Very good.

Just do it!

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, April 9th, 2011 7:48am PDT - doublepromote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

Nailed it.

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.

>> ^shagen454:

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.


in b4 an obvious troll trolls you

*clap clap clap* "WOOOOOOOO! He said 'class war'!"

I don't see him doing any wealth balancing with HIS $100+ million net worth. I guess he already has some other dude's money.

>> ^Payback:

I don't see him doing any wealth balancing with HIS $100+ million net worth. I guess he already has some other dude's money.


How much of his $100 million was stolen from the taxpayers? Let's keep the ad hominem out of this.

What makes Bill Maher better than Charlie Sheen, though? They're both dudes that get other people to pay to listen to them talk. I'd rather listen to Bill Maher, but still.

>> ^shagen454:

It'd be more possible for class war if they didn't already have our nuts twisted up in the palm of their hand. It'd be more possible if working class people would wake up and see that Obama is a joke just as much as the Bush Administration was and that the two party system in general is just a fucking corporate scam.


It'd be more possible if people everywhere realized that right-wing/conservative/libertarian ideology is entirely about consolidating the dominion of the rich and powerful over the rest of us, and adopted a generally left-wing view of the world.

Once that happens, yes, people would notice that Democrats aren't really left-wing, but this is something the left says all the time.

The issue here isn't that an insufficient number of liberals will talk smack about Obama, it's the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.

*nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by brycewi19.

>> ^NetRunner:

It'd be more possible if people everywhere realized that right-wing/conservative/libertarian ideology is entirely about consolidating the dominion of the rich and powerful over the rest of us, and adopted a generally left-wing view of the world.
Once that happens, yes, people would notice that Democrats aren't really left-wing, but this is something the left says all the time.
The issue here isn't that an insufficient number of liberals will talk smack about Obama, it's the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.


I think the first step is to eliminate the Democrat/Republican false dichotomy. I'm not American, and almost every time I criticize the Obama administration, I hear "yeah, but the Republicans...". First of all, who said anything about the Republicans? And second, it's not as if they have a fundamentally different way of running the country.

Also, given the current levels of deficit spending, it's irrelevant whether you call yourself a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. The U.S. has a very grim long-term outlook, and the budget cuts proposed by the Congress are insufficient. And to see why actual budget cuts aren't enacted, you only need to follow the money. Things will never change as long as the population thinks the "other party" represents the opposition.

Did you even read the comment you're responding to?

The problem is that there's no left in this country's governance at all. It's not a false dichotomy between the parties, it's just a choice between a moderate right-wing party and a hard-right nationalist party. I feel pretty strongly about wanting to have the moderates over the fascists, even though I'm not particularly happy with the moderates.

Why aren't there more than two choices? Because that's just how first past the post voting works. More than that though, it's because there's a really big propaganda machine that constantly demonizes anyone who's even slightly left, and constantly pushes the idea that all suffering in the world is the fault of government, and it'll all get better if we just vote in people who mouth those same words while they cut taxes on businesses, slash government aid to the poor, and make worker safety laws a thing of the past...

Incidentally, you're part of the problem as a person who proclaims that deficit "spending" is the issue. The problem in this country isn't the government's balance sheet, it's high unemployment, and ridiculous concentration of wealth coupled with the growing formalization of the idea that our corporate rulers may commit any atrocity they please with impunity.
>> ^flavioribeiro:

I think the first step is to eliminate the Democrat/Republican false dichotomy. I'm not American, and almost every time I criticize the Obama administration, I hear "yeah, but the Republicans...". First of all, who said anything about the Republicans? And second, it's not as if they have a fundamentally different way of running the country.
Also, given the current levels of deficit spending, it's irrelevant whether you call yourself a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. The U.S. has a very grim long-term outlook, and the budget cuts proposed by the Congress are insufficient. And to see why actual budget cuts aren't enacted, you only need to follow the money. Things will never change as long as the population thinks the "other party" represents the opposition.

From Wikipedia: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options."

Thus, by definition "a choice between a moderate right-wing party and a hard-right nationalist party" is a false dichotomy. I agree that FPTP voting is the major reason for this in presidential elections, which creates a two party system on other other spheres of government. But without seeing the underlying false dichotomy, the general population will stay under the illusion that their votes represent a significant choice, and will keep playing red-vs-blue.

As for me being part of the problem, I respectfully disagree. I'm not an American citizen, and I'm not residing in the U.S. I maintain that the U.S. balance sheet looks ridiculous and current levels of government spending are not sustainable whether you like it or not.

>> ^NetRunner:

Did you even read the comment you're responding to?
The problem is that there's no left in this country's governance at all. It's not a false dichotomy between the parties, it's just a choice between a moderate right-wing party and a hard-right nationalist party. I feel pretty strongly about wanting to have the moderates over the fascists, even though I'm not particularly happy with the moderates.
Why aren't there more than two choices? Because that's just how first past the post voting works. More than that though, it's because there's a really big propaganda machine that constantly demonizes anyone who's even slightly left, and constantly pushes the idea that all suffering in the world is the fault of government, and it'll all get better if we just vote in people who mouth those same words while they cut taxes on businesses, slash government aid to the poor, and make worker safety laws a thing of the past...
Incidentally, you're part of the problem as a person who proclaims that deficit "spending" is the issue. The problem in this country isn't the government's balance sheet, it's high unemployment, and ridiculous concentration of wealth coupled with the growing formalization of the idea that our corporate rulers may commit any atrocity they please with impunity.

>> ^flavioribeiro:

From Wikipedia: "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options."
Thus, by definition "a choice between a moderate right-wing party and a hard-right nationalist party" is a false dichotomy.

Not really, the ballots here really do only give you two choices in most elections. I suppose we could write in someone else's name, but without someone's name being put forward by some sort of organized campaign, write in's don't win.

If you mean it in a broader sense, and mean more people need to be aware of FPTP problems and the issues with supermajority rules, then yeah I'm in complete agreement. I mostly get push back about those from right-wing people though, who either say "the Founding Fathers made it that way for a reason, and we shouldn't mess with their perfection" or just generally cheer the idea that those things make it hard for the government to do anything at all, even though it really just makes it nearly impossible for people to have a voice in what it does. A desire to make the system work right, rather than a desire to sabotage it would be nice.

There's this real problem with ideological brainwashing here -- even people who don't really follow politics look at policies through a lens of "small government" vs. "big government" and not through a more straightforward view where policies are to be judged on the merit of their goals and their effectiveness in achieving those goals.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
As for me being part of the problem, I respectfully disagree. I'm not an American citizen, and I'm not residing in the U.S. I maintain that the U.S. balance sheet looks ridiculous and current levels of government spending are not sustainable whether you like it or not.

Okay, so let's unpack this. What do you think should be the top priority of the US Congress over the next year? If it's the national debt, why is that the most pressing issue right now? Why do you reference spending specifically? Aren't revenues at a 60-year low? What factors make our spending "unsustainable"? Does the fact that we're still mired in a recession affect the answer to any of these questions?

@flavioribeiro, just after I posted that, I came across this comic, which I think pretty much perfectly illustrates the problem we have here in the US:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/11/965457/-Language-is-a-Virus

>> ^NetRunner:

If you mean it in a broader sense, and mean more people need to be aware of FPTP problems and the issues with supermajority rules, then yeah I'm in complete agreement. I mostly get push back about those from right-wing people though, who either say "the Founding Fathers made it that way for a reason, and we shouldn't mess with their perfection" or just generally cheer the idea that those things make it hard for the government to do anything at all, even though it really just makes it nearly impossible for people to have a voice in what it does. A desire to make the system work right, rather than a desire to sabotage it would be nice.

(...)

Okay, so let's unpack this. What do you think should be the top priority of the US Congress over the next year? If it's the national debt, why is that the most pressing issue right now? Why do you reference spending specifically? Aren't revenues at a 60-year low? What factors make our spending "unsustainable"? Does the fact that we're still mired in a recession affect the answer to any of these questions?

Yes, I mean it in the broader sense. FPTP degenerates too often into regimes where there is very little opposition, even if there are (formally) more than two parties.

As for the top priority of the US Congress, I believe it should be balancing the budget. The national debt is the most pressing issue because especially over the last 4 years, US GDP growth has been fueled with borrowed money. Rolling over this debt will already cause a significant drop in the American standard of living, especially as inflation and interest rates start to rise.

To make things short, I refer you to Karl Denninger's blog (who I agree with). He posted short video about this today. To answer your question more precisely, the US Congress must 1) revise the tax code and 2) enact significant cuts to government programs. (1) is nearly impossible to pass because it effectively taxes everyone the same. We will at best see a weak version of (2), which will be insufficient and more painful in the long run.

>> ^NetRunner:

flavioribeiro, just after I posted that, I came across this comic, which I think pretty much perfectly illustrates the problem we have here in the US:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/11/965457/-Language-is-a-Virus
Bipartisan drivel.

>> ^flavioribeiro:

As for the top priority of the US Congress, I believe it should be balancing the budget. The national debt is the most pressing issue because especially over the last 4 years, US GDP growth has been fueled with borrowed money.

I say getting a solid economic recovery is job #1. A huge portion of the deficit right now is due to the recession itself -- it lowers our GDP (and therefore the tax revenues), and it means a lot more people going on government assistance because they're unemployed and can't find a job.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
Rolling over this debt will already cause a significant drop in the American standard of living, especially as inflation and interest rates start to rise.

"Rolling over" this debt? Why will it result in any drop in the standard in living? It seems to me that leaving the unemployment picture untouched is going to have a massively larger impact on our long-term prosperity than having a higher short- and medium-term national debt.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
To make things short, I refer you to Karl Denninger's blog (who I agree with). He posted short video about this today. To answer your question more precisely, the US Congress must 1) revise the tax code and 2) enact significant cuts to government programs. (1) is nearly impossible to pass because it effectively taxes everyone the same. We will at best see a weak version of (2), which will be insufficient and more painful in the long run.


I'll have to watch the video later, but the blog post probably gives me a clear enough picture. You know this guy is a founder of one of our dreaded Tea Party groups here, right?

In any case, I'll just respond to what I think he's got a valid point about.

First, he's right that medical care costs are essentially the entire problem with the long range debt picture. We've got to find a way to get health care cost inflation under control here. Other countries have done so with lots of government interventionism. We're still refusing to do that sort of thing, and the longer we put it off, the worse our deficits will get.

Second, while I think the "Fair" tax is a giant scam, I'm not opposed to the basic idea of replacing income taxes with consumption taxes.

Third, I like the idea of cutting back on the number of incentives baked into the tax code. But I don't oppose the very idea of them on principle, I just think we have a bunch that aren't doing any good for anyone, and a bunch that are actively doing harm (like oil & gas subsidies).

However, the vast majority of it is just lies and dogmatic ideology being presented as some sort of solution to a mundane budget issue. It's exactly what I was referring to when I said this:>> ^NetRunner:

The issue here [is] the millions of people who think the biggest problems in our country are that taxes are too high on businesses, government aid to the poor is too generous, and worker safety regulation is a tyrannical imposition on liberty.


It's also just one step shy from suggesting that we euthanize our elderly, process them into soylent green, and sell it to pay down our debt.

Out of sheer curiosity, what country are you from?

Also, if our balance sheet is so bad, why aren't the bond markets punishing us?

>> ^NetRunner:

I say getting a solid economic recovery is job #1. A huge portion of the deficit right now is due to the recession itself -- it lowers our GDP (and therefore the tax revenues), and it means a lot more people going on government assistance because they're unemployed and can't find a job.

Once you compensate for deficit spending, nominal GDP declined approximately 10% per year over the last 3 years, and oscillated around 0% for the 7 years before that. This has been masked by borrowing trillions of USD, which is the only way the government can stimulate anything. I believe the US does not have the production capacity you expect it to have, which would be required to produce a true economic recovery and not have GDP merely return to pre-2000 levels.

>> ^NetRunner:

It's also just one step shy from suggesting that we euthanize our elderly, process them into soylent green, and sell it to pay down our debt.

I completely agree, and so does Karl in his latest video. The recovery process is going to be very painful, because Congress will most likely not enact a decent healthcare solution or a widespread reform to the tax code, and will defend special interests and military spending at all costs.

I'm from Brazil (but I've been around, and I've worked in the U.S.).

>> ^bmacs27:

Also, if our balance sheet is so bad, why aren't the bond markets punishing us?


Because quantitative easing pushes down the yield on short-term bonds. On the other hand, it increases the yield on long-term bonds (since QE is essentially printing money, it raises the expectation of inflation in the long term).

@NetRunner

What about AV?

>> ^flavioribeiro:

Once you compensate for deficit spending, nominal GDP declined approximately 10% per year over the last 3 years, and oscillated around 0% for the 7 years before that. This has been masked by borrowing trillions of USD, which is the only way the government can stimulate anything. I believe the US does not have the production capacity you expect it to have, which would be required to produce a true economic recovery and not have GDP merely return to pre-2000 levels.

There's no such thing as "once you compensate for deficit spending" when it comes to GDP. If you do that, it's something other than GDP. You may make an argument for why you think some other number aside from GDP is a better metric of the status of the economy, but growth in GDP is growth in GDP.

As for the productive capacity, if we'd had a massive earthquake and tsunami, yeah, I'd expect our productive capacity to diminish. We didn't lose anything in the way of supply infrastructure though. We just saw demand for goods and services drop across the board.

In any case, my main point is that fixing the slump is the only way to ever fix the debt issue. I also think any attempt to fix the debt now is going to be self-defeating, since both raising taxes and cutting spending will make the slump worse, which will in turn only make the debt worse.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
I completely agree, and so does Karl in his latest video. The recovery process is going to be very painful, because Congress will most likely not enact a decent healthcare solution or a widespread reform to the tax code, and will defend special interests and military spending at all costs.

Again, you're blurring two unrelated issues together. Debt doesn't cause recessions, recessions cause debt. Debt might lead to inflation which can hamper overall growth, but right now we're seeing abnormally low inflation, even with short term interest rates at zero.

>> ^flavioribeiro:

>> ^bmacs27:
Also, if our balance sheet is so bad, why aren't the bond markets punishing us?

Because quantitative easing pushes down the yield on short-term bonds. On the other hand, it increases the yield on long-term bonds (since QE is essentially printing money, it raises the expectation of inflation in the long term).


That's what bmacs is talking about, and we're not seeing signs of increased expectations of inflation at all. 10-year bond rates are expected to settle at the expected 10-year inflation rate + some return, and looking out there today, I see it's around 3.6%, which is lower than it's been for most of the time they've been tracking it. See that spike in the middle? That was the last time inflation caused problems for the real economy in the US.

>> ^Matthu:

@NetRunner
What about AV?


If by AV you mean Alternative Vote/Instant Run-off Voting, I like it. Wish we could implement it here, along with real proportional representation, abolishing the Senate, making the President have to submit to question time, being able to have votes of no confidence, etc.

*dead

embed for one that works:

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by shagen454.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by BoneRemake.

Replaced video embed code with backup #4508 (supplied by member BoneRemake) - embed replaced by member BoneRemake.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by BoneRemake.