshit that keeps the tea party masses distracted from the plutocrats who fund the tea party that are actually destroying America.

Basically this. :lol @ Tea Partier's not even knowing they're sucking Satan's (ie Koch brother's) cock

[jag]

I'm not mad. I think everybody of all political persuasions are idiots. I just think liberals are the worst for their inability to do simple math.

Slutter McGee

I wasn't sure who was responsible for the content of this post until you signed your name at the end. Thank you for that.



jag

[Slutter McGee]

I wasn't sure who was responsible for the content of this post until you signed your name at the end. Thank you for that.



jag

You are quite welcome. I am just going to pretend that your sarcasm was legitimate, and use that as a reason to sign my posts for all of eternity.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Bobby Jindal is an example of how nothing will change with the GOP. Right after the election he was heralded for saying, "We need to stop being the stupid party!" when he's a jeebotard who used to perform exorcisms in college. How is the GOP ever gonna stop being the stupid party when one its supposedly most "intellectual" leaders is a former exorcist :lmao

[Budkin]

Religion is like a huge ball and chain on the leg of progress.

Less religion and more science will propel us to the stars.

This.

[Clipper Nation]

What cracks me up is that teabaggers' defense is :cry "we have libertarians too, it's not just neocons and Jeebotards!" :cry yet they all think actual libertarians are hippie liberals and have tried to force them out of the GOP....

[Splits]

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070816i.gif

[jag]

You are quite welcome. I am just going to pretend that your sarcasm was legitimate, and use that as a reason to sign my posts for all of eternity.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

My initial was response to you was nothing short of sincere. Again, your continued signing of your posts is appreciated as it eliminates any confusion associated with the identity of the original author of the contents therein.


-ClingingMars

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My initial was response to you was nothing short of sincere. Again, your continued signing of your posts is appreciated as it eliminates any confusion associated with the identity of the original author of the contents therein.


-ClingingMars
Slutter McGee is a mouse troll tbh imo fwiw

[jag]

That explains a lot, if I am to be completely forthright.

[jag]

I wish the troll forum were still around so Mouse would have a place to talk to himself all day.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

What cracks me up is that teabaggers' defense is :cry "we have libertarians too, it's not just neocons and Jeebotards!" :cry yet they all think actual libertarians are hippie liberals and have tried to force them out of the GOP....

Tbh tea partiers are nothing more than the 30% of America that's dirt poor, uneducated, gullible, religious, etc., and thus can be manipulated whichever direction corporations/plutocrats want them to go. That's why it's easy for the ultra-rich to control America, they can immediately get 30% of the population behind any cause they want without breaking a sweat. Also that 30% lives in mostly rural states that are overrepresented in Washington.

Ironically most people in that 30% are also in the 47% Mitt Romney openly said he doesn't care about :lol

[midnightpulp]

Tbh tea partiers are nothing more than the 30% of America that's dirt poor, uneducated, gullible, religious, etc., and thus can be manipulated whichever direction corporations/plutocrats want them to go. That's why it's easy for the ultra-rich to control America, they can immediately get 30% of the population behind any cause they want without breaking a sweat. Also that 30% lives in mostly rural states that are overrepresented in Washington.

Ironically most people in that 30% are also in the 47% Mitt Romney openly said he doesn't care about :lol

And on the other side of the spectrum, leftist leaders can get any number of libtard "occupiers" behind their cause by politicizing social justice causes and pimping class warfare.

I can't remember a time in American politics where supporters on both sides were this completely retarded.

[DMX7]

They want to go back to 1845 and the days of the slave trade.

[midnightpulp]

My initial was response to you was nothing short of sincere. Again, your continued signing of your posts is appreciated as it eliminates any confusion associated with the identity of the original author of the contents therein.


-ClingingMars

You were CM?

[PingPong]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the op was some mexican asking for the Texas back to them.




:lol

[jag]

You were CM?

:lol ABSOLUTELY not. He used to always end his retarded posts by signing his name.

[midnightpulp]

:lol ABSOLUTELY not. He used to always end his retarded posts by signing his name.

Wonder what happened to him?

Not too familiar with his work (retardation), but I remember seeing his handle on the 4chan sports board and then bringing that greentext >implying bullshit over here, much like IronPedocan does.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And on the other side of the spectrum, leftist leaders can get any number of libtard "occupiers" behind their cause by politicizing social justice causes and pimping class warfare.

I can't remember a time in American politics where supporters on both sides were this completely retarded.
That's not the problem as much as it's liberals who think Obama/Pelosi/Reid actually give a shit about income inequality/social justice (the other problem with the occupy movement was how easy of a target it was with newly graduated liberal arts majors complaining about how the economy has no need for liberal arts majors). If "liberal" politicians actually gave a shit about the middle class like they did before Clinton came along and made the Democratic party a moderate version of the Republican party things might actually be better.

The 50 year period from 1930-1980 where our government worked for the people and focused on strengthening the middle class was basically a total fluke. Outside of that time period America has been a plutocracy where government is focused on strengthening the rich and fucking over the average American. It's simply too easy for the ultra-rich to trick the masses into believing bullshit like supply-side economics and most importantly conning people into thinking right wing policies open up opportunity for everyone to become rich.

[King Nupe]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the op was some mexican asking for the Texas back to them.




:lol



lol

[baseline bum]

POweJigpUN8

LOL idiots always thinking foreign aid is the major expense in this country, not the military budget, not medicare, not social security.

[King Nupe]

Lol @ people actually believing "trickle down economics" works. That's like a person wiping a few crumbs after dinner on the floor for the dog to eat, and people actually wanted that :lol

[King Nupe]

LOL idiots always thinking foreign aid is the major expense in this country, not the military budget, not medicare, not social security.



Yes brother, but I'm sure you agree with me that there are people in America that could use aid. Shouldn't we take care of our own first? Why give it to N.Korea, when they will STILL starve the people

[midnightpulp]

That's not the problem as much as it's liberals who think Obama/Pelosi/Reid actually give a shit about income inequality/social justice (the other problem with the occupy movement was how easy of a target it was with newly graduated liberal arts majors complaining about how the economy has no need for liberal arts majors). If "liberal" politicians actually gave a shit about the middle class like they did before Clinton came along and made the Democratic party a moderate version of the Republican party things might actually be better.

The 50 year period from 1930-1980 where our government worked for the people and focused on strengthening the middle class was basically a total fluke. Outside of that time period America has been a plutocracy where government is focused on strengthening the rich and fucking over the average American. It's simply too easy for the ultra-rich to trick the masses into believing bullshit like supply-side economics and most importantly conning people into thinking right wing policies open up opportunity for everyone to become rich.

A lot that also had to do with the fact the United States was the biggest manufacturer and exporter of goods during that time. We were a high rent version of China, which was a good thing.

But no economy can be industrial forever. As the economy becomes more globalized and with developing nations offering cheap labor, strong industrial economies, as the US was during the mid-20th century, eventually evolve into service economies. Alvin Toffler in his book "Future Shock" predicted exactly this for the United States.

I think the regrowth of the middle-class will be spearheaded by Gen-Yers coming of age and landing skilled tech jobs. Your software programmers, systems analysts, IT guys will be the new "blue collar" class of the United States.

Good article:

Many of the service sector jobs being created are actually high-skilled and well-paying, said Francisco J. Buera, a professor at UCLA’s department of economics, who published a paper last year, “The Rise of the Service Economy," arguing that low-skilled service jobs have been shrinking while high-skilled service jobs have been growing over the last decades. Health care and financial services jobs have grown, he said, and even jobs in places such as restaurants have gotten more specialized – think chefs rather than cashiers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/business/la-fi-mo-service-jobs-20130308

[PingPong]

I think the regrowth of the middle-class will be spearheaded by Gen-Yers coming of age and landing skilled tech jobs. Your software programmers, systems analysts, IT guys will be the new "blue collar" class of the United States.


Sorry, but most of the software industry will be, if not already using the outsourcing. The companies hire some software programmers from India and they wor from there, by the internet

[rascal]

I'm not mad. I think everybody of all political persuasions are idiots. I just think liberals are the worst for their inability to do simple math.

Slutter McGee

Tea party( not even a true party, just a coined phrase from conservative talk radio) Conservatives are idiots. Their big selling point of small govt. is unrealistic.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

A lot that also had to do with the fact the United States was the biggest manufacturer and exporter of goods during that time. We were a high rent version of China, which was a good thing.
Right, and that got destroyed once politicians like Reagan and Clinton started to give their corporate buddies free trade so they could export jobs with ease.


But no economy can be industrial forever. As the economy becomes more globalized and with developing nations offering cheap labor, strong industrial economies, as the US was during the mid-20th century, eventually evolve into service economies. Alvin Toffler in his book "Future Shock" predicted exactly this for the United States.

I think the regrowth of the middle-class will be spearheaded by Gen-Yers coming of age and landing skilled tech jobs. Your software programmers, systems analysts, IT guys will be the new "blue collar" class of the United States.

Good article:

Many of the service sector jobs being created are actually high-skilled and well-paying, said Francisco J. Buera, a professor at UCLA’s department of economics, who published a paper last year, “The Rise of the Service Economy," arguing that low-skilled service jobs have been shrinking while high-skilled service jobs have been growing over the last decades. Health care and financial services jobs have grown, he said, and even jobs in places such as restaurants have gotten more specialized – think chefs rather than cashiers.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/business/la-fi-mo-service-jobs-20130308
Yeah, and while low-skill jobs have been shrinking, so has the middle class's purchasing power.

What's described above is also a pipe dream because of how much education has disintegrated in this country particularly in the area of math/science which is kind of important in the technology sector. A country that wants to be a service economy with high-skilled service jobs as its backbone needs to be making the huge investments in education we're not making.

[midnightpulp]

Sorry, but most of the software industry will be, if not already using the outsourcing. The companies hire some software programmers from India and they wor from there, by the internet

That may be, but a business still needs these type of specialists "on site." And as workplaces become more computerized, demand for these jobs will grow.

[JohnnyMax]

LOL idiots always thinking foreign aid is the major expense in this country, not the military budget, not medicare, not social security.

You dont like free stuff?
.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The underlying problem to basically everything is that America (and the world for that matter) is overcrowded with people while our economy is dependent on growth. Our population needs to shrink and our economy can't be reliant on annual GDP growth like it is now. Unfortunately religion motivates people (particularly minorities) to reproduce like jack rabbits.

[dbestpro]

Medicare, medicaid and social security alone costs more than is collected in taxes. We borrow for everything else. Current tax structures are designed to keep middle income from becoming upper income. Small business is being crushed trying to compete in the one size fits all corporate taxing system. The IRS is has lost any credibility it had.

The solution is to move to a tax system that eliminates tax breaks, and makes sure that everyone has skin in the game without dumping the burden on the poor.
The way to do this is to go to a progressive sales tax and dump income tax. People should no longer be punished for working. The more a person spends the higher the tax. The less a person spends the lower the tax. No more rich people paying zero tax and even poor people would have skin in the game even if it is only a 1% tax.

[midnightpulp]

Right, and that got destroyed once politicians like Reagan and Clinton started to give their corporate buddies free trade so they could export jobs with ease.


Yeah, and while low-skill jobs have been shrinking, so has the middle class's purchasing power.

What's described above is also a pipe dream because of how much education has disintegrated in this country particularly in the area of math/science which is kind of important in the technology sector. A country that wants to be a service economy with high-skilled service jobs as its backbone needs to be making the huge investments in education we're not making.

Agreed. But the onus is also on people to seek out that education.

Too many people "follow their dreams" and learn completely useless shit in college. I also think the concept of the "trade school" needs to be back en vogue. But so many people think they're entitled to the "college experience" because they've been raised to think they're a special little snowflake with untapped genius who can do anything they put their mind to.

Tell an 18 year old kid he's going to a trade school and watch him projectile vomit. The harsh reality is not everyone is intelligent enough to earn an MBA or Engineering degree. But I do think everyone is capable of learning the necessary skills to navigate a service economy oriented around technology jobs, just like everyone in the 50's was capable of working on an assembly line. And for that, people need to start thinking more practical.

Back in the day, it was accepted by the majority that they were going to enter the workforce after high school. College was reserved for the elite and the "smart" people. Sure, the job landscape has changed and most decent paying jobs do require a college degree of some kind, whereas back then all you needed was a strong back and a good work ethic to land a job at some factory, but I do think there needs to be a return to that kind of pragmatism: Graduate from high school. Go to a trade school. Learn a craft. Enter workforce.

Instead of: Graduate from high school. Go to an expensive university with ambitions of being the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg or Steven Spielberg or Andy Warhol or some other once in a generation luminary. Learn nothing because you switched majors from computer science to art history because you no longer feel like being the next Bill Gates and now you want to be the next Van Gogh. Finally graduate. Six figures in debt. Enter Starbucks.

[PingPong]

The underlying problem to basically everything is that America (and the world for that matter) is overcrowded with people while our economy is dependent on growth. Our population needs to shrink and our economy can't be reliant on annual GDP growth like it is now. Unfortunately religion motivates people (particularly minorities) to reproduce like jack rabbits.

Shrinking means ageeing the population wich means loss of productivity and inventivity. Japan is already facing this issue and they are losing to the Korean competition, younger and creative. You need to ensure better education for the bottom of the society in order to get more skilled workers, productivity and consumption wich makes the economy grow. Politics about birth control to the economically vulnerable is good too, but just to balance the demographics. If the number of the poor increase much more than the middle class, there are no way to make the economy and the fiscal doing well

[Clipper Nation]

Tbh, the idea of college as an entitlement/requirement also comes from teachers, counselors, parents, and business owners all stressing the importance of a college degree, tbh..... people don't want the stigma attached to not going to college especially when finding a job is hard enough even with a degree.....

[Slutter McGee]

Tea party( not even a true party, just a coined phrase from conservative talk radio) Conservatives are idiots. Their big selling point of small govt. is unrealistic.

And the selling point of big government is what? That it gets out of control thats what. Look at any country where socialism has been "successful" and what do they have in common? we subsidize their fucking military.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And the selling point of big government is what? That it gets out of control thats what. Look at any country where socialism has been "successful" and what do they have in common? we subsidize their fucking military.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Yeah, those retarded socialists. We go into debt subsidizing their military while they have excess tax revenue to spend domestically to improve their country.

The joke is totally on them, not the country going bankrupt subsidizing their defense.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, those retarded socialists. We go into debt subsidizing their military while they have excess tax revenue to spend domestically to improve their country.

The joke is totally on them, not the country going bankrupt subsidizing their defense.

Interesting thing is a lot of those countries perceived to be more socialist than the United States, are actually economically freer.

http://www.heritage.org/index/

When I used to talk politics a lot more (on another forum), which was at the time of the 900 billion dollar bailout, I remember a poster telling a Bush supporting Neocon: "And once Bush authorized those bailouts, the United States became the most socialized country in the history of mankind."

Stone cold truth.

Monopoly "capitalism" is essentially socialism for the rich, "distributing" the wealth from the people to the government to big business.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Agreed. But the onus is also on people to seek out that education.
When high schools require 2 years of math and 4 years of English, you can't expect people to properly seek out a technical education in a field like IT or programming. High school education in this country is the reason people major in bullshit like art history, they get a completely warped view about what skills are important in the work force.


Too many people "follow their dreams" and learn completely useless shit in college. I also think the concept of the "trade school" needs to be back en vogue. But so many people think they're entitled to the "college experience" because they've been raised to think they're a special little snowflake with untapped genius who can do anything they put their mind to.
They don't follow their dreams, they follow the bullshit idea high school gave to them that reading comprehension and poetry analysis are really important tools to have.

And trade schools were never en vogue. There's never been a time where people were lining up to learn how to be a plumber so they could snake septic tanks for the rest of their lives. It's always been considered the shitty thing people who can't make it to college do. The only reason more people than ever do college is because of how poor most people without a degree are in this country.


Tell an 18 year old kid he's going to a trade school and watch him projectile vomit.
Yeah, he should be jumping for joy at the thought of being an auto mechanic with shit wages.


The harsh reality is not everyone is intelligent enough to earn an MBA or Engineering degree.
Right, which is why there needs to be a living wage available for uneducated people.


But I do think everyone is capable of learning the necessary skills to navigate a service economy oriented around technology jobs, just like everyone in the 50's was capable of working on an assembly line.
When you wrote that, did you have any idea how retarded the comparison of technology jobs to assembly line jobs sounded?


Back in the day, it was accepted by the majority that they were going to enter the workforce after high school.
Back in the day, people who entered the workforce after high school had better options than Walmart or Target.


I do think there needs to be a return to that kind of pragmatism: Graduate from high school. Go to a trade school. Learn a craft. Enter workforce.
Why do you act like this is returning to anything? There are only so many jobs out there for specialized crafts, that's why service economies are never as strong as manufacturing economies. The average person is always going to have some mundane, routine job that doesn't require any specialized skill, if that job doesn't pay well then the middle class is gonna be weak.

lol thinking that trade schools like Devry are the untapped resource America needs to seek out


Instead of: Graduate from high school. Go to an expensive university with ambitions of being the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg or Steven Spielberg or Andy Warhol or some other once in a generation luminary. Learn nothing because you switched majors from computer science to art history because you no longer feel like being the next Bill Gates and now you want to be the next Van Gogh. Finally graduate. Six figures in debt. Enter Starbucks.
If high schools gave people the proper foundation they needed, they wouldn't be majoring in art history like they do.

[Slutter McGee]

Yeah, those retarded socialists. We go into debt subsidizing their military while they have excess tax revenue to spend domestically to improve their country.

The joke is totally on them, not the country going bankrupt subsidizing their defense.

Yeah dipshit. I wasn't arguing subsidizing their military is a good thing. I was arguing that you liberal's wet dream of drones killing conservatives and an all powerful federal government is not economically sustainable.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[midnightpulp]

When high schools require 2 years of math and 4 years of English, you can't expect people to properly seek out a technical education in a field like IT or programming. High school education in this country is the reason people major in bullshit like art history, they get a completely warped view about what skills are important in the work force.

I don't disagree with that. But people have become completely deluded concerning their potential, because from day one, parents, and society at large, have instilled in them this idea that they can do anything if they "put their mind to it." Maybe that mindset wasn't prevalent in your household but this kind of wishful thinking has been an epidemic among members of our generation.

Such beliefs also have created a generation of young people who believe every dream is attainable but who aren't prepared to deal with discovering it isn't so.


http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/0743276981



They don't follow their dreams, they follow the bullshit idea high school gave to them that reading comprehension and poetry analysis are really important tools to have.

See above.


And trade schools were never en vogue. There's never been a time where people were lining up to learn how to be a plumber so they could snake septic tanks for the rest of their lives. It's always been considered the shitty thing people who can't make it to college do. The only reason more people than ever do college is because of how poor most people without a degree are in this country.


I'd be willing to bet trade schools had a higher rate of enrollment in the 50's and 60's than proper 4 year universities. And my point is more people need to accept the fact they are going to be doing a "shitty thing" for the rest of their lives. Although, I don't really see how being a carpenter, electrician, or welder, earning a solid middle-class income is a "shitty thing." I get that you're an egalitarian, but not everyone is capable of, lucky enough, or intelligent enough to reach the top 10% of the income bracket. You keep bemoaning the destruction of the middle class, but yet you recoil at the idea of people learning to be plumbers, welders, mechanics, electricians, etc, which are typically middle class (and in many cases upper-middle class) jobs with good benefits.



Yeah, he should be jumping for joy at the thought of being an auto mechanic with shit wages.

See above. A car mechanic will earn a person a middle class wage. Is middle class in your mind 100K a year and above or something?


Right, which is why there needs to be a living wage available for uneducated people.

And uneducated people are perfectly capable of being plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, welders, which pay much more than a living wage.


When you wrote that, did you have any idea how retarded the comparison of technology jobs to assembly line jobs sounded?

How is the comparison retarded? Your mid-level tech job is no more demanding than an assembly line job in the 50's, especially given the fact how computer literate an average young person is today.



Back in the day, people who entered the workforce after high school had better options than Walmart or Target.

Agreed, but that wasn't my point. My point was that young people need to start thinking more practical and less wishful.


Why do you act like this is returning to anything? There are only so many jobs out there for specialized crafts, that's why service economies are never as strong as manufacturing economies. The average person is always going to have some mundane, routine job that doesn't require any specialized skill, if that job doesn't pay well then the middle class is gonna be weak.

lol thinking that trade schools like Devry are the untapped resource America needs to seek out


Trade school enrollment has been increasing:

As factories crank up, they have an urgent need for high-skilled workers such as machinists and tool-and-die makers knowledgeable in computers.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/manufacturing-trade-schools/index.htm

Also from the article:

Unlike 20 years ago, manufacturing today requires workers who are computer literate and skilled in computer-aided design and engineering, said Sandra Krebsbach, executive director of the American Technical Education Association.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't disagree with that. But people have become completely deluded concerning their potential, because from day one, parents, and society at large, have instilled in them this idea that they can do anything if they "put their mind to it." Maybe that mindset wasn't prevalent in your household but this kind of wishful thinking has been an epidemic among members of our generation.

Such beliefs also have created a generation of young people who believe every dream is attainable but who aren't prepared to deal with discovering it isn't so.


http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/074327698 (http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Americans-Confident-Assertive-Entitled/dp/0743276981)
People have become deluded since the American dream was bastardized by your boy Reagan in the 80s because of the plutocratic agenda to trick people into thinking they have a chance to be rich causing them to vote against their own best interests. The 80s was when shows like Dynasty and Dallas started replacing sitcoms about upper middle class families so people would start craving the lavish lifestyle they saw on TV and vote for the candidate who said, "Deregulate everything and you can get rich too!"

People have also gotten deluded because of the income inequality and how much better it is these days to be rich.


I'd be willing to bet trade schools had a higher rate of enrollment in the 50's and 60's than proper 4 year universities.
And I'd be willing to bet that's pure speculation.


And my point is more people need to accept the fact they are going to be doing a "shitty thing" for the rest of their lives.
They'd be more accepting if that shitty thing if high school prepared them for it rather than waste 4 years teaching them poetry about how big of an orgasm Robert Frost got the first time he took it up the ass.

One specific example of the Great Gatsby. It's a worthless piece of shit book that everyone needs to read in high school that totally teaches people to covet the lavish, ultra rich lifestyle.


Although, I don't really see how being a carpenter, electrician, or welder, earning a solid middle-class income is a "shitty thing."
If all the dumbasses in college now decided they were gonna become a carpenter or electrician the wages of those workers would go down significantly because the supply of them would shoot up. There isn't a big enough demand for those types of workers to be the backbone of the economy.


I get that you're an egalitarian, but not everyone is capable of, lucky enough, or intelligent enough to reach the top 10% of the income bracket. You keep bemoaning the destruction of the middle class, but yet you recoil at the idea of people learning to be plumbers, welders, mechanics, electricians, etc, which are typically middle class (and in many cases upper-middle class) jobs with good benefits.
Because those jobs can only make up a small percentage of the middle class since there simply isn't a big enough demand for them. The average worker is always going to have a low skilled mundane job.

I'm also only recoiling at the idea of people anxiously seeking the lifestyle of a plumber.



See above. A car mechanic will earn a person a middle class wage. Is middle class in your mind 100K a year and above or something?
Again, I was simply making fun of how impractical it is to teach people to dump money into a trade school to be an auto mechanic. A well paying job right out of high school doesn't require grooming someone to pursue that career


And uneducated people are perfectly capable of being plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, welders, which pay much more than a living wage.
No, they need to get educated at a trade school. Are you suggesting federally funded trade schools (honest question)?


How is the comparison retarded? Your mid-level tech job is no more demanding than an assembly line job in the 50's, especially given the fact how computer literate an average young person is today.
A mid-level tech job requires skill and some intelligence. An assembly line job in the 50s had no-skill and had fair demands because of collective bargaining. The average young person in America also gets his/her shit pushed in by young people in India/China when it comes to technology and computers, and that's not because India has world class trade schools like Devry. It's because their K-12 education kicks the living shit out of ours.


Agreed, but that wasn't my point. My point was that young people need to start thinking more practical and less wishful.
If high school actually groomed young people for the real world and not the Great Gatsby utopia we'd see more practical young people.


Trade school enrollment has been increasing:

As factories crank up, they have an urgent need for high-skilled workers such as machinists and tool-and-die makers knowledgeable in computers.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/31/news/economy/manufacturing-trade-schools/index.htm

Also from the article:

Unlike 20 years ago, manufacturing today requires workers who are computer literate and skilled in computer-aided design and engineering, said Sandra Krebsbach, executive director of the American Technical Education Association.

This is exactly why I say high school is the problem. It should be grooming people for computer schools/machine work/etc. It shouldn't be wasting so much time on impractical bullshit.

[midnightpulp]

People have become deluded since the American dream was bastardized by your boy Reagan in the 80s because of the plutocratic agenda to trick people into thinking they have a chance to be rich causing them to vote against their own best interests. The 80s was when shows like Dynasty and Dallas started replacing sitcoms about upper middle class families so people would start craving the lavish lifestyle they saw on TV and vote for the candidate who said, "Deregulate everything and you can get rich too!"

People have also gotten deluded because of the income inequality and how much better it is these days to be rich.

:lol My boy Reagan. How on earth did you glean that? Just because I'm not a drooling at the mouth socialist libtard doesn't mean I support the GOP and any of its neo-conservative manifestations. I despise the modern American Left and the modern American Right just about equally, as both are simply different shades of neo-conservatism.



And I'd be willing to bet that's pure speculation.

Of course it is. I never implied otherwise.



They'd be more accepting if that shitty thing if high school prepared them for it rather than waste 4 years teaching them poetry about how big of an orgasm Robert Frost got the first time he took it up the ass.

Agreed.



If all the dumbasses in college now decided they were gonna become a carpenter or electrician the wages of those workers would go down significantly because the supply of them would shoot up. There isn't a big enough demand for those types of workers to be the backbone of the economy.

I took your "shitty thing" comment to mean that wanting to be a craftsmen should be beneath a person.



Because those jobs can only make up a small percentage of the middle class since there simply isn't a big enough demand for them. The average worker is always going to have a low skilled mundane job.

And your argument is what? That those low skilled jobs should pay more? That people need to become better educated to give themselves more upward mobility? I agree with the latter point. But the high-school-to-university model is obviously not working as well as it should to prepare the average person for the workforce, so we both agree they need an overhaul. And I completely agree that highschools need to become more like de facto trade schools, as what is happened in New York:

In 2008, New York City's Department of Education began to rethink vocational training in high schools.[15][16] Mayor Bloomberg in his State of the City 2008 address said, "This year, we're going to begin dramatically transforming how high school students prepare for technical careers in a number of growing fields.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/vocational-schools/?scp=3&sq=career-and-technical%20high-school%20bloomberg&st=cs


Again, I was simply making fun of how impractical it is to teach people to dump money into a trade school to be an auto mechanic. A well paying job right out of high school doesn't require grooming someone to pursue that career


So you're implying the training to be (or the option to train as) an auto mechanic should begin at the high school level or earlier? How is going to a trade school to learn a specialized craft "impractical?" What's impractical is going to a 30K per year university and graduating with a degree that isn't as valuable as the skills of that plumber whose lifestyle you're recoiling at.


No, they need to get educated at a trade school. Are you suggesting federally funded trade schools (honest question)?

Already kind of happening through TAACCCT https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=1505759e83ebfd0acb8aa5475d134439


A mid-level tech job requires skill and some intelligence. An assembly line job in the 50s had no-skill and had fair demands because of collective bargaining. The average young person in America also gets his/her shit pushed in by young people in India/China when it comes to technology and computers, and that's not because India has world class trade schools like Devry. It's because their K-12 education kicks the living shit out of ours.

This is exactly why I say high school is the problem. It should be grooming people for computer schools/machine work/etc. It shouldn't be wasting so much time on impractical bullshit.

Agreed.

[King Nupe]

I've started a Monster thread....

[baseline bum]

Gemany does pretty well with separate vocational and college prep sequences in their high schools. Our high schools are shit because they try to shoe-horn everyone into college prep and then have to water it down to hell when half the students can't keep their heads above water in a real college-prep sequence. Germany is smart to put the students who can't cut it in academic work in vocational programs so that their school years amount to more than just a big jerkoff and capped off with a McJob.

[midnightpulp]

Gemany does pretty well with separate vocational and college prep sequences in their high schools. Our high schools are shit because they try to shoe-horn everyone into college prep and then have to water it down to hell when half the students can't keep their heads above water in a real college-prep sequence. Germany is smart to put the students who can't cut it in academic work in vocational programs so that their school years amount to more than just a big jerkoff and capped off with a McJob.

Imagine the outcry if we did that here.

"What!!? You're saying my precious Timmy isn't smart enough to be in those college prep courses! No way. My Timmy is going to be a neurosurgeon and not some blue collar slob!"

And if the kid happens to be black, all hell would break loose.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Imagine the outcry if we did that here.

"What!!? You're saying my precious Timmy isn't smart enough to be in those college prep courses! No way. My Timmy is going to be a neurosurgeon and not some blue collar slob!"

And if the kid happens to be black, all hell would break loose.

Again you can blame that on plutocratic Republicans who bastardized the American dream so retards would vote to destroy the middle class thinking they'd get rich.

Germany also has a large manufacturing economy and an annual trade surplus. They're in no way the service-based economy Bill Clinton claimed America could be.

[Trainwreck2100]

I've started a Monster thread....

that's what happens when you post in a forum where your threads don't get killed for simply being troll threads

[baseline bum]

Germany breaks all the American neolib rules. They have a strongly unionized labor force that makes good wages, they get longer vacations than Americans, they have universal health coverage, and yet with all these things that would supposedly kill our economy they have one of the strongest manufacturing bases in the world.

[Trainwreck2100]

Again you can blame that on plutocratic Republicans who bastardized the American dream so retards would vote to destroy the middle class thinking they'd get rich.


Not gonna lie son I was absolutely with the TEA party when they formed originally. A group of citizens banding together because they feel their government has gone the wrong way economically. And then they went the wrong way by letting stupid people into their club

[ElNono]

Germany breaks all the American neolib rules. They have a strongly unionized labor force that makes good wages, they get longer vacations than Americans, they have universal health coverage, and yet with all these things that would supposedly kill our economy they have one of the strongest manufacturing bases in the world.

Your eyes are too far apart. Nose is definitely crooked. The shape of your face is not aesthetically pleasing at all. You look like a 3/10 with make up in the photos I've seen. I don't even want to imagine what you look like without make up. I actually just threw up in my mouth, just thinking about it.Your head is too big (although that may be, because of your giraffe neck posture). As for your hair, lol. Seriously, do something. You look like a horse.Stare at your face for more than 5 seconds, and you will see how ugly you are. The eyes which are too far apart is what ruins/damages an already ugly face even further. Unfortunately for you, that can't be surgically fixed, lol.You arms are way too long. lol at how they hang by your sides. Kind of reminds me of lurch. As for your tits, we all know there is extra padding there. Don't even let me start on your pale complexion. It only works if you look hot. Unfortunately, you do not look hot. Its hard to sum up a creature like you in one word. 'UGLY' would be unfair, since it doesn't reflect how repulsive you look. GROTESQUE is stretching it. But somewhere in between, is where you would be, on the scale of an average man.I'm sorry if my words seem a little harsh. Just so you know, I sugar coated this post as much as possible.Have a nice day.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Germany breaks all the American neolib rules. They have a strongly unionized labor force that makes good wages, they get longer vacations than Americans, they have universal health coverage, and yet with all these things that would supposedly kill our economy they have one of the strongest manufacturing bases in the world.
Yeah it's one of those successful stories of dreaded socialism "small government!" retards ignore.

[Trainwreck2100]

Your eyes are too far apart. Nose is definitely crooked. The shape of your face is not aesthetically pleasing at all. You look like a 3/10 with make up in the photos I've seen. I don't even want to imagine what you look like without make up. I actually just threw up in my mouth, just thinking about it.Your head is too big (although that may be, because of your giraffe neck posture). As for your hair, lol. Seriously, do something. You look like a horse.Stare at your face for more than 5 seconds, and you will see how ugly you are. The eyes which are too far apart is what ruins/damages an already ugly face even further. Unfortunately for you, that can't be surgically fixed, lol.You arms are way too long. lol at how they hang by your sides. Kind of reminds me of lurch. As for your tits, we all know there is extra padding there. Don't even let me start on your pale complexion. It only works if you look hot. Unfortunately, you do not look hot. Its hard to sum up a creature like you in one word. 'UGLY' would be unfair, since it doesn't reflect how repulsive you look. GROTESQUE is stretching it. But somewhere in between, is where you would be, on the scale of an average man.I'm sorry if my words seem a little harsh. Just so you know, I sugar coated this post as much as possible.Have a nice day.

Why? Like seriously, why would you take the time to write something like that? I guess it's to feed off our reactions, I say after my comment no one comments or this person wins at whatever they were trying to accomplish.

[midnightpulp]

Again you can blame that on plutocratic Republicans who bastardized the American dream so retards would vote to destroy the middle class thinking they'd get rich.



And Democrat Jimmy Carter, who was quite the fan of deregulation.

That said, I'm for limited government intervention in the marketplace. Government "regulation" is a fuckin' joke considering the lobbying power corporations have and the fact most politicians are corporate shills and the heads of regulatory bodies, like the FDA, are usually former CEOs.

That's why I don't understand the left's fascination with "regulation." The only people who benefit from a heavily regulated marketplace are those with the power and money and influence to navigate it, meaning small-to-middle sized business are at a severe disadvantage. Liberals who think that regulation will actually do anything positive for the "little guy" are as retarded as those bible belt "jeebotards" who think the wealth will "trickle down" to them.

[baseline bum]

Your eyes are too far apart. Nose is definitely crooked. The shape of your face is not aesthetically pleasing at all. You look like a 3/10 with make up in the photos I've seen. I don't even want to imagine what you look like without make up. I actually just threw up in my mouth, just thinking about it.Your head is too big (although that may be, because of your giraffe neck posture). As for your hair, lol. Seriously, do something. You look like a horse.Stare at your face for more than 5 seconds, and you will see how ugly you are. The eyes which are too far apart is what ruins/damages an already ugly face even further. Unfortunately for you, that can't be surgically fixed, lol.You arms are way too long. lol at how they hang by your sides. Kind of reminds me of lurch. As for your tits, we all know there is extra padding there. Don't even let me start on your pale complexion. It only works if you look hot. Unfortunately, you do not look hot. Its hard to sum up a creature like you in one word. 'UGLY' would be unfair, since it doesn't reflect how repulsive you look. GROTESQUE is stretching it. But somewhere in between, is where you would be, on the scale of an average man.I'm sorry if my words seem a little harsh. Just so you know, I sugar coated this post as much as possible.Have a nice day.

Baby I'm sorry. You know how hard this is for me? Why you just gonna leave me like that? What did I do to you?

Fucking love you. I know people tell me I deserve better, but I don't want nobody else. I want you. You're all I want, babe. Please baby, please! Fucking love you.

Fucking love you babe, fucking love you. Look... see this teddy bear. Please babe, please don't fucking leave me like that. Please. Fucking love you.

Just trust me baby, trust me; I'm gonna change. This time's for real. I put this on my momma, I'm a change.

How much it fucking hurts me! But I fucking love you!

Please baby, come back. Please??? Ah, I fucking love you.

I love you babe. You're the only girl I love. You're the only girl I truly love. You're the only girl I cried for. Fucking love you.

I don't deserve this, but please come back baby, please??? Please??? Fucking love you babe.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And Democrat Jimmy Carter, who was quite the fan of deregulation.
What did Carter deregulate?


That said, I'm for limited government intervention in the marketplace. Government "regulation" is a fuckin' joke considering the lobbying power corporations have and the fact most politicians are corporate shills and the heads of regulatory bodies, like the FDA, are usually former CEOs.
Government regulation wasn't a joke prior to Reagan shrinking government and handing it over to corporations. The only way for proper government regulation is the powerful government we had from 1930-1980. Yes, I know you're gonna use big scary words like socialism and wealth redistribution to say why that's a bad thing.


That's why I don't understand the left's fascination with "regulation." The only people who benefit from a heavily regulated marketplace are those with the power and money and influence to navigate it, meaning small-to-middle sized business are at a severe disadvantage. Liberals who think that regulation will actually do anything positive for the "little guy" are as retarded as those bible belt "jeebotards" who think the wealth will "trickle down" to them.
Can you show me an example of a country that successfully used your small government deregulated utopia? I'm always anxious to see all the empirical evidence backing up the laissez-faire libtardtarian fantasy land where everyone regulates themselves.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

We should have the small government Somalia has. Look at all their successful Laissez-faire economics!

[baseline bum]

We should have the small government Somalia has. Look at all their successful Laissez-faire economics!

I personally enjoyed the era of small local governance in Zaire and Rwanda tbh.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I personally enjoyed the era of small local governance in Zaire and Rwanda tbh.

Me too. When I look at the small governments in Africa that allow people to govern themselves versus the big evil socialist governments in Germany and Sweden, it's obvious to me how much America needs smaller government.

[ElNono]

Me too. When I look at the small governments in Africa that allow people to govern themselves versus the big evil socialist governments in Germany and Sweden, it's obvious to me how much America needs smaller government.

It's different. God has a plan for America.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

It's different. God has a plan for America.

What's different? I was admiring how successful laissez-faire economics is in Africa.

[baseline bum]

What's different? I was admiring how successful laissez-faire economics is in Africa.

Well there was the tornado, and Sandy, and so on.

[ElNono]

What's different? I was admiring how successful laissez-faire economics is in Africa.

We're the good guys. God is on our side.

[ElNono]

Well there was the tornado, and Sandy, and so on.

We're being tested. We went Rwanda on the WH, and now we've to pass the test.

God bless.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Well there was the tornado, and Sandy, and so on.

That was god punishing us for having a big gubbamint, while he's blessed Africa with economic prosperity for their small governments.

[Trainwreck2100]

We're the good guys. God is on our side.

We won't be the good guys till we successfully defend marriage

[ElNono]

We won't be the good guys till we successfully defend marriage

I'm praying for it. God bless.

[baseline bum]

That was god punishing us for having a big gubbamint, while he's blessed Africa with economic prosperity for their small governments.

I have to give God props for sending the floods that washed away all the filth in San Antonio today. http://i.imgur.com/SYVz31V.gif

[Trainwreck2100]

I'm praying for it. God bless.

#prayformarriage

[midnightpulp]

What did Carter deregulate?

Airlines, banking, transportation.

http://articles.herald-mail.com/2011-02-20/opinion/28614285_1_jimmy-carter-deregulation-peanut-farmer

Yes, Carter. It was the peanut farmer from Georgia who pushed the United States toward a market economy, not the one-time actor from California. Reagan certainly shared Carter’s vision on deregulation, embracing with bravado policies that Carter launched with grim solemnity. But Carter laid the groundwork for the United States’ transformation from the economic malaise of the late 1970s to the vibrancy of the following decades. More importantly, only someone with impeccable credentials as a Democrat could have started deregulation. If it took Nixon to go to China, it took Carter to embrace markets.

Enter Jimmy Carter. His administration was not a bunch of Ayn Rand-spouting market enthusiasts who believed unfettered competition would bring economic nirvana. Rather, they understood that U.S. regulation largely served special interests (with the regulated industries being the most special) and government bureaucracies, not the will of consumers. Giving consumers more choices and exposing formerly protected firms to price competition was necessary policy.


Key phrase there. "Regulation served special interests and government bureaucracies." Carter essentially chose the lesser of two evils here.



Government regulation wasn't a joke prior to Reagan shrinking government and handing it over to corporations. The only way for proper government regulation is the powerful government we had from 1930-1980. Yes, I know you're gonna use big scary words like socialism and wealth redistribution to say why that's a bad thing.

Lobbying and corporate influence also was nowhere near as sophisticated then as it is now. Once the economy became globalized, Government essentially had no choice but to do what was necessary to keep those corporations doing business in the States, as there was always a threat they could proverbially "take their ball and go home" (meaning, move their entire operation overseas). It's cool that you're an old school protectionist, as am I in theory, but the cold reality is that those corporations have all the leverage in this scenario. The 1950's when the corporate tax rate was at 90% came under a very different economic landscape. The US government could tax them whatever they fuck they wanted because at the time, the United States was the most profitable place to do business since no other countries had anywhere near our manufacturing infrastructure or labor force. That all changed with the industrialization of Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, China, etc. And try as you might, no amount of import/export tariffs and other such measures will keep a corporation from maximizing its bottom line.

Furthermore, where do suppose this "powerful government's" funding will come from? The magical Karl Marx money fairy? No. From tax revenue, obviously. Who pays taxes? People employed by businesses/corporations and corporations themselves. So how do you suppose the government can bite the "hand that feeds them" and employ the kind of regulation you're asking for?


Can you show me an example of a country that successfully used your small government deregulated utopia? I'm always anxious to see all the empirical evidence backing up the laissez-faire libtardtarian fantasy land where everyone regulates themselves.

I'm under no delusions a deregulated marketplace would be a utopia and I am in favor of some regulation, but shit like the FCC, FDA (headed by a former Monsanto exec :lol), USDA (once headed by that same former Monsato exec now in charge of the FDA :lol), OSHA, and the many "environmental" regulations that corporations can simply circumvent by paying a fine are a joke, and only exist to serve those already at the top of the food chain.

It's not about idealism for me and choosing between socialism and freedom, it's about simple realism. If our government was headed by an A.I. that was capable of always making the perfectly moral, sane, and just decision, free from influence and corruption, I would be in favor of regulation. But it's not. Our government is populated with greedy, corrupt, meglomaniacal human beings, and to cultivate an environment where they can merge with the greedy, corrupt, meglomaniacal human beings that populate the boardrooms of multinational corporations is something I'm not particularly in favor of. The end result is Monopoly Capitalism, which as a Marxist, is a concept you should be familiar with.

Just looked what happened with the corporate bailouts. Our benevolent, all knowing, all perfect government handed out nearly a trillion dollars of our tax dollars to corporations, something every liberal (and real conservative) was sickened by. In a "free market" those companies would have been allowed to fail, but in a "regulated" economic landscape, the CEOs of those firms got fat bonuses for "failing," paid by your taxes :lol (On a side note, the bailout money wasn't supposed to be used for executive compensation, but the corporations blatantly disobeyed and paid out bonuses anyway. G:lolvernment regulation. Sure works :tu).

My solution. Keep the two entities apart as much as you can. You routinely call Obama, Bush, Clinton, and all these Washington assholes "corporate shills" but yet you want to expand their power in the marketplace?

Why?

[Clipper Nation]

Mid shitting on liberals and their regulations, tbh....

[midnightpulp]

Me too. When I look at the small governments in Africa that allow people to govern themselves versus the big evil socialist governments in Germany and Sweden, it's obvious to me how much America needs smaller government.

They're not socialist governments, though.

Just because they have universal health care, strong unionization (which is very much a result of a free market, since a worker should be free to maximize his leverage in the marketplace through collective bargaining), and have a hard-on for Muslims, doesn't mean they're "socialist." Like the US, those countries are a mixed economy that are majority capitalist.

The "socialist" utopia Denmark has a "Business Freedom" rating of 98 in the Regulatory Efficiency category. The US has a 90 rating.

Even Germany has a higher Business Freedom rating than the US at 92:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany

Those countries aren't as regulated as you think they are, despite what NPR tells you.

But keep bringing up African countries as if they're relevant to anything.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Key phrase there. "Regulation served special interests and government bureaucracies." Carter essentially chose the lesser of two evils here.
And it worked out great given how awesome the economy was when Carter left office. lol worst inflation in American history.


Lobbying and corporate influence also was nowhere near as sophisticated then as it is now.
Right because of stuff like wop Catholic justices like Scalia and Alito ruling that corporations are people and have free speech. Lobbying and corporate influence was a product of deregulating campaigns and distributing wealth away from unions.


Once the economy became globalized, Government essentially had no choice but to do what was necessary to keep those corporations doing business in the States, as there was always a threat they could proverbially "take their ball and go home" (meaning, move their entire operation overseas).
Most of them did move their entire manufacturing operation overseas. The only reason they left the US was Reagan and Clinton lifting trade restrictions.


It's cool that you're an old school protectionist, as am I in theory, but the cold reality is that those corporations have all the leverage in this scenario.
Because Reagan gave them all the leverage with the small government utopia. That's why you can't show me a functioning example of a small government, because corporations and corruption always swallow them up.


The 1950's when the corporate tax rate was at 90% came under a very different economic landscape. The US government could tax them whatever they fuck they wanted because at the time, the United States was the most profitable place to do business since no other countries had anywhere near our manufacturing infrastructure or labor force. That all changed with the industrialization of Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, China, etc. And try as you might, no amount of import/export tariffs and other such measures will keep a corporation from maximizing its bottom line.
This is where people have a complete lack of understanding for the tax code and never make sense. Gross revenue isn't taxed, net profits are. If a corporation can turn a profit operating in the US, it's going to unless the corporate tax rate is at 100%. Furthermore, the fact corporations being hell bent on maximizing their bottom line are why tariffs work. If you make it the most profitable option to domestically produce the product to avoid tariffs, that's what corporations do.


Furthermore, where do suppose this "powerful government's" funding will come from? The magical Karl Marx money fairy? No. From tax revenue, obviously. Who pays taxes? People employed by businesses/corporations and corporations themselves. So how do you suppose the government can bite the "hand that feeds them" and employ the kind of regulation you're asking for?
It'll come from the high tax rates evil socialist countries like Germany and Sweden have.


I'm under no delusions a deregulated marketplace would be a utopia and I am in favor of some regulation
:lol the point in every political argument where libtardtarians backpedal and say, "Well, there is SOME regulation I support!" after making countless blanket statements about how regulation is bad


but shit like the FCC, FDA (headed by a former Monsanto exec :lol), USDA (once headed by that same former Monsato exec now in charge of the FDA :lol), OSHA, and the many "environmental" regulations that corporations can simply circumvent by paying a fine are a joke, and only exist to serve those already at the top of the food chain.
So would you rather the corporation have to pay a fine or not have to do anything at all?


It's not about idealism for me and choosing between socialism and freedom, it's about simple realism.
So you're a realist for supporting a laissez-faire model with absolutely no empirical evidence of ever working? That sounds more like fantasy than realism, particularly because it's based off the fictional book Atlas Shrugged.


If our government was headed by an A.I. that was capable of always making the perfectly moral, sane, and just decision, free from influence and corruption, I would be in favor of regulation. But it's not.
It has been headed by that type before. You're right that it hasn't since Reagan shrank government. Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican but his policies would be considered socialism by your standards.

So are you or are you not in favor of regulation?


Our government is populated with greedy, corrupt, meglomaniacal human beings, and to cultivate an environment where they can merge with the greedy, corrupt, meglomaniacal human beings that populate the boardrooms of multinational corporations is something I'm not particularly in favor of. The end result is Monopoly Capitalism, which as a Marxist, is a concept you should be familiar with.
Another thing that's fuckin hilarious is when libertarians whore catch phrases like "Crony Capitalism!" or "Monopoly Capitalism!" when that's exactly what capitalism is. It's corporations being able to capitalize on a small, weak government and lobby for it to do whatever they want it to do. The libertarian Ayn Rand fantasy is a surefire bet to lead to Crony Capitalism or whatever libertarians come up with to try to splinter themselves from Ronald Reagan's views that are identical to theirs.


Just looked what happened with the corporate bailouts. Our benevolent, all knowing, all perfect government handed out nearly a trillion dollars of our tax dollars to corporations, something every liberal (and real conservative) was sickened by.
Oh cool. Another libertarian gimmick, using terms like "real conservative" to try and explain how their version of small government is different than Bush's version of small government.


In a "free market" those companies would have been allowed to fail, but in a "regulated" economic landscape, the CEOs of those firms got fat bonuses for "failing," paid by your taxes :lol (On a side note, the bailout money wasn't supposed to be used for executive compensation, but the corporations blatantly disobeyed and paid out bonuses anyway. G:lolvernment regulation. Sure works :tu).
In a free market those companies would have had the power to lobby government for a bailout which is exactly what happened.


My solution. Keep the two entities apart as much as you can. You routinely call Obama, Bush, Clinton, and all these Washington assholes "corporate shills" but yet you want to expand their power in the marketplace?
Right. Keep the two entities apart with regulation. I'm curious how you're supposed to keep the two entities apart in a small government laissez-faire environment.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

They're not socialist governments, though.
They're a lot more socialist than the US is. Is this the part where libertarians try to redefine socialism after they try to redefine what being conservative is?


Just because they have universal health care, strong unionization (which is very much a result of a free market, since a worker should be free to maximize his leverage in the marketplace through collective bargaining), and have a hard-on for Muslims, doesn't mean they're "socialist." Like the US, those countries are a mixed economy that are majority capitalist.
Stuff like universal healthcare and empowering unions sounds about as far away from small government free market as it gets. In a perfectly free market corporations don't have to collectively bargain because they can undercut unions and refuse to acknowledge them, just like Walmart does.


The "socialist" utopia Denmark has a "Business Freedom" rating of 98 in the Regulatory Efficiency category. The US has a 90 rating.

Even Germany has a higher Business Freedom rating than the US at 92:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/germany

Those countries aren't as regulated as you think they are, despite what NPR tells you.
Where did I say they were heavily regulated? Big government =/= big regulation.


But keep bringing up African countries as if they're relevant to anything.
They're plenty relevant. Sorry you try to ignore small laissez-faire societies that don't work. Why doesn't the free market system work in Africa?


:lmao trying to use Germany and Sweden as an example of laissez-faire small government

[pad300]

Just as a quick side point for your debate (DUNCANownsKOBE and MidnightPulp), you might want to consider culture as a relevant element between say African countries, and those of a "western european" (Whitey in hood rat-ese) background... Culture is probably more important than government policy at any given time - but government policies change culture over time...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Just as a quick side point for your debate (DUNCANownsKOBE and MidnightPulp), you might want to consider culture as a relevant element between say African countries, and those of a "western european" (Whitey in hood rat-ese) background... Culture is probably more important than government policy at any given time - but government policies change culture over time...
Agreed. America is obsessed with capitalism and thus has an extremely individualistic culture where everyone is told you should fuck as many people over as possible in order to increase your net worth because you don't wanna be a socialist who tries to help the common good.

[baseline bum]

Agreed. America is obsessed with capitalism and thus has an extremely individualistic culture where everyone is told you should fuck as many people over as possible in order to increase your net worth because you don't wanna be a socialist who tries to help the common good.

Seeing the wingnuts cream their boxers when Romney talked about how he liked firing people. LOL job creators

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Seeing the wingnuts cream their boxers when Romney talked about how he liked firing people. LOL job creators
Nothing says job creator quite like taking a healthy company such as KB Toys and financing a takeover with 70% debt/30% equity. I'm sure those employees were grateful for Willard's generosity.

[AaronY]

Thought the political forum was down for a second when I saw this..thank God it's here to segregate this stuff..

[Clipper Nation]

Thought the political forum was down for a second..

Nah, there's too much intelligent discussion for this to be the political forum :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

Nah, there's too much intelligent discussion for this to be the political forum :lol

sssshhhh if you speak it's name THEY might come

[AaronY]

I don't get the point if these discussions dough..like 99.9% of the time the republicans enter the thread as republicans and leave the thread as republicans same with democrats..seems like pages and pages of arguments for nothing..FYI I read none of this thread..

Ill bet no one has ever changed their party based on any of the 13,000,000 trillion arguments in that political forum..

[AaronY]

I'll leave now and close the door behind me..

[Trainwreck2100]

I'll leave now and close the door behind me..

that's very green of you

[midnightpulp]

And it worked out great given how awesome the economy was when Carter left office. lol worst inflation in American history.


Proof Carter's deregulation policies caused the inflation?

Thing, none of us will be able to "prove" what caused what. To this day, you have leading economists on both sides arguing the cause for the '08 financial crisis and it's always fueled more by ideology than science, since as you know, economics isn't a cut and dry empirical science with clearly defined causes-and-effects.


Right because of stuff like wop Catholic justices like Scalia and Alito ruling that corporations are people and have free speech. Lobbying and corporate influence was a product of deregulating campaigns and distributing wealth away from unions.


You have to ask yourself why these deregulating campaigns happened in the first place? The fact that the corporations had the kind of influence to have the most powerful politicians do their bidding is the issue at hand here. If Carter (a bleeding heart), Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama (a supposed bleeding heart who cares about the "little guy") can be corrupted, who can't? This is what I meant when I said I was a "realist." Who exactly are you going to "elect" that is beyond corporate influence?


Most of them did move their entire manufacturing operation overseas. The only reason they left the US was Reagan and Clinton lifting trade restrictions.

But they are still headquartered in the US. I'm talking about the threat of moving everything abroad.


Because Reagan gave them all the leverage with the small government utopia. That's why you can't show me a functioning example of a small government, because corporations and corruption always swallow them up.


Before we debate this point further, I'm sure your definition of "small government" differs from mine. Or maybe not, since you seem to not be in favor of Big Brother policies like SOPA, PIPA, the Patriot Act, etc. Which begs the question: If you don't trust the government to monitor our lives in that aspect, why would you trust them to effectively regulate the marketplace and spend our tax dollars wisely?


This is where people have a complete lack of understanding for the tax code and never make sense. Gross revenue isn't taxed, net profits are. If a corporation can turn a profit operating in the US, it's going to unless the corporate tax rate is at 100%. Furthermore, the fact corporations being hell bent on maximizing their bottom line are why tariffs work. If you make it the most profitable option to domestically produce the product to avoid tariffs, that's what corporations do.

I understand that, and I not sure where I implied I was talking about gross revenue being taxed.

Like I said, I'm a protectionist in theory, but I'm not sure of the efficacy of high tariffs in a globalized economy. On the other hand, I'm also an advocate of consumer freedom, even in the face of "patriotism." If some Jap manufacturer can make a better TV (and cheaper, but more expensive to Americans because of tariffs) why should I be forced to purchase the inferior American counterpart because the duty tax makes the Japanese television more expensive?



It'll come from the high tax rates evil socialist countries like Germany and Sweden have.

And again, why do you want to give these "corporate shills" more money and power? Obviously, they sold us out a long time ago, so why are you under the impression that "if we just returned to the government we had between 1930-80, it will all go away?" Who is going to be the proverbial "messiahs" to make it all better?



:lol the point in every political argument where libtardtarians backpedal and say, "Well, there is SOME regulation I support!" after making countless blanket statements about how regulation is bad

Libertarian =/= AnCap.



So would you rather the corporation have to pay a fine or not have to do anything at all?

No. I'd rather his smaller competitor also not have to be subject to these fines or be forced into a lobbying contest which he probably can't afford.



So you're a realist for supporting a laissez-faire model with absolutely no empirical evidence of ever working? That sounds more like fantasy than realism, particularly because it's based off the fictional book Atlas Shrugged.

Again, I'm not an AnCap.



It has been headed by that type before. You're right that it hasn't since Reagan shrank government. Dwight Eisenhower was a Republican but his policies would be considered socialism by your standards.

So are you or are you not in favor of regulation?


I'll be in favor of regulation when it can be fairly applied. As it stands, it favors the richest and most powerful, and this dream of returning the government to its former "1930-80" regulatory, high tax rate glory that you keep referring to is just that, a dream, and no less deluded than the Anarcho-Capitalists you mock. Until then, keep the two separate, with minimal, sensible regulation, like the enforcement of contracts, fraud protection, etc. Until you can purge these regulatory bodies of their corporate infection, they're more wasteful and detrimental than anything.


Another thing that's fuckin hilarious is when libertarians whore catch phrases like "Crony Capitalism!" or "Monopoly Capitalism!" when that's exactly what capitalism is. It's corporations being able to capitalize on a small, weak government and lobby for it to do whatever they want it to do. The libertarian Ayn Rand fantasy is a surefire bet to lead to Crony Capitalism or whatever libertarians come up with to try to splinter themselves from Ronald Reagan's views that are identical to theirs.



It's not a catchphrase if it's an accurate description of what's going on. Again, I don't get your contention here. When you say Obama is a corporate shill, you're essentially acknowledging the fact Crony Capitalism exists.

So why do you want to expand the power of these corporate shills? I haven't yet met a liberal who is consistent with their idea of what the government should be. Talk to any Liberal, and he'll contort his face in disgust telling you about the government's deplorable foreign policy, their resistance to social justice causes like gay marriage and immigration, the Patriot Act, and how the government is in the pocket of corporations, but yet they still call for an expansion of government intervention in the marketplace to get the 1% to "pay their fair share" and to stop evil multinational corporations from raping baby seals. They obviously don't trust the government to do anything else, yet they completely trust them to "regulate" the marketplace? The irony.


Oh cool. Another libertarian gimmick, using terms like "real conservative" to try and explain how their version of small government is different than Bush's version of small government.

Libertarians despise neoconservatives.



In a free market those companies would have had the power to lobby government for a bailout which is exactly what happened.

No. In a free market, government would stay away from a situation like that. I have no idea how you believe the government handing out welfare money to corporations is an example of a "free market."



Right. Keep the two entities apart with regulation. I'm curious how you're supposed to keep the two entities apart in a small government laissez-faire environment.

Limited government intervention in the marketplace doesn't automatically mean "small" or "impotent" government. It just means the government should not overtly interfere in the market.

Shit like SOPA, which I know you're against (I think), is an example of "government interference in the marketplace." Not all government regulation seeks to protect the rare spotted horn lizard and ensure our safety from madcow disease.

[Rogue]

shooting a hasty 3 with 20 secs left, bald argie :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Proof Carter's deregulation policies caused the inflation?

Thing, none of us will be able to "prove" what caused what. To this day, you have leading economists on both sides arguing the cause for the '08 financial crisis and it's always fueled more by ideology than science, since as you know, economics isn't a cut and dry empirical science with clearly defined causes-and-effects.
The cause of the '08 financial crisis is pretty cut and dry. It was a 30 year culmination of deregulation, corporatism, and as you mentioned everyone in America becoming obsessed with excess and refinancing their house so they could take a vacation.

Same thing with why the economy still sucks. The economy sucks because the middle class has no purchasing power thus there's no demand. It's pretty retarded to argue otherwise when the reason is that simple.


You have to ask yourself why these deregulating campaigns happened in the first place? The fact that the corporations had the kind of influence to have the most powerful politicians do their bidding is the issue at hand here. If Carter (a bleeding heart), Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Obama (a supposed bleeding heart who cares about the "little guy") can be corrupted, who can't? This is what I meant when I said I was a "realist." Who exactly are you going to "elect" that is beyond corporate influence?
Who can't be corrupted? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are two prime examples.

It's bullshit to call Obama a bleeding heart, the fact people think he's a bleeding heart liberal is an example of how retarded both sides are. His economic policies are middle-right wing, as were Clinton's. The last president who I'd consider a bleeding heart liberal was FDR.


But they are still headquartered in the US. I'm talking about the threat of moving everything abroad.
They would still be headquartered in the US with increased tariffs. The fact you're really worried about making sure we give corporations a big enough blow job so they stay here shows how controlled you are by people like the Koch Brothers who want people to think government is the problem.

:crywe need to fellate corporations as much as possible:cry


Before we debate this point further, I'm sure your definition of "small government" differs from mine. Or maybe not, since you seem to not be in favor of Big Brother policies like SOPA, PIPA, the Patriot Act, etc. Which begs the question: If you don't trust the government to monitor our lives in that aspect, why would you trust them to effectively regulate the marketplace and spend our tax dollars wisely?
My definition of small government is the utopia libertarians like Reagan have been promising for 30 years. The rich pay 75 year lows in taxes and have lower regulations than ever, but for whatever reason the small government effect has yet to take place.

I also think the two are different because we don't need the government monitoring our personal lives with stuff like the Patriot Act. It serves absolutely no purpose. Regulating the marketplace and protecting people does however serve a purpose, and it's not something people can do without strong enforcement from government.


Like I said, I'm a protectionist in theory, but I'm not sure of the efficacy of high tariffs in a globalized economy.
Germany's 19% VAT on imports seems to be pretty efficient. Tariffs on imports are what protects domestic business.


On the other hand, I'm also an advocate of consumer freedom, even in the face of "patriotism." If some Jap manufacturer can make a better TV (and cheaper, but more expensive to Americans because of tariffs) why should I be forced to purchase the inferior American counterpart because the duty tax makes the Japanese television more expensive?
Yeah, there's no perfect solution. I kind of think a sustained middle class that has well paying manufacturing jobs is more important than being able to buy a Jap TV.

The tax on imports also hasn't stopped Germany from totally dominating our auto industry in terms of quality.


And again, why do you want to give these "corporate shills" more money and power?
Saying I want to give them more money and power is typical gross libertarian oversimplification. I want to make it so that in order to become president in this country, you don't need to be a millionaire backed by billionaires.


Obviously, they sold us out a long time ago, so why are you under the impression that "if we just returned to the government we had between 1930-80, it will all go away?" Who is going to be the proverbial "messiahs" to make it all better?


Libertarian =/= AnCap.
Ah yes, the part where libertarians say they're not anarchists, they just happen to make the same blanket statements about government that anarchists do.


No. I'd rather his smaller competitor also not have to be subject to these fines or be forced into a lobbying contest which he probably can't afford.
I'd rather a big government that destroys him for breaking the law.


Again, I'm not an AnCap.
You just happen to agree with AnCaps on everything.


I'll be in favor of regulation when it can be fairly applied. As it stands, it favors the richest and most powerful, and this dream of returning the government to its former "1930-80" regulatory, high tax rate glory that you keep referring to is just that, a dream, and no less deluded than the Anarcho-Capitalists you mock. Until then, keep the two separate, with minimal, sensible regulation, like the enforcement of contracts, fraud protection, etc. Until you can purge these regulatory bodies of their corporate infection, they're more wasteful and detrimental than anything.
How is it a dream when other modern countries have the same structure? It's easily attainable if the population isn't religious and knows what's best for itself.


It's not a catchphrase if it's an accurate description of what's going on. Again, I don't get your contention here. When you say Obama is a corporate shill, you're essentially acknowledging the fact Crony Capitalism exists.
It's a catch phrase because it's what capitalism is. There's no difference between Crony Capitalism and plain old capitalism.


So why do you want to expand the power of these corporate shills? I haven't yet met a liberal who is consistent with their idea of what the government should be. Talk to any Liberal, and he'll contort his face in disgust telling you about the government's deplorable foreign policy, their resistance to social justice causes like gay marriage and immigration, the Patriot Act, and how the government is in the pocket of corporations, but yet they still call for an expansion of government intervention in the marketplace to get the 1% to "pay their fair share" and to stop evil multinational corporations from raping baby seals. They obviously don't trust the government to do anything else, yet they completely trust them to "regulate" the marketplace? The irony.
Because regulating the marketplace is something no one other than the government is capable of doing. If there was a better alternative, I'd be all for it.


Libertarians despise neoconservatives.
Except for the ones like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan who endorsed/ran with Romney :lol


No. In a free market, government would stay away from a situation like that. I have no idea how you believe the government handing out welfare money to corporations is an example of a "free market."
Because in a free market corporations have the power to swallow government up for their own interests.

A perfect example of this is the prison industry. We decided to privatize the prison industry because it's more efficient than big bad government and as a result it's led to a prison industrial complex that keeps the war on drugs around.


Limited government intervention in the marketplace doesn't automatically mean "small" or "impotent" government. It just means the government should not overtly interfere in the market.
In America limited government has correlated with impotent government.


Shit like SOPA, which I know you're against (I think), is an example of "government interference in the marketplace." Not all government regulation seeks to protect the rare spotted horn lizard and ensure our safety from madcow disease.
Yeah and I'm not making blanket statements that all regulation is good.

[pad300]

Agreed. America is obsessed with capitalism and thus has an extremely individualistic culture where everyone is told you should fuck as many people over as possible in order to increase your net worth because you don't wanna be a socialist who tries to help the common good.

I don't think you've taken my point. As an example of culture that I am talking about, are you familiar with the concept of "trust society" vs "clan society"? I trust my neighbor to give back (and not wreck) the circular saw I lend him. I trust the bank to not abscond with my money. I trust the cop/judge to adjudicate fairly between me and the guy I have a dispute with. I trust the people at the YMCA with my kids when they go to swimming lessons. As opposed to I can't trust my neighbour\the bank\the cop\etc. as they are not my blood kin...Africa, the middle east (excepting Israel), the third world in general are "clan societies". The nicer places in the world are typically "trust societies".

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I don't think you've taken my point. As an example of culture that I am talking about, are you familiar with the concept of "trust society" vs "clan society"? I trust my neighbor to give back (and not wreck) the circular saw I lend him. I trust the bank to not abscond with my money. I trust the cop/judge to adjudicate fairly between me and the guy I have a dispute with. I trust the people at the YMCA with my kids when they go to swimming lessons. As opposed to I can't trust my neighbour\the bank\the cop\etc. as they are not my blood kin...Africa, the middle east (excepting Israel), the third world in general are "clan societies". The nicer places in the world are typically "trust societies".
America is becoming a clan society if you look at how many libertarian militias are being formed, tbh.

[HI-FI]

I don't think you've taken my point. As an example of culture that I am talking about, are you familiar with the concept of "trust society" vs "clan society"? I trust my neighbor to give back (and not wreck) the circular saw I lend him. I trust the bank to not abscond with my money. I trust the cop/judge to adjudicate fairly between me and the guy I have a dispute with. I trust the people at the YMCA with my kids when they go to swimming lessons. As opposed to I can't trust my neighbour\the bank\the cop\etc. as they are not my blood kin...Africa, the middle east (excepting Israel), the third world in general are "clan societies". The nicer places in the world are typically "trust societies".
interesting post, better than the other shit. though you could argue that things are becoming increasingly balkanized, and therefore back to "clan societies".

[ElNono]

I don't get the point if these discussions dough..like 99.9% of the time the republicans enter the thread as republicans and leave the thread as republicans same with democrats..seems like pages and pages of arguments for nothing..FYI I read none of this thread..

Ill bet no one has ever changed their party based on any of the 13,000,000 trillion arguments in that political forum..

Listen to God. He'll show you the path. God bless.

[baseline bum]

I don't think you've taken my point. As an example of culture that I am talking about, are you familiar with the concept of "trust society" vs "clan society"? I trust my neighbor to give back (and not wreck) the circular saw I lend him. I trust the bank to not abscond with my money. I trust the cop/judge to adjudicate fairly between me and the guy I have a dispute with. I trust the people at the YMCA with my kids when they go to swimming lessons. As opposed to I can't trust my neighbour\the bank\the cop\etc. as they are not my blood kin...Africa, the middle east (excepting Israel), the third world in general are "clan societies". The nicer places in the world are typically "trust societies".

Really? You trust your bank and your judges?

[midnightpulp]

[QUOTE]The cause of the '08 financial crisis is pretty cut and dry. It was a 30 year culmination of deregulation, corporatism, and as you mentioned everyone in America becoming obsessed with excess and refinancing their house so they could take a vacation.


Says who? Paul Krugman.


Who can't be corrupted? Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are two prime examples.


Two examples compared to what, 300 on Capital Hill?


They would still be headquartered in the US with increased tariffs. The fact you're really worried about making sure we give corporations a big enough blow job so they stay here shows how controlled you are by people like the Koch Brothers who want people to think government is the problem.

I'm not against that in theory, but I would like to see work in practice, in the United States and not in Germany. The very fact German automakers stay in Germany despite the taxation could be simply out of nationalistic pride. If Chevy could save a penny on the dollar, you can bet they would move everything to Mexico or Singapore. Despite all the flag-wavers and yellow ribbon wearers, Americans aren't very patriotic in practice if they can save a buck. Like I said, I'm 60/40 on this issue. I'm for supporting American companies who manufacture domestically and hire Americans, but I'm also for maximizing the value of my hard earned dollar. But I get where you're coming from and don't disagree.



My definition of small government is the utopia libertarians like Reagan have been promising for 30 years. The rich pay 75 year lows in taxes and have lower regulations than ever, but for whatever reason the small government effect has yet to take place.

Like I've shown, other developed countries are more loosely regulated and even pay similar corporate tax rates as the US, like Australia.


I also think the two are different because we don't need the government monitoring our personal lives with stuff like the Patriot Act. It serves absolutely no purpose. Regulating the marketplace and protecting people does however serve a purpose, and it's not something people can do without strong enforcement from government.

Don't disagree with that. But do you see how an overly regulated marketplace can phase out smaller competition, or at the very least, make harder for them to compete? I work in the film industry, and because of the all the fees, permits, and other bullshit, only the richest studios can afford to shoot in Hollywood while smaller studios have to shoot in places like New Mexico, Arizona, Canada, etc. Friend of mine is going to shoot his film in fuckin' Prague because of the tax breaks. So Americans are denied a job opportunity on that film because the city government of Los Angeles thinks it's a great idea to make shooting a movie more expensive than the actual cost of shooting the fuckin' movie. And who benefits in the end? MGM, Dreamworks, Paramount, etc.



Saying I want to give them more money and power is typical gross libertarian oversimplification. I want to make it so that in order to become president in this country, you don't need to be a millionaire backed by billionaires.

And how do we do that? I dig your idealism, but I have no idea how to make it a reality in this country. I also have no idea how to separate government from business, either. I just know I became highly soured on government intervention in the marketplace when they handed out 900 billion in welfare to their cronies. And what really added insult to injury is when these executives were giving themselves bonuses when it was explicitly stated they were not to do so. And all Obama could say was, "Shameful." No one went to jail. Nothing happened.



Ah yes, the part where libertarians say they're not anarchists, they just happen to make the same blanket statements about government that anarchists do.

I'm not an anarchist, though. Right now, the major regulatory bodies are corrupt as shit, filled with corporate shills. Get rid of them until a better, more honest, alternative presents itself.


I'd rather a big government that destroys him for breaking the law.

And he hardly ever gets destroyed. He pays his fine and goes back to polluting the environment or making lead paint. So if nothing is going to happen to him, the better solution for me at the moment is at least make it so where nothing happens to the little guy, either, and he can compete on a level playing field. That sounds cynical, but I have no other answer. Until these regulatory bodies stop being feel good mouth pieces ("You see, American public, we got BP to pay a heavy fine! We're doing honorable work here and protecting Americans!") and start actually sending some assholes to jail (who aren't simply fall guys), they're useless in my book.



How is it a dream when other modern countries have the same structure? It's easily attainable if the population isn't religious and knows what's best for itself.

Is their structure any different from ours, though? Australia is freer economically in pretty much every relevant metric. So is New Zealand. Denmark, etc.



It's a catch phrase because it's what capitalism is. There's no difference between Crony Capitalism and plain old capitalism.

We have different definitions of capitalism, I guess.

To me, capitalism is the right for me hire you as my accountant and the right for you to charge me whatever you want, with you entitled to the "private property" of your profits from that transaction. Or maybe you define what I think of as capitalism as mercantilism.



Because regulating the marketplace is something no one other than the government is capable of doing. If there was a better alternative, I'd be all for it.


And like I've shown, the marketplace in those example countries isn't too stringently regulated, and their societies aren't plunging into ruin and chaos. It seems your issue is more with our comparatively lower corporate tax rate than deregulation.


Because in a free market corporations have the power to swallow government up for their own interests.

A perfect example of this is the prison industry. We decided to privatize the prison industry because it's more efficient than big bad government and as a result it's led to a prison industrial complex that keeps the war on drugs around.

And who issued the War on Drugs?

But yes, despite what you think of me as an AnCap, I'm not in favor of privatizing prisons or even health care, because I think those industries should be driven more by morality than profit.

[pad300]

Really? You trust your bank and your judges?

I'm in Canada son. Just to put that in perspective, if the Canada Revenue Agency (our IRS) had started targeting a political faction like the IRS has, the government would have fallen by now (ie the equivalent of the president being impeached).

[baseline bum]

I'm in Canada son. Just to put that in perspective, if the Canada Revenue Agency (our IRS) had started targeting a political faction like the IRS has, the government would have fallen by now (ie the equivalent of the president being impeached).

Ah, makes more sense in Canada where, to quote boutons (:vomit:), responsible people run the nation and not corporations.

[pad300]

America is becoming a clan society if you look at how many libertarian militias are being formed, tbh.


interesting post, better than the other shit. though you could argue that things are becoming increasingly balkanized, and therefore back to "clan societies".

You ain't even close to that of kind of shit yet (at least once you get out of the inner city ghetto's). I'll admit your trust levels are going downhill - so are ours (Canada). Large amounts of non-assimilated immigration has impact. So does government policy - larger bureaucracies where you don't need to rely on your neighbors and being in their good graces - appear to reduce trust levels over time...

[pad300]

Ah, makes more sense in Canada where, to quote boutons (:vomit:), responsible people run the nation and not corporations.

We got our fair share of corporations too. From my perspective, your political rats are worse than ours, because you (americans) have gotten to used to being rich enough to not have to care who's in charge and doing what... Personally, I trust the Republicans to assholes a significant portion of the time, but to keep their word (on a national scale at least) once they give it. The Democrats are significantly worse, because they are assholes at least as often, if not more, and their word simply isn't good. I will also note, that I suspect that the Tea Party is probably the single best thing to happen to US politics in the last 20 years.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Says who? Paul Krugman.
Says anyone with common sense. What do you think caused the financial crash?


Two examples compared to what, 300 on Capital Hill?
I gave you some examples. I didn't say the ratio was high :lol

I also think plenty of politicians would become uncorruptable if it wasn't so easy for corporations to buy them.


I'm not against that in theory, but I would like to see work in practice, in the United States and not in Germany. The very fact German automakers stay in Germany despite the taxation could be simply out of nationalistic pride. If Chevy could save a penny on the dollar, you can bet they would move everything to Mexico or Singapore. Despite all the flag-wavers and yellow ribbon wearers, Americans aren't very patriotic in practice if they can save a buck. Like I said, I'm 60/40 on this issue. I'm for supporting American companies who manufacture domestically and hire Americans, but I'm also for maximizing the value of my hard earned dollar. But I get where you're coming from and don't disagree.
Agreed completely, which is why regulations are more important here than in countries like Germany where there are things like ethics and nationalistic pride. Countries controlled by corporate greed need strong government the most.


Like I've shown, other developed countries are more loosely regulated and even pay similar corporate tax rates as the US, like Australia.
:lol Australia has a minimum wage equivalent to over $16.00 an hour in the US and a 10% VAT we don't have. That's the important thing to keep in mind when looking at tax rates for corporations, we're like the only modern country that doesn't use VATs.


Don't disagree with that. But do you see how an overly regulated marketplace can phase out smaller competition, or at the very least, make harder for them to compete? I work in the film industry, and because of the all the fees, permits, and other bullshit, only the richest studios can afford to shoot in Hollywood while smaller studios have to shoot in places like New Mexico, Arizona, Canada, etc. Friend of mine is going to shoot his film in fuckin' Prague because of the tax breaks. So Americans are denied a job opportunity on that film because the city government of Los Angeles thinks it's a great idea to make shooting a movie more expensive than the actual cost of shooting the fuckin' movie. And who benefits in the end? MGM, Dreamworks, Paramount, etc.
Yeah I don't disagree California is where regulation has gone horribly wrong.

I also think if we publicize things like healthcare it helps smaller business because they no longer have to provide medical care to their employees. The fact we still burden employers with providing healthcare rather than nationalizing it is an example of retarded capitalist bullshit.


And how do we do that? I dig your idealism, but I have no idea how to make it a reality in this country. I also have no idea how to separate government from business, either. I just know I became highly soured on government intervention in the marketplace when they handed out 900 billion in welfare to their cronies. And what really added insult to injury is when these executives were giving themselves bonuses when it was explicitly stated they were not to do so. And all Obama could say was, "Shameful." No one went to jail. Nothing happened.
Yeah I don't consider that big government. I consider that a government that underwent 8 years of weakening by from Bush that was completely at the mercy of the banks and had no better alternative when the banks said, "Give us a trillion dollars or there's gonna be widespread calamity and martial law!"


I'm not an anarchist, though. Right now, the major regulatory bodies are corrupt as shit, filled with corporate shills. Get rid of them until a better, more honest, alternative presents itself.
Agreed, but we need the FDA as corrupt as it is. The inevitable problem you and I both agree on is that the corruption in these agencies should enrage people and people are simply too stupid to care. The monsanto bullshit should have provoked riots in the streets.


And he hardly ever gets destroyed. He pays his fine and goes back to polluting the environment or making lead paint. So if nothing is going to happen to him, the better solution for me at the moment is at least make it so where nothing happens to the little guy, either, and he can compete on a level playing field. That sounds cynical, but I have no other answer. Until these regulatory bodies stop being feel good mouth pieces ("You see, American public, we got BP to pay a heavy fine! We're doing honorable work here and protecting Americans!") and start actually sending some assholes to jail (who aren't simply fall guys), they're useless in my book.
The only other answer is radical change that I'm saying we need. Maybe it is idealism, but it's the only thing that'll make a real difference.


Is their structure any different from ours, though? Australia is freer economically in pretty much every relevant metric. So is New Zealand. Denmark, etc.
As I said, Australia's minimum wage is more than double ours, while other countries haven't destroyed unions with "right to work!" deregulation like we did in the 80s. There are significant laws protecting the middle class in those countries that don't exist here.


We have different definitions of capitalism, I guess.

To me, capitalism is the right for me hire you as my accountant and the right for you to charge me whatever you want, with you entitled to the "private property" of your profits from that transaction. Or maybe you define what I think of as capitalism as mercantilism.
I didn't hate capitalism until people like Mitt Romney insisted his success is an example of why capitalism is beautiful. If being able to send a company into bankruptcy and profit off the bankruptcy while never providing any value to the company is capitalism then count me out. I'll take the bad side of socialism (welfare) over the bad side of capitalism (a plutocracy).


And like I've shown, the marketplace in those example countries isn't too stringently regulated, and their societies aren't plunging into ruin and chaos. It seems your issue is more with our comparatively lower corporate tax rate than deregulation.
Probably so. That's beside the point since libertarians are also for lower taxes across the board in their effort to shrink government, so I still vehemently disagree with them on the issue.


And who issued the War on Drugs?
I know Nixon's administration officially declared the "War on Drugs" and I also know Reagan used it like hell to fuck over the black community.


But yes, despite what you think of me as an AnCap, I'm not in favor of privatizing prisons or even health care, because I think those industries should be driven more by morality than profit.
But that's my point. In free market capitalism everything is driven by profit. If you want things driven by morality you need a government powerful enough to take certain industries away from the private sector. Publicizing prisons and healthcare goes against every fundamental libertarian belief.

[angrydude]

Thanks to our wonderful school system, the only issue that EVERYBODY knows something about is racism is bad.

Therefore every political discussion just comes down to people talking about that one issue. Basically pounding a square peg into a round hole.

Meanwhile the power elite who care about other little things, like I don't know, money, rob everyone blind.

[midnightpulp]

Says anyone with common sense. What do you think caused the financial crash?


I haven't examine the issue in a while, but when I did, it was one "Nobel laureate" economist saying this, and then the other "Nobel laureate" saying that, and their arguments were always fueled by left or right ideology. No point-of-view that I ever read seemed to be objective about the issue, so I'm unsure what exactly "caused" it.


I also think plenty of politicians would become uncorruptable if it wasn't so easy for corporations to buy them.

Agreed. That's why I'm in favor of a separation between government and business. I just don't know how you can have a regulatory body and keep it free from corruption. Politicians are easily bought because they're humans, and humans like money.


Agreed completely, which is why regulations are more important here than in countries like Germany where there are things like ethics and nationalistic pride. Countries controlled by corporate greed need strong government the most.

And again, the challenge is to somehow get that uncorruptable, strong government in place, one that simply doesn't enact lip service "regulation" that favors the big corporations (since they have the means to operate in such a marketplace). I have no clue how to do that, so that's why I opt for the cynical solution and just desire the government be largely removed from the equation. Now at least Joe's Coffee House will be able compete with Starbucks somewhat because he doesn't have to pay the fees brought on by his violation of the "Non-Degradable Materials Act" that seeks to prevent the use of styrofoam cups.



:lol Australia has a minimum wage equivalent to over $16.00 an hour in the US and a 10% VAT we don't have. That's the important thing to keep in mind when looking at tax rates for corporations, we're like the only modern country that doesn't use VATs.

But isn't Australia's purchasing power about the same since the cost of living over there is higher? Also, I'm not against high taxation of the top earners in theory, either. The fact a CEO makes 400 times more than a rank-and-file is a complete disgrace. I am against high taxation of the owner of Randy's Burgers, who might be a "top earner" on paper, but raising his taxes by even 10% could be disastrous to his business.



Yeah I don't disagree California is where regulation has gone horribly wrong.

I also think if we publicize things like healthcare it helps smaller business because they no longer have to provide medical care to their employees. The fact we still burden employers with providing healthcare rather than nationalizing it is an example of retarded capitalist bullshit.

Agreed.


As I said, Australia's minimum wage is more than double ours, while other countries haven't destroyed unions with "right to work!" deregulation like we did in the 80s. There are significant laws protecting the middle class in those countries that don't exist here.

Destroying unions is something I'm fundamentally against. To me, the right to assemble and collectively bargain has the right to exist in a free market. I never understood the libertarian fear of unions. It's simply people maximizing their competitive advantage the same way a corporation does.



I didn't hate capitalism until people like Mitt Romney insisted his success is an example of why capitalism is beautiful. If being able to send a company into bankruptcy and profit off the bankruptcy while never providing any value to the company is capitalism then count me out. I'll take the bad side of socialism (welfare) over the bad side of capitalism (a plutocracy).

And by its strict definition, that's not capitalism. It's plutocracy, as you said. Capitalism is simply the right to the private ownership of the "means of production." And I agree that "pure" Capitalism is a pipe dream. Governments are needed even for the simple task of enforcing contracts.



Probably so. That's beside the point since libertarians are also for lower taxes across the board in their effort to shrink government, so I still vehemently disagree with them on the issue.

As I've said before, I'm not necessarily against taxing the top of the top, but I don't believe a small business owner should be excessively taxed.



But that's my point. In free market capitalism everything is driven by profit. If you want things driven by morality you need a government powerful enough to take certain industries away from the private sector. Publicizing prisons and healthcare goes against every fundamental libertarian belief.

That's why I'm only about 60 percent libertarian. I think being 100% attached to any ideology is close minded.

[midnightpulp]

Agreed, but we need the FDA as corrupt as it is. The inevitable problem you and I both agree on is that the corruption in these agencies should enrage people and people are simply too stupid to care. The monsanto bullshit should have provoked riots in the streets.




Good article that illuminates the unholy union between Monsanto and the USDA:

Our Agriculture Czar, a Big Biotech guy, has brokered a deal for his biotech manufacturer clientele. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced that the USDA will allow genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted without restriction (which means a government-brokered deal to force Big Biotech's genetically-engineered products on those who oppose them).

Organic and sustainable farming advocates were disappointed by the decision. "This creates a perplexing situation when the market calls for a supply of crops free of genetic engineering. The organic standards prohibit the use of genetic engineering, and consumers will not tolerate the accidental presence of genetic engineered materials in organic products yet GE crops continue to proliferate unchecked," said Christine Bushway, executive director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association in a statement.



The congressional, corporate-state Monsanto jet set, however, won't allow any such thing to happen to their friends who supply the dough that will keep their congressional seats intact forevermore. So indeed, the tunnel-vision libertarianoids can continue to write me and tell me about this wonderful "free market" for genetically-engineered foods.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76884.html

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Good article that illuminates the unholy union between Monsanto and the USDA:

Our Agriculture Czar, a Big Biotech guy, has brokered a deal for his biotech manufacturer clientele. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced that the USDA will allow genetically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted without restriction (which means a government-brokered deal to force Big Biotech's genetically-engineered products on those who oppose them).

Organic and sustainable farming advocates were disappointed by the decision. "This creates a perplexing situation when the market calls for a supply of crops free of genetic engineering. The organic standards prohibit the use of genetic engineering, and consumers will not tolerate the accidental presence of genetic engineered materials in organic products yet GE crops continue to proliferate unchecked," said Christine Bushway, executive director and CEO of the Organic Trade Association in a statement.



The congressional, corporate-state Monsanto jet set, however, won't allow any such thing to happen to their friends who supply the dough that will keep their congressional seats intact forevermore. So indeed, the tunnel-vision libertarianoids can continue to write me and tell me about this wonderful "free market" for genetically-engineered foods.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/76884.html
Yeah the USDA is a total joke, the FDA I'd keep around just for drug testing but eliminate the food part of it.

One thing I agree completely with libertarians on is food regulations. All they do in this country is kill mom and pop farms that produce organic food while empowering corporate farms that own the USDA/FDA while growing polluted food filled with garbage preservatives/pesticides. I'd kill all farm subsidies (which would actually make food cheaper since it would take away price floors) and deregulate agriculture.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah the USDA is a total joke, the FDA I'd keep around just for drug testing but eliminate the food part of it.

One thing I agree completely with libertarians on is food regulations. All they do in this country is kill mom and pop farms that produce organic food while empowering corporate farms that own the USDA/FDA while growing polluted food filled with garbage preservatives/pesticides. I'd kill all farm subsidies (which would actually make food cheaper since it would take away price floors) and deregulate agriculture.

No arguments there.

Some more bullshit:

Monsanto’s Food and Drug Administration can’t close down small dairies and private food clubs fast enough, bursting on the scene with guns drawn as if the criminalized right to contract for natural foods we’ve consumed for millennia deserves SWAT attention.

Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.

“The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News. The Sowers own and run South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland.

Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your-fucking-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.

While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.

Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.

When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges and kept $45,000 of the stand’s money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/feds-seize-farmer-bank-accounts.html

[dbestpro]

We got our fair share of corporations too. From my perspective, your political rats are worse than ours, because you (americans) have gotten to used to being rich enough to not have to care who's in charge and doing what... Personally, I trust the Republicans to assholes a significant portion of the time, but to keep their word (on a national scale at least) once they give it. The Democrats are significantly worse, because they are assholes at least as often, if not more, and their word simply isn't good. I will also note, that I suspect that the Tea Party is probably the single best thing to happen to US politics in the last 20 years.

So I guess we can expect the Republicans to tell us their going to mess up the country and do it, while the Democrats will say their gonna fix the country and screw it up worse than the Republicans. Choices, choices.

[Rick Santorum]

Wanting to take our country back has more to do with the fact that our country has been hijacked by globalists who have total control over our politicians. They are currently pandering to the interest of foreign national illegal immigrants over american citizens in an attempt to destabilize our country through radical demographic shift and eventually usher in a new world order. Our politicians are conspiring with the heads of transnational corporations who want global governance and total domination, and the first step is to take america down because they can't have their new world order as long as america is the shining example of freedom and liberty. We lose more and more freedoms and march closer toward a police state every day, just check the news police are beating people to death for free speech and protest, all while buying up tons of ammunition and telling us that we aren't allowed to own guns. Freedom of speech on the internet is under attack through bills such as CISPA. Our republic is under attack, don't be so easily manipulated and lead to believe it's just a bunch of mean racist whiteys being meanies to minorities, OP. It's a classic divide and conquer strategy but they're going to fail, the message of liberty is ringing out and reaching more and more people, the bullshit is about to be put to an end.

[Rick Santorum]

No arguments there.

Some more bullshit:

Monsanto’s Food and Drug Administration can’t close down small dairies and private food clubs fast enough, bursting on the scene with guns drawn as if the criminalized right to contract for natural foods we’ve consumed for millennia deserves SWAT attention.

Now, Obama has the Dept. of Justice going after small farmers under the post-911 “Bank Secrecy Act” which makes it a crime to deposit less than $10,000 when you earned more than that.

“The level we deposited was what it was and it was about the same every week,” Randy Sowers told Frederick News. The Sowers own and run South Mountain Creamery in Middletown, Maryland.

Admittedly, when the Sowers earned over $10,000 in February, and learned they’d have to fill out paperwork at the bank for such large deposits, they simply rolled the deposits over to keep them below the none-of-your-fucking-business amount, rather than waste time on bureaucratic red tape aimed at flagging terrorism or other illegal activities.

While being questioned, the Sowers were finally presented with a seizure order and advised that the feds had already emptied their bank account of $70,000. The Dept. of Justice has since sued to keep $63,000 of the Sowers’ money, though they committed no crime other than maintaining their privacy.

Without funds, they will be unable to make purchases for the spring planting.

When a similar action was taken against Taylor’s Produce Stand last year, the feds seized $90,000, dropped the charges and kept $45,000 of the stand’s money.

Knowing that most farms operate on a very thin margin, such abuse of power wipes out a family’s income, and for a bonus, the feds enhance the monopoly power of Monsanto, Big Dairy and their supply chain.

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/feds-seize-farmer-bank-accounts.html

Yep, the beginning of this post refers to the "green police" phenomenon. Feds have been caught down in south Texas and other rural places trespassing on private property to make sure there are no private gardens and small farms, mapping out the landscape. I know a guy who came up on some feds trespassing and forced them to leave. Some towns are literally shutting down grandma's garden in an attempt to consolidate the food supply and get us on the GMO sterilization poison.

[pikkiwoki]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought the op was some mexican asking for the Texas back to them.




:lol

http://i.imgur.com/FHb22H5.jpg



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284007/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284007/)



I guess Jesse Borrego got over it, though, 'cause he's a Spurs fan

X3wUt4R1w_Y

:chestbump