It's Halloween, and a young boy is trick or treating all by himself. His costume is too big for him, and he nervously walks up to the first door. He knocks, and an older woman steps out, with a bucket of candy in her arms.
"Trick or treat," he says quietly.
"Well, well, a pirate! Tell me young man, where are your buccaneers?"
The boy looks hurt and confused, and finally replies, "Under my buccan hat, lady."
Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to US$651.2 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (about $9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (about $33.2 billion), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, about $170 billion in 2007). As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes. [2]
-Wikipedia
And what money from where gets shuffled to the the unconstitutional CIA? I think it's around 50 billion these days, but no one knows for sure, or how much money they still take in running drugs.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Besides keeping their investment intact, do you think the Pentagon gives a good goddamn about their soldier's lives? Look at how they treat them once they've been chewed up by years of service.
I guarantee they did an analysis that compared the cost of creating a milspec device with the same capabilities and how much money they would lose if x number of soldiers died due to malfunction. The only thing that could have changed their minds is a powerful politician and a well paid lobbyist with some contracting firm.
The point of my post is that we have invested trillions of dollars in military superiority, and while we can blow up anything we like, we seem to be suffering from the same fate as other imperial powers. A hard, dedicated, local resistance cannot be surmounted unless you kill a good portion of the population to scare them, and even then some will never tolerate outsiders controlling their land or telling them what to do.
When Afghanistan was ruled totally by the Taliban, and they were doing the raping and murdering and burning of schools, we didn't give a shit, and Afghanistan did not attack any American interests. They happened to be the place where Saudi Arabians chose to train terrorists, but we didn't really care about that either, until 9/11. As long as their own local warlords were keeping things quiet, and doing what we told them to, we had no need for expensive military operations in that region. We didn't care how many people they beheaded or women they raped. Colin Powell announced a 43 million dollar grant in May of 2001 in order to reward them with stopping the opium growing in their country (which didn't happen).
If the American government did care about democratic processes, why do we support the monarchy of Saudi Arabia? Why did we overthrow the democratic government of Iran? Afghanistan and Iraq are important if America is interested in maintaining empire, by having control over energy resources. Otherwise, they are like Africa to us. I follow the money, because money matters to everyone. And how much does America spend building democracies versus blowing nations up that don't toe the line? To me, that is the equation that represents our real interest in freedom. And if you believe otherwise, I don't think I'm the one being naive.
More in line with this conversation, I have no illusions about the Taliban, but I also have no illusions about the Northern Alliance, or the fact that we created radical Afghanistan, along with Russia.
On April 14, 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields.
-Wikipedia
Now, why was the Afghan government requesting Soviet military assistance? To help thwart a fundamentalist Muslim uprising. Or, as we knew them in 1980, the "freedom fighters." Or as we knew them in the late 90s, the Taliban. Or as we know them now, the "terrorists."
We have tried using the military for decades, and we have never introduced a lasting democracy into a previously undemocratic country by force. So instead of dropping enough ammunition on Afghanistan to eclipse the value of their GDP, why don't build something there instead? Even if they burn it down ten times over, we'd still save money.
In my opinion, the only thing that brings about a lasting democracy is prosperity. Otherwise, people are too busy staying alive to do anything about their rights.
If you can name a single country that we've democratized with military bombing and invasion, I'd love to hear about it.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is one of the most backwards countries in the world, and one of our top allies. They have no voting rights, as they are a monarchy. Non-Muslims aren't allowed to testify in court, and women who are raped are charged with crimes instead of the men who raped them. It's funny, with all of our morals, we don't seem to bomb their "wrecked governments."
If you're right, you should be able to name the country we've democratized with military airstrikes and invasion. The only exception in history is when we have repelled other invaders out of a country that has asked for our help.
Yes, I presented a false dichotomy. There are many choices in between.
Unfortunately, you are more likely to radicalize him with the accidental death of his relatives than you are to kill someone he believes to be a terrorist.
To him, anyone fighting an invader is a patriot
I often wonder if the same people who decry guerilla tactics and $200 IEDs would just roll over if China started flying jets over our airspace, and rolling tanks through our streets. It's a question that doesn't get asked because I don't think anyone wants to hear themselves answer it.
The previous Predators cost 9 million for the aircraft itself, and another 20 to 30 million for the controlling systems, from what I could read. It can carry 14 hellfire missiles, which are $25,000 a piece. I think we're spending 3 billion per year just on the aircraft acquisition.
So, every day, we send out these 10 million dollar drones, which cost a few thousand per hour to operate, with $350,000 of ammunition. 25% of these aircraft have been lost in operations. Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.
So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?
The fact that people keep choosing the second option astonishes me.
Because throwing money at a problem always fixes things!
I guess I must throw in caveats to pass your general level of debate, which is to say that they must spend the money on building railways to areas that could take advantage of it, and not doing blow in the company bathroom.
Because adding funds to Amtrack will bring the people that shunned it before when it was bigger back for some reason - even though there's no possibility we'd reduce spending on roads to encourage people to take rail!
There is a possibility. Once people have a railway, they may use the roads less, slowing down the cycle of adding lanes to existing roadways.
Those who ignore history (and human nature), are doomed to repeat all sorts of folly...
And those who speak cliches that they don't follow themselves are fun to laugh at.
What a freaking luddite. Do you know how much energy is reqauired to move the mass of a train, compared to the efficiency of a modern light aircraft?
Ahh. I'm going to guess that you didn't even look this up before you opened your mouth. Are you ready? Here's a hint: next time you consider efficiency, not only do you have to take into account the energy put into moving mass, but where that mass is going, how much of it is going there, how long it takes, and how much fuel is required once it gets going. And of course, how much to stop it once it reaches the destination.
"Vanooling" is the most efficient. I hear this argument constantly, and it's a correct one - if everyone carpooled, cars would be extremely efficient. But they don't, so they aren't.
Then it's Rail, Bus, and then Airlines. And I couldn't find a single source that said small regional airlines were more efficient. From what I can tell, the Airbus 380 is very efficient, getting the same fuel economy as a Prius. But those are over extremely long hauls fully loaded, and have no option but to use fossil fuels. And the Prius wins if people use it to carpool - by a long shot.
If you can throw money into the gasping corpse of Rail why not spend that instead to further some amazing aircraft research that can truly serve everyone instead of only the areas dense enough to be served by rail?
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on aircraft research since the end of WWII. That's why Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the top recipients of federal funds - they make airplanes and other aircraft. In contrast, virtually no US dollars have gone to research improvements in rail efficiency, and yet rail is still more efficient, especially when you look at freight (same chart from above).
So, you believe the opposite of what is true, because you didn't take the ten minutes required to read about it.
Thinking of truly alternate transportation solutions that can benefit the entire country, even the remote bits?
What's more expensive - routing rail lines to travel through smaller towns and building stations there, or building airports, control towers with radar, and then flying to other regional airports?
Unthinkable to DC I guess - and that means by BOTH parties thank you very much.
Perhaps they read about it - unlike you - and discovered that rail is much more efficient, easier to use with alternative fuels, and promotes more sustainable community planning?
We spend 40 billion a year in federal funds on the highway system. Amtrak's deficit is one billion per year. I think someone has the crazy idea that providing more funds for Amtrak may make it more solvent, if it can provide better and faster service to more areas.
We're still paying for the dismantling of mass transit systems in the 50s, when car, oil, and tire companies bought and dismantled local transit systems because they couldn't compete with them. It's the same mentality behind all of the anti-medicare propaganda. For profit companies receive government subsidies to provide medicare benefits that the government could provide, simply because they have lobbyists, and all of the sudden it's "unfair" to have a government provide a service that corporations have the "right" to make profits on.
Air travel will never be as cost effective as rail, especially when you consider how unaffordable it is when there are spikes in oil prices. The TGV in France is all electric, powered by their nuclear infrastructure, allowing them to the same reasonable rates year after year. A high speed electric rail system (I've not yet read about the Obama plan) would provide a much better solution than increasing air traffic with thousands of smaller planes that are not nearly as efficient or energy independent as electric rail.
- you are quite unfamiliar with the history of your own country, it's owners have done wonders making sure that the history classes are replaced with MTV and American Idol.
Ahh. So you just wanted to reiterate that you have no documents to support your claim? You're a really boring and stupid troll, do you know that?
My suggestion is that the real culprits in the financial destruction of the US is its own government and that the private sector only has a role as far as the bribing goes. Sure, sure, bankers are bastards...
My suggestion is that you are brimming with bullshit. No documents. Not even an essay. Why would I waste time thinking about your theory when there's no evidence to support such action? If you make odd assertions and then are unable to provide any evidence, grownups aren't going to bother wasting their time with it. Screaming, "You don't know history!" without providing so much as a single source document exposes you as the worst kind of fraud.
You believe it was helping you, when it took bribes from JP Morgan and the Rockefellers to set up the federal reserve to loan large sums of money to this corporations at artificially lowered interest rates
What documents do you have to back up this claim?
unaccountable government that runs policies that are profitable to big money and that spit on the private citizens who have elected them
This is not in dispute. The question is whether enacting totalitarian punishment for government officials would solve the problem. It's like pushing prohibition or capital punishment in general - you mistakenly believe that cruel punishment will "fix" corruption, but corruption is a fact of life. You can limit it's influence with reasonable law enforcement action, or turn your society into another Reign of Terror.
the dollar is devalued and its government is cornering the country into bankruptcy
The Air Force NASA FDIC Insurance SEC Regulation NIST DARPA
And all of the things they have brought us, like computers, the internet, and small stuff like that. Or maybe the founding fathers allowed us to interpret the Constitution for a reason...
You're right. All we have to do is cut military spending, from a trillion dollars per year in 2008 to something more reasonable, like 500 or 400 billion.
It's funny, that never seems to be an option for the ideological right.
Reagan's tax structure was higher than the tax is proposed to be in 2011. The proposed tax structure returns us to the codes during the Clinton years - when he also cut military spending, which is the real way we've cut deficits in the past. It has nothing to do with cutting social services.
For the first time in American history, people got a tax cut while the nation was at war. That's one of the main causes of the deficit increase. If you want a war, you have to pay for it with tax increases, and not bury it in emergency funding bills to make it look like you're fiscally responsible.
I agree with you on cutting spending, and I think we should cut military spending in half to 500 billion a year, eliminate all private contractors in war zones, and make it a law that private contracts must be fully transparent to the buyers, that is, voters like you and me. Allow a single payer system to compete with private insurers, and our society as a whole will save more hundreds of billions of dollars. Eliminate the private prison system, which incentivizes the expensive incarceration of over 1.5 million people, and we'll save more. Basically, remove the ability of corporations to profiteer when there is no market advantage to have them there in the first place.
These tea parties and all of the nonsense about high taxes in America are centered around the idea the the "right" to get wealthy is more important than all other societal concerns. It's a great way to destroy a functioning democracy, and you can see the decay through the decline of wages, the disappearing middle class, and skyrocketing health care and basic needs costs. It really is stupefying to watch people protest against their own interests, demanding that Blue Cross be allowed to rip them off while they suffer through treatable diseases since they have "preexisting conditions." Demanding that private contractors receive billions of dollars to perform the same jobs that soldiers are capable of for a tenth of the price, and then protest "government" education which represents a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
I said "make many of them" electrics. Most of them will be hybrids by 2012 anyway.
Furthermore, Tesla motors has already stated that they can deliver a sedan with a 200 mile range for $60,000. To put that cost in perspective, you could build the 250 million dollar factory and 45,000 electric sedans for less than a weeks expense in Iraq. And the DoE has already said that there is enough spare electricity at night to provide charging up 70% of the energy used by light trucks and vehicles, especially on the east coast.
It's really a pity that you can't envision anything but apathy. The solutions are here; America just needs to rethink how it spends it's resources.
First, make many of them electric. Two hundred mile range vehicles are possible today, and according to this, there are 800 million miles driven each year by 13,000 taxis, which is 170 miles, according to my calculator and my brain. Beware: my brain is currently on pain meds from dental work. Charge all the unused electrical capacity of the grid at night to local Taxi stations, install some flywheel charging systems or a simple battery swapping system, and it will help us develop the next generation of electric vehicle infrastructure.
Next, equip all taxis with good GPS. Put a screen in the back so the passenger knows they're not being taken the long way or the wrong way. Use this data to calculate traffic and anticipate passenger needs based on events, weather, holidays, etc. Allow cabbies to see each other on the GPS, so they know if they are crowding certain areas unwittingly. Allow people to log into a website to see real time anonymized traffic flow information.
Give out decent prize money for Smartphone apps that become public domain. Allow a person to stand at a street corner and hail a cab by pressing a button, or request a timed pickup with a non-refundable deposit charged to their credit card.
And finally, make all cabs bike friendly, with a quick and secure way to attach two bikes to each one. This will allow those in a hurry to bike to work, catch a cab to a movie, and then bike home.
except it's the wrong people that are targeted to be held in check.
So your example was?
Government officials who set up policies profitable for those, who have funds to buy off these officials, these are the people who destroy capitalism every time.
So for capitalism to survive, you have to destroy government? That sounds like something familiar...
Keep the government officials in check - if one is bribed and it is discovered, shoot him/her in the head. That will help society much more than anything else.
King Abdullah, is that you? How are the Bushes doing? How's life in Saudi Arabia? Still beheading people according to ancient custom, and preventing non-Muslims from testifying in court? Yeah, gotta keep women off of public roads! You're a riot!
So, are you still manufacturing terrorists with your barbaric ways of life, suppression of Shiite Muslims, torture, and persecution of anti-monarchal political forces, with the the financial and military support of the West? Oh, my bad. I keep forgetting to not mention that. Anyway, enjoy our continued support, from one democracy (wink wink) to another!
- and he should, government is the culprit of these problems in the first place.
O RLY?
- exactly. Only it is the regulation that is supposed to be applied to the government officials in the first place that is too relaxed... If a government official is found accepting bribes, pushing any corporate propaganda ahead of the society who have elected him, this official must be dismissed and criminal charges must be applied (I personally would prefer capital punishment for more serious offenses at this level, like allowing private interests to manipulate the society by setting up private systems like the federal reserve, that undermines the currency and economy of the country to benefit the large monopolies.)
Ahh. Chinese style democracy, eh? I'm not sure too many people will get on board with that.
- if government officials were shot for getting in bed with private money and destroying economy of the country and their work was undone (for example federal reserve shut down) then this entire economic fiasco could have been avoided.
Real estate bubbles happened before fiat money was introduced in the United States. Like the Panic of 1837. A gold standard has not always helped, in fact, the nation's first panic was exacerbated when precious metal shipments were halted from central and south America to Europe, causing them to hoard the monetary supply.
if banks were not regulated by corrupt government for their own profit/insured against moral hazard/money wasn't lent to them at costs much less than the market costs, they would always be requiring real collateral before loaning any money to anyone.
This assumes that the bank itself doesn't become corrupt. Let me take a wild swing and say without regulation, banks become corrupt or victims of booms and busts. This guy claims (in 1993) that you don't need a regulated banking system. But I got to his second point and figured that he was full of shit, because he stated that
How was stability possible in banking systems with neither deposit guarantees (nothing like FDIC insurance) nor a government lender of last resort (nothing like the Federal Reserve)? Depositors were more careful in choosing banks, and banks correspondingly... had to be more careful in choosing their asset portfolios than banks are today in the presence of deposit guarantees and a lender of last resort. Banks did sometimes fail. But bank failures were almost never contagious, or prone to spread to sound banks...
(Emphasis mine.) Which causes me to ask why there were constant bank panics in the 19th century, and relatively few after the FDIC was created.
If banks weren't supported in such a way by government, banking wouldn't exist as it does today. Modern economies require massive state sectors to balance out the problems inherent with the market. I can't think of a single bank that has existed without state support in the post industrial world, and I don't think that's just a coincidence.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government accountability first.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government enforcement of corporate accountability first.
Lack of accountability is when CEO can destroy a company in the search for short term gains. Remove the short sightedness from performance charts and that will fix a great many of the problems.
And who's going to do that? Companies are just going to voluntarily change their ways for the better? Last I checked, they have to be taken kicking and screaming into things as simple as installing seat belts, not working children to death in sweatshops, and locking doors from the outside to prevent their employees from taking too many breaks. So, you're either proposing to form new regulation, which I doubt from your comments, or you're proposing to ask nicely.
This is nothing more than businesses looking at how to get around government in more and more complex ways. Every government regulation is simply another brick in the great economic firewall.
Then why are Canada's banks solvent and the most regulated? Do you consider it a coincidence, or is this dogged adherence to your own ideology just the view you like from your hole in the sand?
But there is nothing we can do to stop assholes from being assholes...
That's ridiculous. If an asshole is ripping elderly people off through some loophole in some law, you plug the loophole, and bring the guy to justice.
The problem with America is that moral legislation turns a blind eye when it comes to financial exploitation. No one would argue that stealing someone's wallet is a crime, but if you're a bank you can slap on hidden fees $30 at a time, and the same person will say, "You should have read the fine print on page 27."
Now, I don't advocate any super complicated algorithm to arrive at an allowable bank fee for a minority between the ages of 30 and 45 who lives in rural Oklahoma. What I want is a standard page that every bank is required to give to an applicant, which lists in very clear language what the fees are. There's a similar law in place for credit cards, but it's not enforced very well. I want to be able to look up the factory where my tennis shoes were made to see if it's filled by teenagers who are regularly beaten, or well paid adults with health benefits. I want to know if the wheat for the bread I buy at the grocery store was farmed in an area that contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
For the most part, I can find these things out by choosing what companies I buy from. But I'm a single guy with no children - I'm not going to expect the same time commitment from someone who doesn't even have time to see his kids as much as he wants.
You see, for a market to work the consumer has to be able to make informed decisions. Informed decisions can only be made when the product is labeled accurately, when contracts are simple to understand and the rules are enforced when broken. Transparency can only be achieved through regulation which should be enforced by the government. In my opinion, there is no way around this process. Private standards bodies are not accountable to democratic action, and thus completely controlled by the powerful. Companies will not police themselves - they are designed by law to do everything in their power to turn a profit, regardless of who they run over in the process.
Yes, it requires a politically active populace to keep government relatively free of corruption. But having a somewhat corrupt government is far better than letting greed go unchecked in a society, and letting the powerful do as they wish with no consequences. That is, if you want to keep the society intact for very long.
When uncertainty appears in markets, money dries up. When money dries up, businesses cut back, and when those cutbacks are irrational, it causes more economic loss through unemployment, deepening the spiral.
The problem is that today's market is not self aware. It doesn't care about you or me, or if the world is turned into a toxic wasteland. It just cares about short term profit. Let's say that according to some economic theory, unemployment would have to go up to 40% in order for the prices to fall where they "should" be. What kind of damage will be caused by that much unemployment? Would our political system survive that kind of drop? Those are the questions that I don't want answered by a real world experiment.
Having the government give out contracts for infrastructure improvements that provide employment are the best option. The society as a whole benefits from infrastructure improvement and employment, and it keeps money circulating so the bottom doesn't fall out.
There are of course people who bitch and moan about billions of dollars spent on education, but they're usually the ones who don't seem to care about any sort of ceiling on military spending. I favor a continuation of the Keynesian economics that have kept America at the top of the economic ladder, but through investments that are about education and infrastructure rather than war.
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation. If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided. If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem.
But this isn't surprising, it's based on simple market principle. Capital investments flooded into financial markets because there are no rules against high interest rates, and the return for building a factory is nothing compared to that of selling a mortgage to an unqualified lender, and then selling that debt to someone else. No one is building anything real because they are addicted to 5-10% yearly returns after the first year they invested. World financial markets might as well be a trillion dollar casino.
A lack of a accountability is the real problem. Accountability only comes into play when there are easy to understand rules, and consistent punishment for breaking them. So, I agree with you on the simplification of tax code, and patent reform.
As for a lack of Capital gains taxes, I'm not so sure. I'd get on board with a carrot and stick program (must exist entirely in the US, must have a certain amount of company benefits, etc), but I doubt it could be written without any loopholes.
Lawyer reform - this one is a bit trickier. I think the "loser pays" option is a good idea, with one exception: a person can apply for exemption to this rule by a jury, with the provision that any punitive damages will not go to the prosecution. This would allow justice to be served to larger corporations who have legal fees that could drown a small country.
But, as one of those "progressives" I don't think removing taxes works, because we've tried that already. How about removing incentives for ripping people off, and implementing tested and successful financial regulations that create a better atmosphere for long term investment? Take a look at the Canadian banking system. Proof that regulations work, and the market isn't always right.
Slashdot Mirror
Blame my father twice for this one.
It's Halloween, and a young boy is trick or treating all by himself. His costume is too big for him, and he nervously walks up to the first door. He knocks, and an older woman steps out, with a bucket of candy in her arms.
"Trick or treat," he says quietly.
"Well, well, a pirate! Tell me young man, where are your buccaneers?"
The boy looks hurt and confused, and finally replies, "Under my buccan hat, lady."
-Wikipedia
And what money from where gets shuffled to the the unconstitutional CIA? I think it's around 50 billion these days, but no one knows for sure, or how much money they still take in running drugs.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Besides keeping their investment intact, do you think the Pentagon gives a good goddamn about their soldier's lives? Look at how they treat them once they've been chewed up by years of service.
I guarantee they did an analysis that compared the cost of creating a milspec device with the same capabilities and how much money they would lose if x number of soldiers died due to malfunction. The only thing that could have changed their minds is a powerful politician and a well paid lobbyist with some contracting firm.
The point of my post is that we have invested trillions of dollars in military superiority, and while we can blow up anything we like, we seem to be suffering from the same fate as other imperial powers. A hard, dedicated, local resistance cannot be surmounted unless you kill a good portion of the population to scare them, and even then some will never tolerate outsiders controlling their land or telling them what to do.
When Afghanistan was ruled totally by the Taliban, and they were doing the raping and murdering and burning of schools, we didn't give a shit, and Afghanistan did not attack any American interests. They happened to be the place where Saudi Arabians chose to train terrorists, but we didn't really care about that either, until 9/11. As long as their own local warlords were keeping things quiet, and doing what we told them to, we had no need for expensive military operations in that region. We didn't care how many people they beheaded or women they raped. Colin Powell announced a 43 million dollar grant in May of 2001 in order to reward them with stopping the opium growing in their country (which didn't happen).
If the American government did care about democratic processes, why do we support the monarchy of Saudi Arabia? Why did we overthrow the democratic government of Iran? Afghanistan and Iraq are important if America is interested in maintaining empire, by having control over energy resources. Otherwise, they are like Africa to us. I follow the money, because money matters to everyone. And how much does America spend building democracies versus blowing nations up that don't toe the line? To me, that is the equation that represents our real interest in freedom. And if you believe otherwise, I don't think I'm the one being naive.
More in line with this conversation, I have no illusions about the Taliban, but I also have no illusions about the Northern Alliance, or the fact that we created radical Afghanistan, along with Russia.
-Wikipedia
Now, why was the Afghan government requesting Soviet military assistance? To help thwart a fundamentalist Muslim uprising. Or, as we knew them in 1980, the "freedom fighters." Or as we knew them in the late 90s, the Taliban. Or as we know them now, the "terrorists."
We have tried using the military for decades, and we have never introduced a lasting democracy into a previously undemocratic country by force. So instead of dropping enough ammunition on Afghanistan to eclipse the value of their GDP, why don't build something there instead? Even if they burn it down ten times over, we'd still save money.
In my opinion, the only thing that brings about a lasting democracy is prosperity. Otherwise, people are too busy staying alive to do anything about their rights.
If you can name a single country that we've democratized with military bombing and invasion, I'd love to hear about it.
By the way, Saudi Arabia is one of the most backwards countries in the world, and one of our top allies. They have no voting rights, as they are a monarchy. Non-Muslims aren't allowed to testify in court, and women who are raped are charged with crimes instead of the men who raped them. It's funny, with all of our morals, we don't seem to bomb their "wrecked governments."
Why do you think that is?
If you're right, you should be able to name the country we've democratized with military airstrikes and invasion. The only exception in history is when we have repelled other invaders out of a country that has asked for our help.
I'm listening.
Yes, I presented a false dichotomy. There are many choices in between.
Unfortunately, you are more likely to radicalize him with the accidental death of his relatives than you are to kill someone he believes to be a terrorist.
To him, anyone fighting an invader is a patriot
I often wonder if the same people who decry guerilla tactics and $200 IEDs would just roll over if China started flying jets over our airspace, and rolling tanks through our streets. It's a question that doesn't get asked because I don't think anyone wants to hear themselves answer it.
No, but that's a great album.
The previous Predators cost 9 million for the aircraft itself, and another 20 to 30 million for the controlling systems, from what I could read. It can carry 14 hellfire missiles, which are $25,000 a piece. I think we're spending 3 billion per year just on the aircraft acquisition.
So, every day, we send out these 10 million dollar drones, which cost a few thousand per hour to operate, with $350,000 of ammunition. 25% of these aircraft have been lost in operations. Meanwhile, $75,000 would build a school, supply it, and provide money for staff for five years in Afghanistan.
So when you're trying to prevent a young muslim from becoming a radical, what's the better option - allowing him the chance to have an education, or blowing up his brother's wedding party and then air dropping him some pudding cups with little American flags on them?
The fact that people keep choosing the second option astonishes me.
Because throwing money at a problem always fixes things!
I guess I must throw in caveats to pass your general level of debate, which is to say that they must spend the money on building railways to areas that could take advantage of it, and not doing blow in the company bathroom.
Because adding funds to Amtrack will bring the people that shunned it before when it was bigger back for some reason - even though there's no possibility we'd reduce spending on roads to encourage people to take rail!
There is a possibility. Once people have a railway, they may use the roads less, slowing down the cycle of adding lanes to existing roadways.
Those who ignore history (and human nature), are doomed to repeat all sorts of folly...
And those who speak cliches that they don't follow themselves are fun to laugh at.
What a freaking luddite. Do you know how much energy is reqauired to move the mass of a train, compared to the efficiency of a modern light aircraft?
Ahh. I'm going to guess that you didn't even look this up before you opened your mouth. Are you ready? Here's a hint: next time you consider efficiency, not only do you have to take into account the energy put into moving mass, but where that mass is going, how much of it is going there, how long it takes, and how much fuel is required once it gets going. And of course, how much to stop it once it reaches the destination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
"Vanooling" is the most efficient. I hear this argument constantly, and it's a correct one - if everyone carpooled, cars would be extremely efficient. But they don't, so they aren't.
Then it's Rail, Bus, and then Airlines. And I couldn't find a single source that said small regional airlines were more efficient. From what I can tell, the Airbus 380 is very efficient, getting the same fuel economy as a Prius. But those are over extremely long hauls fully loaded, and have no option but to use fossil fuels. And the Prius wins if people use it to carpool - by a long shot.
If you can throw money into the gasping corpse of Rail why not spend that instead to further some amazing aircraft research that can truly serve everyone instead of only the areas dense enough to be served by rail?
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on aircraft research since the end of WWII. That's why Boeing and Lockheed Martin are the top recipients of federal funds - they make airplanes and other aircraft. In contrast, virtually no US dollars have gone to research improvements in rail efficiency, and yet rail is still more efficient, especially when you look at freight (same chart from above).
So, you believe the opposite of what is true, because you didn't take the ten minutes required to read about it.
Thinking of truly alternate transportation solutions that can benefit the entire country, even the remote bits?
What's more expensive - routing rail lines to travel through smaller towns and building stations there, or building airports, control towers with radar, and then flying to other regional airports?
Unthinkable to DC I guess - and that means by BOTH parties thank you very much.
Perhaps they read about it - unlike you - and discovered that rail is much more efficient, easier to use with alternative fuels, and promotes more sustainable community planning?
We spend 40 billion a year in federal funds on the highway system. Amtrak's deficit is one billion per year. I think someone has the crazy idea that providing more funds for Amtrak may make it more solvent, if it can provide better and faster service to more areas.
We're still paying for the dismantling of mass transit systems in the 50s, when car, oil, and tire companies bought and dismantled local transit systems because they couldn't compete with them. It's the same mentality behind all of the anti-medicare propaganda. For profit companies receive government subsidies to provide medicare benefits that the government could provide, simply because they have lobbyists, and all of the sudden it's "unfair" to have a government provide a service that corporations have the "right" to make profits on.
Air travel will never be as cost effective as rail, especially when you consider how unaffordable it is when there are spikes in oil prices. The TGV in France is all electric, powered by their nuclear infrastructure, allowing them to the same reasonable rates year after year. A high speed electric rail system (I've not yet read about the Obama plan) would provide a much better solution than increasing air traffic with thousands of smaller planes that are not nearly as efficient or energy independent as electric rail.
- you are quite unfamiliar with the history of your own country, it's owners have done wonders making sure that the history classes are replaced with MTV and American Idol.
Ahh. So you just wanted to reiterate that you have no documents to support your claim? You're a really boring and stupid troll, do you know that?
My suggestion is that the real culprits in the financial destruction of the US is its own government and that the private sector only has a role as far as the bribing goes. Sure, sure, bankers are bastards...
My suggestion is that you are brimming with bullshit. No documents. Not even an essay. Why would I waste time thinking about your theory when there's no evidence to support such action? If you make odd assertions and then are unable to provide any evidence, grownups aren't going to bother wasting their time with it. Screaming, "You don't know history!" without providing so much as a single source document exposes you as the worst kind of fraud.
You believe it was helping you, when it took bribes from JP Morgan and the Rockefellers to set up the federal reserve to loan large sums of money to this corporations at artificially lowered interest rates
What documents do you have to back up this claim?
unaccountable government that runs policies that are profitable to big money and that spit on the private citizens who have elected them
This is not in dispute. The question is whether enacting totalitarian punishment for government officials would solve the problem. It's like pushing prohibition or capital punishment in general - you mistakenly believe that cruel punishment will "fix" corruption, but corruption is a fact of life. You can limit it's influence with reasonable law enforcement action, or turn your society into another Reign of Terror.
the dollar is devalued and its government is cornering the country into bankruptcy
The dollar is up sharply from a year ago, at highs against the Euro and the Pound Sterling. Our deficit is still far less than it was during WWII.
The Air Force
NASA
FDIC Insurance
SEC Regulation
NIST
DARPA
And all of the things they have brought us, like computers, the internet, and small stuff like that. Or maybe the founding fathers allowed us to interpret the Constitution for a reason...
You're right. All we have to do is cut military spending, from a trillion dollars per year in 2008 to something more reasonable, like 500 or 400 billion.
It's funny, that never seems to be an option for the ideological right.
Reagan's tax structure was higher than the tax is proposed to be in 2011. The proposed tax structure returns us to the codes during the Clinton years - when he also cut military spending, which is the real way we've cut deficits in the past. It has nothing to do with cutting social services.
For the first time in American history, people got a tax cut while the nation was at war. That's one of the main causes of the deficit increase. If you want a war, you have to pay for it with tax increases, and not bury it in emergency funding bills to make it look like you're fiscally responsible.
I agree with you on cutting spending, and I think we should cut military spending in half to 500 billion a year, eliminate all private contractors in war zones, and make it a law that private contracts must be fully transparent to the buyers, that is, voters like you and me. Allow a single payer system to compete with private insurers, and our society as a whole will save more hundreds of billions of dollars. Eliminate the private prison system, which incentivizes the expensive incarceration of over 1.5 million people, and we'll save more. Basically, remove the ability of corporations to profiteer when there is no market advantage to have them there in the first place.
These tea parties and all of the nonsense about high taxes in America are centered around the idea the the "right" to get wealthy is more important than all other societal concerns. It's a great way to destroy a functioning democracy, and you can see the decay through the decline of wages, the disappearing middle class, and skyrocketing health care and basic needs costs. It really is stupefying to watch people protest against their own interests, demanding that Blue Cross be allowed to rip them off while they suffer through treatable diseases since they have "preexisting conditions." Demanding that private contractors receive billions of dollars to perform the same jobs that soldiers are capable of for a tenth of the price, and then protest "government" education which represents a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
Stupefying and deeply depressing.
I said "make many of them" electrics. Most of them will be hybrids by 2012 anyway.
Furthermore, Tesla motors has already stated that they can deliver a sedan with a 200 mile range for $60,000. To put that cost in perspective, you could build the 250 million dollar factory and 45,000 electric sedans for less than a weeks expense in Iraq. And the DoE has already said that there is enough spare electricity at night to provide charging up 70% of the energy used by light trucks and vehicles, especially on the east coast.
It's really a pity that you can't envision anything but apathy. The solutions are here; America just needs to rethink how it spends it's resources.
Are you saying that someone who is able to get in and out of a cab is unlikely to be able to ride a bicycle?
That idea is dumb even as a troll.
First, make many of them electric. Two hundred mile range vehicles are possible today, and according to this, there are 800 million miles driven each year by 13,000 taxis, which is 170 miles, according to my calculator and my brain. Beware: my brain is currently on pain meds from dental work. Charge all the unused electrical capacity of the grid at night to local Taxi stations, install some flywheel charging systems or a simple battery swapping system, and it will help us develop the next generation of electric vehicle infrastructure.
Next, equip all taxis with good GPS. Put a screen in the back so the passenger knows they're not being taken the long way or the wrong way. Use this data to calculate traffic and anticipate passenger needs based on events, weather, holidays, etc. Allow cabbies to see each other on the GPS, so they know if they are crowding certain areas unwittingly. Allow people to log into a website to see real time anonymized traffic flow information.
Give out decent prize money for Smartphone apps that become public domain. Allow a person to stand at a street corner and hail a cab by pressing a button, or request a timed pickup with a non-refundable deposit charged to their credit card.
And finally, make all cabs bike friendly, with a quick and secure way to attach two bikes to each one. This will allow those in a hurry to bike to work, catch a cab to a movie, and then bike home.
except it's the wrong people that are targeted to be held in check.
So your example was?
Government officials who set up policies profitable for those, who have funds to buy off these officials, these are the people who destroy capitalism every time.
So for capitalism to survive, you have to destroy government? That sounds like something familiar...
Keep the government officials in check - if one is bribed and it is discovered, shoot him/her in the head. That will help society much more than anything else.
King Abdullah, is that you? How are the Bushes doing? How's life in Saudi Arabia? Still beheading people according to ancient custom, and preventing non-Muslims from testifying in court? Yeah, gotta keep women off of public roads! You're a riot!
So, are you still manufacturing terrorists with your barbaric ways of life, suppression of Shiite Muslims, torture, and persecution of anti-monarchal political forces, with the the financial and military support of the West? Oh, my bad. I keep forgetting to not mention that. Anyway, enjoy our continued support, from one democracy (wink wink) to another!
- and he should, government is the culprit of these problems in the first place.
O RLY?
- exactly. Only it is the regulation that is supposed to be applied to the government officials in the first place that is too relaxed... If a government official is found accepting bribes, pushing any corporate propaganda ahead of the society who have elected him, this official must be dismissed and criminal charges must be applied (I personally would prefer capital punishment for more serious offenses at this level, like allowing private interests to manipulate the society by setting up private systems like the federal reserve, that undermines the currency and economy of the country to benefit the large monopolies.)
Ahh. Chinese style democracy, eh? I'm not sure too many people will get on board with that.
- if government officials were shot for getting in bed with private money and destroying economy of the country and their work was undone (for example federal reserve shut down) then this entire economic fiasco could have been avoided.
Real estate bubbles happened before fiat money was introduced in the United States. Like the Panic of 1837. A gold standard has not always helped, in fact, the nation's first panic was exacerbated when precious metal shipments were halted from central and south America to Europe, causing them to hoard the monetary supply.
if banks were not regulated by corrupt government for their own profit/insured against moral hazard/money wasn't lent to them at costs much less than the market costs, they would always be requiring real collateral before loaning any money to anyone.
This assumes that the bank itself doesn't become corrupt. Let me take a wild swing and say without regulation, banks become corrupt or victims of booms and busts. This guy claims (in 1993) that you don't need a regulated banking system. But I got to his second point and figured that he was full of shit, because he stated that
How was stability possible in banking systems with neither deposit guarantees (nothing like FDIC insurance) nor a government lender of last resort (nothing like the Federal Reserve)? Depositors were more careful in choosing banks, and banks correspondingly... had to be more careful in choosing their asset portfolios than banks are today in the presence of deposit guarantees and a lender of last resort. Banks did sometimes fail. But bank failures were almost never contagious, or prone to spread to sound banks...
(Emphasis mine.) Which causes me to ask why there were constant bank panics in the 19th century, and relatively few after the FDIC was created.
If banks weren't supported in such a way by government, banking wouldn't exist as it does today. Modern economies require massive state sectors to balance out the problems inherent with the market. I can't think of a single bank that has existed without state support in the post industrial world, and I don't think that's just a coincidence.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government accountability first.
The problem is greed of-course, but the reason for economic disaster is lack of government enforcement of corporate accountability first.
Fixed that for ya.
Have you forgotten?
NEVER FORGET!
Lack of accountability is when CEO can destroy a company in the search for short term gains. Remove the short sightedness from performance charts and that will fix a great many of the problems.
And who's going to do that? Companies are just going to voluntarily change their ways for the better? Last I checked, they have to be taken kicking and screaming into things as simple as installing seat belts, not working children to death in sweatshops, and locking doors from the outside to prevent their employees from taking too many breaks. So, you're either proposing to form new regulation, which I doubt from your comments, or you're proposing to ask nicely.
This is nothing more than businesses looking at how to get around government in more and more complex ways. Every government regulation is simply another brick in the great economic firewall.
Then why are Canada's banks solvent and the most regulated? Do you consider it a coincidence, or is this dogged adherence to your own ideology just the view you like from your hole in the sand?
But there is nothing we can do to stop assholes from being assholes...
That's ridiculous. If an asshole is ripping elderly people off through some loophole in some law, you plug the loophole, and bring the guy to justice.
The problem with America is that moral legislation turns a blind eye when it comes to financial exploitation. No one would argue that stealing someone's wallet is a crime, but if you're a bank you can slap on hidden fees $30 at a time, and the same person will say, "You should have read the fine print on page 27."
Now, I don't advocate any super complicated algorithm to arrive at an allowable bank fee for a minority between the ages of 30 and 45 who lives in rural Oklahoma. What I want is a standard page that every bank is required to give to an applicant, which lists in very clear language what the fees are. There's a similar law in place for credit cards, but it's not enforced very well. I want to be able to look up the factory where my tennis shoes were made to see if it's filled by teenagers who are regularly beaten, or well paid adults with health benefits. I want to know if the wheat for the bread I buy at the grocery store was farmed in an area that contributes to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
For the most part, I can find these things out by choosing what companies I buy from. But I'm a single guy with no children - I'm not going to expect the same time commitment from someone who doesn't even have time to see his kids as much as he wants.
You see, for a market to work the consumer has to be able to make informed decisions. Informed decisions can only be made when the product is labeled accurately, when contracts are simple to understand and the rules are enforced when broken. Transparency can only be achieved through regulation which should be enforced by the government. In my opinion, there is no way around this process. Private standards bodies are not accountable to democratic action, and thus completely controlled by the powerful. Companies will not police themselves - they are designed by law to do everything in their power to turn a profit, regardless of who they run over in the process.
Yes, it requires a politically active populace to keep government relatively free of corruption. But having a somewhat corrupt government is far better than letting greed go unchecked in a society, and letting the powerful do as they wish with no consequences. That is, if you want to keep the society intact for very long.
When uncertainty appears in markets, money dries up. When money dries up, businesses cut back, and when those cutbacks are irrational, it causes more economic loss through unemployment, deepening the spiral.
The problem is that today's market is not self aware. It doesn't care about you or me, or if the world is turned into a toxic wasteland. It just cares about short term profit. Let's say that according to some economic theory, unemployment would have to go up to 40% in order for the prices to fall where they "should" be. What kind of damage will be caused by that much unemployment? Would our political system survive that kind of drop? Those are the questions that I don't want answered by a real world experiment.
Having the government give out contracts for infrastructure improvements that provide employment are the best option. The society as a whole benefits from infrastructure improvement and employment, and it keeps money circulating so the bottom doesn't fall out.
There are of course people who bitch and moan about billions of dollars spent on education, but they're usually the ones who don't seem to care about any sort of ceiling on military spending. I favor a continuation of the Keynesian economics that have kept America at the top of the economic ladder, but through investments that are about education and infrastructure rather than war.
I agree with some ideas that you have, but you seem to suffer from anti-governmental propaganda.
No one seems to understand that this huge bust we're in is fully due to a relaxation of government regulation. If there was a simple rule that said companies had to provide transparency to these credit default swaps, or face legal consequences for lying about it, it could have been avoided. If the rules separating banks, insurance companies, and investment banks hadn't been repealed, this would be a much smaller problem. If mortgages still had to be held by the originating bank, there would be no problem.
But this isn't surprising, it's based on simple market principle. Capital investments flooded into financial markets because there are no rules against high interest rates, and the return for building a factory is nothing compared to that of selling a mortgage to an unqualified lender, and then selling that debt to someone else. No one is building anything real because they are addicted to 5-10% yearly returns after the first year they invested. World financial markets might as well be a trillion dollar casino.
A lack of a accountability is the real problem. Accountability only comes into play when there are easy to understand rules, and consistent punishment for breaking them. So, I agree with you on the simplification of tax code, and patent reform.
As for a lack of Capital gains taxes, I'm not so sure. I'd get on board with a carrot and stick program (must exist entirely in the US, must have a certain amount of company benefits, etc), but I doubt it could be written without any loopholes.
Lawyer reform - this one is a bit trickier. I think the "loser pays" option is a good idea, with one exception: a person can apply for exemption to this rule by a jury, with the provision that any punitive damages will not go to the prosecution. This would allow justice to be served to larger corporations who have legal fees that could drown a small country.
But, as one of those "progressives" I don't think removing taxes works, because we've tried that already. How about removing incentives for ripping people off, and implementing tested and successful financial regulations that create a better atmosphere for long term investment? Take a look at the Canadian banking system. Proof that regulations work, and the market isn't always right.