Reply With Quote
We're the good guys. God is on our side.
Well there was the tornado, and Sandy, and so on.
We're the good guys. God is on our side.
We're being tested. We went Rwanda on the WH, and now we've to pass the test.
God bless.
That was god punishing us for having a big gubbamint, while he's blessed Africa with economic prosperity for their small governments.
We won't be the good guys till we successfully defend marriage
I'm praying for it. God bless.
I have to give God props for sending the floods that washed away all the filth in San Antonio today.
#prayformarriage
Airlines, banking, transportation.
http://articles.herald-mail.com/2011...-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 compe ion 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 compe ion was necessary policy.
Key phrase there. "Regulation served special interests and government bureaucracies." Carter essentially chose the lesser of two evils here.
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 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.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.
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?
I'm under no delusions a deregulated marketplace would be a utopia and I am in favor of some regulation, but like the FCC, FDA (headed by a former Monsanto execCan 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 lib tarian fantasy land where everyone regulates themselves.), USDA (once headed by that same former Monsato exec now in charge of the FDA
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).
My solution. Keep the two en ies 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?
Mid ting on liberals and their regulations, tbh....
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.
And it worked out great given how awesome the economy was when Carter left office. lol worst inflation in American history.
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.
Most of them did move their entire manufacturing operation overseas. The only reason they left the US was Reagan and Clinton lifting trade restrictions.
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.
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 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.
It'll come from the high tax rates evil socialist countries like Germany and Sweden have.
So would you rather the corporation have to pay a fine or not have to do anything at all?but like the FCC, FDA (headed by a former Monsanto exec
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.
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?
Another thing that's in hilarious is when libertarians 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.
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 had the power to lobby government for a bailout which is exactly what happened.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
Right. Keep the two en ies apart with regulation. I'm curious how you're supposed to keep the two en ies apart in a small government laissez-faire environment.
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?
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.
Where did I say they were heavily regulated? Big government =/= big regulation.
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?
trying to use Germany and Sweden as an example of laissez-faire small government
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 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
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.
Thought the political forum was down for a second when I saw this..thank God it's here to segregate this stuff..
Nah, there's too much intelligent discussion for this to be the political forum
sssshhhh if you speak it's name THEY might comeNah, there's too much intelligent discussion for this to be the political forum
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..
I'll leave now and close the door behind me..
that's very green of you
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.
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?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.
But they are still headquartered in the US. I'm talking about the threat of moving everything abroad.Most of them did move their entire manufacturing operation overseas. The only reason they left the US was Reagan and Clinton lifting trade restrictions.
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?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.
I understand that, and I not sure where I implied I was talking about gross revenue being taxed.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 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.
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?
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?It'll come from the high tax rates evil socialist countries like Germany and Sweden have.
Libertarian =/= AnCap.
No. I'd rather his smaller compe or also not have to be subject to these fines or be forced into a lobbying contest which he probably can't afford.So would you rather the corporation have to pay a fine or not have to do anything at all?
Again, I'm not an AnCap.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.
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.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?
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.Another thing that's in hilarious is when libertarians 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.
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.
Libertarians despise neoconservatives.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.
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."In a free market those companies would have had the power to lobby government for a bailout which is exactly what happened.
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.Right. Keep the two en ies apart with regulation. I'm curious how you're supposed to keep the two en ies apart in a small government laissez-faire environment.
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.
shooting a hasty 3 with 20 secs left, bald argie
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions