The single most important vote you have

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
If I don't want to support Campbells I don't give them my money. If I don't give government my money I go to jail. I'd like the same option for them as well as business.

You do an excellent job of showing the depths of idiocy the right often has. Putting aside the fallacious analogy between consumerism and democracy, you really can't get the disaster that would come to society when effectively there is no government, no democracy, and the society has nothing to prevent power from concentrating in private, armed, hands, a return to the model of serfdom where everyone is either a slave producing for the elite or a soldier serving to protect them from the rest of the people.

Where is the rationality - you want to let people choose whether to pay taxes, then almost no one pays much taxes, and the ability of society to vote for any spending is gone, and the government can't do much at all, as society falls into chao. You are like a six year old in the level of commentary, like a spoiled child whining. There are all kinds of solid arguments for less spending and lower taxes, and you are not making those.

Well, people ought to have some input where their money goes. Perhaps not all of it, but then again that would give them some control, and you certainly don't want that.

It's interesting that you resort to personal attacks on a regular basis these days. Not only that, but those whom you disagree with are demeaned as children.

You say many words, being a mile wide and an inch deep. I seem to threaten you, or at least you act as if I do. I'm amused, seriously. Please continue.

I don't use personal attacks gratuitously. I use them very carefully only when the situation compels saying something about the terrible level of commentary.

In other words, a very polite complimentary comment to some statements is not very honest.

For example, in a chat last night, a person claimed that the Republicans have been fighting to pass universal healthcare for decades, but have always been blocked by Democrats.

First, I simply pointed out how that was wrong,and when they persisted, showing no interest in the truth, I made a stronger statement that they were lying or ignorant.

I very much dislike when the discussion hits a work like 'idiot', but find that's the accurate response in some unfortunate cases, like your post.

I find it more repugnant to misrepresent your comments as some sort of respctable 'other opinion' as if they had merit.

Do you 'respectfully' respond to the holocaust deniers, saying that that's just their opinion, perfecly legitimate? There are 'legitimate' disagreements, and there are illegitimate ones.

Sorry, but that's the conclusion I've reluctantly reached on how to deal with the idiocy that threatens our democracy based on the idea of a rational, informed populace.

Call a spade a spade, and call idiocy idiocy. I'll try to err on the conservative side, give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to say making taxes voluntary is not idiocy.

If you can't deal with that, you might not want to read my posts. But if you can, and I hope it doesn't come up, you took a step away from idiocy in this post, when you backed of of voluntary and instead said you want 'some say' in how taxes are spent. Unfortunately, you have more steps to take, and you may have only aged from 6 to 7 with that, because it fails to mention any of the obvious and core ideas in democracy about the extent to which people have the say you want them to have, through elections.

Now, elections are far from perfect. But people are partly to blame themselves for the huge degree to which monied campaigns work to mislead them. Information is available.

But the bottom line is that democracy does provide some degree of 'say' for people in how the money is spent - somewhere, some group of 50%+ of people voted for those who are deciding how the money is spent, which does have a big effect - even if the situation is still very corrupted, and it is.

But at some point you face the dysfunctional situation where too much consent is required, and you get a 'tyranny of the minority' who can block everything - at some point to have a functional system, you say some percent - perhaps 50% - are allowed to make the decision for all who have to follow it, and while that's not an anarchist's utopia, it is a lot better than a dictatorship.

You wan 'some say', and you get 'some say'. If you want more say, you really need to stop posting such simplistic things, and post something senseible and make a case why whatever you suggest is an improvement, and not simply going to lead to the dysfunction of anarchy.

By the way, your snide straw man attempt at an insult about my not wanting that for people reflects badly on you, and does not do much to disprove my criticism.

I just read the last part of your post, and you sink to new lows, it's pretty disgusting.

You think you pose any threat? The delusion is strong. If you're amused, don't read my posts and don't say anything to them, as you are wasting my time. You're pathetic, then.

Your comments are off base - but yours are an inchi wide and an inch deep. Step up your game. You don't seem to understand you are being given a finite chance to do so.

I don't go around my neighborhood picking up other families' dogs poop, and I don't waste my time correcting the poop from bad posters too many times.

If you don't want to see the word idiocy again - and I don't - the answer is to not post idiocy. But don't worry, if you continue, I will not waste my time on you.

Please don't waste our time. It's apparent that once again you've used a great many words to say nothing. I understand that to you everyone whom doesn't agree with you is a defacto rightie. You dislike people questioning government, as much as the Neocons didn't like having their war questioned. You aren't much different in that regard.

You are a partisan with limited depth. Oh, you are intelligent enough, but quite unable to understand that even harsh criticism does not mean that someone is your enemy, or does it? Your faith is like that of a 6 day creationist. Facts or questioning isn't welcome, especially if it challenges your base assumptions.

Don't worry about not responding. I've dismissed you. You have no vision only loyalty.

Adios.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I would suggest that taxation and spending does not have to occur at the centralized planning level. It could be diversified and localized to give individual localities an actual authority and power over the direction of their lives, as opposed to the well established elite ruling class in Washington.

We don't agree much, but that's a reasonable argument.

Like pretty much anything, centralized government has benefits when it works well, and is harmful when it doesn't.

We didn't have 50 states each do 2% of putting a man on the moon.

But the ability of the powerfu interests to corrupt Washington, the inability of the people to overcome the corruption and propaganda, has a very high cost, and does I think pose a challenge to liberals to re-think the tradeoffs regaridng local and centralized government. I don't think most on the right have much appreciation of the 'real issues' incolved, but they may be on to something whether or not for the right reasons.

IMO, the corruption has long been an issue. Sometimes it was better resisted, such as when FDR said he didn't want to see a single millionare made from WWII and Truman investigated war profiteering; but the corruption begane to really accelerate with Reagan, and hasn't stopped since, and while many citizens think things are still nt much different, they fail to appreciate the massive shifts in power and wealth.

Going from a few hundred lobbyists to 35,000; the top 1% going from owning 8% of all wealth to 23% or more; the systemic changes in which, helped by lower taxes on the top, almost 100% of the nation's economic growth after inflation has gone to the top tier with 95% receiving little and 80% about nothing, that the people have largely 'lost their nation', culmiating in the trillions of publi debt just taken on to help the monied interests.

Now is a time for patriots to fight the corruption, not just carry Obama Joker posters.

But in dozens of posts recommending books, I don't recall a single righty confirming they did so - and only one or two who said they would.

We have bigger issues right now than debating the degree of federal versus state. Our very power to have much say in that is in question from the big money corruption.

Sadly, around the world, we've had a history of propping up 'strong men' at the expense of healthy democracy and strong middle classes. Now our own people are facing that - not a strongman, but a government dominated under oligarchy in which the middle class needs to be gutted as it poses a threat to the top, it takes up 'their' money.

 

[Draftee]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Draftee

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Draftee
But shouldn't we buy stuff from businesses who pay workers poorly, rape and pillage the land and its resources so we can save a few dollars to buy more stuff? I thought that was how capitalism works, capitalise on the misfortune of others.

Actually, that's not 'part of capitalism' (though I assume you were being facetious), any more than cheating is 'part' of marriage. it may exist, but it's not required.

There's a perveerted understanding of capitalism based on the bad problems that often happen, and things that should be part of the system are often overlooked.

Those things include the consumer weighing the political and moral issues in spending.

The thing is, democracy is no better than its citizens, and when the citizens themselves are corrupted into compacency by slick marketing to not care about those issues, in a mutually satisfying arrangemement that's profitable for the businesses and comfortable for the consumer ('ignorance is bliess'), things don't work too well. Sweat shops overseas become invisible, for example. Pollution is invisible. When big business owns the media that might make those things visible - well, you can imagine what happens to the 'news'.

Suddenly, basic facts of important issues are relegated to 'crazy liberal' magazines and books, safely hidden away from the majority of voters.

The one clear growth product in this is cynicism as voters feel nothing can be done to fix what's broken, and give up their power as citizens.

Over a century ago when 'big business' threatened the livelihood of the agragrian society, thousands of farmers would drive their wagons to grass-roots meetings to fight it, hundreds of thousands subscribed to magazines informing them of the economic issues going on, and they developed a political movement. Today, with our far higher technology and information availability, people are not doing much.

It's because capitalism doesn't take into account these social factors that we have such problems. Big business has a big voice in being able to quash ideas about what would be good for our society, all in the name of profit.

This isn't a Milton Friedman thread and too much detail on him would derail it, but I've often recommended Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' for a sampling of an alternative history of Friedman with some very important information. You have really been served a big glass of kool-aid with your summary of his being about 'freedom'. His *actual* policies greatly impoverished the masse and directly led to the need for state thuggery against the people to keep down the rebellions that resulted.

I could pick any five of his many disciples to answer yuour question, but it's pointless - he had hundreds of economists at least to pick from, for example, his school took over the field of economics in Chile leading up to Pinochet, which is why Friedman was directly involvd in advising Pinochet and virtually had the nation as a laboratory for his theories, something few economists get - with disastrous results for the people.

Two other notable followers of his were Reagan and Thatcher - who also had largely disastrous results (though not leading to anything like the state thuggery in other nations).

But their policies set in motion the decline of the middle class while the rich got far, far richer that are still harming both nations to this day.

Tonight, I heard a statistic that the wealthiest 1% of Americans owned 8% of the wealth in 1980; today, it's 23%. That's a secret revolution by the rich taking over the country.

You don't see that statistic mentioned on any 'network' 'news' shows - much less shouted daily as a call for revolt as it should be.

Friedman was 'for' freedom the way the USSR was 'for' prosperity for all - it said so right in their documents, it was what they liked to talk about, but it didn't work out that way.

Like any serious demagogue, he had a good pitch, which masked the real effects of his policies. No one who does great harm stands up and preaches the harm directly.

Friednam was like a well-meaning but closed-minded doctor who INSISTS that a treatment killiing his patients just needs to be used more widely - but his patients were nations.

He was a talented person - also common among serious demagogues and making him all the more dangerous. People who say idiotic things tend not to get to do much damage.

Much evil rides piggyback on a good cause - his touting of 'freedom' was effective propaganda for getting support for harmful economics.

It's not that he didn't have some valid points on things - good propaganda and good demagoguery has truth in it.

I preach what you talk of; I buy as much as I can from local/independent retailers, always buy my green groceries from growers markets, so hopefully my money doesn't end up with those who already have plenty of it or with those that I know have unethical business practices.

I hate to be defeatist, as I believe there is always a chance for the individual to make a difference when enough push in the same direction. But it is very hard to do when issues that may concern the consumer hardly see the light of day, and when they do, many still don't really care and buy based upon factors such as price, branding, brand awareness and convenience. That really is the nucleus of the issue, that in theory the consumers choice should solve this, but in reality, the price and marketing win out. It is how humans are; generally hard-wired to take the easier/safer option. How do you change that?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Draftee
I preach what you talk of; I buy as much as I can from local/independent retailers, always buy my green groceries from growers markets, so hopefully my money doesn't end up with those who already have plenty of it or with those that I know have unethical business practices.

I hate to be defeatist, as I believe there is always a chance for the individual to make a difference when enough push in the same direction. But it is very hard to do when issues that may concern the consumer hardly see the light of day, and when they do, many still don't really care and buy based upon factors such as price, branding, brand awareness and convenience. That really is the nucleus of the issue, that in theory the consumers choice should solve this, but in reality, the price and marketing win out. It is how humans are; generally hard-wired to take the easier/safer option. How do you change that?

A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

There's an old liberal cliche, "think globally, act locally". It's an allusion to Immanuel Kant's 'principle of universality', to encourage people to judge the morality of their actions by asking, 'if everyone did this, what would happen?' It's just one elent of morality, but the point is that by asking that question, it can provide soe guidnce for specific actions.

There are paradoxes about the fact that big things are made up of individuals' small actions.

Those paradoxes teach that while you want to throw up your hands and say who cares if you buy that for 90 cents at Wal-Mart or $1.15 at a co-op, who cares?

But everyone throwing up their hands leads to big proglmes, and so you 'do your part'. The frustration is as you conclude your post, what do you do about others doing theirs?

That's where you have to just note that our society is pretty badly set up in terms of there being about 100 units of garbage influence from paid advertising for every one unit of constructive, honest influence (not a scientific measurement ).We can try to improve the channels of communications for citizens to improve that ratio, to form better groups to replace the crass role of mere 'consumer' who picks which beer by which ad had the prettiest girls or the funniest ad or the most prominent sign at a sporting event.

But in the meantime, you should not let that keep you from doing your own share.

There's a concept called 'learned helplessnes', and I think that Americans are encouraged to learn helplessness when it comes to exercising their rights and moral duties as citizens.

Don't ask questions about that war, about the deregulation, about how those nominees were selected - just support the policies out of 'patriotism' and pay your taxes.

Indeed, the political propagandists have ocome up with a very powerful technique for getting people to do just that - get them to hate 'the other side', and you can get them not to pay attention to the issues much. The main thing is wanting the other side defeated, not actually demanding good government.

As I mentioned before, I recommend reading Walter Limppman'0s books, starting with 'Public Opinion', for info on why democracy has these frustrations.

One of his answers was to try to educate the public. I think that's helpful for us all. See my sig on recommending and encouraging people to get good info.

I can't give you an answer that is satisfying about how things are great on this - but I can try to encourage you to 'do your part'.

Just understanding that you are voting with each dollar - as you do - is a step towards learning your power ,not failing to use it.

For a bit more encouragement, note that even relatively small shifts in the public behavior can have gbig effects on policies.

Throught American history, the public interest has mainly gotten anything when the public fought for it. It's been a whie - since Vietnam - since the public really did that.

Before that, there were 'labor wars' and the middle class thrived from that effort.

The public should organize more, as it has in the past, but it's fnot easy when you see how people 'can't be bothered' and 'don't donate to politics'.

But we can pretty easily choose how to spend.

Indeed, I've spent a year pondering leaving Chase, who I would not fund, after they bought my old bank, and this thread has helped push me to look at actually doing so now.

Many political experts are warning of the danger that the massive concentration of wealth and corrruption are making our society ripe for a demagogue, which is a real danger to democracy - the demagogue can step in to the vacuum where the system has failed to provide good leadership. We don't want that to happen. Good things do not come of it.

It's how the doors are opened to the Reagan Revolution to battle labor, to the Gingrich Revolution to deregulate the financial industry - and even worse harm to democracy.

It's less about blame- the darned rich who fund corrupt think tanks and political organziation who use the darned lazy citizens who fall for it - than what can be done.

I find some inspiration in the Kennedys - all of them. You might find some there or elsewhere. But part of it is just a sense of community - which you and I just did a little.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Paul Krugman has some of the shiftiest, airiest economic logic I've ever encountered. Nobody I know in the school of economics takes him seriously.
By extension, I have trouble taking anyone seriously who takes him seriously.

Well, normally I'd say that you say the Nobel committee for awarding the prize in economics are idiots in that case, but with today's news, you might agree.

There are plenty of idiots and amoral people in economics who are forces for evil in some cases - Milton Friedman's 'school' of economics is widely popular.

You must get along well with your contacts in the field. Luckily, many are or were better than that, like the ones in my sig, or Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Keynes...

Oh yes, Milton Friedman was a force for evil, with his beliefs that people should have freedom, and that free people make good decisions. Have you ever honestly listened to him, or read any of his books? I can understand a difference of opinion of the benefits of his policies, but EVIL??? How in the world is a belief that no man should be considered less intelligent and less capable than any other man evil? You do realize that is what his advocated policies were based on. He believed that if everyone was free to make his own decisions, they would all make good decisions, and no one would be able to take advantage of another person because they would never make a decision that was not good for them. I will grant that it is naive, and that the world is not perfect like that, but how you can take something that is so optimistic about his fellow human beings and consider it evil just amazes me. And his "followers," yeah they screwed up a lot of countries, but they didn't go in there to rape and pillage the land, they thought they were going to build some form of capitalist utopia, and reality slapped it down, still misguided but not evil.

There have been a lot of evil men who rose to power who promised that they were going to "stop the exploitation of the rich," or bring true equality to the people. I think those men were a little bit more evil. Those men sent people to true death camps, and knowingly killed millions. I don't know when you went off the deep end but you used to have some form of head on your shoulders, but recently I am seeing less and less of that.

Maybe you know something I don't, can you give me 5 examples of evil men in economics that follow Milton Friedman's school?

So, why do you have a speed limit on the road?

I am sorry, what? Did you have a point to make, if you did please be less clever because I did not understand what you meant.

 

[shadow9d9]

Sorry, but we don't have more power than other countries.. we can't even get minorities into the senate because of the winner takes all approach. We are stuck in a poor 2 party system and have very little power.