Author Topic: The Tea Party  (Read 18971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
Or the difference between Communism and Absolute Monarchy apparently:

[lolshot]http://i51.tinypic.com/2m4f60w.jpgg[/lolshot]
This refers to the "czars", both current and proposed, which are in charge of various bureaucratic regulatory bodies and thus unaccountable to the people.  Climate czar, TARP czar, Internet czar, food czar, etc.  It's drawing a link between the unaccountability of the appointed czars and the unaccountability of the Soviet government.

I understand he's referring to Czars the political appointment in the US, that doesn't negate the fact that the USSR had no CZARS because they killed the last one and his entire family.  That poster shows a depressing level of ignorance and little grasp historical knowledge and if you seriously are trying to tell me that it doesn't then you have slipped from debating from a position of logic to deluding yourself and making excuses. 
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

  

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Guys, before you even think about comparing anything to communism, Nazism (fascism), or anything else, take at least one political science class, or really study one political science book.

It won't make you an expert, but it will give you enough information to know when those comparisons are bull****.

Understanding Politics by Magstadt is a very good book to start with.

 

Offline iamzack

  • 26
Books are for SOCIALIST COMMIE NAZI LIBRULS
WE ARE HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS. YOU WILL LOWER YOUR FIREWALLS AND SURRENDER YOUR KEYBOARDS. WE WILL ADD YOUR INTELLECTUAL AND VERNACULAR DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR FORUMS WILL ADAPT TO SERVICE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.

 

Offline Drogoth

  • 28
Some corrections seem to be in order here.


I'm just curious about how the Tea Party intends to lower the deficit while cutting spending AND lowering taxes. Cutting spending works while income remains steady. It doesn't work if your net income is still 0. Or in this case negative numbers.
Lowering the deficit in this way works if you cut spending faster than you cut taxes.  I should think this would be obvious.

Quote
I don't get it. Is there some disconnect where Tea Party members don't know what taxes are for? Do roads just pop into existence? Lights. police, schools, etc?
You're conveniently forgetting everything else that drains the budget.  Social security, national defense, interest on the debt, executive departments, etc. are much higher on the list.  In fact, many cities are raising taxes and cutting back on road work, maintenance, etc. because public pensions require such a large share of the pie.


Lowering the deficit works when you cut faster then you spend yes, but lets get serious. The US does not cut faster then it spends, ever. The military budget alone is atrociously high. The only way cutting spending will work while the US covers is various budget commitments would be to keep taxes constant. Or even raise them. The problem is, the American people have become addicted to low taxes and high service. In essentials, the philosophy of the tea party would be that 1=4. You get what you pay for, which nicely ends up at the infrastructure concerns in the second point. Roadwork maintenance, utilities, law enforcement and education are the most important things in the budget. They are the building blocks of modern civilization, and when they crumble, so to falls everything else. That represents a serious misappropriation of resources if the base parts of civilization come in second to for example, the military. Social security is useless if the people you're helping can't use the aid money to access services because the roadways are crumbling. In addition, failed education means more people on welfare etc etc. I think theres a major issue when more money is appropriated to fixing the symptoms while cutting money from fixing the problem.

America has since Reagan run on the tax philosophy 1=4. It doesn't work. These services CANNOT all be maintained with the retardedly low tax rates in the States. Things wouldn't have to be cut at all, and America wouldn't be nearly as far in debt if taxes hadn't been slashed a stupidly high amount. As for what is getting cut now, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but like I said, I think roads and education are far more important then how many nukes can be launched at once.

As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:

Government contracts private enterprise to build road.

Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.

You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?

The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.
TC 2 Fan club for Life

 
Guys, before you even think about comparing anything to communism, Nazism (fascism), or anything else, take at least one political science class, or really study one political science book.

It won't make you an expert, but it will give you enough information to know when those comparisons are bull****.

Understanding Politics by Magstadt is a very good book to start with.

You need political science class to understand? WHat's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
You need political science class to understand? WHat's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?
History lessons concentrate on actions, they do an inadequate job of explaining who.

For instance, you could learn all about ancient egypt without understanding what a despotism was, you could know Athens had one of the first democracies without knowing what exactly makes a democracy a democracy.

Political science explains what all of these terms mean, and it ties them to the history it helps explain.


Take the Nazis for example. "National Socialism" is what it means, but in reality, the economy, though it used some socialist principles, was not pure socialism, nor was it the main focus of the state. The Nazi state was a fascist state, but many history books never explain that.


« Last Edit: January 25, 2011, 03:29:14 pm by Mars »

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
You need political science class to understand? What's wrong with the history lessons where they all explain that too?

Actually; scratch that. That's a ridiculous question. It's like asking why someone should take a psychology class when sociology does a perfectly good job of explaining people's behavior.

 
Quote
Political science explains what all of these terms mean, and it ties them to the history it helps explain.

But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.

And I still do not think it is a ridicolous question. Do you really need political science class to be able to see when someone is BS'ing when he is calling some politician a fascist?


 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.
Yes. I agree, you need both. If someone calls someone else a 'Nazi' history would be a far better way of debunking that.

When it comes to refuting false political assertions however, such as 'this country is now socialist' or some other such non-sense, political science is a much better tool to understand the flaw in the assertion.

 
But history explains what they all did, and ties it to politcal science to explain why they did it. You can't know one without the other.
Yes. I agree, you need both. If someone calls someone else a 'Nazi' history would be a far better way of debunking that.

When it comes to refuting false political assertions however, such as 'this country is now socialist' or some other such non-sense, political science is a much better tool to understand the flaw in the assertion.

Aaah. I wasn't thinking about socialism when you said that. As in, socialism as it is with social democracies and the economy system and all that... Heh. So it is entirely my mistake.
But wait... There isn't really a clear line between socialism and all those other forms, right? Most countries employ a bit of both, for example with minimum loans and progressive income tax and all that.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 06:23:21 am by -Joshua- »

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:

Government contracts private enterprise to build road.

Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.

You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?

The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.

I think that is what a few people do not get... "privatize everything" basically means "pay for everything". And while roads are important they do kinda pale compared to the other responsibilities of government.

America is already way on its way to handing over political power to private corporations... but i really wish people would stop and think for a moment where this road ultimately leads.
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism.
Capitalism on the other hand, could easily do without democracy... for a while anyways, until the natural trickle up of capital leads to so much centralisation of power that the people in charge can implement whatever economic system suits them most.

There are few visions of the future more cynical than those of totalitarian capitalism.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 09:00:50 pm by Mikes »

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
As for the comment earlier that roads could be provided by private enterprise, I'm not saying they couldn't. But there are two scenarios for that:

Government contracts private enterprise to build road.

Company builds road and charges you at a toll booth.

You're paying for both, either through tolls or taxes. And in the case of the toll booth, how long does it take for one company to start controlling a bunch of roads and jack the toll price up?

The only sensible option is for the government to contract business, but once again, it needs the money to do it.

I think that is what a few people do not get... "privatize everything" basically means "pay for everything". And while roads are important they do kinda pale compared to the other responsibilities of government.

America is already way on its way to handing over political power to private corporations... but i really wish people would stop and think for a moment where this road ultimately leads.
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism. Capitalism on the other hand, could easily do without democracy.

There are few visions of the future more cynical than those of totalitarian capitalism.

The future isn't going to be the setting for a neo-noir cyperpunk classic if we use stop and use foresight.
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
The future isn't going to be the setting for a neo-noir cyperpunk classic if we use stop and use foresight.

And stop and foresight is something we... and especially politicians... are really good at... mh...

Frankly...  ever since the 90s, if not earlier, we've gone full steam past every and any stop sign we came across.

Just ponder for a moment...   in the latest financial crisis we had large corporations scamming and cheating to their hearts content and they screwed up...  and then we/society/state do/does not have a "choice" but to pay for the loss. That's how far we've come...  right now we effectively already have established an (unstable) "no risk" capitalism.... where profits soar while wages and salary decline... and losses get paid by state because otherwise the system would fail.

Sorry to break it in to ya...  but we're not already past the last stop sign... it appears we don't have any brakes anymore either.

(Enron might have been a stop sign where meaningful changes could have been implemented...  but how long ago was that?)


You are correct in one point however. We might not end up with a typical neo-noir cyperpunk classic. At this point the actual outcome is pretty uncertain. What is certain however is that our economic system is currently canibalizing our political system at an ever increasing rate. What is also certain is that the current economic situation is as inherently unstable as before the crisis...    and the inevitable next crisis might as well be the foreshadow of either a national bankruptcy or a dollar crash/inflation of never before seen proportions...  at which point it will not only be doubtful how much of a role the United States as a political entitiy will have left to play in global politics, but also how much of a role the US government, i.e. the elected officials will still play in national politics. No money... no power... not in our current system anyways. Which leaves to wonder what will evolve out of the whole mess.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2011, 09:41:35 pm by Mikes »

 

Offline StarSlayer

  • 211
  • Men Kaeshi Do
    • Steam
More of a Bladerunner type guy myself, so the dreary collapsed economy deal doesn't sound to bad.  Omega was certainly more lively and at least was willing to wear its true colors, I always found Illium more distasteful since it maintained a veneer of perfection over its rotten core.   :P
“Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world”

 
Quote
Democracy as we understand it relies on a free market economy and therefore to some extent on capitalism.

Someone will have to inform the Democratic Socialists, who feel that a state economy led by a government held accountable to the people by way of democracy holds true promise.  Intriguingly, that was the direction the USSR seemed to be moving, under Gorbachev, prior to the 1991 coup.  If I could poke my head into an alternate timeline, I'd love to see a world where Perestroika got to play out to completion, including the implementation of multi-candidate elections in the USSR.  (Not sure I'd like to live there, mind you, but I'd at least like to see how things would have played out.)

To the point, though, any given political system is not beholden to any particular economic model, nor is any economic model slaved to a specific political system.

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
Sweden is a country that is a parliamentary democracy that is nearly entirely socialized.

Democracy, in very simple terms, is government by the people. If the people want a socialist economy, what else are you going to do?

Socialism at its base is  the principle of common ownership of the means of production - the idea that everyone has a relatively equal portion of societies goods. A more fair, and a more 'democratic' ideal I don't think you'll find.

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
Sweden is a country that is a parliamentary democracy that is nearly entirely socialized.

Democracy, in very simple terms, is government by the people. If the people want a socialist economy, what else are you going to do?

Socialism at its base is  the principle of common ownership of the means of production - the idea that everyone has a relatively equal portion of societies goods. A more fair, and a more 'democratic' ideal I don't think you'll find.

Uhm... in a "socialist country" there are no privately owned companies, by definition,...
Sweden has a high redistributive income tax and puts a lot of emphasis on being a welfare state... but please... don't mix that up with "socialism"  or "central planning"...


A centrally organized economy is simply very bad at giving individual people what they all want.  (And Sweden wouldn't be where it's at if it ran its economy after that model.)
That is a basic management fact. Central planning is pretty much incompatible with our current society... and that is, even if it actually... worked.

For the "quick and dirty" explanation of why it doesn't work look here: "http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html"

Socialism/central planning simply doesn't work right from the beginning and eventually collapses under the impossibility of planning a full scale economy from scratch every year.
Capitalism on the other hand, if left to its own devices, is doomed from the start to ever increase wealth on the top at the expense of everyone else until you end up with a small oligarchy or a monopoly as the "defacto" ruling class which then has enough power to do with your political system whatever they want.

Interestingly.... Karl Marx theory was pretty solid in it's criticism of capitalisms flaws and ultimate failures...   , the problem with it was that socialism (which he didn't really focus on in his work anyways) simply is not a viable alternative.


The travesty of the last decades is that... instead of being aware of the well researched and documented dangers and flaws of capitalism...  so we can at least try to safeguard against them... we've pretty much removed any and all regulation and unchained the beast to do what it will.

The worry of course is that the at this point pretty much inevitable failure of western democratic capitalism will have much... much uglier consequences than the fall of the Sowiet Union... as we just don't have a conveniently available competing system to switch to as an alternative anymore. (If you don't like corporate totalitarian rule that is ;))
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 08:26:17 am by Mikes »

 

Offline NGTM-1R

  • I reject your reality and substitute my own
  • 213
  • Syndral Active. 0410.
Uhm... in a "socialist country" there are no privately owned companies, by definition,...

Communism is not socialism. Lrn2politicalsystem plz.
"Load sabot. Target Zaku, direct front!"

A Feddie Story

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
He's actually right in that Sweden is not fully socialist, they just have a (very) high amount of socialized programs. It doesn't actually try to put the means of production into collective hands.

 

Offline Janos

  • A *really* weird sheep
  • 28
You have to be careful when you use the label "socialism". It's a political all-endorsing state of a... state. It has precious little to do with high level taxation and welfare programs - which are ultimately there to preserve political stability and prevent serious civil problems.

There is a more sinister undercurrent in the US political speak in labelling countries like Norway - which has larger number of private entrepreuners than United States! - as somehow "socialist". Nevermind the fact that in United States and much of the american-dominated internet the idea of political left is so significantly skewed to the right to effectively affect the political climate of other nations. The reason is that as long as powers that be label Norway or Sweden or Italy or Belgium or Canada or whatever as "socialist" there is absolutely no incentive to use anything those nations have going on. Welfare programs would be undoubtedly great for large number of people all across the world, but they are very bad for upper class. Better social security could lead to unions gaining more power, rise in the salaries and above all change in the political spectrum of a nation. That's bad for those who benefit from status quo which, in the capitalist nations and upper class, are those who own the means of production and who control the narrative.

lol wtf