So. Who here still thinks that the USA will EVER be back where it was in the 'economically on-fire' era of Bush's early reign?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

..."Needed" to have?

You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.

I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.

And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.

---

Wow, defensive what?

If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.

I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.

I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.

I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced into it. Just because I don't wish to see the US return to its former levels of economic growth, doesn't mean I wish starvation on any human in this world, and I'm insulted that you have attributed that to me.

---

Magons, I see no "defensiveness", I see an effort at bringing perspective to the discussion. I would venture to say that MOST Americans have neither created or furthered the system of which you speak. It was created long, long ago by politicains and businesses, and yes, it's stupid that so many Americans bought into it, but there are social reasons why many were also manipulated or FORCED into living in such a waythat it perpetuates the system.

I agree with EVERYTHING you said in this last post, word for word, except I don't think Byte meant to "insult" you...I think she was expressing her frustration that America seems to get blamed for everything wrong in the world, when in actuality it isn't the average American person who's responsible, much as it may seem that way at times.

In other words, I agree with both of you and see no defensiveness, only frustration.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I see everyone agrees that we're going down. There's an old adage in economics that whenever everyone agrees on something, they have to be wrong.

Meanwhile, for those who haven't seen it, this:

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Magon,

while I appreciate the right wing rant, [/snark] I don't suspect that a real shortage of resources is at play or that anyone needs to lower their standard of living so that others can increase theirs.

This is a free market issue, in which the control and lack of a free market has led to both the excesses and the imbalance you perceive. If govt. holds the power over finance the result is that it will give a disproportionate amount to itself and its friends, and the word that tipped me here was "force." If the market were truly a free market than the balance of influence of India and China would surely more than offset that of Europe and N. America. No one needs to force anyone to do anything, we just collectively need to recognize that the perception of wealth is what is key here.

The US possesses dollars which the rest of the world values out of proportion because of undue political influence of govts. who are beholden to international economic financial interest more than just our economic propaganda campaign. It does not logically follow that the US has any more economic influence than, India, because we own the dollar and they own the Rupee. I'm sure that in time the balance will definitely show things the other way. The influence of international bankers is bound to have more effect in this environment than any single player in the field.

If you haven't already, you might want to check out Hayek, and esp. G.K. Chesterton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

..."Needed" to have?

You know, much as I do sympathize with people in other nations who have been hit by the economic downturn, and much as I agree this whole mess has been "our" bad (or at least the bad of the greedy thugs stealing left and right), I draw the line at outright wishing other people ill.

I'm bothered by the "you guys suck, you deserve it" mentality. We are not all rich assholes responsible for this problem. People are starving and dying here, not as bad as a third world nation, but they are. There was a while there people couldn't collect from our unemployment support programs, people have been worried about being able to buy food, water has been shut off in some city neighborhoods that have been hit hard, making hygiene and disease a huge concern, electricity was also shut off, which in summer, without AC, can be a bad proposition for people, and now we're heading into winter when those same people won't have heating.

And apparently you think we need to suffer to teach us a lesson about our buying habits. Yeah. Thanks.

---

Wow, defensive what?

If your system relies on consuming/owning most of the world's resources, before your citizens do not starve or suffer then I'd say it was a pretty poor system. It should be possible to weather economic downturns, which any free marketeer will tell you are just inevitable 'adjustments' without people suffering catastrophically. If they are, then the system is broke, from where I stand.

I don't agree with the expectation that we all have to ride high on economic growth, it's not sustainable in any system, and as the resources of the world diminish and populations increase, then the down turns will only get worse if we continue on our current path.

I'd like to see the resources and the wealth distributed a little more equitably throughout the world, and maybe that goes for within countries as well. I'd like to see a system that doesn't rely on continuous growth as being the norm. I'd like to see a graph that didn't show the US and other Western nations as being so much wealthier and consuming so many more resources than most of the nations of the world, but I also know that they can't play catch up to our way of living without us really falling short on resources very soon.

I'd love for all this to be done because it was the right way to live, but I also see that people don't decide to downsize their standard of living on mass unless they are sometimes forced i

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon,

while I appreciate the right wing rant, [/snark] I don't suspect that a real shortage of resources is at play or that anyone needs to lower their standard of living so that others can increase theirs.

This is a free market issue, in which the control and lack of a free market has led to both the excesses and the imbalance you perceive. If govt. holds the power over finance the result is that it will give a disproportionate amount to itself and its friends, and the word that tipped me here was "force." If the market were truly a free market than the balance of influence of India and China would surely more than offset that of Europe and N. America. No one needs to force anyone to do anything, we just collectively need to recognize that the perception of wealth is what is key here.

The US possesses dollars which the rest of the world values out of proportion because of undue political influence of govts. who are beholden to international economic financial interest more than just our economic propaganda campaign. It does not logically follow that the US has any more economic influence than, India, because we own the dollar and they own the Rupee. I'm sure that in time the balance will definitely show things the other way. The influence of international bankers is bound to have more effect in this environment than any single player in the field.

If you haven't already, you might want to check out Hayek, and esp. G.K. Chesterton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

---

Dreamtrove, I could not agree with you less. I don't believe in an unregulated market and would put the blame on the GFC directly on the lack of effective regulation on the US financial markets which behaved like criminals and racketeers and were able to do it legally. In case you are not aware, Australia is one of the countries that has not been dramatically effected by the GFC to date, and the reasons include our regulated banking industry that did not have a sub prime market, the government funded stimulus package, and the mining boom. A mixture of government intervention and market forces.

Free marketers have this reference for the 'market', so that it's almost a holy entity, not to be sullied by mischevious government intervention. I've never really understood that reverence for any system, frankly, most having their strengths and weaknesses. Free market certainly does encourage strong business growth and prosperity, although I'd argue that prosperity doesn't necessarily mean for the bulk of the population. You see that in Asia a lot, strong economies but lots of poverty. Free market also relies on continuous growth and unlimited/undiscovered resources. It was probably at its strongest when the world was a 'larger' place and their was still unclaimed terrorities (bugger the Indigenous population - whatever use did they make of the land) and minerals and resources to be discovered. The trouble is there is no wild west anymore, and the resources are finite, so a system based entirely on economic growth is not only doomed, it's immoral.


We need to find a way to live with zero growth, a sustainable economy that doesn't create chaos and hardship for the general population.

By the way, in the link dDistributism does not look like your type of theory.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Magon

Govt. regulation is interference on behalf of corporations, sometimes on behalf of some corporations at the expense of others, often in fact. However, in spite of your opening, you appear to almost completely agree with me.

Your asian reference is off, however. The poverty did not come *after* the prosperity of some, but rather was the prior state of everyone, and the prosperity of some is new, due to the introduction of free markets.

Of course free markets are not shrines, and a market totally unfettered by interference would lend itself to monopoly, but that's just a flaw in the design of the currency system. Any interference by the govt., which is, not just happens to be, but has to be, the arm of some corporation or other, and so could never be a neutral beneficent force.

Australia just has a better economic structure because it does not have a federal reserve system as the US, and now Europe. It's just a state in which the govt. has not yet been able to regulate markets to that degree yet. If the Australian market were more regulated by govt and less free, it would become like ours, and in time, it probably will, unless you have a more educated electorate.

Quote:

---

Free market also relies on continuous growth and unlimited/undiscovered resources.

---

Ah, this is the source of confusion. Those are not really free markets, but "international free trade" which was never free, but a fancy new name for imperialism that the Brits came up with to defend the opium wars in China. Of course, British Imperials could be looked at as govt. regulation of economies, or alternatively, as a corporatist system of govt-corporate monopoly merger.

At any rate, you seem to be falling heavily on the Hayek side, and not Keynes here, so I take it we agree, and I'm glad you followed the Chesterton link.

Welcome to the Tea Party ;)

Oh, and if you're confused, don't worry, it's completely natural. It's confusing at first. Soon you'll see we're really all on the same side, except for those nuts who think we're being invaded by immigrants, I suspect they're just ignorant. But it's not really a govt. totalitarian state control of an intellectual elite which you seek, but rather freedom from an imperial monopolistic domination, am I correct? If so, then we're really after the same thing.

(Funny side note, I said before reading this link that left in Australia was right in the US ;) )

Oh, another footnote: Govt., if given the power to regulate markets on an absolute scale will almost instantly be taken over by whatever the most powerful moneyed interests already exist. Govt, afterall, is also not a shrine, but the identical humans in a slightly different, more rigid and domineering form of organization (a) The USSR could be looked at as a state run by an oil company. and (b) I suspect the most influential person in Australia is Rupert Murdoch. Make what you will of that.

Also, this, from the link

c) "While socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property."

and

d) "Distributism favors the elimination of the current private bank system, or in any case, its profit-making basis."

and

e) "Embodying the philosophy explained by Chesterton, above, that too much capitalism means too few capitalists, not too many, America's extensive system of anti-trust legislation seeks to prevent the concentration of market power in a given industry into too-few hands."

I suspect any informed tea partier would agree with all three of these points. However, the only role I see for govt. in regulating banks would be in the initial set up of the currency system, or in anti-trust, since a constant federal regulation of the economy such as we have in the US would inevitably lead to a bank-controlled govt. control of banks, which brings us back to the beginning of this whole cycle.

I hope you see that some of us on the right are not in fact nuts and w

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon

Govt. regulation is interference on behalf of corporations, sometimes on behalf of some corporations at the expense of others, often in fact. However, in spite of your opening, you appear to almost completely agree with me.

---

That's your system, because your politicans are so aligned with the corps who pay them off. Government regulation is government regulation - the less regulation, the more power the corporations have as in the USA.

Quote:

---

Your asian reference is off, however. The poverty did not come *after* the prosperity of some, but rather was the prior state of everyone, and the prosperity of some is new, due to the introduction of free markets.

---

Many Asian markets have had free market economies for many years. My point was about the inequities that often exist in free market economies, where you can have wealthy nations but lots of poverty. Trickle down economics is a myth.

Quote:

---

Of course free markets are not shrines, and a market totally unfettered by interference would lend itself to monopoly, but that's just a flaw in the design of the currency system.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Any interference by the govt., which is, not just happens to be, but has to be, the arm of some corporation or other, and so could never be a neutral beneficent force.

---

I don't see that my government is totally in the hands of the corporations, not saying that lobbyists are not powerful, but I still believe they represent their electorates. Call me an idealist

Quote:

---

Australia just has a better economic structure because it does not have a federal reserve system as the US, and now Europe. It's just a state in which the govt. has not yet been able to regulate markets to that degree yet. If the Australian market were more regulated by govt and less free, it would become like ours, and in time, it probably will, unless you have a more educated electorate.

---

Nope. The Reserve Bank of Australia http://www.rba.gov.au/

Quote:

---

Ah, this is the source of confusion. Those are not really free markets, but "international free trade" which was never free, but a fancy new name for imperialism that the Brits came up with to defend the opium wars in China. Of course, British Imperials could be looked at as govt. regulation of economies, or alternatively, as a corporatist system of govt-corporate monopoly merger.

---

Free market http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market = free trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade, it's just the international arm of what happens locally. Businesses rely on growth and expansion. It's how they measure success.

Quote:

---

At any rate, you seem to be falling heavily on the Hayek side, and not Keynes here, so I take it we agree, and I'm glad you followed the Chesterton link.

Welcome to the Tea Party ;)

Oh, and if you're confused, don't worry, it's completely natural. It's confusing at first.

---

Yeah, well I remember having a confusing discussion with you about how nazis were left winged, so I'd say YOU were the confused one here. Whatever way we were taught, it's clear that our world views are chalk and cheese. I generally consider myself to be keynsian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics if anything at all, favouring a mixed economy of regulated free markets, but I see that all these theories are now outdated, given the world population and the increasingly limited availability of resources. These days I align myself somewhere between the views of the left and the Greens. http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/economics

Quote:

---

Soon you'll see we're really all on the same side, except for those nuts who think we're being invaded by immigrants, I suspect they're just ignorant. But it's not really a govt. totalitarian state control of an intellectual elite which you seek, but rather freedom from an imperial monopolistic domination, am I correct? If so, then we're really after the same thing.

---

I don't have your views on government, so I guess we're not really o

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I don't disagree on any particular point, Miss.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Trickle down economics is a myth.

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Magon,

1. Americans are not particularly different from anyone else, it's logical to assume that what would happen here would happen anywhere with anyone who followed the same path. In fact, the completely consistent pattern of disaster with socialist statism around the globe seems to back this up, as does the pattern of imperialism. The French in Algeria and the Japanese in Manchuria are not identical to the Dutch in South Africa, but the pattern of the relationships is consistent with imperialism, and people shouldn't expect radically different result if they decide to enact an imperialist ideology.

2. You're completely correct that trickle down economics is a myth. It's one of my gripes with Obama and one of his own idols, Reagan. An Indian I saw once did a clever skit on this which I've since seen imitated, recently I think it was the daily show, but the thrust of it was that the wealthy consume the fine wines, and an hour later, it will trickle down on the poor.

However, the long term free market nations of asia have by far the best wealth distributions in the region (Japan, Taiwan, SK)

The disparities of NK/SK are not caused by the south Korean free market any more than the poverty of western china is caused by the emerging middle class of eastern china. In both cases, the poverty is caused by the decayed ideology of communism. In southeast asia, the communist influence is pronounced, and at the very least keeping people poor.

If you want talk Indonesia, you have a point, but it's not like I'm advocating the Guanji as a solid economic system. (I suspect it would be more fair to blame the local economics than imperialism at this point, though I would accept the other as a valid argument.)

If by your govt. you mean Australia (you live in the UK right?) then I would say it was age and size. America was also once not as corrupt, though it has been very corrupt before. Australia is doing much better than most places, and the UK is doing better than Europe and almost everyone better than the US, but I'm not sure this is really necessarily due to design of the system.

The american structure is surprising in its resistance to being broken down by neocons and globalists into a slave state. Sure, they will succeed, but I think our constitution has given them a lot of trouble. But it's also worth noting why we have such a problem in this manner: America has lots of power, military and economic, and these globalists want that. I suspect that their next target is China, and with any luck (from an american perspective) they will give up on the US and leave us alone (I actually think the best hope is to convince them that we're ignorant and useless. Though then they might just rape us for natural resources. Ack. Maybe that's what they're already doing.)

I don't know a lot about the Australian central bank, but my understanding is that is a bank, and not a privately held consortium of corporations foreign and domestic, which is what we have here. If it's similar to ours in its regulatory power over the economy, than I would imagine that long term you would have trouble.

My understanding is that the only system which operates similar to ours is new Euro consortium. Ours is nearly 100 years old, and its becoming a more serious problem as time progresses, as it gains absolute control over the economy. Whether or not it is part of the US govt. is probably not significant, (it's not) rather its ability to influence the economy and its power over us is the part which creates a market no longer free. As I frequently put it, it's like playing monopoly when one player is allowed to deal himself endless cash from the bank.


From your own link:

Quote:

---

Free Trade. Not to be confused with Free market.

---

The distinction is subtle, but important.

Free trade is the lack of trade barriers. This would be fine except for the manner in which it enables imperialism.

The Free market is the free exchange of parties without govt. control except to the protection of property (from your link) This is pret

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Magon,

1. Americans are not particularly different from anyone else, it's logical to assume that what would happen here would happen anywhere with anyone who followed the same path

---

I used to think that America was a lot like us, but the more I read from posters, the more I see the difference in beliefs and systems. Not surprising, really, that there would be differences. Same as if I went to China or Malaysia or Sweden. Countries have different systems of government that make differences. Of course we’re all globally linked through international finance. Bummer that.

Quote:

---

The disparities of NK/SK are not caused by the south Korean free market any more than the poverty of western china is caused by the emerging middle class of eastern china. In both cases, the poverty is caused by the decayed ideology of communism. In southeast asia, the communist influence is pronounced, and at the very least keeping people poor.

---

Not all countries are former communist countries in south east asia, but most are former colonies and I would agree that that has contributed towards the poverty. You contradict yourself somewhat in your post by saying that you don’t agree with trickle down economics, which is one of the foundations of free trade ideology...the concept that if a society is left alone from government regulation, prosperity for all will follow a good solid economy. What I am trying to demonstrate is that you can have a good strong economy and lots of poverty. Those Asian countries often do not have social security or decent universal health - so there is little chance of social mobility.

Quote:

---

If by your govt. you mean Australia (you live in the UK right?)

---

Are you saying that Australia is a part of the UK???????? I live in Australia and am Australian and have nothing to do with the Uk other than I once lived there. Sometimes I talk about the UK or the US...usually in a very ill informed manner

{quote]then I would say it was age and size. America was also once not as corrupt, though it has been very corrupt before. Australia is doing much better than most places, and the UK is doing better than Europe and almost everyone better than the US, but I'm not sure this is really necessarily due to design of the system.

---

Well no, it’s been pretty much established by everyone in reality world that the fact we are doing ok is exactly as stated in my previous post, well regulated financial system, the government funded stimulus package and the mining boom. But you believe what you will.

Quote:

---

I don't know a lot about the Australian central bank, but my understanding is that is a bank, and not a privately held consortium of corporations foreign and domestic, which is what we have here. If it's similar to ours in its regulatory power over the economy, than I would imagine that long term you would have trouble.

---

if you follow the link, you will see that it is a financial regulatory arm of the government. Hence we have a regulated banking system. Regulated meaning government regulated.

Quote:

---

Free trade is the lack of trade barriers. This would be fine except for the manner in which it enables imperialism.

---

so would you suggest tariffs then? How would someone who does not believe in government intervention prevent the imperialism that inevitable results from free trade.

Quote:

---

The free market is an ancient system of economic trade. Free Trade is the name of a globalist policy which has recently been developed and implemented (over the last 150 years or so, but slowly and incrementally.) Free Trade is really imperialism, or in the view of some, a step towards one world govt., which I suspect is just another tool of imperialism.

---

they are both as old as each other. Countries have traded freely, or not so freely depending on the authority of the times, for as long as people have been bartering. There is no ideological difference, although you may not like the outcome of one as much as the other. You are either anti government inter

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Magon

I think that it's more that we have different experiences from different parts of our similar structure: For instance, our military has a callous disregard for the well being of its troops, gets involved in large scale conflicts with technologically unsophisticated poorer nations and uses the majority of our tax dollars. It also has a huge industry supporting it, and a large media propaganda campaign. This means that attitudes towards the military in the US will be different than it will be in Australia or Japan. But that doesn't mean that the people of the US are any more pro-war, or imperialistic in their viewpoints.

I will second your bummer that

Quote:

---

trickle down economics, which is one of the foundations of free trade ideology

---

I disagree with this statement. Obama is strongly in favor of it, as was Reagan. I think it comes from Keynes, but it's a tenet of certain types of capitalism that tend to be pro big business. I'm not anti big business, but I can still independently hold that trickle down economics is a fallacy, regardless of whether a democrat or republican is supporting it. I'll grant that it's not a tenet of communism ;) But that doesn't mean that I think it's correct.

I think we are both very familiar with the politics and economics of east asia, so there's no need to nitpick it, but I just have to a little bit, because we see some things slightly differently:

1. The successful economic growth co-existing with massive poverty is a result of states in transition in Asia. If you want a good example of this existing in perpetuity, America is an excellent example. Mexico is another. Since Mexico was long socialist and the US capitalist I suspect this is system-independent, and is just a measure of the level of corruption, which is very high in both of these N. American states, according to the CIA.

2.

Quote:

---

Those Asian countries often do not have social security or decent universal health - so there is little chance of social mobility.

---

I think this statement contains a conclusion which I would call conjecture, and would disagree with. The first part is true, of course, and I see this as a strength in these economies, and part of the reason that they possess far more social mobility than the US, which I think they do. I think the free market states of East Asia are a decent model for nations like the US to follow. I think the US is a terrible model for them to follow. I've posted here a whole lot of times that I rank Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong very highly as economic models, though I have plenty of disagreements with each, nobody's perfect.

I felt fairly sure you said you lived in the UK for some time. Maybe I have you confused with another poster, but I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Well no, it’s been pretty much established by everyone in reality world

---

Check this arrogance at the door. An assumption that you know objective reality, or that everyone agrees with you, is a really dangerous concept, and an obstacle to reaching any kind of understanding. Jes saying...


Australia will always be doing well for the same reason Alaska will: An abundance of resources relative to population, no outside imperial dominance, and no large underclass. It really doesn't matter what system you guys implement. I don't think that any sane person would say that Alaska's prosperity is due to Sarah Palin.

Okay, sure, someone could probably fuck it up, but it would be hard.

So your banking system is somewhat like ours, except that it seems that your central bank is govt. connected whereas ours is a regulated private corporation, which of course controls its own regulation, and ends up regulating govt. (It's a worthwhile study, it's a total mess, regardless of which side you want to attack it from.)

Tariffs are the right of any sovereign nation, I'd certainly prefer them to an income tax or anything that impedes the national economy.

I never said I supported international free trade, esp. in its absolute form. Unchecked international free trad

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

For instance, our military ....uses the majority of our tax dollars.

---

Nope. A common believed misnomer. Health, education and pensions take up more of the federal budget than does military spending.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_piecol.php?title=Total%20Spen
ding&year=2010&sname=&units=r&label=Pensions_Health%20Care_Education_Defense_Welfare_Other&fed=0.985897883_1.107228509_1.026283321_0.896189962_0.762304485_1.634801988

"The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal."

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You'll note where Rappy goes for his information. That official sounding site he references, "usgovernmentspending" is actually propaganda built by Christopher Chantrill, "writer and conservative". Look into the site - Chantrill thinks the roaring twenties is The Way American Should Function, and the crash in 1929 was not related to anything anyone did in the twenties. I guess the evil govt somehow did something evil right then in Oct, 1929 that ended the party.

"Seventy years ago the leaders of both US political parties turned away from the policies that had created an economic powerhouse we call the Roaring Twenties....Today, after a twenty-five year economic boom, Americans are once more faced with a political elite that wants to monkey with success."

I'm amazed that folks like this guy can sit around blaming today's new policies for a crash that happened 2-3 years ago, when Bush was in office. Especially when the crash was so plainly caused by actions taken during the boom time, actions that made the boom happen but could not last.

Anyhow, this web site is put together by a conservative guy with an agenda and a tenuous hold on reality (funny Rap should be drawn to that kind of thing.) I wonder how Chantrill's interpretation of the US budget compares to posted government numbers... I'd post a few interesting comparisons I've already found, but I have got to get out the door, and this site is blocked at work.

Maybe later...


-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

www.usaspending.gov

Useful link, though AURAPTOR may be wary that this site is maintained by the current administration. Propaganda is a possible concern.

So I'll also post a link to what I think appears to be unaltered budget data in excel spreadsheet form for the past 50 or so years.

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/sheets/hist08z7.xls

Non-discretionary defense spending in 2009, when the Obama administration took office, was 485.6 billion dollars. Non-discretionary defense spending in the last year (2008) of the Bush administration was 465.5 billion dollars.

Total nondiscretionary budget in 2009 was 942.3 billion dollars. Total nondiscretionary budget in 2008 was 922.9 billion dollars.

Bush spent about 50% of his nondiscretionary budget in 2008 on defense. Obama spent about 51% of his nondiscretionary budget on defense.

Also, that increase in defense spending should really piss off anyone who voted for Obama. Or at least, I hope it does.

This is a pie chart I found on wikipedia of the US Federal Budget in 2009 (I'm not sure why the link says "FY 2007", the chart itself is labeled Fiscal Year 2009). It appears to combine discretionary and non-discretionary spending. I believe the "Pensions" section in AURAPTOR's link is represented by "Social Security" in this one, though I'm not completely positive.



Non-discretionary and discretionary together come to 20% for Social Security, 19% for Medicare/Medicaid, 23% for Defense, 17% for "Other Mandatory" and 12% for "Other Discretionary."

Defense budget does eat up a lot, but whether you're talking a majority or not depends on whether you're talking discretionary or non-discretionary spending.

That is, of course, assuming that everything is being reported accurately to us by the government. I suspect that government contracts might be listed under "other," and that many of those contracts are defense related.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You'll note where Rappy goes for his information. That official sounding site he references, "usgovernmentspending" is actually propaganda built by Christopher Chantrill, "writer and conservative". Look into the site - Chantrill thinks the roaring twenties is The Way American Should Function, and the crash in 1929 was not related to anything anyone did in the twenties. I guess the evil govt somehow did something evil right then in Oct, 1929 that ended the party.

---

That's probably where Rappy got his "fact" that 95% of Americans pay no taxes at all, or that unemployment was at 4% under Bush. Closest it ever got to that number while Bush was on the scene was in the last 4 months of Clinton's Presidency; once Bush took over, it started going up and up and up. Interestingly, unemployment went up AFTER Bush's tax cuts, too. So much for that whole "tax cuts create jobs" rubric, eh?

Under Bush, unemployment almost doubled, from a low of 4.3% to over 7.9% when he left office. Heckuva job, Bushie!

I wonder if this guy is where Rappy also got his "fact" that Obama has spent more than all other Presidents combined. (In fact, he hasn't even spent as much as the previous ONE President did, much less all those before him)

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'd be curious to know how much of that "health, education, and pensions" spending would more accurately fit under Pentagon spending, in the form of healthcare for military personnel and veterans (VA), and education of same (GI Bill, for instance), and pensions, disability, and retirement pay of veterans.

Also, how much of your INCOME TAX is going to pay for defense spending, and how much is going to pay for Medicare and Social Security?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In the 1950's, more than half of the tax $'s collected by the IRS came from large corporations.
Now it's 5%.

Who's making up for that, I wonder...?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'd be curious to know how much of that "health, education, and pensions" spending would more accurately fit under Pentagon spending, in the form of healthcare for military personnel and veterans (VA), and education of same (GI Bill, for instance), and pensions, disability, and retirement pay of veterans.

Also, how much of your INCOME TAX is going to pay for defense spending, and how much is going to pay for Medicare and Social Security?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.


Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

---

Plenty of mine. You on the other hand, you being a gay shipping clerk, I'm going to bet you don't pay dick. You most likely recieve the earned income credit.....So, leave the tax debate to those that actually GET taxed and PAY taxes at the end of the year. You weekly tax deducted cock suckers that get most (if not all) back at the end of the year, and go spend it as if it were in a bank(-minus the interest)...giving the economy a FAKE boost, make me sick...And, you are gay.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Rap,

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant federal income tax. Technically, the govt. does not admit that entitlement taxes are taxes, but they are what pays for entitlement spending, which I admit is larger than the budget. However, if you look at the budget and include contracts payroll and pensions which are actually military as well as projects and international aid which is actually military, and then add in war and defense supplementals, the budget was almost entirely military until Obama stoked by the bailout portion. Oh, and homeland security, the name of which still creeps me out, to say nothing of the concept, is military.

Actually, if you want to be technical, all tax dollars go to the debt, or the interest on the debt, and every penny the fed spends is deficit spending.


All that said, you have to be extremely aware that everyone here is very very familiar with how our govt. spends money and where it goes.

If we're talking in rough terms, a trillion or so in military spending each year when you add it up, it's a lot of money. Far more than anyone else is spending, though China might come close if they actually paid their workers and soldiers (they're doing what our military used to do, which is pay penny wages to people working for their national defense.)

Anyway, it's easy to see why any international concern interested in meddling and nation building would hijack America to be its patsy.


But, of course, I'm also aware that it's paying your salary, so no offense intended.


Kane,

You're gay, you used to say so on your profile. This is getting old. It was cute when you and Mike were newlyweds after you caught him on the rebound from Rap, but now it's more like the bitchy couple that's been married too long and really needs to start seeing their other cousins.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Sorry, I thought I needed to vent because I felt you weren't getting *why* the Nazis were evil. Everyone knows that they *were* evil, but few people look to far into how they got that way.

---

please show me where i have ever indicated where the nazis were not evil. I don't dispute their violence or insanity, I dispute that you should call them left winged. The fact that you do, leads me to believe that you are either very ignorant, or we have been taught very different ways of seeing the world.

Hopefully you can see this chart which places facism where I think it should be on the spectrum.



From wiki

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

It worries me that the Right in America appear to be rewriting history to fit their bias, which is why I keep rebutting you.

And to counter your rant on socialism - many countries would have what would be regarded as socialist type economies and are not authoritarian states. It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum

Quote:

---

I think here you would be politically confused. You seem to anchor yourself to old world leftist standbys, but hold what I would call a more or less tea party world view, even if that may scare you. Your stances against globalism and for independent or personal economic control, a lot of the stuff you posted here, esp. earlier, I would place you on the right, but politics are strange.

---

I don't know much about the tea party except that they hate Obama, and I quite admire him. I don't think he's a messiah and i'm not sure how much he can achieve, but I like the politics of the man, so I'd say no, I wasn't aligned with the tea party.

I'm not sure how you get that i am right winged, really, I don't even by your own rather different view of the world. I think you long to identify that we are all the deep down the same in our views sometimes leads you to jump the conclusions. Being anti globalist is a key feature in many left winged views... but so we cna clear things up

I'm pro universal health
I believe in mixed economies
I'm pro gun control
I'm cautious about immigration, because I don't think my country can sustain a much larger population but think asylum seekers should be treated humanely and given citizenship if found to be geunuine.
I'm pro policies that encourage sustainability in undustry and land use
I favour a welfare system, but I think there should be checks and limits
I'd like America to butt out of a lot of its military activity globally
I'm probably socially conservative when it comes to bringing up kids, because I think one biological Mum and one biological Dad is the best system, but failing that two loving caring adults is also okay, and in the end we all do the best we can
I don't approve of hitting kids
I don't believe in capital punishment, or prison sentences for non violent crimes

Hmmm, there is probably a lot more.

NB When i talk about being pro gun, universal health, and immigration, I'm talking about my country, and not the US. What works here, may not work there.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
many countries would have what would be regarded as socialist type economies and are not authoritarian states. It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum

---

Thank you, MD. THANK YOU!!!!!


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

And don't forget the intel and alphabet boys, Byte, and the TREMENDOUS amount of money poured down a rathole into their black budgets to accomplish simple things they never actually manage to accomplish.


Oh screw it, since I've all but been outed anyways, and recently been informed in no uncertain terms that no one gives a fuck anymore...

Did you know back in the 80's they had to create a SEPERATE, in-house military intel branch to do the shit the CIA was SUPPOSED to be doing, but was too busy fucking over their so-called protectees to bother ?

And had to HIDE it from every damn body ?

I mean, say... a rescue attempt, right - you wanna know how many doors, points of entry, how many goons and what their patrols are like, before you pop the cork, yes ?

And that is what the fucking CIA's OFFICIAL JOB IS, and they *can't* bloody DO it, or won't, and half the time they just lie, or tell you whatever is more politically convenient for em or will net them the most money and power, but for their assigned and intended purpose they're useless - worse than useless cause they keep DOIN shit which blows back on us, like propping up dictator shitheels and blowing away moderates... cause, yanno, war feeds their budget too.

And so ole jay-sock came up with the idea of rolling their own humint and sigint department internally, in a cell structured fashion, off the books, to do the job those CIA fucks wouldn't.

And so once again I question the necessity of pouring our tax dollars down that shithole.

"Truth overcomes all bonds."

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Sorry, I thought I needed to vent because I felt you weren't getting *why* the Nazis were evil. Everyone knows that they *were* evil, but few people look to far into how they got that way.

---

please show me where i have ever indicated where the nazis were not evil. I don't dispute their violence or insanity, I dispute that you should call them left winged. The fact that you do, leads me to believe that you are either very ignorant, or we have been taught very different ways of seeing the world.

Hopefully you can see this chart which places facism where I think it should be on the spectrum.



From wiki

Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.[9][10][11][12][13][14]

It worries me that the Right in America appear to be rewriting history to fit their bias, which is why I keep rebutting you.

---

Spot on. The right in this country is constantly trying to rewrite history. They're "strict constitutionalists" - except for the pesky parts like the 14th Amendment; they're fundamentalists Christians who believe in ALL of the bible - except for the pesky parts that rankle them.

Quote:

---

And to counter your rant on socialism - many countries would have what would be regarded as socialist type economies and are not authoritarian states. It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum.

Quote:

---

I think here you would be politically confused. You seem to anchor yourself to old world leftist standbys, but hold what I would call a more or less tea party world view, even if that may scare you. Your stances against globalism and for independent or personal economic control, a lot of the stuff you posted here, esp. earlier, I would place you on the right, but politics are strange.

---

I don't know much about the tea party except that they hate Obama, and I quite admire him. I don't think he's a messiah and i'm not sure how much he can achieve, but I like the politics of the man, so I'd say no, I wasn't aligned with the tea party.

---

As far as I can tell, the tea-baggers have no idea what they stand for. As long as somebody seems angry at the scary black man, they'll stand for just about anything.

The number one issue for tea-baggers seems to be "I don't want the government telling me what to do!" What you'll notice, though, if you look closely, is that at the same time, they're also shouting, "I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL *THEM* WHAT TO DO!!!"

Quote:

---

I'm pro universal health
I believe in mixed economies
I'm pro gun control
I'm cautious about immigration, because I don't think my country can sustain a much larger population but think asylum seekers should be treated humanely and given citizenship if found to be geunuine.
I'm pro policies that encourage sustainability in undustry and land use
I favour a welfare system, but I think there should be checks and limits
I'd like America to butt out of a lot of its military activity globally
I'm probably socially conservative when it comes to bringing up kids, because I think one biological Mum and one biological Dad is the best system, but failing that two loving caring adults is also okay, and in the end we all do the best we can
I don't approve of hitting kids
I don't believe in capital punishment, or prison sentences for non violent crimes

Hmmm, there is probably a lot more.

NB When i ta

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

According to the Nazis, Magon, they were both. Hence the confusion and alternative interpretations.

In practice they were right wing and fascist, with all the badness that cronyism between state and corporations can produce. But among the Nazi elite they did have a number of socialist policies. If you were a Nazi and a good Ayran, they would take care of you (and send you out to fight wars where you would get slaughtered). Very similar to some left-wing politicians in America I know that say one thing then do another.

All of it is, of course, bullshit. But then authoritarianism usually is.

Quote:

---

It's the authoritarian that you should object to, be it on the left or right spectrum

---

Yep. You have your priorities straight.

If I'm contributing here, I should probably address this one.

Quote:

---

except I don't think Byte meant to "insult" you...I think she was expressing her frustration that America seems to get blamed for everything wrong in the world, when in actuality it isn't the average American person who's responsible, much as it may seem that way at times.

---

Yeah. I was/am frustrated. But I sorted this one at least out with Magon behind the scenes.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Can a Dying Civilization Defeat ISIS and Radical Islam?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/can-a-dying-civiliz
ation-defeat-isis-and-radical-islam/

Quote:

---

If we are honest we must face a very dark and sobering fact: The outcome of this war is far from certain. We are proud of being a nation of can-do optimists, but we are also a nation in denial about a culture in a tailspin.

---

and thought I might bump this one


I think much of the 'fall' came in the 70s, things changed in America...Democrats were no longer like JFK or FDR but instead became regressive liberals like Chomsky, Moore and Carter

Nixon he had a clever foreign policy but he took America away from the Gold Standard - huge mistake, this corruption would later lead to endless Petrodollar Arabia Islamo Wars of Iraq, Libya....you name it, the mess keeps growing

The latest mess, I wasn't always a fan of Clinton but at least he had some kind of foreign policy, and created an economy - ok it was a tech bubble, a fake dot-com bubble but at least that economy existed, Bush Jnr and Obama have really only played parts in sinking America deeper into debt


The USA can come back
but huge changes might be needed in the Congress, the Senate and the US political system. I would like to see someone like Webb or Ron Paul or some independent thinker push America ahead again, what is happening now just ain't working

Bush Jnr broke the debt clock in NYC, another digit needed to be added the broken clock,
Durst Organization in New York reached its limits. The national debt exceeded $10 trillion for the first time under Bush Jnr, the clock ran out of digits to record the number.
Obama's policy made the debts even worse

The idea for the clock came from New York real estate developer Seymour Durst, who wanted to highlight the rising national debt. In 1989, he sponsored the installation of the first clock, which was originally placed on Sixth Avenue—between 42nd Street and 43rd Street—one block away from Times Square. At the time, the national debt remained under $3 trillion but was rising. The clock was temporarily switched off from 2000 to 2002 due to the debt actually falling during that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Debt_Clock

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Whenever we return to Reaganomics, the proven template for juggernaut economy, we'll be back.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Never.

I know "never" is a really long time, but ... never. It was an historic moment, never to be repeated.

And trying to recreate the past will lead to great errors.

All we can do is move forward, despite uncertainty and doubt.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME