How? during the great depression, the same argument can be made.. That's why I don't blame the bank bail out either because although its an experiment and theory, the risk not to try is too great.. "global economy might mean domino effect towards global meltdown" I don't know if that's true and nobody does, but the theory makes sense.. why risk it?
The risk of not trying to elevate the mass into the middle class and nobody has the exact answer can pose a bigger threat to the US by having a 2 tiered class similar to Europe before the French revolution, like China before the cultural revolution, and Russia and etc.. Again solutions please..
The solution is not found in looking to government. It will come from creative individuals.
Everyone is coming from a different perspective of what government is...
(could be the gov't schooling... )
Government = force. Simple. It is the only entity which can imprison you or sentence you to death. Corporations can not do this only government can. It is as basic and simple as this. Once you acknowledge this all the rest flows from there. Do you use force to take from one group to give to another to provide.......
build a library
I tend to believe most people are good not evil and that they mean well but ask yourself for which causes that you believe in do you feel force is OK to use.... Then realize that you are a thug in this regard. You wish to align your thuggery with the most powerful thug (the government) to make it happen. You justify it by saying....
it's for the children, the needy, the.....whatever. Viewing gov't for what it really is should be the starting point of any political discussion. Otherwise you talk in circles. Usually with everyone saying I think the thug should do this or I think the thug should do that.
Bastiat excerpt -
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The Superman Idea - Bastiat
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
“I believe that my theory is correct; for whatever be the question upon which I am arguing, whether it be religious, philosophical, political, or economical; whether it affects well-being, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, property, labor, exchange, capital, wages, taxes, population, credit, or Government; at whatever point of the scientific horizon I start from, I invariably come to the same thing—the solution of the social problem is in liberty.”
― Frédéric Bastiat
The theory is fine but do you have any example of the successful application of those theories in real life? Which country has achieved this type of utopia according to those theories? Which politician will implement those experiments? What's the risk to try this?
Everything exists for a reason including the government and the powers it possess, because at one point it was needed for something.. Balance is the key and a leader navigates thru this balance without absolute answers.. In politics, like in life and just like trading, there are no absolute answers, only context and decisions as things swing from one extreme to another but stable/realistic spot is typically somewhere in the middle... A combination of capitalism and socialism without going too far in either direction and depending on the current context.. This is not the time to eliminate social services and lower taxes for the wealthy.. When the economy recovers is the right time to eliminate social services, and when everything is stable, reduce taxes for everyone including the wealthy..
Actually, I think Mitt Romney demonstrated great experience in helping to grow companies and turn around the Salt Lake City Olympics. Donald Trump's companies have filed for bankruptcy four times and I don't recall anyone ever identifying either of the Bush presidents as being particularly successful business people.
We have had "good times" in the past and, at that time, the desire to eliminate social services meets the same stiff resistance. However, during prosperous times, you hear a different argument: "Well, we all have a lot of money now, why can't we give some more to those who have less?"
And when times are bad, the argument is "This is not the time to eliminate social services ..."
For crying out loud, here in America, the value of farms is at an all-time high while the debt-to-equity level for farmers is at an all-time low and we STILL have Farm Aid concerts each and every year!
Last edited by furytrader; September 28th, 2012 at 02:53 PM.
I agree with you about Romney and I think he's an excellent candidate with seemingly good characteristics and ability as well as good intentions like Obama.. But he has not introduced any ideas that have not be tried in the past.. I like Obama slightly more only because I agree with his intent slightly more.. What others might consider radical actions towards the left, I consider a president having the balls to take action rather than trying to please everyone, which politics typically force you to do.. If you want to get things done in Washington, you can't be a people pleaser..
Remember, all the social services implemented were for a reason including farming, otherwise we might be importing food from other countries and have food inflation.. Its not a perfect system and we have to accept the imperfections of government, politics, society and various human traits..
Suppose we eliminate all the social services, do you think that makes for a better society.. What is the theory as how things will begin changing for the better? What do you think is going to happen to various people with what results? Again, its easy to point the finger but hard to come up with a "realistic and actionable" solution..
Do you think Romney will get the job done? I'm willing to let him experiment with the fate of the country as I'm willing to let Obama experiment because they both appear to be smart, decent guys with good intentions.. but my thinking cap agrees with Obama and his approach slightly more.. I don't think Obama is behaving out of context either.. Has anyone come up with a better solution for the healthcare? Will Romney eliminate government control now? Let's just all see it for what it is and just have a good laugh but know that you and I are not likely to be Jesus as either a politician or the president..
A writer’s greatest disappointments are readers who have knee-jerk responses. Not all readers, of course. Some readers are thoughtful and supportive. Others express thanks for opening their eyes. But the majority are happy when a writer tells them what they want to hear and are unhappy when he writes what they don’t want to hear.
For the left-wing, Ronald Reagan is the great bogeyman. Those on the left don’t understand supply-side economics as a macroeconomic innovation that cured stagflation by utilizing the impact of fiscal policy on aggregate supply. Instead, they see “trickle-down economics” and tax cuts for the rich. Leftists don’t understand that the Reagan administration intervened in Grenada and Nicaragua in order to signal to the Soviets that there would be no more Soviet expansion or client states and that it was time to negotiate the end of the Cold War. Instead, leftists see in Reagan the origin of rule by the one percent and the neoconservatives’ wars for US hegemony.
In 1981 curtailing inflation meant collapsing nominal GNP and tax revenues. The result would be budget deficits – anathema to Republicans – during the period of readjustment. Ending the Cold War meant curtailing the military/security complex and raised the specter in conservative circles of “the anti-Christ” Gorbachev deceiving Reagan and taking over the world.
In pursuing his two main goals, Reagan was up against his own constituency and relied on rhetoric to keep his constituency on board with his agenda. The left wing heard the rhetoric but failed to comprehend the agenda.
When I explain these facts, easily and abundantly documented, some of leftish persuasion send in condescending and insulting emails telling me that they look forward to the day that I stop lying about Reagan and tell the truth about Reagan like I do about everything else.
“Knee-jerk liberal” is a favorite term of conservatives. But conservatives can be just as knee-jerk. When I object to Washington’s wars, the mistreatment of detainees and the suspension of civil liberties, some on the right tell me that if I hate America so much I should move to Cuba. Many Republicans cannot get their minds around the fact that if civil liberties are subject to the government’s arbitrary discretion, then civil liberties do not exist. The flag-waving element of the population is prone to confuse loyalty to the country with loyalty to the government, unless, of course, there’s a Democrat in the White House.
Rationally, it makes no sense for readers to think that a writer who would lie to them about one thing would tell them the truth about another. But as long as they hear what they want to hear, it is the truth. If they don’t want to hear it, it is a lie.
Both left and right also confuse explanations with justifications.
When a writer writes about the perils that we as a society face and the implications, it is very discouraging for the writer to know that many readers will not listen unless it is what they want to hear. This discouragement is precisely what every truth-teller faces, which is why there are so few of them.
This is one reason I stopped writing a couple of years ago. I found that solid facts and sound analysis could not penetrate brainwashed and closed minds seeking vindication to keep the mind locked tightly against unsettling truths. Americans want to have their beliefs vindicated more than they want the truth. The success of print and TV pundits is based on allying with a prominent point of view or interest group and serving it. Those served make the writer or talking head successful. I never thought much of that kind of success.
But success as a whore is about the only kind of success that can occur in Washington or in the media these days. Those who refuse to prostitute themselves arouse pity and denunciation, not admiration. A couple of years ago an acquaintance from a university in the Northeast called me to say he had recently had lunch with some of my former associates in Washington. When he inquired about me, he said the response was, “Poor Craig, if he hadn’t turned critic, he would be worth tens of millions of dollars like us.”
I replied that my former associates were undoubtedly correct. My acquaintance said that he hadn’t realized that he was having lunch with a bunch of prostitutes.
The incentive to speak the truth and the reward for doing so are very weak. And not just for a writer, but also for academics and experts who can make far more money by lying than by telling the truth. How else would we have got GMOs, jobs offshoring, the “unitary executive” and a deregulated financial system? It is a very lucrative career to testify as an expert in civil lawsuits. It is part of America’s romance with the lie that experts purchased by the opposing sides in a lawsuit battle it out as gladiators seeking the jury’s thumbs-up.
And look at Congress. The two members of the House who stood up for the Constitution and truth in government will soon be gone. Ron Paul is stepping down and Dennis Kucinich was redistricted out of his seat. As for the Senate, these thoughtful personages recently voted 90-1 to declare war on Iran, as the sole dissenter, Rand Paul, pointed out. The Senate is very much aware, although only a few will publicly admit it, that the US has been totally frustrated and held to a standoff, if not a defeat, in Afghanistan and is unable to subdue the Taliban. Despite this, the Senate wants a war with Iran, a war which could easily turn out to be even less successful. Obviously, the Senate not only lies to the public but also to itself.
Last week the Pentagon chief, Panetta, told China that the new US naval, air, and troop bases surrounding China are not directed at China. What else could be the purpose of the new bases? Washington is so accustomed to lying and to being believed that Panetta actually thinks China will believe his completely transparent lie. Panetta has confused China with the American people: Tell them what they want to hear, and they will believe it.
Americans live in a matrix of lies. They seldom encounter a truthful statement.There is no evidence that Americans can any longer tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Americans fell for all of these lies and more: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections. Saddam Hussein’s troops seized Kuwaiti babies from incubators and threw them on the floor. Gaddafi fed his troops Viagra to help them rape Libyan women. Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Change – yes we can!
The US is “the indispensable country.” America is broke because of food stamps and Social Security, not because of wars, bankster bailouts and a failing economy. Russia is America’s number one enemy. China is America’s number one enemy. Iran is a terrorist state. Jobs offshoring is free trade and good for the US economy. Israel is America’s most loyal ally. The US missile shield surrounding Russia is not directed at Russia. The South China sea is an area of US national interest. Financial markets are self-regulating.
The list is endless. Lies dominate every policy discussion, every political decision. The most successful people in America are liars.
The endless lies have created a culture of delusion. And this is why America is lost. The beliefs of many Americans, perhaps a majority, are comprised of lies. These beliefs have become emotional crutches, and Americans will fight to defend the lies that they believe. The inability of Americans to accept facts that are contrary to their beliefs is the reason the country is leaderless and will remain so. Unless scales fall from Americans’ eyes, Americans are doomed
The following 2 users say Thank You to kbit for this post:
although Iran does not have nuclear weapons, I think it would be naive to think they are not pursuing it.. Its like North Korea telling us they are pursuing it for energy purposes.. Iran is clearly insecure and aggressive at the same time but pursuing aggressively a nuclear program for energy purposes because they worry about an energy shortage?
2'nd statement is very true.. a contrary belief is a threat in our mind.. that's typically how the mind interprets and reacts to external stimulus that are foreign..
Also propaganda is what makes the world turn.. It started with religion which is the earliest form of politics and evolved into modern politics.. Its a fight for sovereignty.. a justification to rule.. every ruling power needs it and propaganda is the easy and effective way to do it.. Life is full of ironies but in politics, a good rule of thumb is to "never overestimate the intelligence of the mass." or you will lose in politics.. unfortunate but true..
Last edited by Jedi; September 28th, 2012 at 04:27 PM.
The following user says Thank You to Jedi for this post:
In case you're wondering whether pretty much everything the Obama administration does is for some political end, please check out the following article which talks about the administration's response to the "Obama Phone" brouhah:
**** EDIT: After looking at this page a little closer, I think it's BS, or at least not something that was set up by the government (although it may have been setup by a supporter of the president) ****
The following user says Thank You to furytrader for this post: