A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 124 of 725
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well jack - let me know when someone makes you god, and I can believe everything you claim.
Otherwise, it's CLEARLY evident you have no argument besides your knee JERK reaction.
Let me know when anybody takes your ideas seriously as well.
This is a stupid argument since it's not going to happen anyhow.
I think it's safe to say that you're all alone in the argument too. Nobody else seems to think that you're on to anything.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KIKI, I'm still trying to make sense of the purpose of your proposal. Is it a way to get more "value" out of the military budget? Is is a way to improve the civilian infrastructure? Is it a "stealth" jobs or job training program? All of the above?
In any case, let's say that - as you say - everything remains the same. The budget, the number of recruits, everything. But let's say that by some miracle OUTSIDE circumstances change ... the USA decides to not to jump into more military adventures and the necessity for the military decreases. Will the military budget and the number of recruits be allowed to decrease? Or will we hear ... If we let these people go unemployment will increase? But look, we have them working on jobs programs already!
Pffft! No incentive to actually reduce military spending. There goes the "peace dividend!"
If I may generalize a bit, the Federal government is a powerful entity; it has tremendous capacity to solve problems. Just look at what FDR did during the Great Depression; it couldn't possibly be duplicated at the city/state level. But every time you have a large pile of money, it attracts a large population of sociopaths. Concentrated resources create a different kind of behavior. Sometimes it creates more problems than it solves. The temptation is to reach for the biggest resource available to solve a big problem. But there's kind of a "one ring" aspect to that; I seem to have a problem explaining what my issue is, but that "one ring" often induces corruption, even if it's started with good intentions.
--------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:YES
Is it a way to get more "value" out of the military budget?
Quote:YES
Is is a way to improve the civilian infrastructure?
Quote:NO - though having those skills would benefit individuals.
Is it a "stealth" jobs or job training program?
As it is, the military wastes trillions of dollars on overseas adventures. If we could spend that money here and bring that much value to our society instead, that would be our "peace dividend".
SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I added to my post, see above
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm wondering if you have made sense of a few things.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
KIKI, I'm still trying to make sense of the purpose of your proposal. Is it a way to get more "value" out of the military budget? Is is a way to improve the civilian infrastructure? Is it a "stealth" jobs or job training program? All of the above?
In any case, let's say that - as you say - everything remains the same. The budget, the number of recruits, everything. But let's say that by some miracle OUTSIDE circumstances change ... the USA decides to not to jump into more military adventures and the necessity for the military decreases. Will the military budget and the number of recruits be allowed to decrease? Or will we hear ... If we let these people go unemployment will increase? But look, we have them working on jobs programs already!
Pffft! No incentive to actually reduce military spending. There goes the "peace dividend!"
What is the plan to eradicate power hungry despots across the globe, thereby ending further need of Forceful Defense?
What is the benefit of taking Nuclear Power Plant Operators (which college gradjitates are not qualified for), Avionics Technicians (after training equivalent to more than 5 years of college), aircraft pilots, remote operators, computer programmers, medics/corpsmen - or illiterate Obama's corpse-men - or heavy equipment Construction Engineers/SeaBees, and retrain them to become Ummm, highly trained hmmmm carpenters? Or janitors?
How will the peaceniks be convinced that continued Defense Spending devoid of military operations would be a good idea?
How will Budget Hawks be convinced that excessive government spending on non-Defense functions is a warranted idea?
What is the purpose of converting the DoD from the only cost-beneficial entity of the Federal Government (used to be 2nd behind NASA, but Bobo got rid of that) into one of the worst, like the rest of the welfare programs? (NASA had $1.21 return per $1 spent, DoD had $1.06 return, and welfare scams like this returned about $0.33 return per $1 spent).
Is the only percieved goal of this idea to replace private sector jobs/work with wasteful public sector work and thus "growing the Economy with Big Government Spending" again?
What is the benefit of trading all battlefields from outside North America in exchange for locations inside USA chosen by the terrorist or despot Aggressor? Why turn New York, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Dallas into Fallujah, Mosul?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What is the plan to eradicate power hungry despots across the globe, thereby ending further need of Forceful Defense?" There's no mention in the Constitution of having the military engage in wars overseas (especially not being the aggressor in a war of choice), only for "common (states) defense".
"What is the benefit of taking Nuclear Power Plant Operators (which college gradjitates are not qualified for), Avionics Technicians (after training equivalent to more than 5 years of college), medics/corpsmen - or illiterate Obama's corpse-men - or heavy equipment Construction Engineers/SeaBees, and retrain them to become Ummm, highly trained hmmmm carpenters?"
Quote:Now, as impressive as all of this sounds, the military trains people in an extremely narrow way. You don't learn to "build", you learn to set up specific models of military-supplied prefab units. You don't learn to "operate heavy machinery" you learn to drive one particular type of military vehicle. ... I'll have to get to this later. Family calls ...
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm
Enlisted personnel make up about 82 percent of the Armed Forces and carry out military operations.
Administrative 51,283
Combat Specialty 151,501
Construction 30,322
Electronic and Electrical Equipment Repair 129,209
Engineering, Science, and Technical 161,571
Healthcare 68,365
Human Resource Development 29,574
Machine Operator and Production 23,293
Media and Public Affairs 19,371
Protective Service 76,567
Support Service 26,783
Transportation and Material Handling 142,198
Vehicle and Machinery Mechanic 160,690
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 14,559
The remaining 18 percent are officers—military leaders who manage operations and enlisted personnel.
Combat Specialty 35,743
Engineering, Science, and Technical 53,097
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial 29,230
Healthcare 26,967
Human Resource Development 8,449
Media and Public Affairs 1,053
Protective Service 5,611
Support Service 3,388
Transportation 45,346
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 24,705
Back now. Training and equipping military personnel for non-military duties would give them something they could take into a civilian economy. But that's not the main purpose of this.
"How will the peaceniks be convinced that continued Defense Spending devoid of military operations would be a good idea?" Peaceniks might be more in favor of it if it doesn't involve killing brown people overseas, but returns value to the country.
"How will Budget Hawks be convinced that excessive government spending on non-Defense functions is a warranted idea?" This would still be the military - trained, equipped, and ready to defend the country. But providing benefit while not in combat.
"What is the purpose of converting the DoD from the only cost-beneficial entity of the Federal Government (used to be 2nd behind NASA, but Bobo got rid of that) into one of the worst, like the rest of the welfare programs? (NASA had $1.21 return per $1 spent, DoD had $1.06 return, and welfare scams like this returned about $0.33 return per $1 spent)." I think you need to talk to the budget people in Washington and tell them the trillions spent in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are really benefits, not huge budget deficits.
"Is the only percieved goal of this idea to replace private sector jobs/work with wasteful public sector work and thus "growing the Economy with Big Government Spending" again?" No, the purpose is to get more value from military spending.
"What is the benefit of trading all battlefields from outside North America in exchange for locations inside USA chosen by the terrorist or despot Aggressor? Why turn New York, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Dallas into Fallujah, Mosul?" If we were actually fighting them instead of giving them money and supplies (like we did in Syria) you might have just reitersted Put
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I added to my post, see above
Oh, I didn't see this until later ...
Quote:More people employed at civilian work under a military/government structure?
That would be our "peace dividend."
Okay, let me take another run at this. Maybe another THREE runs at this!
***
What is the REAL solution to unemployment? Does it consist of the government running after the corporations, cleaning up after the human wreckage that they leave behind by sweeping up the unemployed, homeless, and poverty-stricken into government jobs and welfare programs? Doing it more "efficiently" by hijacking a wasteful (military) program? Or does it consist of eliminating the REAL source of unemployment, which is the PROFIT MOTIVE which continually puts people out of work? (Corporations as "job creators". HA! "Job destroyers" is more like it!)
If you look at FDR, what did he do? He swept up the broken human refuse of the Gilded Age, "provided" jobs and welfare to the common people crushed under the Great Depression. But what did he REALLY do? Did he REALLY save "the people"? Or did he "really" save capitalism and financialism from impending revolt?
****
IMHO, the "real" solution to unemployment doesn't mean "the government providing" jobs to the unemployed. Instead, "the government" should be changing the laws which incentivize unemployment to begin with.
The REAL solution would be to rewrite the laws of "incorporation" to disallow individual ownership of "the means of production" (a la The Dispossessed) and disallow monetary creation by the banks via "fractional reserve banking". The creation of Federal welfare programs doesn't save The People, it saves capitalism from its own self-destruction. The REAL solution, IMHO, is to create a system which actively destroys concentration of power. It's a kind of "anti-monopoly" system which doesn't apply just to businesses but also to ideas (no trade-able "copyrights" and "patents" which can be transferred to someone besides the original author/inventor) and media (if you have to pay to transmit an idea, it's no longer "free speech", it's advertising). Because POWER CONCENTRATES (it has a kind of gravitational force, in which power begets more power, like mass attracts more mass) there must be a force which actively disperses it. (one of my arguments with libertarians is that "market forces" will solve everything. HAHAHAHA!)
*****
I will go back to the story of washerwomen at the riverbank, seeing babies floating down the river, drowning. One woman cries and wrings her hands. Another woman organizes a village brigade to rescue babies from the river. But a third breaks way to run upstream.
Where are you going? cry the rescue brigade, We need you for the rescue!!
I'm going upstream to find the bastards who are throwing the babies in! is the reply.
Well, we seem to be busy saving [some] babies from the river. Maybe we should catch the bastards who are throwing them in.
*****
"I believe in solving problems, not sharing them" Well, I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. And not creating them, either. If we would STOP CREATING problems, maybe we wouldn't have so many to solve. And maybe "the government" wouldn't have to solve the problems ("coincidentally" accruing even more power to itself) that it, itself, created.
*****
And finally, regarding Ursula Le Giun: While I find The Left Hand of Darkness some of the Earthsea Trilogy and some short stories to be the most readable, The Dispossessed is the most challenging. She attempts to create an entire society based on an entirely different economic structure, and I think her rigorous treatment of this new society reveals some warts that make it unattractive and
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:FDR is admired because he was huge improvement over Hoover. The Hoover Institute at Stanford exists to complain bitterly about how FDR almost destroyed capitalism. Signym can look up the ranking of Presidents to see where FDR is placed:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
***
If you look at FDR, what did he do? He swept up the broken human refuse of the Gilded Age, "provided" jobs and welfare to the common people crushed under the Great Depression. But what did he REALLY do? Did he REALLY save "the people"? Or did he "really" save capitalism and financialism from impending revolt?
****
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the
_United_States
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/americas-presidents-ranked/
Signym’s voting choice, Trump, is ranked low.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Democrats see GOP state and federal legislators who routinely slash taxes on the wealthy, and services for the poor, in defiance of their constituents’ wishes; GOP controlled regulatory agencies that serve as training grounds for the firms they’re meant to police; a GOP majority Supreme Court that’s forever expanding the rights of corporations, and restricting those of organized labor; a GOP controlled criminal-justice system that won’t prosecute bankers for laundering drug money, but will dole out life sentences to small-time crack dealers; a central bank that has the resources to bail out financial firms, but not the homeowners whom they exploit; a Pentagon that can wage multitrillion-dollar wars that exacerbate the very problems they were supposed to solve — and still get rewarded with a higher budget — even as Republican Ben Carson’s Housing Department asks the working poor to pay higher rent for worse accommodations; and, seething beneath all of these defects, disparities in the distribution of private wealth so vast and consequential, the nation’s super-rich have come to enjoy an average life expectancy 15 years longer than its poor.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
*****
I will go back to the story of washerwomen at the riverbank, seeing babies floating down the river, drowning. One woman cries and wrings her hands. Another woman organizes a village brigade to rescue babies from the river. But a third breaks way to run upstream.
Where are you going? cry the rescue brigade, We need you for the rescue!!
I'm going upstream to find the bastards who are throwing the babies in! is the reply.
Well, we seem to be busy saving [some] babies from the river. Maybe we should catch the bastards who are throwing them in.
*****
In these grisly conditions, social democrats see a textbook case of malignant capitalism. When markets are left under-regulated — and workers, unorganized thanks to the GOP’s hatred of Unions — the corporate sector becomes a cancerous growth, expanding until it dominates politics and civil society. An ever-greater share of economic gains concentrates in ever-fewer hands, while the barriers to converting private wealth into public power grow fewer and farther between because of GOP sponsored legislation and GOP Supreme Court Justices' decisions ( 5 Republicans vs 4 Democrats on the Court for Citizens United, for one example www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election
-commission/ ). Politicians become unresponsive to popular preferences and needs. Voters lose faith in elections — and then, a strongman steps forward to say that he, alone, can fix it.
America’s Version of Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy
https://goo.gl/fq1FCS
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Deliberately lying requires a big social filter. If you just blurt out whatever pops into your head at the moment, it will be very difficult to lie.
Um, no it wouldn't - I keep telling you that's what salesmen do. I don't think you have had any experience with sales people. It's a study, it becomes second nature. This guy trained in the crucible of NYC. He knows the downside to lying is virtually non existent for him. He lied again this morning.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So by your own opinion, Trump is constitutionally incapable of lying consistently. Correct?
Way incorrect. He is a consummate liar. He's even got you snowed. I thought you were smart? How do you miss all of this?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you transcribed is a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Whether they were deliberate, inexact, or uninformed is I suppose a matter for discussion.
2 things on that:
1. you're saying he's lying or pretty damn stupid, or a combination of both. That doesn't concern you?
2. I get the argument for incompetence, but when you see the pattern of him always making "false statements" that always make him and his people look better and brighter, then you realize there's an underlying methodology, and it's called lying.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Since people constantly accuse Trump of not knowing the details of how the government works or what's in the budget, some of it might be sheer carelessness. It's a point I find useless to argue.
Dodge away.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's not. JSF asked which of Trump's statements were inaccurate, and those were the ones I can say were clearly incorrect. His other statements were mixtures of accuracies, potential accuracies, and inaccuracies, and each one would require debating the three or four points in each statement to determine how accurate each one was. Not a debate I felt like doing, and if I did you would simply say I was posting too many words!
There's no debate necessary - the facts were posted. You choose to not understand and that is your right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME