@lantern53

Hi, old grumpy dude.

1.)
Do you enjoy social security benefits yet? Medicare mayhaps?

You're a socialist.

[I guarantee you would never turn down a social security check if they suddenly arrived in your mail.]

2.)
Congress and congressional lobbyists have the majority of power over policy.

Big business controls the Congress and the Lobbyist. Therefore, Big Business has the majority of power over government policies that affect our lives. i.e. stagant wages; unstable food, housing, and energy; endless war

The President is just a placeholder.

Obama and Romney are just masks for Oligarchs to hide behind.

If I wanted America to fail:

• I'd build lots of coal fired power stations. Preferably right in the middle of major cities to maximise the health effects. Obviously I couldn't do it myself, so instead I'd just phase out the EPA and then let the energy companies do it. I'd tell people it was for prosperity.
  
• I'd just close the schools... no, wait, even better... I'd let schools charge fees according to their results, and let private schools compete with public.
  
• I'd teach the children that they live in the greatest country on earth, and they should never question that fact. In fact, I'd make it an offense to speak out against America... it's unpatriotic.
  
• I'd remove all the regulations impeding business. This would increase the flow of wealth from the poor to the rich, but I'd say it was creating jobs (and market crashes just happen, they can't be stopped).
  
• I'd phase out the metric system, see the point above, the United States of America is the greatest country on earth... and should be able to use whatever archaic convoluted system of weights and measures they like.
  
• If I wanted America to fail, I would prey on the evil already in the hearts of the Oligarchs, and convince them to just keep doing what they're doing. It's for the greater good.
  

OMFG, why is it so hard for you to see the FLAGRANT corruption that's going on here.

It's not like the police arrived, saw the "fight" ending, observed that Zimmerman was reasonably threatened and was justified in shooting, then interviewed and released him.

The cops lied. They failed to collect crucial evidence. The Sanford City Police INTIMIDATED WITNESSES FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

This case is far from "usual" in the just sense.

[Altho, "privileged man gets of scot-free" is pretty usual in Scam-erica i.e. Goldman Sachs, etc. ..whoa channeling QM there a bit]

Stop being blinded by your fantasies. The United States isn't a Just or Fair or Equal place.

It never has been, and as long as fools like you keep eating the crocks of shit the Oligarchs hand to you.. it never will be.


>> ^Darkhand:


If someone could tell me how long it usually takes a murder suspect to be put on trial I would be interested in learning. To me it seems like people get arrested and then it's months before the case comes to the courts. Having said that this case feels like a natural progression so far.
If they didn't find a reason to arrest him they aren't going to do an about face all of the sudden. They're going to wait till they have their case together then arrest him which I figure will be about the end of April?

Yes, of course. I ever so much prefer to get revenge for being poisoned, rather than prevent the poisoning beforehand. Your solutions make the former the only possible approach. Not a world -I- care to live in... The oligarchs have repeatedly proven they are more than willing to inflict any amount of damage on us, if it'll make them a buck or two. Dead people can't sue, you see.

This is why I use the term lunacy to describe libertarianism. The loons ignore all of history and claim that replacing law with civil suits would make everything grand. I suppose I could be more generous and call it naivete, but the result is the same. You ignore history and human nature...just like all utopians, be they capitalist, libertarian, communist or whatever. Utopias only work if human nature changes.

@Stormsinger whatever system you're envisioning seems to me like a common fantasy of underestimating the complexities of society. I invite you to rethink your idea of a society with economic freedom, because it's definitely not Somalia, an uncivilized society ruled by criminals has no freedoms.

No state regulation doesn't mean less regulation. Instead of coming from above in the form of laws, regulation would come from the people and however they decide to organize themselves to deal with anything they perceive as abuses in the economy, without resorting to force. State only comes in to enforce contracts and respect for private property.

Yes, there would be failure, bankruptcy, loss, but that's what makes a system alive, adaptable and capable of evolving, as opposed to the static oligarchic power structures we have now. If you think people are stupid and don't care past the end of their noses, wait until they have to pay dearly for their bad decisions. Which doesn't mean I want to live in a cruel and abusive world, I want a society that can learn and react faster and more appropriately to whatever complex problems that may come up. Leaving that job to regulators and central economic planners is painfully inefficient, not to mention anti-capitalistic.

You know why you talk about a system where regulators, which would still have power, would be held responsible for their actions? Because you like responsability, and I like it too. No one should have power and not be held accountable for their actions.

So here's a thought: take the power away from regulators, let people have the power and the responsability: if they use it wisely, they succeed and profit, otherwise they crash and burn. No, I don't like to see people failing either, but forcibly removing failure from society is what leads society itself to fail.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:



- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.

- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.

Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.


That's effectively the situation today...and we see how well that's been working. If it worked, this video wouldn't exist.


In order for that approach to be effective, it requires a change in normal human behavior...such that
many people would willingly inconvenience themselves for principles that don't immediately affect them.

If we can change human nature, we don't need any other answer. Let's just change it so capitalism (or communism, or objectivism) works well without regulation. They all work fine if those pesky humans would just do what the various Utopians think they should.

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.

The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.

Sure, Barack and I chat all the time about things.

I guess my working model for predicting what Obama does is based on two hypotheses:

1. Obama is really telling us what he wants to see happen in his speeches. He wants to do what he can to address the progressive agenda because he sees it as his moral duty.

2. Obama is, contrary to his speeches, an uber-pragmatist.

It's the second part that gets activist lefties mad at him. He's not interested in waging war on the oligarchs who run the government from their boardrooms, he wants to try to reach out and show them that the progressive agenda is good for both the 99% and the 1%.

Similarly, he's not interested in picking a fights he can't win, just to make an ideological point. He unfortunately doesn't think it's his job to try to shift the Overton window with his words and deeds.

I think people who imagine him to have been some sort of anti-progressive infiltrator or turncoat are just being melodramatic, and I really wish they'd stop issuing all these pronouncements about whether Obama is "with us" or "against us."

He's clearly "with us", he's just not a hardline ideologue who makes everything into some showdown of unwavering and conflicting principles.

He prefers to use the inflexibility of others as his argument to the public for supporting him -- he's being more reasonable, after all. It seems to work out okay for him in the polls, but I think he'd be a much more effective President if he made being firmly on the side of doing what's right a higher priority than being reasonable.

In reply to this comment by Truckchase:
Good talk NR. I'm not convinced.... there are cabinet appointments, etc. he's made that make me not trust him, but I am listening. Ob's speech a couple days ago has me wondering you've got a direct line to him or something.

>> ^packo:

>> ^marbles:
Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks
and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions
woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally
cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them
the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html


Thanks for confirming what I've already said.

The "tax the rich" legislation is mostly a tax on the middle class and small business owners and NOT on millionaires and corporations.

By the way, it ignores the crux of the problem anyway. ie: Financial fraud and corruption.

>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.


did you actually read that article? the only thing you got right is the 90% of tax filers wouldn't be millionaires... if you think the 99% is made of people making 200k+ / yr... you are living in a world where pigs fly and Nickelback rocks

and to defend the 200k+/yr statement against the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that the 99% make an avg wage/salary FAR FAR lower than that, the article defends itself by saying these "200 thousandnaires" might only make this level of pay for a few years of their life... wow! how will they ever get by when a few thousand is obviously so much more large a number to them than people making millions

woops, i guess cold hearted conservatism kinda blinds one to the ironic nature of the difference someone making 30-50k/yr might figure a few thousand is proportionally

cry, cry for the 200 thousandnaires... because the American Dream no longer works as a carrot on a stick when dealing with millions... while you may not be able to become a millionaire, you might be able to still become a 200 thousandnaire... so you better not mess with them

the irony that most won't become a 200 thousandnaire is probably lost on you as well

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

You are a silly silly SILLY man. I was in the middle of writing exactly why you are a silly silly SILLY man and unfortunately lost the whole thing.

I don't have the energy to start over. But I do want to repeat the main argument -- I know that it is a waste of time to show you exactly how you are a silly silly SILLY man, uninformed, misguided, and trapped by some weird anti-tax obsession that beggars all logic of what it means to live in a wealthy society that provides services and protection for its people.

Silly silly SILLY man. That is my main point.

PS: I do taxes for a living. I have done more than one tax return for "middle class" folks who had up to $70,000 in taxable income who paid ZERO TAX. I am perfectly fine with those folks paying more taxes. Doesn't bother me a bit.



>> ^marbles:

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration, that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.
Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650
932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.

Let me get this straight. MoveOn.org, a lobby group for the Wall Street financed Obama administration that is funded by Wall Street billionaire and financial criminal George Soros, has a problem with political spending? That's rich, Ha.

Oh and the "tax the rich" plan MoveOn and other groups are trying to push are widely supported by Wall Street oligarchs. Why is that? Hmmm....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html
"Roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires."
It is the middle class – not Warren Buffett or Wall Street corporations – who will be most hurt by the very policies the "tax the rich" crowd are calling for.