The corporations that control our government are using the deficit as a means of destabilizing our economy, in order to intimidate us into selling off our resources, cutting our social programs and giving away our first amendment right of assembly.

This is the Shock Doctrine in effect. Disaster capitalism.

They've done it to Chile and Argentina, and now they are using these tactics on the United States. Not only is a high deficit an effective means of corporate control, it is also a great way to make money, as every looted bailout, subsidy, handout and no bid contract dollar is currently stagnating in some offshore corporate tax haven. We should freeze those accounts, repatriate those looted dollars and send these corporate execs to Guantanamo for the rest of their lives.

The problem is not that the legislative branch is deaf, blind or dumb. The problem is that they are corrupt. They have no intention of balancing the budget or reducing the deficit.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^You couldn't have it more backwards. It's a very small minority of extremely wealthy people that run this country. They own our government and our media, they pick our candidates and our judges, they take us to war in order to multiply their profits, they write self serving laws, give themselves tax cuts, bailouts and no bid contracts. For you to blame this corruption on the people who have been beaten down by this powerful minority disgusts me, and your solutions would only further embolden the moneyed few.


I didn't offer a solution. Only the observation of a evil of democracy. And I agree with your point, that they are a fraction of people, but they still manage to sway a majority vote ad far as issues are concerned. I think we are actually saying the same thing, just on 2 different grounds. You are saying how atrocious it is that people are gaming the system in their favor, which is accurate. I am saying that it is a flaw in the system that allows for this problem to exist, which I also believe is accurate. I haven't purported to have a better solution, it is perhaps an evil that will always be with us, as it will always be within us. But I digress.

^You couldn't have it more backwards. It's a very small minority of extremely wealthy people that run this country. They own our government and our media, they pick our candidates and our judges, they take us to war in order to multiply their profits, they write self serving laws, give themselves tax cuts, bailouts and no bid contracts, and if all else fails, they rig elections. For you to blame this corruption on the people who have been beaten down by this powerful minority disgusts me, and your solutions would only further embolden the authority of the moneyed few.

My point is about priorities, in that republicans have a simple two-pronged economic strategy:

1.Cut or stop spending that doesn't benefit corporations. (public health option, student loans, education, social security)
2 Spend money on corporations. (Bush tax cuts, no bid contracts to Halliburton, corporate subsidies, bailouts, expensive weaponry for unnecessary wars, plundering of foreign oil)

Where is the fallacy?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^Dude! Who the fuck is against student loans? Sorry kids, but we can't afford to give you a student loan, we need that money to pay for a big tax giveaway to corporations and billionaires. We can't being loaning out money to people so that they can educate themselves, get a decent job, pay back the loan with interest and become a productive member of the economy. Better to give it to rich people, who can trickle that money down on these would-be students, $7.20 an hour as a sales associate at Wal Mart.

A bit of a fallacy you're working there, hombre. Taking loans away doesn't mean corporate and billionaire tax giveaways. That aside, I haven't read any of the conversation above, so don't expect this to be an intelligent response (not that you would anyhow), but it's not the loans I have a problem with, because those get paid back with interest, it's the welfare. But that's me.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Not to mention CATO. It doesn't get much more corporatist than CATO, which is funded by corporatist demi-Gods Scaife, Koch, Ford and Coors.


No, I think corporations like Halliburton and KBR are as corporate as it gets, and they're nestled up so comfortably around the government's fist. Coors and Cato didn't take us into Iraq. Besides, Cato is non-profit, and the money they make from corporations comes as charitable donations they have to hustle to raise. Is it ideal? No. But I don't see them making the same money from mom and pop. Even the ACLU takes contributions from corporations, such as the tobacco industry.

All this "democratically elected" blah blah is hollow rhetoric when the people elected are so powerful the lobbyist want to use them to get us into war with no bid contracts or change corporate law to tip the playing field in their favor. Every presidential candidate takes money from corporate lobbyists and big business. Even your beloved Obama. You want to fight corporations, you start with the entity that created them: government.

I say if you support big government then you're a corporatist.

Ya, my friend and I were war gaming about this the other day, running things out to their logical limits. I have no doubt that the spending we did during the cold war most likely kept us safer then not spending it. However, it seems the when one nation finally "looses" and can't afford to keep up the game anymore, the power structure on the other side can't ever dislodge itself. The result is the spending that wasn't meant to last forever does, and the self destruction of that nation is destined as well.

In other words, the rise of two super powers means the eventual fall of two. It is a form of entropy related to the unstable condition they educe in each other. It might very well be that the cost of long term success is eventual failure; that all systems, no matter how good, if they intend to survive will end up imploding. It was kind of a neat topic

In reply to this comment by jwray:
Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

Defense contractors get public money
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands
Defense contractors buy political influence
Political influence puts more public money into Defense Contractors' hands

And so on. That's why our military spending is outrageously inefficient and excessive, and we keep fighting wars that are irrelevant or counterproductive to our national security. No-bid contracts and cost-plus contracts should be explicitly forbidden by the constitution. The military should stop privatizing essential components of their operation and paying orders of magnitude more than it would cost to do in-house.

Modern Warfare 4 will have the retired soldiers from Modern Warfare 3 heading for employment at private mercenary firms to be hired again by the US. Action includes hit squads, assassinations, torture. The Collectors Edition features a supply chain service simulator with the sole goal to obtain no bid contracts and maximize profits with minimal actual work. You aren't rated on the quality of service or whether military service members get sick or die. It is purely about the cash flow.

I had no idea a politician would be corrupt and go against his campaign promises once elected. Who thought the first black president would be so bold? I certainly didn't, because he's black and not George W. Bush. I thought he would represent change in American politics, which obviously welcomes it.

The status quo always wants to be toppled, right? The powerful want to lose their power in order to propel peace throughout the world, right? Give your money to the poor and you will be rewarded with a no-bid contract in Iraq, right?

Amateurs.

Because I don't need to. I know what the bill is designed to do, the information on the health care reform need has been circulating around for the last 30 or so years. I have outlined countless times that I don't agree with the Obama plan, but i understand its need to work with the insurance industry that is there and is actively lobbying for support in Washington. Because they don't want to cease to exist overnight. Am not the one trusting clearly what is a email circulation designed to undermine any rational discussion of health care reform. It's not the words. It's what people hear.

The opposition to health care from the right wing and republicans is so predictable, Frank Luntz warned the GOP back in May that health care reform is a issue that is gathering massive public support and outlined the exact kind of opposition that is seen now. With various foot soldiers taking far more extreme positions.

Because any one can see that if Obama's plan succeeds it would solidify a democratic majority for the next decade. The GOP are trying to mount an opposition that is only there to make sure they do not lose more political relevance. They won't succeed, but what they will do is muddle the argument enough that any success or credible path of change is nullified. So they can stay in the game.

Americans are buying it, forgetting the amount of no bidding government contracts that the GOP gave out during the Iraq war. Not really free market non government interventionist of them.

Fiscal conservatism is dead.

Wow for once a british voice actually pissed me off. I think it's his apathetic tone.

I understand why people don't want to pay for services -- The misappropriation of funds due to lack of transparency, and the sheer size of the number of transactions, makes it impossible to really know anything.

It is not an insurmountable problem. I'm pretty sure you could do it with PeopleSoft and some fancy SQL work. If you could follow that 2 cents to where it goes, you could then make the claim it was wasted.

I'll never understand why people don't get the connection between the insane gas prices last year and taxes:

One is willing to pay a random, exorbitant increase...for nothing... but won't... if it specifically goes to local services. Transparency will take care of this problem. "wow i helped to fund that". Pride may well ensue.

The problem now is NO ONE knows anything about anything, at all, when it comes to where the money comes and goes. No one. Not the government, and certainly not citizens who barely have time to stop working long enough to watch the evening news.

It would be a true wonder we got this far on the backs of honest hardworking people... if those same people weren't purposely misinformed to allow perpetual abuse of their funds.

We all know generally where the problem is: Military spending and no bid contracts. But what can we do about it when fear is such a strong .. commodity... for the dishonest among us?

I for one, have conceptualized a "truth machine", which, while not detecting lying humans by their physiological responses... would capture, catalogue, and be able to cross index and recall data and facilitate only logical discourse between all people. It will put a stop to people who can speak with golden tongues, or contradict themselves and pretend they didnt, or who make illogical assertions based on fear, by allowing instant recall of data. It involves digital recording and an element of human indexing of data -- very similar to what we have on videosift, in that there is a wealth of data on many things that can be recalled to some extent to prove and strengthen positions. One must be able to say, NO that is WRONG. And here is irrefutably why.

A lofty goal, but then again I am a computer science major in an age of unprecedented techonological advancement. With Obama's encouragement of education and sciences, along with SSD technology and exponentially better and cheaper tech... the manipulation of data by the dishonest will come to an end. All people must be connected and able to access all data to make the best decision.

It will be done. Of course, a real truth machine would be cool too. Read the book of the same name. Really fucking great.

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

>> ^blankfist:
Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.
How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?

Progressives don't like it when big business get our tax dollars. Usually we argue for things like small business subsidies, regular welfare (ya know, for poor people), anti-trust legislation and enforcement, etc.

We also don't like corporate tax loopholes, capital gains tax cuts, or attempts to eliminate or reduce estate taxes, or the porcine industry-specific tax cut.

We don't like when people are putting their hands in the cookie jar who shouldn't be, we just don't think getting rid of the jar will help fix the problem.

Me: To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?
blankfist: Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

I fail to see how detaching power and influence from the constraint of law, or the accountability of a ballot box improves anything.

If you have a suggestion on how to make sure that the people our Constitution and our democracy empower to make decisions regarding when to go to war will always use it wisely, I'm all ears.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.
Any questions?

Yes, are you nuts?

The tax code is too complex, but the real issue with it is not the complexity, it's the fact that most of that complexity is designed to benefit people with multiple homes, businesses, yachts, and complex investment portfolios.

The free market provides me with tax preparation services, though most of them tell me "you don't own enough for us to do much for you" (though they say it very differently).

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but when's the last time you faced a legal penalty for anything bigger than a traffic violation? For that matter, have you ever gotten a traffic violation for something you didn't know was illegal?

To turn that around, do you understand your credit card agreement? Your cellphone contract? Have you ever received a bill that included a fee you were charged for doing something you didn't realize they could charge a fee for? Should they be able to sell the information you provided them without your consent?

Why isn't the free market stopping that stuff from happening already?

>> ^NetRunner:
What is government doing to keep the concept of corporations in existence that private citizens wouldn't be able to do through contract?

Corporate power depends greatly on the intervention of government - how often do you see private business (read: small business) receive subsidies and bailouts? Ever heard of Corporate welfare? Yes? Ever heard of private business or free market welfare? No? Hmm.

How about protectionist tariffs? Heard of those? Grants of monopoly privilege? Seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London)? Shall I go on or can we stop there?



To mildly rephrase dft's question, how does libertarianism defend against private power and influence taking advantage of people's lack of information or knowledge to their own detriment?

Hardly "mildly" rephrased. Corporations and private are hugely different. That aside, your point is very valid. Let me ask you this? What has stopped this from happening now? Government is the power in that scenario, and they steal our money and use it to fund war and pay out no bid contracts to very powerful corporations. Your petty watchdog programs aren't working. Government is the power and influence.

And government certainly takes advantage of those who are less educated. Have you read any of the tax codes? Hey, ever heard this one: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Would you dare agree with me that it's impossible to know all the laws, so therefore it's inevitable for you to be ignorant of them? Your government is "taking advantage of people's lack of information of knowledge" and doing so with our money.

Any questions?

^Until the day comes when quantum decides to do his own thinking, rather than regurgitate talking points, feel free to give him the respect he has earned, which is roughly none. He is a poor spokesman for conservatism: unthinking and unable to respond to follow up questions when pressed.

He is obviously unaware that Blogovich was arrested and removed from office, while Bush roams free, living off the past, present and future tax dollars funneled to his cronies through bailouts, tax cuts and no-bid contracts. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocents that lie dead in the ground as a result of his military adventures.

^I'd vote for quantumushroom, but everyone knows that it's actually his Lite Brite who'd be pulling all the strings and handing out no-bid contracts to all his Lite Brite cronies. Luck Fite Brite!