The Federal Reserve to hire former Enron lobbyist

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
b: They did. It was the Federal Reserve that created the asset bubble to begin with, along with government subsidizing house guying, etc.

M: Well well, then they can just create a solution since they have such tremendous power.

b: But your point here I think is that the government doesn't have a magic wand to make things better. And a big problem is, they think they do. But I didn't mean they have total control in this manner.

M: Thank you, I was pretty sure they don't have total control, just enough control to fuck things up but never fix anything, right?

Actually, yes. You are right.

b: Doesn't make it right.

M: The right or wrong is not at issue. The point is that large or small you are bound and you, given this, are not facing the fact that bound is bound, large or small. One is not better than the other.

No, there is a difference. One is voluntary upon a personal decision, and one is voluntary only upon the decision of the masses. Freedom is based upon personal individual liberty, and the minority being controlled or ruled by the majority.

b: "Us" is relative. They aren't doing it for me. Rather, they are doing the vast majority of it for special interests.

M: Yes, 'us', as in those of us who understand our interests and lobby for them and 'us' as in those who haven't a clue as to what is going on.

I didn't know you had your own lobbyist.

I don't nevertheless. I can't afford it.

b: I knew you'd ask.

The more ignorant and apathetic the populace is, the more government is capable of tyranny. It is more corruptible. Government is like a vacuum, it will suck up and retain any power it can. Slave owners didn't want their slaves to learn how to read, didn't want them reading books, they didn't want them to learn.

M: Yup, and it took a big fat government to make them stop and create universal education, which, sadly, you have to pay for.

We had education before the federal government got involved. Is it any better since? Nope.

b: Now, I am sure that one will make the argument that an ignorant and apathetic populace would need a bigger government, someone to help make decisions for them. But government cannot provide this without taking from those not ignorant and apathetic.

M: Huh? Those elitists who know what is good for the masses ARE the ones who are not ignorant and apathetic, and, because they are almost always wealthy, will be taking from exactly themselves, along with a few extra sheep, perhaps, like you, who think they are the ones who are aware and active.

Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

b: And the bigger it becomes, the more they take. And the more they take, the more those not ignorant and apathetic fight back and abuse the government powers.

M: You are the ignorant and apathetic. You want to substitute your notions of what is good and proper for what others think is. You picture yourself as one who is enlightened and aware, just like the people you bitch about. You say small government, somebody else says big. No difference at all.

But I don't want to impose my views on others, nor do I wish to forcefully take from others. That's the difference.

You are a mirror of the world. You reflect what the world is and what the world is is a reflection of you. You look out there to change the world when all you can do is change yourself.

Actually, no, that's not me. I only wish to have my own individual liberty, and a right to my own property. It is not me who is trying to shape the world, at least not by force, but by example.

b: edit: Hey, the argument between you and BoberFett is another good one to add. Foolish and bigoted population using government to take away rights.

M: The same government that will one day give them back. The government is us in the collective and we evolve or can.

It is not the government's right, nor the peoples' right to take it away in the first place. So they cannot "give it back." They can only one day choose to recognize that right.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
The government has almost unlimited power over our economy.

Remember that if you cripple the power of 'the government', you cripple the power of 'the people'. The same type of power transfers to unelected, private hands.

That is simply not true, neither statement is true.

Limiting the power of government further empowers people.

Your second statement is false because people would not have governmental powers. They would not be able to declare war, arrest and imprison others, they would be bound by legal contracts and law.

What is the difference between being bound by legal contracts and law and being bound by the state, in other words legal contracts and laws. Big or small what is the difference if you are bound? If you are bound there is a power binding you and it makes no difference if you are bound by a midget or a giant. The giant and the midget are of different sizes but the strength of the bonds are the same, sufficient to bind you.

Contracts are entered into voluntarily.

Welcome to the 1880's, when the rage was to try to say it was all about 'consensual contracts' and pretend it was two equal parties when in fact the two parties were extremely unequal, and the other had to eat and feed their children and would put up with about anything because they had to - the backlash from the terrible inadequacy of the 'contract' ideology was the direct cause of the Progressive Reform era.

Bamacre, things like the power to wage war are not what my comment was about - though indeed, if the government were banned from doing so, you would indeed see the wealthy create their own militaries for protection, and the poor would probably have a lot fewer rights to protection by them than they do today.

Rather, the point was the fact that the corrupt concentration of power that results in 'the few' ruling in tyranny over the rest happens not only just as easily, but more easily, in the absence of a strong Democratic (not the party, the system) government. That is the fundamental blind spot Libertarians have, they don't understand what fills the power vacuum they want to create, they have not learned the lessons of history.

There were times when the government did less; there were debtor prisons (to serve the interests of the wealthy), unions were illegal (to serve the interests of the wealthy), etc.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

What Republican policies? Why isn't the middle class growing? Why does it now take two-income families to run a middle-class income?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

What Republican policies? Why isn't the middle class growing? Why does it now take two-income families to run a middle-class income?

It doesn't take two-income families to run a middle class lifestyle. That metric is repeated ad nauseum but has so many holes a fucking moron could realize it doesn't make sense.

 

[First]

^ Actually what's funny about that statement LK (about how it's harder for middle class families than it used to be) is that it completely ignores the entrance of women into the work force over the last 40-50 years. Naturally that's going to change the entire dynamic of what it costs to run families. This of course ignores location, renting vs. owning, etc. Sure, it's hard to own a home, car, two children, and a dog in a nice place in NY or CA if you're middle class. Gee, ya think? :laugh:

 

[ZeGermans]

obama showing that he's full of empty promises and just another corporate shill, why I never!

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

What Republican policies? Why isn't the middle class growing? Why does it now take two-income families to run a middle-class income?

It doesn't take two-income families to run a middle class lifestyle. That metric is repeated ad nauseum but has so many holes a fucking moron could realize it doesn't make sense.

You're right. My state consistently runs in the bottom 10% for per capita income while simultaneously runnining in the top 10% of two income households. Households with three or four incomes are the norm around here.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

What Republican policies? Why isn't the middle class growing? Why does it now take two-income families to run a middle-class income?

It doesn't take two-income families to run a middle class lifestyle. That metric is repeated ad nauseum but has so many holes a fucking moron could realize it doesn't make sense.

You're right. My state consistently runs in the bottom 10% for per capita income while simultaneously runnining in the top 10% of two income households. Households with three or four incomes are the norm around here.

Let's take the worst of the worst outlayer and extrapolate it to the nationwide average! That's statistically valid...

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
The government has almost unlimited power over our economy.

Remember that if you cripple the power of 'the government', you cripple the power of 'the people'. The same type of power transfers to unelected, private hands.

That's where we depart. The government is crippling America with debt. I need no government to function on the level you think I have to depend on them. That is what Obama wants. You to depend on him and the state will be there for you to depend on. You have the power to increase your station. Financial freedom is paramount w/o it other freedoms erode.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is the middle class getting bigger? Certainly not.

Go read Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class".

FDR's policies created the large, prosperous middle class; the Republican policies of the last 30 years are what has attacked the middle class I'm lying but if I say this enough someone might actually think it is true.

The middle class suffers greatly under Libertarianism, with plenty of 'theoretical' political right, as they can barely eat. There's a reason Liberatriansim does not exist in a nation.

What Republican policies? Why isn't the middle class growing? Why does it now take two-income families to run a middle-class income?

It doesn't take two-income families to run a middle class lifestyle. That metric is repeated ad nauseum but has so many holes a fucking moron could realize it doesn't make sense.

Yea but I thought you were rich so how would you know? I cannot tell you how silly that statement sounds after all the job losses in the last year. Most of those job losses were in industries where the men dominate the workforce as well. Most families I see are struggling no mattter which class you'd put them in. We have all fallen in the keep up with the jonese crap and now paying with cash and not a card is a whole lot more shiek if not necessary due to lack of credit or just realizing spend like there is no tomorrow does't quite get you to financial responsibility.

I added some to the flat out opinion stated as fact lie above as well. Any way you look at it that is laughable. Dems do not want anything more than a high lower class it is the only way they can keep their control by having the masses depend on them for their exsistance. Food stamps/ healthcare/$40 TV HDTV adaptors. Government aid is addicting and it does not lead to the American Dream.