I was also arguing that the US was a collapsing empire, not a expansionist one. This also imply evermore autonomy of the strongest states and challenge to be the new in power.
Can't help replying to yourself since slashdot hasn't joined the 21st century with an Edit button.
As to the point at hand, to be an empire you must by definition conqueror. Be it by force of arms or other means. What country has the US conquered? Sure, post WWII the US maintained bases in both Germany and Japan. However, in both cases those bases were for the security of the host country as much as for our own interests and would hardly qualify as an occupying force or garrison.
I suppose my main complaint with this line of logic is that had the US wanted to truly conqueror countries, directly after WWII especially, it could have and the world could have done exactly nothing about it.
That said, with advances in technology and the reduction of Cold War threats, I would like to see a draw down of overseas bases operated by the US. As a fiscal issue if nothing else. Though, what will break the bank won't be the military anyway.
This is what the Roman empire, and more recently the British empire did. They maintain "small bases" inside their protectorates to defend their interests in those countries. Like i said in a earlyer reply; Why it is so hard to belive that the British empire was replaced by the US empire?
Because the US doesn't control those countries? By your logic, all those countries should at best have puppet governments or more likely be fully under US control. They aren't, so your point is broken. Bases don't equal control, or did you miss it when Germany (as an example) told the US to pound sand for operations in Iraq?
It was. See all the foreign military base for proof. It is true that currently, the USA is no a expansionist empire. Apogee was reach by the end of the 20th century, that empire is now in its collapse stage.
Really? That list is your argument? Because, to me it looks like a list of mainly either small bases or bases put in place to keep the Soviet's, and pals, from knocking off our allies. Oddly, all those countries hosting those bases seem to have fully functional non-puppet governments. So, empire? I think not.
Really? I look at what I do in my spare time, I am damn sure not getting paid to do it, and I do it anyway. For example, tonight I tried (and failed) to fit a snowplow onto my bike (it's a cargo bike, there's an easy fitting in the back). Nobody's paying me. The light on my bicycle, my design, nobody paid me (you can't buy one like it, either). Friends tell me I should try to sell it, but who has the time, I have a job, too.
I want a lot more out of life than just food.
Note, also, that there is a huge difference between guaranteed minimum income, and the old Russian or Chinese systems. If the basic system is market driven, you'll get market behavior, even though people don't need to work for all of their money. If it's command-and-control with silly-ass state ownership of the means of production, we tried that experiment, it sucked. But what is proposed, is not what you claim it is, nor do we know that it inevitably leads to that, either.
You want your entire argument and idea just beat to dirt? Go to any random "ghetto" and find the welfare moms with X number of kids who have never worked a day in their lives. Yeah, guarantee everyone a "basic" income and two things will happen. The first is that large numbers of people will say "screw it" and stay home. The second is that the definition of "basic" will forever creep upwards as the twin forces of people's demands and politicians wanting votes push it that way.
The fact that you have a hobby that you enjoy proves exactly nothing.
You mean, like, an old school Rep? The kind you had before the religious loonies took over?
Yeah, pretty much that. I'd be very happy if the Repubs would give the "Religious Right" a boot in the ass and tell them to go form their own party. Most of their ideals are not compatible with the true Republican platform.
Unfortunately, just that last decade, pretty much all of Europe moved to the right because of how successful the economy in the US was and of course we wanted some of that sweet nectar. Now, well, we got it...
They only kinda sorta moved to the right. At best they moved "right" for Europe, which still puts them generally far left of the US.
I'm still waiting for someone to come along who is "left wing" socially, and "right wing" fiscally. That would be nice. Maximum real liberty (not that so called liberals really want liberty anyway) combined with maximum amounts of economic freedom. Doesn't sound too bad to me. What do you think?
I can assure you, over here in Western Europe, we are all equally broke.
Except for maybe Germany, but everyone else is completely and fully broke. They just keep telling money lenders that they will be able to pay their dues, but the new credit taken out every year is just enough to pay interest on the loans already on the books.
Europe's key mistakes are, in my largely conservative viewpoint:
- not deciding between the two ultimate leftist utopias, completely open borders and completely sufficient welfare state,
- not recognizing that both are absolutely mutually exclusive lest a few remaining taxpayers in Europe pay welfare to the entire planet
- not acknowledging that politics are nothing without financing
- overly focusing on properly distributing state money, but largely disrespecting how to increase state income (simply increasing this or that tax rate until everyone is strangled by them doesn't really count)
- steadily reducing individual discomfort for bad luck and bad decisions AND steadily reducing individual profit from luck and good decisions
- not daring to decide between bad luck (eg. 1 year unemployed) and bad decisions (eg. 10 years unemployed) and act accordingly
Any of these facts are a suicide pact for state finances. As no Western European country except maybe Switzerland and Norway are even daring to name one of these as potentially problematic to say the least, I fully expect all of them making the news sooner or later.
With Germany bailing them out of course, then they waste some more, get bailed out and rinse, repeat until German bonds and credit rating are as wasted as Greece's. Then Germany raises their taxes, pension ages and the cycle continues once a again. Redistribution of wealth will never stop on this continent and if all Hell breaks loose, it is of course blamed on Capitalism.
Squandering more funds in a year than the previous generation earned in a lifetime doesn't sound like an accomplishment to me, but that's why I'm conservative. Financially, first and foremost. Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes.
And there it is, right there. I quoted all of it but the real money line is this: "Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes."
When all is said, either a person believes that what they earn and create is theirs to do with as they please, or they believe that theft can be made honorable and just by calling it "tax". I won't say that all taxes are true theft. Some things do need to be paid for. Yet, when the true purpose of the "tax" is nothing more than to take my wealth, which represents my time and very life, and give it to another with neither my consent nor control it is theft and calling it "tax" does not change it.
A couple European countries haven't done so well, they're the ones in the news. Greek and Irish bailouts don't change the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. I also encourage you to look at little closer to home at Canada. In many ways we're farther left than Europe, and not so coincidentally have a very stable financial sector (Europe deregulated under US pressure, Canada didn't).
Remember, the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US. Globally there's more success stories than failures, and the US economy isn't looking so great these days.
There's also more than just the economy. I'd still take living in Ireland over living in the US. Any country where more than 5% of people think Sarah Palin is anything but a complete moron scares me.
Whereas Canada is a nice place and all, it doesn't change the point any. It also doesn't prove that Socialism, that is what we're talking about here isn't it, works in the long run. Further, the economic problems that Europe is having may or may not be caused by financial deregulation, I tend to think they aren't, but financial deregulation doesn't bankrupt governments by itself. Spending far more money than you have does. So, if a country wants to try for a socialist utopia you just have to come to grips with the idea that you'll have to hand over most of your money and such to the State. When that isn't even enough, what then?
I don't know enough about Palin to honestly say whether she's a moron or not. I do know she says some pretty odd things from time to time and that I honestly wish she'd say less of them. I like her more than Obama, but that's slight praise really.
You're right, the US economy isn't looking too great these days. So the question is, how did we get here? Sure, it started with the financial sector and some of that silliness. However, they aren't talking about government debt and deficits that run into numbers that are hard to even imagine for nothing.
You speak of the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. What accomplishments are they to be so proud of? "Free" healthcare paid for by stealing from everyone else? A tax rate that is crushing? I mean really, not to say they're the worst place on earth, but what are they to be so proud of?
Final note. Simply because the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US doesn't make it correct or the best way. It merely means they all got suckered into the same bit of smoke and mirrors. Sadly, the disease infected us here too and that is a good part of the reason we're having these issues now and will have worse ones to come.
China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.
...
Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked....
That would presume competence on the part of the U.S. Government and military, would it not? Our attention is focused on backing out of Iraq with as little damage to ourselves as we can manage, fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly with the work "phoned in" from some Predator base in Nevada, and maybe the occasional bunch of high CIA officers flying out to some remote base to give a group hug to a guy who swears he can deliver the straight dope on A.Q.'s number 2, and who is to prissy to be searched.
So, you were saying...?
So.. never been in the military, huh? I'm sure the guys sitting in some FOB on top of some god forsaken Afghan mountain or such will be happy to know that it is mostly "phoned in". This was moderated Insightful? What insight was in this?
All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests.
In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy.
Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
US != Europe
Just because Democrats aren't "socialist" or "left-wing" by European standards doesn't mean they aren't by US standards, and given the frame of reference it seems odd to apply outside standards and then say that neither party is "left-wing" simply because they aren't left wing as defined by an outside group. Shall we say that European style right wing people aren't really right wing because people are truly right wing?
That being said, you are correct in that both parties are in favor of entrenched interests and neither have much real interest in anything else. I still want to know where the "leave me alone" party is.
The libertarian college student is smoking pot and measuring his dick with a ruler.
The last three US presidents were recreational drug users at college. So, taking this into account, can we infer from your comment that the next president will be a libertarian?
Really? At least under Obama things are moving in the right direction. The economy is picking up, albeit slowly, we're retreating from wars that shouldn't have been started in the first place, civil rights are for the most part being restored and there's been actual focus on real world problems.
Sure he's not perfect, but at least he's trying to get it right. He'd be doing a lot better at this point if the Republicans were actually trying to contribute rather than find ridiculous excuses to shoot down every possible piece of legislation.
Really to your really? Precisely how are things moving in the right direction due to Obama's direct actions? Hell, even indirect actions. Would it be the earth shattering debt? Or perhaps the greatest deficits in US history? Oh, I know, it's the zillions of jobs and the health care bill that most people didn't want. That's what it is, right?
Trying to get it right counts for exactly nothing. Bare in mind that I didn't honestly want McCain and neither do I think the vast majority of so-called Republicans are hot stuff either. With that said, do you really see the direction we're heading as being a vast improvement in the way things were before?
Getting more specific, which civil rights do you see as having been restored? Was PATRIOT repealed? DADT? Warrantless wiretaps? Seriously, anything? The only civil rights that I'm aware of that have been restored or improved while he was President as Second Amendment rights. He damned sure wasn't in favor of that and I'm sure the only reason the administration didn't fight harder against that was the fact that they would have lost, and it would have made the upcoming elections more of a disaster for them than it already will be.
So, no civil rights have been restored, the economy picking up is a sham based only on after effects of dumping billions of dollars into it (running the debt even higher), the withdrawing from the wars that you trumpet was only possible because of strategies that Bush put in place and Obama thought were a terrible idea, and the health bill is a travesty that no one wants, no one knows how to pay for, and will end up being a super economic drag on the economy as the costs balloon to levels that dwarf medicaid/medicare.
Furthermore Obama agreed with that view: he didn't think he'd didn't deserved to be in the compan" of past prize winners, didn't think it was recognition of his own accomplishments and didn't think the award was about his administration. All statements in his speech. Bloody good speech though.
Perhaps. However, he still took the award home, did he not? Bloody good speech? Of course, it is his primary skill.:)
After last year's embarrassing decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize for Wishful Thinking and Teleprompter Reading, it's good to see them give the prize to someone who actually deserves recognition again.
-jcr
Why the hell is this moderated as Troll? That's exactly what they did last year, unless someone wants to come along and explain what Obama did in 12 days or so to earn the prize. Hell, I'll give you a freebie and let you count the last two years, too. Can anyone justify why Obama won the Noble Peace Prize? Anyone?
Nobel prizes has been a hot news item and most major news sites in China had extensive coverage. Chinese care about it very much. Today, *all* coverages about *any* Nobel prize have been removed from these sites. Interestingly that's how many Chinese knew Liu got the Peace Prize.
You won't find any discussion about it on Chinese sites, sure. But it's all over overseas Chinese forums. I haven't seen any single event being discussed so extensively.
And please don't pretend to be a Chinese expert. We (Chinese) know your kind, and we know why you live in China. We despise you.
I'm curious... what kind is that and why do they live there?
And of course, none of that answers the question: Just because I am "rich", why does that automatically mean I should be soaked to provide government benefit/program X? Why is it that if the government takes from "me" and gives to others, under threat of force, that is okay. However, if you the individual did the same thing, or as some group that isn't the government, that is theft? Why?
Not exactly. Reading what I said carefully you'll note I specifically called out "under threat of force". I have no problem with sharing or giving to charity. These are both great and noble things. However, when anyone comes to my door, be they in a group or individually, and demands I give them something or else they'll take away my freedom and if I resist I'll be shot, how is that not wrong?
The central question is: Can the group, however they are defined, do something that the individual would be prosecuted for as a crime? If so, how far does that go?
Living in a society we all recognize that there are limits to our freedoms and costs to maintain various services. Is there no limit to the costs that some of the people should bear on behalf of others? Is it fair to take, again this is by force, 40% of what some people earn? 50? 60? Where should it end? Is there a limit?
We can presume the moral question raised above does not apply so long as the people paying the taxes and such do not object, but what if they do? I don't mean just one or two people, but large numbers of people say "No More". Does the majority, who by definition don't have as much as them, have the right to simply vote to take away what the minority earned and give it to themselves? If so, where does that end?
Sorry if I rambled a bit there. It isn't a simple set of questions to me.
why don't you understand how you are being used by the rich moneyed classes and corporate interests?
if you ARE rich and moneyed or a corporate interest, congratulations on your successful manipulation of your larger herd of sheep
Maybe I just believe that what I earn is mine and no one else should be able to say what I do and don't get to do with it and that just because a government is instituted doesn't automatically give it free and virtually unlimited access to the money I earn with my labor. Or are you in favor of state sponsored slavery? I presume you're not, so why would you be presumably in favor of the government being able to institute whatever program they like and make everyone else pay for it?
If making more money than the vast majority of Americans doesn't make you rich, what IS your standard?
Rich == Independently wealthy and no longer relying on "income" as most people use the term to survive and/or to have a life.
To define it by some arbitrary income number, or even asset number, is rather silly. Even saying that person Foo has income higher than %insert arbitrary large percentage% and is therefore "rich" is silly. What happens when inflation pushes enough people over the random number? Or other people's wages fall and thus the percentages shift?
And of course, none of that answers the question: Just because I am "rich", why does that automatically mean I should be soaked to provide government benefit/program X? Why is it that if the government takes from "me" and gives to others, under threat of force, that is okay. However, if you the individual did the same thing, or as some group that isn't the government, that is theft? Why?
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
Hmmm... As I reply to this it's marked as "Score 5, Insightful". However, there is nothing Insightful about it. I suppose it's insightful if you're only looking at the world through the lens of a "extreme left wing" set of glasses. Concepts like "left wing" and "right wing" are by definition relative. You can't say something like "meaningful metric" without qualifying it in someway. By your sig I'm guessing "meaningful metric" is defined as European Socialism == Moderate.
If that is the case, then clearly teaching people that Free Enterprise is good and is the basis for the economic prosperity that people in this country have experienced would be a terrible thing. We must obviously teach children that only the State knows what's best for them and that they really should only work for the common good.
Though, with that said, I do agree that the idea of teaching creationism in science class is appalling.
If this comment doesn't entirely make sense or I've gotten you wrong, it's 0215 in the morning...
The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.
Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".
If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook privacy settings, etc, etc) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
We read complaints here all the time about how stupid our legislators are for making these pedophile laws that end up jailing horny teenagers and then you want to tell me that that Congress should be moving full speed ahead on everything! I don't think so!
Though I generally agree with you , I still have to ask you to please pick up your Fail at the door. The Senate wasn't supposed to be this way because the Senate wasn't supposed to have jack and/or shit to do with what the "people" want. It was supposed to fulfill two purposes, one of which you eluded to. It was supposed to temper the more "issue of the moment" driven House, which does directly represent the people. Additionally, it was supposed to represent what the States in the Union wanted. That's why Senators were elected by the state legislators in the first place. Thanks to the dreadful Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate is now just the "House of Reps on Crack, with six year terms!"
If you want a return to a government with some kind of sanity, nuke the 17th amendment and put things back the way they were before. All those unfunded and poorly thought out proposals that the States have been grumbling about for years would never have been pushed through a Senate that was responsive to the will of the various States. The Federal government wouldn't be anywhere near as large and powerful as it is either, nor would the States be on the verge of being reduced to nothing more than lines on a map.
Fund managers who literally do nothing but piss away money are making $1,000 an hour, and the people who educate our children are making less than $20 an hour. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
Yes. And further, consider how Wall Street has attracted the best and the brightest of all of our people, math PhD's, engineers, those with an excellent ability to see the broad patterns in society. Our most brilliant citizens are pulled into Wall Street as "quants" or traders or corporate lawyers, and are often paid six and seven figure remuneration per year. And to do what? To game the system in favor of their wealthy masters at the expense of the middle classes. Do they create wealth, or are they merely helping to transfer it from the hands of the many to the hands of the few who can afford their services. Wall Street quants were supposed to make recessions a thing of the past. We all know how that turned out.
Meanwhile fields like science, engineering and medicine lose the most brilliant individuals. Citizens who would formerly have become professors, providing independent analysis of society's problems instead become selfish multimillionaires, who then retire at 40 to a life unproductive leisure. Think of what these brilliant people could have done if their abilities were harnessed in the right fields and with the right motivation. Think of the problems that could have been solved. Think of the knowledge that could have been gained. Think of the lives that could be saved by new medical discoveries. Think of the new technologies that could have been developed for the common good. Wall Street's co-opting of so many of the geniuses in our society will have profound consequences for our civilization. I can only hope that we can undo much of the damage been done by this corruption.
Think of the "slavery" that could be if only we "harnessed" those minds and didn't let them do such trivial things like "what they want". Who the hell are they anyway? Acting like free people and all. What selfish bastards they are.....
Wealth is not a zero sum game that must be taken from one to be given to another. Markets create wealth, only governments transfer it in the manner you speak of.
Since when is someone who makes less than average a freeloader?
They aren't. However, if they are making anything at all they aren't freeloaders, no? Even if they are getting assistance. Assistance wouldn't normally be thought of as a handout and most people in that situation would probably sooner not need the assistance in the first place, yes?
What makes you think that the people who are in business for themselves are better at fixing things than those who are in government? Judging from healthcare and various businesses, people are incompetent and inefficient all over the place.
As for your dig about government handouts, I find it entertaining that this generally comes from people who are making average or above money.
You find that entertaining that the productive members of society don't particularly enjoy supporting the freeloading parts? Why would that be surprising?
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to say.. sorry for replying to myself.
I was also arguing that the US was a collapsing empire, not a expansionist one. This also imply evermore autonomy of the strongest states and challenge to be the new in power.
Can't help replying to yourself since slashdot hasn't joined the 21st century with an Edit button.
As to the point at hand, to be an empire you must by definition conqueror. Be it by force of arms or other means. What country has the US conquered? Sure, post WWII the US maintained bases in both Germany and Japan. However, in both cases those bases were for the security of the host country as much as for our own interests and would hardly qualify as an occupying force or garrison.
I suppose my main complaint with this line of logic is that had the US wanted to truly conqueror countries, directly after WWII especially, it could have and the world could have done exactly nothing about it.
That said, with advances in technology and the reduction of Cold War threats, I would like to see a draw down of overseas bases operated by the US. As a fiscal issue if nothing else. Though, what will break the bank won't be the military anyway.
This is what the Roman empire, and more recently the British empire did. They maintain "small bases" inside their protectorates to defend their interests in those countries. Like i said in a earlyer reply; Why it is so hard to belive that the British empire was replaced by the US empire?
Because the US doesn't control those countries? By your logic, all those countries should at best have puppet governments or more likely be fully under US control. They aren't, so your point is broken. Bases don't equal control, or did you miss it when Germany (as an example) told the US to pound sand for operations in Iraq?
America isn't actual an expansionist empire.
It was. See all the foreign military base for proof. It is true that currently, the USA is no a expansionist empire. Apogee was reach by the end of the 20th century, that empire is now in its collapse stage.
Really? That list is your argument? Because, to me it looks like a list of mainly either small bases or bases put in place to keep the Soviet's, and pals, from knocking off our allies. Oddly, all those countries hosting those bases seem to have fully functional non-puppet governments. So, empire? I think not.
Really? I look at what I do in my spare time, I am damn sure not getting paid to do it, and I do it anyway. For example, tonight I tried (and failed) to fit a snowplow onto my bike (it's a cargo bike, there's an easy fitting in the back). Nobody's paying me. The light on my bicycle, my design, nobody paid me (you can't buy one like it, either). Friends tell me I should try to sell it, but who has the time, I have a job, too. I want a lot more out of life than just food. Note, also, that there is a huge difference between guaranteed minimum income, and the old Russian or Chinese systems. If the basic system is market driven, you'll get market behavior, even though people don't need to work for all of their money. If it's command-and-control with silly-ass state ownership of the means of production, we tried that experiment, it sucked. But what is proposed, is not what you claim it is, nor do we know that it inevitably leads to that, either.
You want your entire argument and idea just beat to dirt? Go to any random "ghetto" and find the welfare moms with X number of kids who have never worked a day in their lives. Yeah, guarantee everyone a "basic" income and two things will happen. The first is that large numbers of people will say "screw it" and stay home. The second is that the definition of "basic" will forever creep upwards as the twin forces of people's demands and politicians wanting votes push it that way.
The fact that you have a hobby that you enjoy proves exactly nothing.
You mean, like, an old school Rep? The kind you had before the religious loonies took over?
Yeah, pretty much that. I'd be very happy if the Repubs would give the "Religious Right" a boot in the ass and tell them to go form their own party. Most of their ideals are not compatible with the true Republican platform.
Unfortunately, just that last decade, pretty much all of Europe moved to the right because of how successful the economy in the US was and of course we wanted some of that sweet nectar. Now, well, we got it...
They only kinda sorta moved to the right. At best they moved "right" for Europe, which still puts them generally far left of the US.
I'm still waiting for someone to come along who is "left wing" socially, and "right wing" fiscally. That would be nice. Maximum real liberty (not that so called liberals really want liberty anyway) combined with maximum amounts of economic freedom. Doesn't sound too bad to me. What do you think?
I can assure you, over here in Western Europe, we are all equally broke.
Except for maybe Germany, but everyone else is completely and fully broke. They just keep telling money lenders that they will be able to pay their dues, but the new credit taken out every year is just enough to pay interest on the loans already on the books.
Europe's key mistakes are, in my largely conservative viewpoint: - not deciding between the two ultimate leftist utopias, completely open borders and completely sufficient welfare state, - not recognizing that both are absolutely mutually exclusive lest a few remaining taxpayers in Europe pay welfare to the entire planet - not acknowledging that politics are nothing without financing - overly focusing on properly distributing state money, but largely disrespecting how to increase state income (simply increasing this or that tax rate until everyone is strangled by them doesn't really count) - steadily reducing individual discomfort for bad luck and bad decisions AND steadily reducing individual profit from luck and good decisions - not daring to decide between bad luck (eg. 1 year unemployed) and bad decisions (eg. 10 years unemployed) and act accordingly
Any of these facts are a suicide pact for state finances. As no Western European country except maybe Switzerland and Norway are even daring to name one of these as potentially problematic to say the least, I fully expect all of them making the news sooner or later.
With Germany bailing them out of course, then they waste some more, get bailed out and rinse, repeat until German bonds and credit rating are as wasted as Greece's. Then Germany raises their taxes, pension ages and the cycle continues once a again. Redistribution of wealth will never stop on this continent and if all Hell breaks loose, it is of course blamed on Capitalism.
Squandering more funds in a year than the previous generation earned in a lifetime doesn't sound like an accomplishment to me, but that's why I'm conservative. Financially, first and foremost. Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes.
And there it is, right there. I quoted all of it but the real money line is this: "Or it could be that I'm German and hate working full-time until I'm 70 while losing half my income in taxes."
When all is said, either a person believes that what they earn and create is theirs to do with as they please, or they believe that theft can be made honorable and just by calling it "tax". I won't say that all taxes are true theft. Some things do need to be paid for. Yet, when the true purpose of the "tax" is nothing more than to take my wealth, which represents my time and very life, and give it to another with neither my consent nor control it is theft and calling it "tax" does not change it.
A couple European countries haven't done so well, they're the ones in the news. Greek and Irish bailouts don't change the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. I also encourage you to look at little closer to home at Canada. In many ways we're farther left than Europe, and not so coincidentally have a very stable financial sector (Europe deregulated under US pressure, Canada didn't).
Remember, the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US. Globally there's more success stories than failures, and the US economy isn't looking so great these days.
There's also more than just the economy. I'd still take living in Ireland over living in the US. Any country where more than 5% of people think Sarah Palin is anything but a complete moron scares me.
Whereas Canada is a nice place and all, it doesn't change the point any. It also doesn't prove that Socialism, that is what we're talking about here isn't it, works in the long run. Further, the economic problems that Europe is having may or may not be caused by financial deregulation, I tend to think they aren't, but financial deregulation doesn't bankrupt governments by itself. Spending far more money than you have does. So, if a country wants to try for a socialist utopia you just have to come to grips with the idea that you'll have to hand over most of your money and such to the State. When that isn't even enough, what then?
I don't know enough about Palin to honestly say whether she's a moron or not. I do know she says some pretty odd things from time to time and that I honestly wish she'd say less of them. I like her more than Obama, but that's slight praise really.
You're right, the US economy isn't looking too great these days. So the question is, how did we get here? Sure, it started with the financial sector and some of that silliness. However, they aren't talking about government debt and deficits that run into numbers that are hard to even imagine for nothing.
You speak of the accomplishments of the rest of the continent. What accomplishments are they to be so proud of? "Free" healthcare paid for by stealing from everyone else? A tax rate that is crushing? I mean really, not to say they're the worst place on earth, but what are they to be so proud of?
Final note. Simply because the rest of the developed world is politically left of the US doesn't make it correct or the best way. It merely means they all got suckered into the same bit of smoke and mirrors. Sadly, the disease infected us here too and that is a good part of the reason we're having these issues now and will have worse ones to come.
Speaking as a mostly leftist, I would rather see Obama on the republican nomination, so that maybe we can get a real left candidate.
Yeah.. because pushing this country left has worked out soooooo well....
How are all those left wing, compared to the US, economies and governments in Europe doing these days? Bailout what?
China may be bold, but sub launching a missile within a few miles of major US cities and military installations is a quick way to nuclear annihilation.
...
Chinese sub simply popping up in US coastal waters would likely involve it being attacked. ...
That would presume competence on the part of the U.S. Government and military, would it not? Our attention is focused on backing out of Iraq with as little damage to ourselves as we can manage, fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan, mostly with the work "phoned in" from some Predator base in Nevada, and maybe the occasional bunch of high CIA officers flying out to some remote base to give a group hug to a guy who swears he can deliver the straight dope on A.Q.'s number 2, and who is to prissy to be searched.
So, you were saying...?
So.. never been in the military, huh? I'm sure the guys sitting in some FOB on top of some god forsaken Afghan mountain or such will be happy to know that it is mostly "phoned in". This was moderated Insightful? What insight was in this?
All corporations lean to the right. The article is a troll piece, based on the misinformed notion that the Democrat party is "left wing" as opposed to "right of center." Both Democrats and Republicans have been receiving enormous corporate campaign contributions for the past 4 decades, and unsurprisingly, both parties have drifted further to the right. The Republicans are just more honest about being right wing; the Democrats continue to present a public face that says, "Hey, we're the left wing! Really, we swear!" I would guess that this is part of an effort to ensure that the actual left wing parties in America never get enough votes to make a difference. The mainstream media -- big corporate contributors to the Democrat party -- work to further the "Democrats are the left wing" image as well, probably because the real left wing parties might not be as friendly toward business interests. In case you have any doubt, remember that it was a Democrat president who signed the DMCA into law, it is Democrats who are pushing for ever stronger copyrights, and that like the Republicans, Democrats continue to push forward an agenda of "corporate interests first," and continue to try to spread that agenda to other countries. As for the media, well, when a left wing group wanted to pay NBC to run an advertisement that encouraged people to spend no money for just one day, as part of a general anti-corporation campaign, NBC refused to air the ad -- despite the fact that the group was willing to pay the same price as every other advertiser -- because the ad ran counter to US economic policy. Not that any of this should come as a surprise. After all, corporations exist for the purpose of realizing profits, so why would a corporation ever support a political party or movement that works against the system that has allowed corporations to become as big, powerful, and profitable as they are today?
US != Europe
Just because Democrats aren't "socialist" or "left-wing" by European standards doesn't mean they aren't by US standards, and given the frame of reference it seems odd to apply outside standards and then say that neither party is "left-wing" simply because they aren't left wing as defined by an outside group. Shall we say that European style right wing people aren't really right wing because people are truly right wing?
That being said, you are correct in that both parties are in favor of entrenched interests and neither have much real interest in anything else. I still want to know where the "leave me alone" party is.
The libertarian college student is smoking pot and measuring his dick with a ruler.
The last three US presidents were recreational drug users at college. So, taking this into account, can we infer from your comment that the next president will be a libertarian?
We can always hope, huh? :D
Really? At least under Obama things are moving in the right direction. The economy is picking up, albeit slowly, we're retreating from wars that shouldn't have been started in the first place, civil rights are for the most part being restored and there's been actual focus on real world problems. Sure he's not perfect, but at least he's trying to get it right. He'd be doing a lot better at this point if the Republicans were actually trying to contribute rather than find ridiculous excuses to shoot down every possible piece of legislation.
Really to your really? Precisely how are things moving in the right direction due to Obama's direct actions? Hell, even indirect actions. Would it be the earth shattering debt? Or perhaps the greatest deficits in US history? Oh, I know, it's the zillions of jobs and the health care bill that most people didn't want. That's what it is, right?
Trying to get it right counts for exactly nothing. Bare in mind that I didn't honestly want McCain and neither do I think the vast majority of so-called Republicans are hot stuff either. With that said, do you really see the direction we're heading as being a vast improvement in the way things were before?
Getting more specific, which civil rights do you see as having been restored? Was PATRIOT repealed? DADT? Warrantless wiretaps? Seriously, anything? The only civil rights that I'm aware of that have been restored or improved while he was President as Second Amendment rights. He damned sure wasn't in favor of that and I'm sure the only reason the administration didn't fight harder against that was the fact that they would have lost, and it would have made the upcoming elections more of a disaster for them than it already will be.
So, no civil rights have been restored, the economy picking up is a sham based only on after effects of dumping billions of dollars into it (running the debt even higher), the withdrawing from the wars that you trumpet was only possible because of strategies that Bush put in place and Obama thought were a terrible idea, and the health bill is a travesty that no one wants, no one knows how to pay for, and will end up being a super economic drag on the economy as the costs balloon to levels that dwarf medicaid/medicare.
You were saying?
Furthermore Obama agreed with that view: he didn't think he'd didn't deserved to be in the compan" of past prize winners, didn't think it was recognition of his own accomplishments and didn't think the award was about his administration. All statements in his speech. Bloody good speech though.
Perhaps. However, he still took the award home, did he not? Bloody good speech? Of course, it is his primary skill. :)
>Why the hell is this moderated as Troll?
Obama has a lot of fans, and sometimes they get mod points. Don't sweat it.
-jcr
True.. but it's annoying :)
After last year's embarrassing decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize for Wishful Thinking and Teleprompter Reading, it's good to see them give the prize to someone who actually deserves recognition again.
-jcr
Why the hell is this moderated as Troll? That's exactly what they did last year, unless someone wants to come along and explain what Obama did in 12 days or so to earn the prize. Hell, I'll give you a freebie and let you count the last two years, too. Can anyone justify why Obama won the Noble Peace Prize? Anyone?
I am a Chinese, and you are bullshitting.
Nobel prizes has been a hot news item and most major news sites in China had extensive coverage. Chinese care about it very much. Today, *all* coverages about *any* Nobel prize have been removed from these sites. Interestingly that's how many Chinese knew Liu got the Peace Prize.
You won't find any discussion about it on Chinese sites, sure. But it's all over overseas Chinese forums. I haven't seen any single event being discussed so extensively.
And please don't pretend to be a Chinese expert. We (Chinese) know your kind, and we know why you live in China. We despise you.
I'm curious... what kind is that and why do they live there?
And of course, none of that answers the question: Just because I am "rich", why does that automatically mean I should be soaked to provide government benefit/program X? Why is it that if the government takes from "me" and gives to others, under threat of force, that is okay. However, if you the individual did the same thing, or as some group that isn't the government, that is theft? Why?
Somehow this seems topical.
Not exactly. Reading what I said carefully you'll note I specifically called out "under threat of force". I have no problem with sharing or giving to charity. These are both great and noble things. However, when anyone comes to my door, be they in a group or individually, and demands I give them something or else they'll take away my freedom and if I resist I'll be shot, how is that not wrong?
The central question is: Can the group, however they are defined, do something that the individual would be prosecuted for as a crime? If so, how far does that go?
Living in a society we all recognize that there are limits to our freedoms and costs to maintain various services. Is there no limit to the costs that some of the people should bear on behalf of others? Is it fair to take, again this is by force, 40% of what some people earn? 50? 60? Where should it end? Is there a limit?
We can presume the moral question raised above does not apply so long as the people paying the taxes and such do not object, but what if they do? I don't mean just one or two people, but large numbers of people say "No More". Does the majority, who by definition don't have as much as them, have the right to simply vote to take away what the minority earned and give it to themselves? If so, where does that end?
Sorry if I rambled a bit there. It isn't a simple set of questions to me.
why don't you understand how you are being used by the rich moneyed classes and corporate interests?
if you ARE rich and moneyed or a corporate interest, congratulations on your successful manipulation of your larger herd of sheep
Maybe I just believe that what I earn is mine and no one else should be able to say what I do and don't get to do with it and that just because a government is instituted doesn't automatically give it free and virtually unlimited access to the money I earn with my labor. Or are you in favor of state sponsored slavery? I presume you're not, so why would you be presumably in favor of the government being able to institute whatever program they like and make everyone else pay for it?
If making more money than the vast majority of Americans doesn't make you rich, what IS your standard?
Rich == Independently wealthy and no longer relying on "income" as most people use the term to survive and/or to have a life.
To define it by some arbitrary income number, or even asset number, is rather silly. Even saying that person Foo has income higher than %insert arbitrary large percentage% and is therefore "rich" is silly. What happens when inflation pushes enough people over the random number? Or other people's wages fall and thus the percentages shift?
And of course, none of that answers the question: Just because I am "rich", why does that automatically mean I should be soaked to provide government benefit/program X? Why is it that if the government takes from "me" and gives to others, under threat of force, that is okay. However, if you the individual did the same thing, or as some group that isn't the government, that is theft? Why?
Except we don't really have two opposite forces, we have a right wing party and a far right wing party. So if you want things to stay in the middle you need to advocate the most "liberal" ideas possible, only then will you end up with something moderate. Sad, but true. What Republicans blast as far left liberal ideas are really quite moderate by any meaningful metric.
Hmmm... As I reply to this it's marked as "Score 5, Insightful". However, there is nothing Insightful about it. I suppose it's insightful if you're only looking at the world through the lens of a "extreme left wing" set of glasses. Concepts like "left wing" and "right wing" are by definition relative. You can't say something like "meaningful metric" without qualifying it in someway. By your sig I'm guessing "meaningful metric" is defined as European Socialism == Moderate.
If that is the case, then clearly teaching people that Free Enterprise is good and is the basis for the economic prosperity that people in this country have experienced would be a terrible thing. We must obviously teach children that only the State knows what's best for them and that they really should only work for the common good.
Though, with that said, I do agree that the idea of teaching creationism in science class is appalling.
If this comment doesn't entirely make sense or I've gotten you wrong, it's 0215 in the morning...
The Senate has become an institution that requires super-majorities for every goddamn thing, and it wasn't meant to be that way.
Yes it absolutely was meant to be that way! With a supermajority, it meant that a huge portion of the People wanted the country to go a certain way. Without that supermajority, legislation comes to a standstill, which is exactly what the founders wanted. A government that does nothing is far better than a government that tries to tackle every "issue of the moment".
If we didn't have so many damn legislators going after every stupid little thing that they think is a problem (carry-on luggage fees, facebook privacy settings, etc, etc) we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
We read complaints here all the time about how stupid our legislators are for making these pedophile laws that end up jailing horny teenagers and then you want to tell me that that Congress should be moving full speed ahead on everything! I don't think so!
Though I generally agree with you , I still have to ask you to please pick up your Fail at the door. The Senate wasn't supposed to be this way because the Senate wasn't supposed to have jack and/or shit to do with what the "people" want. It was supposed to fulfill two purposes, one of which you eluded to. It was supposed to temper the more "issue of the moment" driven House, which does directly represent the people. Additionally, it was supposed to represent what the States in the Union wanted. That's why Senators were elected by the state legislators in the first place. Thanks to the dreadful Seventeenth Amendment, the Senate is now just the "House of Reps on Crack, with six year terms!"
If you want a return to a government with some kind of sanity, nuke the 17th amendment and put things back the way they were before. All those unfunded and poorly thought out proposals that the States have been grumbling about for years would never have been pushed through a Senate that was responsive to the will of the various States. The Federal government wouldn't be anywhere near as large and powerful as it is either, nor would the States be on the verge of being reduced to nothing more than lines on a map.
Fund managers who literally do nothing but piss away money are making $1,000 an hour, and the people who educate our children are making less than $20 an hour. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
Yes. And further, consider how Wall Street has attracted the best and the brightest of all of our people, math PhD's, engineers, those with an excellent ability to see the broad patterns in society. Our most brilliant citizens are pulled into Wall Street as "quants" or traders or corporate lawyers, and are often paid six and seven figure remuneration per year. And to do what? To game the system in favor of their wealthy masters at the expense of the middle classes. Do they create wealth, or are they merely helping to transfer it from the hands of the many to the hands of the few who can afford their services. Wall Street quants were supposed to make recessions a thing of the past. We all know how that turned out.
Meanwhile fields like science, engineering and medicine lose the most brilliant individuals. Citizens who would formerly have become professors, providing independent analysis of society's problems instead become selfish multimillionaires, who then retire at 40 to a life unproductive leisure. Think of what these brilliant people could have done if their abilities were harnessed in the right fields and with the right motivation. Think of the problems that could have been solved. Think of the knowledge that could have been gained. Think of the lives that could be saved by new medical discoveries. Think of the new technologies that could have been developed for the common good. Wall Street's co-opting of so many of the geniuses in our society will have profound consequences for our civilization. I can only hope that we can undo much of the damage been done by this corruption.
Think of the "slavery" that could be if only we "harnessed" those minds and didn't let them do such trivial things like "what they want". Who the hell are they anyway? Acting like free people and all. What selfish bastards they are.....
Wealth is not a zero sum game that must be taken from one to be given to another. Markets create wealth, only governments transfer it in the manner you speak of.
Since when is someone who makes less than average a freeloader?
They aren't. However, if they are making anything at all they aren't freeloaders, no? Even if they are getting assistance. Assistance wouldn't normally be thought of as a handout and most people in that situation would probably sooner not need the assistance in the first place, yes?
What makes you think that the people who are in business for themselves are better at fixing things than those who are in government? Judging from healthcare and various businesses, people are incompetent and inefficient all over the place.
As for your dig about government handouts, I find it entertaining that this generally comes from people who are making average or above money.
You find that entertaining that the productive members of society don't particularly enjoy supporting the freeloading parts? Why would that be surprising?