Forums > FoS

Wally's school of politics

(1/13) > >>

TheWalrus:
As the official United States ambassador to TUS, im here to explain, educate, and otherwise answer any questions regarding international and national relations.  Over the course of this thread, much will be discussed about domestic policy, both social and economic.  As a proponent of economic policy trumping all else, most of my arguments will be centered around this.  Politics has a very special place in my heart, and has been a passion of mine since a young age.  Since these discussions have been permeating random threads on TUS, instead of continuing to hijack these threads I have decided to open the topic here, where your freedom of speech exists in the formerly known #1 community on TUS. 

Please refrain from posting useless drivel in this thread, be prepared to back up your opinions with fact or substance instead of one-liner sniping, or I will have peja mop the floor with your useless remarks.

Recommended reading for fellow enthusiasts:
Capital, Vol. 1: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, by Karl Marx
The Rise of The Counter-Establishment, by Sidney Blumenthal
Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes
The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
The Federalist, by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, by Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

TheWalrus:
This is a backlog of PM's between Mablak and myself on the topic of politics and economics, if anyone wants to comment:

--- Quote from: Mablak on December 01, 2012, 09:03 AM ---I am kind of off-topic here, but I feel the need to put everything said about the middle east under a microscope, especially when it comes from Fox (which by the way, is a major source of propaganda). Business does have a huge hand in war, there's about 1 private contractor for every 10 military soldiers. This is vastly more than it used to be, it's really incorrect to say the military-industrial complex isn't going strong. The defense industry has spent around 100 million or more per year on lobbying for the past 7 years, they have significant influence on our military policy. If a defense company can spend tens or hundreds of thousands on things like campaign donations, and through their influence on policy prevent say, hundreds of millions in slashes to the military budget, then it's money well spent for them.

Fox News is owned by Fox Entertainment Group, which is owned by Murdoch's News Corporation. There's virtually no accountability on what is actually selected as news, and news is decided by the people at the top, according almost entirely to profit motives. Their primary goal is to sell consumers to advertisers, i.e. big businesses, I mean this is explicit, that's how a big news company is run. They don't just get money from showing a company's ads, they get money (and repeated business so to speak) from reporting news in a way that benefits those benefactors.

Oil is a huge motive for us, this is almost transparently true, we've sought a presence in the middle east since the 40s for precisely this reason. I mean if you want relatively recent evidence, in 2001 Dick Cheney commissioned a report on energy security from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, it's kind of disgusting to read: http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/study_15.pdf

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: TheWalrus on December 07, 2012, 04:51 AM ---Well, lets just dispense with the anti-fox stuff, all the news organizations are all ridiculous, i think you know that.  You described it best: news influenced by those that report it, hired by the people that own the business to echo their sentiments.  Thats news in our country, whether its CBS, FOX, CNN, or MSNBC.  They are all guilty.  Onward:

On the oil issue, you are really missing the boat, Cody.  Invading Iraq was never about the oil.  We were never entitled to the oil Iraq has, we haven't gotten any at a discount, and we are currently getting none, their ability to draw crude from their wells is crippled since the war.  Now that we have pulled out of Iraq, the ruling body, which was never cozy with us, is opposed to what our presence brought their country so you can bet we won't be getting any assurances on oil from them.  You'd be on an island with the kind of radical thought to assume that Bush and Cheney were war-mongering because they wanted to enforce oil policy in the middle east.  Saddam always overstated his ability to influence policy or wage war, the white house wasn't worried about his ability to pull the strings on the world market enough to invade Iraq.  I really hope you don't buy into this conspiracy theory nonsense about the white house using 9/11 to systematically invade iraq under the guise of WMD in an attempt to influence oil prices?  Because, if so, there was always easier and more popular ways of doing that besides a full scale invasion, lol.  The mere proposition is laughable, it just doesn't stand up.  It's the one fallacy that has been perpetuated by so many people, I hear it regularly.  The only problem is, ive yet to hear a plausible explanation of what Bush expected to gain, oil-wise, by invading Iraq.  I've yet to see any possible correlation between the war and oil businesses.  The fact is, lots of money was lost in the war, and very few fortunes were gained, save for a few military contractors.  You won't sell me on Bush invading Iraq to fill the coffers over at Blackwater. 

And for the record, I never voted or supported that ass-clown.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Mablak on December 06, 2012, 10:47 AM ---If you want my take on how our economy should be structured, I think the only goal has to be maximizing society's average well-being, of course putting greater emphasis on minimizing suffering than on increasing happiness (e.g. there's a vast difference in the quality of life affected when a poor person receives $500 as opposed to a rich person). So I'm open to any economic system that does maximize our well-being, and it could be the case that there are multiple systems that could do this.

In practice, it's too complex a problem for me to suggest that I know the optimal economic structure, the best we can do is make incremental changes in the short term that would be foreseeable improvements (like getting money out of politics, sign this! http://anticorruptionact.org/). I wouldn't say socialism has been dealt any kind of death blow though, and heck, every country can be considered socialist to some extent. In any case, I think we need further reins on the capitalist system we have now, it is actually making us less free; when tuition prices continually get higher, and work prospects for so many people are part-time jobs that don't pay livable wages, people really don't have any options. Sometimes letting people do as they wish has the end result of interfering with society's freedom of action, we can't always assess what is and isn't interference in the short term.

I do have to disagree on your assessment of government handouts; nobody is getting wealthy off them, they're simply so people can survive, they are definitely not the problem here. It wouldn't be so much of an issue if we just slashed our absurd military budget, which would be more possible if we could get money out of politics, and actually have politicians pay attention to what the majority wants. Health care though man, around 26,000 people die per year from lack of insurance. That's something that has nothing to do with laziness, and we need taxation in this area precisely because charity is not footing the bill, not even coming close. And again I don't think there would be any qualms about spending much more on health care if we cut our military down to say, 200-300 billion per year, which would still be spending more than any other country.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: TheWalrus on December 07, 2012, 04:51 AM ---No, there isn't anything remotely conspiratorial about profit motives.  I just don't understand how profit motives, or the actions behind them are fit to be demonized.  You can reference corporate greed all you want, but if profits are made within the constricts of the law, then it must not be trifled with.  The thrust for maximized profits is the very heart and soul of the free market system, and to modify the flow of money through government intervention would alter the course of our country, and its already happening. 

As far as lobbying, I won't get into it.  The government is broken in this sector, I agree with ever assertion you've made on that subject.  It's terrible.

No, I would be a fool to suggest that there was no economic factor for the war, but it is my onus to set the record straight.  I'm implying that the economic factors that resulted from the war were merely circumstantial, an unintended by-product of one countries invasion of another.  Surely you realize that the driving universal resource of the modern world is currency in one form or another.  You would be hard pressed to find an isolated event as significant as an invasion where there wasn't a monetary incentive in one way, shape, or form.  A hurricane happens, cleanup ensues, and there is money to be made.  Palestine tensions run high with Israel, cue military buildup, and there is money to be made.  A president from a different political party is elected in a country that supports a more international economy, there is money to be made, ect.  You get the point.  I can hardly believe that George W. Bush, a man proven through his actions to care deeply about his legacy, would risk tarnishing it to make a few extra dollars on the side.  Yet the Iraq war effectively torpedoed his chance at standing abreast with exceptional former leaders.  I hardly think a handful of private contractors drilling for oil to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq is evidence of marked net benefit to the United States.  It certainly wasn't in anyones endgame that after all was said and done the Iraq oil fields would lie in ruin and need revitalizing. 

I think you are misinterpreting the focus of the article.  We aren't getting control of the oil fields, merely paying for the right to drill there.  And if not, what then?  Iraq has nothing else to drive its economy.  If we didn't drill for oil, they could not effectively do it on their own.  You are right though, there is a correlation between the war and oil companies, but only by chance.  Hypothetically, Americans wouldn't be drilling in Iraq if Saddam hadn't made the decision to torch the fields back in the twilight of the invasion.  There are clear factors that dictate that these 'profit motives' are more opportunistic than connived. 

Getting back to your overall view of the 'money tree' in the U.S., the reality of the 2% or 1% holding the vast majority of funds is the reality of free market capitalism.  The 1% also drives our economy and creates jobs through lending, borrowing, and investing.  If the 1% decided to put their money in the bank, or say, give it to the poor, the economy comes to a grinding halt.  I hope that none of your tenets of belief on the economy involves wealth redistribution, socialism doesn't work, it is a non-sustainable model that has been proven time and time again to fail.  You can reference Sweden all you want, but the reality is that socialism has ravaged the countries of europe and many more before them.  The flow of money to the 1% and 2% even with people starving, hungry, and without health care is a reality that must be stomached in order to maintain a strong national economy.  I hate big government with a passion, and even when I lost my job I refused to collect unemployment because the very principle of it strikes me wrong.  No one should ever be afforded a resource for nothing, the very core of that action will destroy any civilization or establishment, or at the very least, bring it to its knees. 

America is dealing with the cold reality of mortgaging its future for the American dream, so the gainfully employed could own another home, so the underemployed could own a house instead of an apartment, and for the poor to survive without working.  For those teetering on the edge of survival?  Private enterprise has always footed the bill for them long before our country was born, charity isn't a novel idea.  The economy fires me up Cody, thats why I don't give a flying f@#! about social issues  I think its a waste of time, and people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want if it doesn't interfere with the liberty of others.  Abortion and gay marriage is a waste of time to debate.  The government needs to stop interfering in your and my affairs, Cody.  I hope we can agree on that last part, if nothing else :)

So your solution to a lack of jobs paying livable wages is to slash the armed forces budget, which employs over a million people?  I think much of this opportunism around 'increasing the average well being' is great!  I support this ideology.  I am not a ass, I don't want to see people dying or not getting health care.  The reality is Cody, the well has run dry.  There isn't a viable source to draw from anymore in this country.  There once was, but the good times are no longer rolling.  Say you slash the military budget.  That is a finite budget cut.  This unto itself is non-sustainable.  It cannot be grown, it is a fixed amount of money from the government.  The displaced, laid-off military members are now part of your pool of less fortunate health care beneficiaries.  What happens when the money is all gone, spent to subsidize the health care of the less fortunate on a yearly basis?  What then?  You end up in the same spot, only with 500,000 (1/2 the military, i dont know how many people the armed forces employs, just a guess) less people employed.  Those 500,000 people used to be paid wages, which they went out and spent on the free market, driving the economy.  No longer!   That money has been appropriated for health care.  It's highly unlikely that 500,000 doctors and nurses will be employed to pick up the slack in the job market, thats generous - theres no way.  Doctors get paid premium wages, they are part of that high income bracket you are talking about, and that is who the money will flow to.  So not only are you losing employed americans, that money is going to the hands of the few.  So you do what every good socialist proposes we do.  Tax those very same people!  Re-appropriate the money!  But by now the stack is getting smaller and smaller.  There is less of it out there, production is down overall, less Americans are at work. 

Your proposal is nothing new.  It's noble, but ultimately everyone cannot share a high quality of life.  Some must suffer so the society can thrive.  The United States offers opportunity for those that seize opportunity through hard work.  There is only so much of it though.  The top 1% or 2% of earners you speak of - they have seized that opportunity.  And their reward?  For the vampires to gather around and suck them dry.  And what then after we have run out of the upper class to tax?  Not to mention the people the tax money is earmarked for that will never see it because of an incompetent government.  How about instead re-appropriating the money from the rich to the poor like some modern day robin-hood class action, we start to tear down our bloated government.  The government is set up to fail.  It's no surprise that private firms from our free market system do a better job in basically every facet of what the government does.  It is time for a revolution.  You suggest cutting the military, taking away from the defense of our sovereign nation.  I suggest cutting the fat from the bloated, socialist-driven government practices that produced the solyndra fiasco and subsidies for ethanol based fuel.  What a joke!  I have just one question for you Cody, the one question that trips up every socialist - How do you plan to sustain these changes you propose?  Where will the money come from?  I'm anxious to hear your response, im quite enjoying this dialogue.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Mablak on December 07, 2012, 02:02 AM ---We could employ even more people in the armed forces if we were so inclined, but it would be like paying people to dig a hole in the desert, not beneficial for anyone except those getting paid. The way things currently are is just as you fear, we're paying the majority of our military to do things of no extra benefit, and in many cases of additional harm. This is not unlike the idea of too many people thriving on welfare, not that I think all welfare is a bad thing, in fact your experience of not accepting unemployment shows that people really don't like to stay dependent on others, and want to work. We couldn't possibly slash the military budget overnight, lest we simply put countless people out of work with no other career lined up, but we need to start reducing it dramatically, routing people from these useless or harmful professions to ones that help more of society.

I'm not suggesting we put all military cuts into health care, but we need to put a hell of a lot more in, especially since it would serve the exact same purpose of protecting our citizens' lives. We have the option of saving 26,000 more lives per year at home, or continuing to overspend in efforts to kill enemies/civilians abroad, saving no one and endangering ourselves by breeding more hatred against us. Now doctors, nurses, and medical workers get paid pretty well, as they should, but unlike soldiers, their professions dramatically boost our economy by saving lives and preventing injury; even if you're talking about dollars and cents, and not more important intangibles like the value of human life, a single doctor can do more good for society than a hundred soldiers. Work-related injuries cost around 250 billion per year, and employers cover less than 25% of that, one way or another, medical bills need to be made affordable to the poor and the middle class, without putting them even deeper in debt.

Our government is bloated in one area only; defense spending. And if we had a good chunk of the military in the private sector, rather than just sucking our tax dollars up, we would have a much more prosperous society. While the free market isn't bogged down by government bureaucracy and can often operate efficiently, it doesn't do a better job than government in many crucial areas. Health care for one: private insurers look for every possible way to invalidate people's contracts, for example, one woman was denied breast cancer surgery because she had been treated for acne once, one man's policy was nullified because his agent happened to enter his weight incorrectly. In industries where we deal with decisions that dramatically affect people's quality of life, we've seen that adhering to a profit-driven system does not produce the best outcome. In those industries, we need very strict rules and regulations, since every decision makes such a huge impact on someone's life. Or take the prison system; private prisons are absolutely terrifying, they lobby for more oppressive laws because they get money based on how many people they incarcerate. If we had nothing but private prisons, we'd be living in a society where as many people as possible are imprisoned at all times.

It's odd that you ask how these changes would be sustainable, when our current system has proven unsustainable. Our recession was caused by lack of regulation, and because businesses can count on getting bailed out when they fail (because of their own control of congress), doesn't matter how badly it screws over the country. We have the ability to dramatically reduce our military budget, have those would-be soldiers employed elsewhere, spend more on education and healthcare, and still pay less taxes overall, I mean that's how bloated our military is. Again, even if we cut over 500 billion from the military, we'd still have the largest army by far. And I think the key to being able to enact better governmental policy that wouldn't lead to such colossal waste in this area is getting money out of politics; we can't make our politicians better people, but we can change their incentives.

--- End quote ---

Mayhem:
How/Why is obama president, when he is not of American decent? No valid social security # (that has been provided).

TheWalrus:

--- Quote from: Mayhem on December 07, 2012, 04:56 AM ---How/Why is obama president, when he is not of American decent? No valid social security # (that has been provided).

--- End quote ---
The legality of Obama's residency has been challenged repeatedly by right wingers since he first announced his candidacy.  Obama's campaign repeatedly ignored calls from the right to surrender his birth certificate and documentation that he was a US citizen, as they were under no legal obligation to do so, vetting is done by the government, not in the court of public opinion.  Eventually, his birth records were released publicly to quell the oppositional voice, which was growing with every day of non-disclosure, as this was a hot-button issue at the time.  Continuing this dialogue on his legality as a citizen, his social security number has come into question.  Specifically, how his social security number prefix is assigned to Connecticut, a state he certainly wasn't born in, it couldn't be farther from his birthplace of Hawaii.  There are theories both ways, but at this point im going to go with the fact his birth records have been vetted and confirmed, and go ahead and say he is a legitimate US citizen, and in fact has provided a valid social security number.  Social security numbers have been known to be poorly regulated, and he was probably just issued a odd number based on an error, certainly something that has happened many times over before.

How is he president: In a non-incumbent year, he defeated Sen. John McCain in 2008, and as the incumbent candidate, defeated Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012.  Both of these election cycle successes revolved around soundly winning the battleground states of the republic of Shyguy (Ohio) and Florida.

TheWalrus:

--- Quote from: Mablak on December 07, 2012, 02:02 AM ---We could employ even more people in the armed forces if we were so inclined, but it would be like paying people to dig a hole in the desert, not beneficial for anyone except those getting paid. The way things currently are is just as you fear, we're paying the majority of our military to do things of no extra benefit, and in many cases of additional harm. This is not unlike the idea of too many people thriving on welfare, not that I think all welfare is a bad thing, in fact your experience of not accepting unemployment shows that people really don't like to stay dependent on others, and want to work. We couldn't possibly slash the military budget overnight, lest we simply put countless people out of work with no other career lined up, but we need to start reducing it dramatically, routing people from these useless or harmful professions to ones that help more of society.

I'm not suggesting we put all military cuts into health care, but we need to put a hell of a lot more in, especially since it would serve the exact same purpose of protecting our citizens' lives. We have the option of saving 26,000 more lives per year at home, or continuing to overspend in efforts to kill enemies/civilians abroad, saving no one and endangering ourselves by breeding more hatred against us. Now doctors, nurses, and medical workers get paid pretty well, as they should, but unlike soldiers, their professions dramatically boost our economy by saving lives and preventing injury; even if you're talking about dollars and cents, and not more important intangibles like the value of human life, a single doctor can do more good for society than a hundred soldiers. Work-related injuries cost around 250 billion per year, and employers cover less than 25% of that, one way or another, medical bills need to be made affordable to the poor and the middle class, without putting them even deeper in debt.

Our government is bloated in one area only; defense spending. And if we had a good chunk of the military in the private sector, rather than just sucking our tax dollars up, we would have a much more prosperous society. While the free market isn't bogged down by government bureaucracy and can often operate efficiently, it doesn't do a better job than government in many crucial areas. Health care for one: private insurers look for every possible way to invalidate people's contracts, for example, one woman was denied breast cancer surgery because she had been treated for acne once, one man's policy was nullified because his agent happened to enter his weight incorrectly. In industries where we deal with decisions that dramatically affect people's quality of life, we've seen that adhering to a profit-driven system does not produce the best outcome. In those industries, we need very strict rules and regulations, since every decision makes such a huge impact on someone's life. Or take the prison system; private prisons are absolutely terrifying, they lobby for more oppressive laws because they get money based on how many people they incarcerate. If we had nothing but private prisons, we'd be living in a society where as many people as possible are imprisoned at all times.

It's odd that you ask how these changes would be sustainable, when our current system has proven unsustainable. Our recession was caused by lack of regulation, and because businesses can count on getting bailed out when they fail (because of their own control of congress), doesn't matter how badly it screws over the country. We have the ability to dramatically reduce our military budget, have those would-be soldiers employed elsewhere, spend more on education and healthcare, and still pay less taxes overall, I mean that's how bloated our military is. Again, even if we cut over 500 billion from the military, we'd still have the largest army by far. And I think the key to being able to enact better governmental policy that wouldn't lead to such colossal waste in this area is getting money out of politics; we can't make our politicians better people, but we can change their incentives.

--- End quote ---
Let's stick with the sustainability theme, as I think it is very important to find a system that works.  You say the recession was caused by a lack of regulation, and I agree with that.  Mortgage lending regulation giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were universally responsible for the housing collapse, im sure we can agree on that, its common knowledge.  The irresponsibility of loaning to those that should have never qualified for loans in the first place led to this collapse.  I argue that the government's ability to influence lending to private citizens is the central cause of the problem.  The idea that every US citizen should enjoy a better quality of life, and the government will pick up the tab is non-sustainable.  Lets face it, any way you want to split this issue, the government runs firms poorly.  There is little accountability, and as you have repeatedly referenced, the lobbying is out of control in our country.  If government run programs run under their budget, instead of being rewarded for this surplus, their funding is cut.  This leads to a culture where efficiency is punished, and incompetence is the status quo. This is where I believe there is unnecessary intrusion into affairs that the federal government should have no hand in.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have never been conceived, and should have been abolished as soon as they were created.  Not that the ideas behind these entities is wrong or a bad idea, it is just the universal fact that the government can not run them effectively. 

Nested in this same belief is my vehement opposition to government sponsored, single payer healthcare.  Government simply can not do the job as well as the private sector, as much as the system may appear broken.  What about how government is run currently gives you any faith that they can run that program well, despite your repeated references about how broken the system is.  How could the cure for a broken system be to tax private citizens at a higher rate to make the broken entity larger and more powerful?  And I am still waiting on how Obama's plan, as we approach the 'fiscal cliff' is going to sustain and grow the economy.  From my point of view, the plan only constricts, there is no opportunity for growth.  Thats notwithstanding the fact that Obamacare will crush small business with its mandate.  How is forcing a business to purchase healthcare anything approaching the ideals we hold as private citizens?

We fundamentally agree on the root causes of these problems, and I think we see the issues for what they are Cody, but I just don't believe this is a job for the government.  I don't understand when people started turning their back on capitalism and forgot say's law, which has been proven to be true throughout the longevity of our economic history.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page