[Fearless Leader]

WHOOHOO!!!

Dinks are on my boys! Ive got $300

 

[Rictor]

yes government spending has an impact on the economy - and that can be bad or good depending on the situation.

Yes, but when the people in government have consistently proven themselves to be idiots, it is almost always a bad thing. If the money is virtually guaranteed to be misused, which it is, is it not better to deny them control over it? The political system is engineered in such a way that massive defence spending is inevitable, and anyone who tries to stand against it is committing career suicide.

if you want to actually talk about something that would meaningfully affect the overall federal budget A) end the fuqing war B) cut permanant defense spending in half - we already spend 10x what the next seven highest spending countries do combined

Agree completely - I've been against the war since day one, and for slashing the military budget for even longer. But do you really believe that the American government will ever willingly give up hundreds of billions of dollars under their control? Why would they? The only way that I can see to take this money out of their hands is to not give it to them in the first place. Why is that controversial?

[Kosh]

So we agree, because that's what I was saying. Although I'm a bit more pessimistic than you - the budget deficit is not the only leak that needs fixing. There's the debt to pay down (with glorious interest) as well as massive Social Security payments which are going to have to be made now that the Baby Boomers are getting old. Even if the military budget were halved or outright abolished (which is slightly less likely than the Moon exploding), that's still not enough money to cover obligation.

Yeah, but like I said earlier: This recession is caused pretty much by wall street shenanigans and general short sightedness by the markets and the corperations. For example: Intel's latest earnings report stated that their profits were up by 50%, but it missed analysts expectations by a couple of percentage points so it's stock went down by $2. 

[Kazan]

Rictor: you have the following Choices at this moment

A) get screwed by the government
B) get screwed worse by the corporations



I choose the one that involves less getting screwed (A)

In reality you have another option
C) Have the government do it right

I would chose C if possible - however that requires an educated and informed electorate which requires a real education system.

Education is one of the favorite things anti-tax-freakouts and republicans want to defund.


An educated electorate is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a functioning democracy.

[Nuclear1]

"That's right! 300 buckaroos, in the form of a Tricky Dick Funbill!"

On topic, I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but I whole-heartedly agree with everything Kazan just said.

...what?

[BlackDove]

D) is also a great option.

Move the **** away. You know the "America is the greatest country in the world" proverb?

Those are filthy lies. That used to be true. However the world caught up, and surpassed.

[Rictor]

Rictor: you have the following Choices at this moment

A) get screwed by the government
B) get screwed worse by the corporations

I choose the one that involves less getting screwed (A)

Hmm. Way I see it, the government has been bought lock, stock and barrel by the corporations, so the notion that the government will protect us from corporate power is naive. They're on the same team, and we're all on the other team.

The real point of difference between you and me is how best to get "power to the people". Centralizing power in the government and then relying on democratic processes to distribute that power in an equitable way is certainly one approach. But if the democratic process should fail for any reason, you have a fatally flawed equation. The other way would be to decentralize power as much as possible, thereby preventing it from being consolidated by any single entity in the first place. I think the latter is more practical in the real world, given the corrupting influence of all power. Mega corporations are doomed to fail; millions of small and medium businesses is the future. So IMHO corporatocracy is an exaggerated threat.

[BloodEagle]

Move the **** away. You know the "America is the greatest country in the world" proverb?

Those are filthy lies. That used to be true. However the world caught up, and surpassed.

The rest of the world didn't catch up, the U.S. Government just started making everything suck so that immigration rate would go down. Which, by the way, I don't believe it has.

[Dark RevenantX]

The government needs to know basic Algebra.

Quadratic taxes would be nice.  When you have an annual income of 20 grand, the tax RATE on that should be considerably less than the tax rate on people who have an annual income of, say, 100 million.  I know it is already to an extent like that, but not ENOUGH like that.

Suddenly, 99% of the population loves the government while the other 1% don't get to buy a Yacht.  We live in a time where overwhelming support by the common people ACTUALLY gives you the election.  Kind of.  Sort of.  Not really.  At least it's not like Feudal aristocracy...

[Flaser]

Rictor: you have the following Choices at this moment

A) get screwed by the government
B) get screwed worse by the corporations

I choose the one that involves less getting screwed (A)

Hmm. Way I see it, the government has been bought lock, stock and barrel by the corporations, so the notion that the government will protect us from corporate power is naive. They're on the same team, and we're all on the other team.

The real point of difference between you and me is how best to get "power to the people". Centralizing power in the government and then relying on democratic processes to distribute that power in an equitable way is certainly one approach. But if the democratic process should fail for any reason, you have a fatally flawed equation. The other way would be to decentralize power as much as possible, thereby preventing it from being consolidated by any single entity in the first place. I think the latter is more practical in the real world, given the corrupting influence of all power. Mega corporations are doomed to fail; millions of small and medium businesses is the future. So IMHO corporatocracy is an exaggerated threat.

You have been reading Noan Chomsky have you?
If you hadn't you better be.

However I don't see why megacorps are destined to fail. As far as I see it, they're the new emerging ruling class.

[Rictor]

I've read Chomsky through and through.

And megacorps are dinosaurs because technology is making the contest between David and Goliath a much more evenly matched one. The biggest online companies today (Google, Yahoo, Alibaba), which are themselves among the biggest companies in the world, didn't even exist ten years ago. And in another ten years they will be replaced by others, and they by others. Small businesses will be able to take on medium ones and medium businesses will be able to take on large ones - on and on into perpetuity. Radical decentralization of political, economic and cultural power is the future; although whether this is a blessing or a curse depends on what your outlook is.

[BlackDove]

And none of it matters as long as they're all under the umbrella of the Federal Reserve. That institution is not exactly what meets the eye.