Warfare Kings Working to Keep Fear Alive

[Timshel]

That sounds like projection to me. You've just done what you've accused Nigel of.

Where? I am expressing doubt concerning Nigel's broad brush generalizations that the Tea Party is just the same old Republicans. He is pretending they are all the same and ignoring anything that does not confirm his assertion. I am not at all ignoring the fact that their stance is not clear.

I am familiar with libertarian rhetoric. It's a fact that libertarian doctrine would cut military spending while increasing the percentage of the budget spent on defense. It was pretty clear right away that that is what Paul was saying to me. That is not projecting, I am just familiar with the play book.

Again, I am skeptical of even Rand. I will believe him and the rest when I see action. Claiming I am employing confirmation bias when I am still not ready to make a conclusion is just silly.

Those on the left made up their mind two years ago that it was all astroturf, racists and the same old Republicans and you have ignored anything that distracts from that narrative. Republicans did the same when the grassroots of the left tried and failed to bring change.

 

[Cancel7]

After letting Wall Street nearly eviscerate our economy with credit default swaps and other forms of derivatives you'd still be willing to let them gamble away our SS funds? Are you insane?

I hate to have to give Mott a thumbsup on something he said to Onceler, but I must be fair and balanced, and Onceler has taken a Supefreak like leap on privitization. I only hope that SF doesn't have him speaking in chimpanzee sign language soon!

 

[Cancel7]

Where? I am expressing doubt concerning Nigel's broad brush generalizations that the Tea Party is just the same old Republicans. He is pretending they are all the same and ignoring anything that does not confirm his assertion. I am not at all ignoring the fact that their stance is not clear.

I am familiar with libertarian rhetoric. It's a fact that libertarian doctrine would cut military spending while increasing the percentage of the budget spent on defense. It was pretty clear right away that that is what Paul was saying to me. That is not projecting, I am just familiar with the play book.

Again, I am skeptical of even Rand. I will believe him and the rest when I see action. Claiming I am employing confirmation bias when I am still not ready to make a conclusion is just silly.

Those on the left made up their mind two years ago that it was all astroturf, racists and the same old Republicans and you have ignored anything that distracts from that narrative. Republicans did the same when the grassroots of the left tried and failed to bring change.

I think they're just the same old, far right, Republicans.

A few of them will have to get elected before we can state for certain. And with Paul Ryan demanding all of them to ixnay on the talkay of the Ryan Road To Serfdom economic plan until after the election, we may get that chance.

OTOH, with more Dems now hitting their actual stated policies hard in ads, we may not. I guess we'll see.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is hopelessly utopian, but I have long felt that a good piece of compromise legislation would be one that slashed the military budget & privatized SS. In one fell swoop, you save the U.S. economy, revolutionize spending and get everyone onboard for it.

Wouldn't happen, because in reality, both parties are afraid on both issues...

Not afraid, I just know that cutting SS would be disastrous for the long term economy.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Like it or not, Wall Street is not separate from the rest of the economy, and it is not at all separate from Main Street. Wall Street is Main Street.

Yeah - I think the idea of privatizing SS is a huge win for everyone.

Wallstreet is separate from the rest of the economy. This is precisely why have the modern phenomenon known as "the jobless recovery".

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

While I agree there is a lot that can be cut from defense... in no way is it "the very first place you have to start"... that is simply mindless drivel from the left.

You can START anywhere there is waste. Education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense etc...

Your argument can be turned just as easily to Education.... 'if you're not willing to go there then you're just blowing smoke and can't be taken seriously'

Cutting education would just force states to raise it or make their kids dumber (second option would be especially prevalent in poor states like MS, where the white people who control everything would find it easy to slash benefits to those coloreds and send their white kids to private school).

Medicare and Medicaid... what's to cut? Already you have doctors refusing to take them up because they're paying out to little.

I'd be OK with a temporary 20 year cut to social security because I fucking hate the boomers and you guys deserve it, but it's not like that money would go back into the general treasury anyway, so it wouldn't help the general debt.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yeah. So we should probably keep our defense expenditures where they are, instead of instituting the libertarian slash and burn attitude toward even core functions of government, like national defense, trade policy, and immigration policy.

National defense can easily be provided for on a smaller budget, managing trade policy requires a trivial percentage of the budget. Since the founders saw no need to regulate immigration, I don't either.

 

[Onceler]

I hate to have to give Mott a thumbsup on something he said to Onceler, but I must be fair and balanced, and Onceler has taken a Supefreak like leap on privitization. I only hope that SF doesn't have him speaking in chimpanzee sign language soon!

Ouch! Not unexpected though. My privatization stance has always been a fun conversation w/ people I generally agree with on the issues.

Honestly, I don't know why privatization is seen as a "rightie" issue. SS is a budget killer, just like the military, and is wholly unsustainable in its current form. With each passing year, it reduces other discretionary spending - including spending for programs & groups that I'm sure both you and I hold dear - exponentially.

I don't see the downside to privatizing. The economy grows, workers end up with much more when the retire, we reduce the deficit. Win, win, win.

 

[Bonestorm]

Where? I am expressing doubt concerning Nigel's broad brush generalizations that the Tea Party is just the same old Republicans. He is pretending they are all the same and ignoring anything that does not confirm his assertion. I am not at all ignoring the fact that their stance is not clear.

I am familiar with libertarian rhetoric. It's a fact that libertarian doctrine would cut military spending while increasing the percentage of the budget spent on defense. It was pretty clear right away that that is what Paul was saying to me. That is not projecting, I am just familiar with the play book.

Again, I am skeptical of even Rand. I will believe him and the rest when I see action. Claiming I am employing confirmation bias when I am still not ready to make a conclusion is just silly.

Those on the left made up their mind two years ago that it was all astroturf, racists and the same old Republicans and you have ignored anything that distracts from that narrative. Republicans did the same when the grassroots of the left tried and failed to bring change.

I guess I'm not being clear. The tea party people are just a subset of Republicans that made a lot of noise during the Clinton Administration, disappeared during the Bush administration and magically reappeared as the "Tea Party" once Obama was elected. They've always been around. Pretending they are some new libertarian faction is horseshit.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Go ask an economist what would be the result of the US defaulting on its debt.

LOL yeah, Yurt really doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not something you can just not pay. You either have to reduce total debt in the long run or you can default, which would be much more disastrous.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's not like the SS money we send out to seniors just dissatisfy. It is invested back into the economy when they spend in, then it is harvested back through taxation. That's how the system works. If you went to a stocks based system you'd just be making things much more dangerous with no real economic benefit.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Ouch! Not unexpected though. My privatization stance has always been a fun conversation w/ people I generally agree with on the issues.

Honestly, I don't know why privatization is seen as a "rightie" issue. SS is a budget killer, just like the military, and is wholly unsustainable in its current form. With each passing year, it reduces other discretionary spending - including spending for programs & groups that I'm sure both you and I hold dear - exponentially.

I don't see the downside to privatizing. The economy grows, workers end up with much more when the retire, we reduce the deficit. Win, win, win.

So you're not watching the economy right now then, i assume?

 

[Onceler]

It's not like the SS money we send out to seniors just dissatisfy. It is invested back into the economy when they spend in, then it is harvested back through taxation. That's how the system works. If you went to a stocks based system you'd just be making things much more dangerous with no real economic benefit.

Sure - the only think you'd get by pumping those billions into the market is that stocks would do well. Oh, of course, when they do well, businesses gain confidence, and hire more workers. And then, when more workers get hired, more money gets pumped back into the economy, and businesses do better, and hire more workers. And most of those workers get 401K's, and so on, and so on, and so on.

To me, it's a no brainer. I don't know how anyone can be happy about a 2% return after a lifetime's investment into SS (if it's even there for the generation you happen to be in - most under 40 don't think it will be)

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

After letting Wall Street nearly eviscerate our economy with credit default swaps and other forms of derivatives you'd still be willing to let them gamble away our SS funds? Are you insane?

PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT EQUAL INVESTING ALL YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET.

How many fucking times are you idiots on the left going to use that fear mongering bullshit.

Privatization means the INDIVIDUAL controls their accounts... NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It means that if that individual DIES, the money goes to their heirs... NOT to Uncle Sam.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I hate to have to give Mott a thumbsup on something he said to Onceler, but I must be fair and balanced, and Onceler has taken a Supefreak like leap on privitization. I only hope that SF doesn't have him speaking in chimpanzee sign language soon!

 

[Sammy Jankis]

PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT EQUAL INVESTING ALL YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET.

How many fucking times are you idiots on the left going to use that fear mongering bullshit.

Privatization means the INDIVIDUAL controls their accounts... NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It means that if that individual DIES, the money goes to their heirs... NOT to Uncle Sam.

Where is the money until it goes to their heirs?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

PRIVATIZATION DOES NOT EQUAL INVESTING ALL YOUR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET.

How many fucking times are you idiots on the left going to use that fear mongering bullshit.

Privatization means the INDIVIDUAL controls their accounts... NOT THE GOVERNMENT. It means that if that individual DIES, the money goes to their heirs... NOT to Uncle Sam.

Actually the money goes to other retirees who need it instead of some brats trust fund or to the spouse so they can live gluttonous off of the income of two people.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cutting education would just force states to raise it or make their kids dumber (second option would be especially prevalent in poor states like MS, where the white people who control everything would find it easy to slash benefits to those coloreds and send their white kids to private school).

Um... bullshit... do you really think we need a superintendent's office with complete staff for EVERY single school district? There is a serious overload of admin... just as there is in defense.

The whole white/black bullshit in your post is nothing more than race baiting. Typical of the left... pathetic every time.

Medicare and Medicaid... what's to cut? Already you have doctors refusing to take them up because they're paying out to little.

Seems to me I recall Saint Obama finding $500b in waste in Medicare/Medicaid... I would start there.

 

[Bonestorm]

Sure - the only think you'd get by pumping those billions into the market is that stocks would do well. Oh, of course, when they do well, businesses gain confidence, and hire more workers. And then, when more workers get hired, more money gets pumped back into the economy, and businesses do better, and hire more workers. And most of those workers get 401K's, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Or, alternatively, the wizards of Wall Street gamble the money on weird ass financial transactions like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that all go to shit and threaten to bring down the global economy requiting government bailouts, all while they collect fat commissions and bonuses.

No, that would never happen.

 

[cawacko]

Or, alternatively, the wizards of Wall Street gamble the money on weird ass financial transactions like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations that all go to shit and threaten to bring down the global economy requiting government bailouts, all while they collect fat commissions and bonuses.

No, that would never happen.

No because options available to invest in would not include credit default swaps or investing individually in companies like Bear Stearns or Lehman that used credit default swaps.