or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Budget Deal - Page 5

post #161 of 736
Frankly, I think this stagnation and indecision is preferable to the "well the government has to do SOMETHING" mentality.

Every time the government does "something" we all end up a little worse off.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #162 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Frankly, I think this stagnation and indecision is preferable to the "well the government has to do SOMETHING" mentality.

Every time the government does "something" we all end up a little worse off.

I think they are doing what they were put there to do. The freshmen aren't there to play the game, they are there to do what they were elected for. The long-standing congressmen cannot help but be confused that their new members aren't playing along. I say, good for the newbies. Hold your ground and do what you were sent there for.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #163 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

After all it's all about getting Obama re-elected at any cost!

How do you figure? Please explain this statement. How exactly does Obama stand to benefit from any of this?

Honestly, what Obama should do is to stand up, and address the American people.

Obama should tell the American people that we are being forced into an agreement, with no alternative, that will cost nearly all of us in a very real and obvious way, almost immediately. There will be serious harm done.

Then what he has to say is this...

When this deal is passed, and you find that our problems are not solved, and that your lives have become worse, and the lives of your children have become worse, when some of you can no longer afford the most basic level of nourishment, health care, and shelter, while the rich continue to get richer, you're going to need to do one thing. Get down to the polls and vote these people who pushed for this deal out. Vote them out. Get rid of the people who would have the richest Americans and the richest corporations earning record amounts while the majority of us suffer. And never make this mistake again.
post #164 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Frankly, I think this stagnation and indecision is preferable to the "well the government has to do SOMETHING" mentality.

Every time the government does "something" we all end up a little worse off.

Interesting, but raising the debt ceiling, and passing basic funding bills is one of the routine things government has to do.

In Westminster systems at least, if both houses don't pass essential funding bills then it is quite clear grounds for double-dissolution of both houses and elections have to be held... That is, re-voting by the people for both houses and hence a new prime minister as well.

In the US case it looks like the GOP is trying to exploit some technicalities to raise a stink. In response everyone is trying to show that "they need to do something" about debt, etc.

I am of course not familiar with the US system but it doesn't look like a snap election has to be called over this. Hence the continued posturing and non-compromise from what I can see.

BTW for the forex people check out the NZD/USD bull run!
post #165 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Frankly, I think this stagnation and indecision is preferable to the "well the government has to do SOMETHING" mentality.

Every time the government does "something" we all end up a little worse off.

This is just another stall for the GOP Party to hold the Democrats hostage once again.
post #166 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This is just another stall for the GOP Party to hold the Democrats hostage once again.

Krugman weighs in:

"The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling arent complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/op...me&ref=general

A much more definitive article than Reich's in the Huffington Post.
post #167 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Talk about drive by vacuous comments.

The GOP's posturing is so transparent. They want us to go through this again closer to the election.

After all it's it's all about getting Obama out of the Whitehouse at any cost!

Oh well it's not the first time the Republicans have shot themselves in the foot and their plans have back fired. And this time they have the Teabaggers to thank for it.

Thanks for the votes.

Yes, the GOP is posturing. So is Obama. So is his party. That's what politicians do. As for the Tea Party, they are not shooting anyone in the foot. They are the ones preventing the GOP from shooting itself in the foot. Without that influence, the party would have been negotiating the bill from a much weaker position.

Oh, and one more thing: I think it's time we started calling out people who use the "Teabagger" slur. It's telling that Democrats would use this slur in relation to one of the most celebrated events in American history. The Tea Party is founded on one thing: fiscal conservatism. It's folks like you who have made the movement out to be racist and extremist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

SDW - I really believe that. I think that Japan got in the hole it is in because they spread their stimulus too thin, and got all the debt of a stimulus without the benefits.

Well, your belief is nothing but dogma. Keynesian stimulus does not work...especially long-term. It's a moot point anyway...we don't have 3 trillion to spend.

Quote:

Socialized medicine reduce costs dramatically - go look at per-capita costs for all of the other industrialized nations, ours is way higher.

And our system is much better. I still don't buy that costs would go down.

Quote:
Rationing is better than killing all the old people -

That's what rationing is.


Quote:
the costs of private insurance are growing faster than medicare, and medicare is growing faster than Canada's health plan - plus Canadians live longer than we do. A decade or two from now only millionaires will be able to afford private medical insurance.

You're comparing us to Canada? Surely I don't have to explain how this is a problem?

Quote:

How would "opt out" help social security? The SS debt would go exponential.

I don't think you are thinking about this as a math problem, your solutions make no sense at all if you do.

No, sir...it is your solutions that make no sense at all. Your solutions are based on proven failure. As for for SS, what I am proposing is not new. The idea has been around for quite some time. SS is a ponzi scheme and would be illegal if done by any entity other than the federal government. Gradual phase-out, partial privatization, etc....they are all possibilities that can be explored. And none of them would hurt people in retirement or anywhere near it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In time for what?! First, the date keeps moving...out. Second, it's not like even if they don't get something done by that date that default is the next step. It simply means that they will not be able to borrow money and will be forced to cut spending. Default is when the US can no longer pay interest on its debt. We're a long, long way from that happening. The interest in around $200B/year. The federal government is bringing in about $2.2T/year. They can pay the interest. They will just have to cut other spending. And they will cut spending on the the least valuable things. Treasury will determine what spending is cut. Which is why Obama is scared because the fact that everything he and the Democrats have claimed is of the utmost importance will be laid bare as being not quite so important.

Exactly. The world will not end. We're not going to default.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How do you figure? Please explain this statement. How exactly does Obama stand to benefit from any of this?

He's trying to paint the GOP as being unreasonable and out for the rich, which is typical class warfare. It's not working all that well.

Quote:

Honestly, what Obama should do is to stand up, and address the American people.

Obama should tell the American people that we are being forced into an agreement, with no alternative, that will cost nearly all of us in a very real and obvious way, almost immediately. There will be serious harm done.

You are hilarious. Where the fuck is Obama's plan? Where is the Democrat plan? The House has passed two. It is Obama and the Democratic party that are insisting on fiscally and morally bankrupt policies. Even the Reid plan is nonsense.

Quote:

Then what he has to say is this...

When this deal is passed, and you find that our problems are not solved, and that your lives have become worse, and the lives of your children have become worse, when some of you can no longer afford the most basic level of nourishment, health care, and shelter, while the rich continue to get richer, you're going to need to do one thing. Get down to the polls and vote these people who pushed for this deal out. Vote them out. Get rid of the people who would have the richest Americans and the richest corporations earning record amounts while the majority of us suffer. And never make this mistake again.

It just keeps getting better! Class warfare. Scare tactics. Meanwhile, Obama gets to bankrupt the country with his policies and blame it on the people that are trying to stop it. Genius.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #168 of 736
"HOBBIT REPUBLICAN FASCISTS WANT TO DESTROY ALL LIFE ON EARTH":

Quote:
To put things in perspective: this year alone the federal government spent $1.7 trillion more than it took in. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the John Boehner plan (really more of a recommendation), cuts $917 billion in spending growth over 10 years. Thats barely more than the debt ceiling hike thats been proposed and far less than we overspent this one year alone.

In opposition to this exceptionally minor disruption of irresponsible and explosive government, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has this to say:

Quote:
What were trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget Were trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.

The United States government spends twice as much on its yearly budget today than it did when Bill Clintons left office. Yet, (hardly) slowing the growth by a few billion a year alters the life of all things, living and dead, on the planet?

Then theres this bright, but not too bright, bulb:

Quote:
House Republicans are trying to impose dictatorship through their tactics in the debt-ceiling negotiations. She said the GOP rhetoric could spark panic and chaos, which she called potentially devastating to the economy.

Yep, GOP rhetoric. House Republicans, you see, are displaying authoritarian impulses because they wont acquiesce to the presidents wishes. Makes sense. These fascists have the audacity to advocate for their positions and constituents. What a bunch of Mussolinis!

But speaking of dictatorships, Rep. Jim Clyburn suggests that, since all the major civil rights victories of this country were achieved via executive orders, Barack Obama should just ignore the law and do the right thing. Nah, dictatorships never start with that kind of reasoning.

Quote:
He could do that [an executive order] with a stroke of a pen. We have seen many big things done in history that way, Clyburn said on MSNBCs Jansing & Co. I was joking to my staff the other day: Tell me the bill number for the Emancipation Proclamation. It was an executive order. We integrated the armed services by executive order. We integrated the public schools by executive order. Sometimes executives must order that things get done.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #169 of 736
Why a Debt Default Would Be Wonderful

Quote:
While it is likely that the two parties in Congress will reach a deal before the August 2 deadline, I can’t help reflecting on how wonderful it would be if they didn’t. While Congressman Ron Paul has correctly pointed out that the government has already defaulted at least three different times in its history, and continues to default every time it prints new money, it is not quite the same as an “on-the-books” failure to make a timely payment. That is exactly what America needs.

Politicians, mainstream economists, and the media tell us that a U.S. government debt default would be catastrophic. Treasury bonds would be downgraded, interest rates would soar, and the massive government spending that has supposedly fueled the present (jobless) recovery would be severely curtailed, plunging the U.S. and possibly the world back into a deep recession.

Perhaps that is true. However, a debt default by the federal government would still be a blessing to American society for several reasons.

First, one must remember that all government spending represents a redistribution of wealth (what we regular folks call “stealing”). The government forcibly confiscates money from those who have earned it and spends it for the benefit of someone else. The most insidious way that the government does this is by borrowing. When it borrows, it is confiscating money from people in the future – some of whom are not even born yet – to hand out to their special interest supporters today. To the extent that it would prevent or decrease this, a default would result in a more just society.

However, even if one doesn’t care about justice or property rights, a default would help correct the very malinvestment that has caused the crisis in the first place. As I’ve said before, the entire U.S. economy is really one, huge bubble of misallocated resources, caused by at least a century of government intervention. Most people recognize that the government’s backing of mortgages, together with monetary inflation by the Federal Reserve, were the primary causes of the housing bubble. However, most people fail to recognize this same dynamic in almost every sector of the economy.

The government also backs student loans for people to go to college. Just like it did to the housing industry, this has inflated the price of higher education far beyond what could be supported by real demand. That in turn has led to the creation of millions of jobs in the education sector that only exist because the government redistributes wealth to back those loans. When the government funds are no longer there, the price of education will plummet, just as housing prices did. All of those people will be out of work.

Healthcare is another sector with all of the same intervention-related problems. Government subsidy creates artificial demand, inflating the price and driving the misallocation of resources to the healthcare sector. The industry is not forced to innovate in terms of delivering its services in more efficient ways because the customers are forced to buy its products (if you doubt this, just withhold the Medicare portion of your payroll taxes and see what happens). This also directs employees into the healthcare sector that would not be supported by natural market forces. When the government can no longer subsidize it, the bubble will pop, just like housing and education. Again, massive unemployment for misallocated human resources.

Banking, research, agriculture, energy, automobile manufacturing – there is not one sector that anyone can name where government is not overriding the voluntary transactions that market participants would otherwise engage in. Wherever the government is spending taxpayer money, it is overriding the choice that the taxpayer would have made if he had been allowed to keep his money and spend it as he pleased. As F.A. Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom, the government has never and can never make better choices than millions of market participants acting in their own self-interest. They simply lack the information necessary to do so.

So, wherever the government is spending money to try to boost some aggregate statistic, it is making the problem bigger, not smaller. If government spending is creating jobs, they are not real jobs. A real job is a voluntary contract between a buyer of services (an employer) and a seller of services (an employee). If that job is created because of government spending, then a third party is introduced into the transaction who is not acting voluntarily. Government-created jobs force taxpayers to purchase services from employees because it is not profitable for the employers in that sector to purchase them. Forcing taxpayers to purchase them doesn’t make those jobs any more profitable. It just depletes the capital available to create profitable jobs elsewhere.

The prospect of perhaps tens of millions more people unemployed may seem frightening, but that day is coming regardless of what politicians do in Washington. Economic laws are like the laws of nature. They will assert themselves in the end. Any job that requires the government to borrow more money to subsidize it is also a job that depends upon the lenders continuing to lend. As we have seen in recent Treasury bond auctions, those days are coming to an end. Raising the statutory debt ceiling only allows more phony jobs to be created, setting up more employees for the painful correction.

However, the most important reason that a debt default will be beneficial is a philosophic one. It will force a complete paradigm shift in the way Americans think about the role of government. For at least a century, there has been no area of life that some special interest has not appealed to government to manage or subsidize. From the way we conduct commerce to the way we make personal decisions on food or healthcare to the way we coexist with our neighbors in other countries, nothing has been off limits. Complacency about our liberty has been one reason. The other has been the perception of infinite financial resources. The great wealth that the United States generated in its freest period provided a tax base and borrowing collateral that has always been perceived as unlimited. A debt default would shatter that foolish perception.

The default would be a bucket of cold water in the faces of a drowsy and compliant populace. It would wake people up to the reality that Thomas Paine was aware of over 200 years ago, when he wrote that government “is at best, a necessary evil.” People would realize that the government doesn’t “have our back,” other than to stick a gun in it to loot our liberty and wealth. We would no longer hear that horrid refrain from media pundits after some new government incursion or heist: “Well, the government had to do something.” Instead, we would hear the resigned chorus, “Well, the government couldn’t do anything.” And perhaps, in some glorious, enlightened future, “The government shouldn’t do anything.”

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #170 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

In opposition to this exceptionally minor disruption of irresponsible and explosive government, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has this to say:

Who cares what she said. Queen Nancy has no right to say a damn thing. It was her House that failed to pass a budget - the first in the history of the US:

"The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era." - John Boehner on Sunday, June 13th, 2010 in an interview on ABC's "This Week''

Since She provided no explanation for this egregious disregard for a fundamental responsibility for a branch of government, we can only speculate that Congress simply didn't want to address the fact they had absolutely no clue how they were going to pay for Obamacare, not to mention various and sundry bailouts and "stimulus" run amok. It's as if the 111th Congress was being run by a bunch of truant teenage children.

Quote:
Let’s put it in perspective. During the 111th Congress, the one that did not pass a budget, the federal government was comprised of a democrat-controlled House, a democrat-controlled Senate, and a democrat-occupied White House. There was no reason whatsoever that a budget could not have been passed, except for that tiny little reason that the democrats did not introduce one.

Lest we forget: The Obamanation Himself proposed a budget to Congress earlier this year: The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2012. It was rejected by his own D controlled Senate. Unanimously.

That is exactly what has led to this Doomsday scenario - what's being debated now is not a budget, it's a statutory borrowing limit, a subject somewhat removed from an actual budget.

Now Queen Nancy has the gall to characterize the House of "irresponsible government"!!! That creep wrote the book on irresponsible government!

Remember the Shutdown: Pelosi’s House failed to pass FY11 budget
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #171 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

People would realize that the government doesnt have our back, other than to stick a gun in it to loot our liberty and wealth. We would no longer hear that horrid refrain from media pundits after some new government incursion or heist: Well, the government had to do something. Instead, we would hear the resigned chorus, Well, the government couldnt do anything. And perhaps, in some glorious, enlightened future, The government shouldnt do anything.

Brilliant!
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #172 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Why a Debt Default Would Be Wonderful

Ron Paul throws a party for his colleagues in Congress who follow the Constitution:

A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #173 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Who cares what she said.

I'm really just amused. And by "amused" here I mean sickened by the hyperbolic hypocrisy she's spewing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #174 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It just keeps getting better! Class warfare. Scare tactics. Meanwhile, Obama gets to bankrupt the country with his policies and blame it on the people that are trying to stop it. Genius.

Read Obama's policy positions. How many has he actually followed? Obama is bankrupting the nation with Republican policies. His complete failure to follow his published positions is another issue. But make no mistake, he has helped enact Republican policies, and this is what has killed us.
post #175 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're comparing us to Canada? Surely I don't have to explain how this is a problem?

What do you mean by that? Canada is better than the US - better medical care and cheaper, lower national debt per capita, more solvent pension system, better banking regulations, longer life expectancy, more natural resources, etc.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #176 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Read Obama's policy positions. How many has he actually followed? Obama is bankrupting the nation with Republican policies. His complete failure to follow his published positions is another issue. But make no mistake, he has helped enact Republican policies, and this is what has killed us.

Replace the word "Republican" with "authoritarian" or "Statist" and your statement will be more accurate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #177 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What do you mean by that? Canada is better than the US - better medical care and cheaper, lower national debt per capita, more solvent pension system, better banking regulations, longer life expectancy, more natural resources, etc.

They also have quasi-commodity-based currency, not fiat currency. Interesting, isn't it?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #178 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What do you mean by that? Canada is better than the US - better medical care and cheaper, lower national debt per capita, more solvent pension system, better banking regulations, longer life expectancy, more natural resources, etc.

Indeed Canada is better than the US in a number of ways. Doesn't mean it can't improve of course, but it is better in many ways. It is also, interestingly enough, 3-4 points higher (more free) on the Index of Economic Freedom. It has also been increasing over the years while the US has stagnated or declined over the years.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #179 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

They also have quasi-commodity-based currency, not fiat currency. Interesting, isn't it?

huh? don't know where you got that from - Canada has a fiat currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #180 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Indeed Canada is better than the US in a number of ways. Doesn't mean it can't improve of course, but it is better in many ways. It is also, interestingly enough, 3-4 points higher (more free) on the Index of Economic Freedom. It has also been increasing over the years while the US has stagnated or declined over the years.

Sure - but the biggest differences between Canada and the US in terms of regulation are

- socialized medicine
- low military costs
- heavy handed banking regulation

As long as you have socialized medicine and good banking, labor laws and environmental regulations, then it is OK to let the libertarians have their hand with the rest - it works well that way. You just can't let libertarian ideas get into any laws where people can do more damage than they can repay - like murder, or banking. Imagine if we had a system where murder was a civil issue, and you had to sue the murderer...
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #181 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

huh? don't know where you got that from - Canada has a fiat currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada

Canada's Commodity Currency: Oil And The Loonie

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #182 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Sure - but the biggest differences between Canada and the US in terms of regulation are

- socialized medicine
- low military costs
- heavy handed banking regulation

As long as you have socialized medicine and good banking, labor laws and environmental regulations, then it is OK to let the libertarians have their hand with the rest - it works well that way. You just can't let libertarian ideas get into any laws where people can do more damage than they can repay - like murder, or banking. Imagine if we had a system where murder was a civil issue, and you had to sue the murderer...

OK let's stop right there with the implication that libertarian political philosophy in any way, shape or form gives things like murder a pass. It makes you look foolish.

Second, your comment about doing more damage they can repay is a bit of hand wave.

Finally, we can just agree to disagree that there are viable market solutions for both banking and healthcare.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #183 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Read Obama's policy positions. How many has he actually followed? Obama is bankrupting the nation with Republican policies. His complete failure to follow his published positions is another issue. But make no mistake, he has helped enact Republican policies, and this is what has killed us.

The position taken are halfway positions at best. The overall positions boil down to complete fiscal irresponsibility.

Tax cuts but no real spending limits and no budget to go by. When the money runs out, simply raise the limits. When that runs out, do it again. How you can defend any part of that position with a straight face is beyond me.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #184 of 736
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post




Oh come on Ron, it's just the way you tell 'em.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #185 of 736
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The position taken are halfway positions at best. The overall positions boil down to complete fiscal irresponsibility.

Tax cuts but no real spending limits and no budget to go by. When the money runs out, simply raise the limits. When that runs out, do it again. How you can defend any part of that position with a straight face is beyond me.


How do you feel about the Ryan plan adding an additional $62 trillion to the debt by 2060. Nearly all repubs voted for it.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #186 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK let's stop right there with the implication that libertarian political philosophy in any way, shape or form gives things like murder a pass. It makes you look foolish.

Second, your comment about doing more damage they can repay is a bit of hand wave.

You didn't understand my point at all. I wasn't saying that libertarianism gives murderers a pass, just that it does things that are similar to giving murderers a pass. My point was that libertarianism over-uses the civil courts, and gives people freedoms that they use to do more damage than they can repair.

libertarian rules in the banking sector encourage high-risk behavior, and the price is paid by everybody else.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #187 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

You didn't understand my point at all. I wasn't saying that libertarianism gives murderers a pass, just that it does things that are similar to giving murderers a pass.

Well, they aren't really similar...but whatever.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

My point was that libertarianism over-uses the civil courts,

And it is your opinion that this is a bad thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

and gives people freedoms that they use to do more damage than they can repair.

First, we've been giving politicians this kind of power for decades now. But...

Any examples?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #188 of 736
Quote:

That is a bad argument. Canada has a fiat currency - you are wrong.

You might as well say that the US has an arms and movie based non-fiat currency. The Canadian currency is not backed by oil, gold, or anything else - and they can print as much of it as they like.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #189 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Any examples?

The last three years.

And tell me - why is it that libertarians don't think that murder should be solved in the civil courts? What is special about murder, vs some other kind of harm? Where is the dividing line between a civil offense and a criminal one for libertarians?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #190 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

That is a bad argument. Canada has a fiat currency - you are wrong.

You might as well say that the US has an arms and movie based non-fiat currency. The Canadian currency is not backed by oil, gold, or anything else - and they can print as much of it as they like.

They can, but do they?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #191 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The last three years.

And tell me - why is it that libertarians don't think that murder should be solved in the civil courts? What is special about murder, vs some other kind of harm? Where is the dividing line between a civil offense and a criminal one for libertarians?

Tell me, how is murder "solved"?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #192 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

They can, but do they?

yes, not sure what you are fishing for - just admit you are wrong and move on.

45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #193 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Read Obama's policy positions. How many has he actually followed? Obama is bankrupting the nation with Republican policies. His complete failure to follow his published positions is another issue. But make no mistake, he has helped enact Republican policies, and this is what has killed us.

Republican policies?

---Stimulus=not Republican
---Obamacare=not Republican
---Deficits 4x higher than Bush's worst=not Republican
---Pushing tax increases=not Republican
---"I think when we spread the wealth around, it's better for everybody"=not Republican.
---Not following any military recommendation on Afghanistan policy recently=not Republican
---Offshore drilling moratoriums=not Republican
---Proposed doubling of CAFE standards by 2025=not Republican


He has succeeded at quite a bit of his agenda, namely spending money faster than imaginable. And he's still blaming Bush and claiming that our current situation is the result of fucking tax cuts and the two wars. This is literally the stupidest, most dishonest argument imaginable, but people still buy it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

What do you mean by that? Canada is better than the US - better medical care and cheaper, lower national debt per capita, more solvent pension system, better banking regulations, longer life expectancy, more natural resources, etc.

I meant comparing us to Canada doesn't work in general. We have a totally different role in world affairs, defense, etc. Canada has had the luxury of not having to defend itself (or anyone else) for the last 75 years or so.

And you're wrong about "better medical care." The US has the best care in the world. The problem is the debate about the right to access it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #194 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The last three years.

I think you're looking at things a bit too superficially. You need to look deeper here.

The US banking, money and credit system is a massive government protected corporatist cartel and monopoly where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. It is a massive government supported, controlled and created moral hazard system. Banks are the size they are because of government activity...and because they are so big they are able to "do more damage than they can pay for."


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

And tell me - why is it that libertarians don't think that murder should be solved in the civil courts? What is special about murder, vs some other kind of harm? Where is the dividing line between a civil offense and a criminal one for libertarians?

Actually I didn't say they don't. Some probably do. Some probably don't. Each probably have their reasons perhaps of vary degrees of logic and reason.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #195 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

yes, not sure what you are fishing for - just admit you are wrong and move on.


On the same scale as the United States?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #196 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

On the same scale as the United States?

It does not matter what scale - you said that Canada does not have a fiat currency, not that it had a less-debased fiat currency. Up is down, left is right for you - and once somebody points out that up is not down, you say "but it is less down that this other up!"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #197 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

It does not matter what scale - you said that Canada does not have a fiat currency, not that it had a less-debased fiat currency. Up is down, left is right for you - and once somebody points out that up is not down, you say "but it is less down that this other up!"

I said "quasi-commodity-based".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #198 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I said "quasi-commodity-based".

Which is wrong, it is not based on anything other than the full faith and credit of the Canadian government. And you actually said "They also have quasi-commodity-based currency, not fiat currency". If some statistician finds a correlation between pork belly futures and the US dollar, does that mean that the US dollar is pork-belly based? no.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #199 of 736
Well, in a sense, every currency in the world is a fiat currency because it is guaranteed by the issuing government.

But you are right. In the context I used, I was wrong. I stand corrected.

Be that as it may, Canada's currency does tend to increase or decrease in value in accordance with increase/decrease in value of commodities like oil. In that sense, it is a commodity currency. Much more so than the U.S. dollar.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #200 of 736
Don't think this has been linked to, but haven't checked and it is 5:00am and I need to get some rest.

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/op...e.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...nt_by_slogans/

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal