From Bill Anderson at LRC Blog: For the most part, however, people really are in denial. They seem to believe that all that is needed is to raise taxes on the wealthy, and everything will be as before.
No, you also have to implement campaign finance reform, impose heavy regulations on the predatory banking industry, reduce barrier of entry regulations on small businesses to encourage economic growth on main street, actively fight bipartisanism by mandating at least four presidential candidates, creating real transparency at all levels and prosecuting governmental officials who engaged in corruption and war crimes, not to mention balancing the budget by cutting billions on corporate welfare and military profiteering...
Also, thanks for naming a disease after me... am I dying?
Oh and end our relationship with Israel, legalize drugs and prostitution, dismantle the FCC, end immigration quotas, end farming subsidies... I could go on if you want, but it's starting to sound like I'm running for office. *shiver*
Politicians are out there working on all those things right now, Ginx. Soon all of our problems will be solved. We just need to have confidence in the system.
Steven, they're busy taking million dollar corporate hand outs thanks to wealth concentration resulting from decades of supply side economics (or "Reaganomics," for you Retardicans). They're corrupt to the core until they are no longer financially beholden to private interests.
Fractional reserve is evil - check Multi-party system to break the false left/right - check Foreign aid ended (all of it) - check Legalize "victimless crime" - check End all subsidies (corporate welfare) - check Open borders (as long as we end all welfare) - I don't know where you stand on that. End the military industrial complex - check Tax religions and charities - don't know that one
But you could never run for an office you would immediately be labeled a racist, fascist by the stupid left and a isolationist by the moron right.
Radio Bloger: we have a problem on immigration... since I have observed that immigrants are the only reason social security hasn't collapsed. They pay into the system with faked SS cards but they don't collect benefits. It's actually a strange situation, I recommend looking into it.
I can see taxing churches as corporations, in the industry of manufacturing hope. However, they would need some system of writing off their charity as tax free (because honestly, some churches do spend a significant portion of their budget on charity).
And while we're on it, "under god" out of the pledge and change the motto on our money to "In Gold We Trust," as we transition to a metallic resource backed currency.
I'm gonna lose you on my belief that public healthcare should be standard, even for visitors from foreign nations. I think it's common courtesy to have a base level of medical care open to all, while private insurance associated with private hospitals and clinics can provide luxury services to those who can afford them or whose jobs provide them. I would also subsidize the private insurance up to the point that the public plan would pay, so that private insurance gets a break and only has to cover the excess. If that was confusing, let me know. Like... if the government would pay $100 for a check-up and your private provider charges $150, the government would cover up to $100, and you or your private insurer would cover the rest.
Pfffft, leave the troops there. Let them keep whatever land they can conquer, we'll even pay to ship their familes once things settle down. I don't really want them back home. Unemployment, crime, and poverty are high enough, we don't need tens of thousands of veterans compounding the problem.
The troops are only pawns, and the last thing we need is to continue to occupy other lands - the crusades were enough, it's time to stay out of the sandbox.
I know about the Social Security scam - may FDR rot in a urinal when we dig him up! Oh I forgot shut down Social Security we have had enough of that pyramid scheme. I have looked at it a lot and it's dirty.
I would accept public health care as long as we can:
Get the AMA out of medicine, the government out of controlling it and stop the artificial competition elimination keeping much higher qualified people out of medicine. About the only people who can afford med school are public politically motivated support and rich punks.
Stop the Military industrial complex and stop bleeding this country dry.
End corporate and personal welfare.
End the massive prison system.
End the income tax.
Recover the money the FED has stolen.
All of that is only if forced to stay under the constitution, something I think is flawed by design by the Hamiltonians.
I am not an anarchist but I have sympathetic views in that regard.
If Ike couldn't subdue the the military idustrial complex, then who will or can?
Speaking on behalf of the Puppet Regime, I say America NEEDS to keep its military - to what degree is your decision but all the doom and gloom about the coming anarchy is true, you're gonna need some muscle and us too to protect our precious resources.
The Dene Rangers up in the Arctic - all, gosh, 15 of them? - won't be enough.
Steven: If you had a mother who ignored you while she whored herself out for drug money and an alcoholic father who beat you, I can imagine you might grow up thinking parents are a horrible idea. But the fact is, having a bad pair yourself does not mean that all parents are bad and should not be prevented from raising their children, nor that children would be better of just fending for themselves.
So it is with governments. Governments are not essentially good, nor are they essentially bad, and in a democracy we tend to end up with the leaders we deserve. America is just chock full of ignorance and greed, so we have corrupt morons leading us. We're the only ones who have the power to change that.
Eisenhower had no interest in actually ending the military industrial complex. His "warning" was more like a home owner who was about to sell their house saying, "Oh and by the way, I released some termites into the crawl space... so watch out for those."
The guy was a General, he had pioneered the anti-Communist proxy wars that defined much of America's 20th century military policy, and the guy was a racist war criminal.
Like I said before: cut off the money between private interests and political campaigners, and the motivation for corruption will cease.
It's all well and good to say, "cut off the money between the private interests and political campaigners," but do you really expect the beneficiaries of this corruption to write a law that will actually stop it? And even if they do, do you honestly think they won't find some loophole--if there isn't a giant one built right in to begin with--to get around it?
Joe: Our country is built on regulation. The Constitution regulates the government, limitting it, seeking to prevent the abuses that leaders are prone to take advantage of. Your question essentially amounts to asking, "Why would the founding fathers have limited their power?"
It would happen if we elected people who actually believe it and promise to do it and are removed from office if they refuse to do it. Conservatives have routinely elected tyrants who appoint like-minded power-hungry Supreme Court Justices, which is why the recent ruling that corporate donations constitute "free speech." If conservatives actually elected people who don't seek power, who do want to limit government, and who are not beholden to private interests... we might be in a different situation. I honestly believe conservatives have dropped the ball on this, because limitation of government is a hallmark of conservative ideology, one which Republican voters and politicians have abandoned, especially in the wake of 9/11.
@steven: Yes, the leaders we deserve, because we are all in it together. If you don't want to be a part of it, I think you know where the door is. If, however, you aren't a giant pussy and would like to actually buckle down and try instead of being a whiney baby, then you could support measures like increased public education or limited government powers, both of which combat the rising ignorance and governmental abuse of power that we are seeing.
Public education = teaching people whatever the powers that be want them to know. It's ironic that you would put that in the same sentence as limited government powers.
We are all in it together = whatever measures can get the most votes will be imposed on everyone.
My question is more like: "What's to prevent those in government from abusing their power in spite of what's written down on a piece of old parchment?" The answer, as far as I can tell, is: "Not much."
As far as electing people who agree to govern according to the laws, good luck with that. People don't seek power over other people because they're altruists, and the one or two honest politicians you might be able to dig up will get swallowed up by the system. The problem is endemic to power. Also, I have zero interest in defending conservatives, but I don't see liberals doing much better.
If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.
No, you also have to implement campaign finance reform, impose heavy regulations on the predatory banking industry, reduce barrier of entry regulations on small businesses to encourage economic growth on main street, actively fight bipartisanism by mandating at least four presidential candidates, creating real transparency at all levels and prosecuting governmental officials who engaged in corruption and war crimes, not to mention balancing the budget by cutting billions on corporate welfare and military profiteering...
ReplyDeleteAlso, thanks for naming a disease after me... am I dying?
Oh and end our relationship with Israel, legalize drugs and prostitution, dismantle the FCC, end immigration quotas, end farming subsidies... I could go on if you want, but it's starting to sound like I'm running for office. *shiver*
ReplyDeletePoliticians are out there working on all those things right now, Ginx. Soon all of our problems will be solved. We just need to have confidence in the system.
ReplyDeleteRight?
Hey, I'd vote for you.
ReplyDeleteSteven, they're busy taking million dollar corporate hand outs thanks to wealth concentration resulting from decades of supply side economics (or "Reaganomics," for you Retardicans). They're corrupt to the core until they are no longer financially beholden to private interests.
ReplyDeleteSee Bret
ReplyDeleteWe can agree on some things...
Fractional reserve is evil - check
Multi-party system to break the false left/right - check
Foreign aid ended (all of it) - check
Legalize "victimless crime" - check
End all subsidies (corporate welfare) - check
Open borders (as long as we end all welfare) - I don't know where you stand on that.
End the military industrial complex - check
Tax religions and charities - don't know that one
But you could never run for an office you would immediately be labeled a racist, fascist by the stupid left and a isolationist by the moron right.
Look at that... RB and Bret.. up in a tree....
MM: Would you donate $2 million to get my campaign off the ground?
ReplyDeleteI'll be honest up front... I hate the troops. Is this going to be a problem when running?
Radio Bloger: we have a problem on immigration... since I have observed that immigrants are the only reason social security hasn't collapsed. They pay into the system with faked SS cards but they don't collect benefits. It's actually a strange situation, I recommend looking into it.
ReplyDeleteI can see taxing churches as corporations, in the industry of manufacturing hope. However, they would need some system of writing off their charity as tax free (because honestly, some churches do spend a significant portion of their budget on charity).
And while we're on it, "under god" out of the pledge and change the motto on our money to "In Gold We Trust," as we transition to a metallic resource backed currency.
I'm gonna lose you on my belief that public healthcare should be standard, even for visitors from foreign nations. I think it's common courtesy to have a base level of medical care open to all, while private insurance associated with private hospitals and clinics can provide luxury services to those who can afford them or whose jobs provide them. I would also subsidize the private insurance up to the point that the public plan would pay, so that private insurance gets a break and only has to cover the excess. If that was confusing, let me know. Like... if the government would pay $100 for a check-up and your private provider charges $150, the government would cover up to $100, and you or your private insurer would cover the rest.
The troops all need to come home and shut down all the bases...
ReplyDeleteI couldn't find an extra 200 bucks as is, I don't have a job anymore I work project to project and that is getting tough.
You have enough "untouchables" on your list you couldn't get elected as dog catcher.
Pfffft, leave the troops there. Let them keep whatever land they can conquer, we'll even pay to ship their familes once things settle down. I don't really want them back home. Unemployment, crime, and poverty are high enough, we don't need tens of thousands of veterans compounding the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe troops are only pawns, and the last thing we need is to continue to occupy other lands - the crusades were enough, it's time to stay out of the sandbox.
ReplyDeleteI know about the Social Security scam - may FDR rot in a urinal when we dig him up! Oh I forgot shut down Social Security we have had enough of that pyramid scheme. I have looked at it a lot and it's dirty.
I would accept public health care as long as we can:
Get the AMA out of medicine, the government out of controlling it and stop the artificial competition elimination keeping much higher qualified people out of medicine. About the only people who can afford med school are public politically motivated support and rich punks.
Stop the Military industrial complex and stop bleeding this country dry.
End corporate and personal welfare.
End the massive prison system.
End the income tax.
Recover the money the FED has stolen.
All of that is only if forced to stay under the constitution, something I think is flawed by design by the Hamiltonians.
I am not an anarchist but I have sympathetic views in that regard.
Ginx, how could you say all those terrible things about politicians? They're only trying to help us. If we don't have them, who do we have?
ReplyDeleteIf Ike couldn't subdue the the military idustrial complex, then who will or can?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking on behalf of the Puppet Regime, I say America NEEDS to keep its military - to what degree is your decision but all the doom and gloom about the coming anarchy is true, you're gonna need some muscle and us too to protect our precious resources.
The Dene Rangers up in the Arctic - all, gosh, 15 of them? - won't be enough.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteven: If you had a mother who ignored you while she whored herself out for drug money and an alcoholic father who beat you, I can imagine you might grow up thinking parents are a horrible idea. But the fact is, having a bad pair yourself does not mean that all parents are bad and should not be prevented from raising their children, nor that children would be better of just fending for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSo it is with governments. Governments are not essentially good, nor are they essentially bad, and in a democracy we tend to end up with the leaders we deserve. America is just chock full of ignorance and greed, so we have corrupt morons leading us. We're the only ones who have the power to change that.
Eisenhower had no interest in actually ending the military industrial complex. His "warning" was more like a home owner who was about to sell their house saying, "Oh and by the way, I released some termites into the crawl space... so watch out for those."
ReplyDeleteThe guy was a General, he had pioneered the anti-Communist proxy wars that defined much of America's 20th century military policy, and the guy was a racist war criminal.
Like I said before: cut off the money between private interests and political campaigners, and the motivation for corruption will cease.
It's all well and good to say, "cut off the money between the private interests and political campaigners," but do you really expect the beneficiaries of this corruption to write a law that will actually stop it? And even if they do, do you honestly think they won't find some loophole--if there isn't a giant one built right in to begin with--to get around it?
ReplyDeleteThe leaders "we" deserve, Ginx? I don't think so. Only people who consent to the regime have gotten what they deserve.
ReplyDeleteJoe: Our country is built on regulation. The Constitution regulates the government, limitting it, seeking to prevent the abuses that leaders are prone to take advantage of. Your question essentially amounts to asking, "Why would the founding fathers have limited their power?"
ReplyDeleteIt would happen if we elected people who actually believe it and promise to do it and are removed from office if they refuse to do it. Conservatives have routinely elected tyrants who appoint like-minded power-hungry Supreme Court Justices, which is why the recent ruling that corporate donations constitute "free speech." If conservatives actually elected people who don't seek power, who do want to limit government, and who are not beholden to private interests... we might be in a different situation. I honestly believe conservatives have dropped the ball on this, because limitation of government is a hallmark of conservative ideology, one which Republican voters and politicians have abandoned, especially in the wake of 9/11.
@steven: Yes, the leaders we deserve, because we are all in it together. If you don't want to be a part of it, I think you know where the door is. If, however, you aren't a giant pussy and would like to actually buckle down and try instead of being a whiney baby, then you could support measures like increased public education or limited government powers, both of which combat the rising ignorance and governmental abuse of power that we are seeing.
Public education = teaching people whatever the powers that be want them to know. It's ironic that you would put that in the same sentence as limited government powers.
ReplyDeleteWe are all in it together = whatever measures can get the most votes will be imposed on everyone.
Bret,
ReplyDeleteMy question is more like: "What's to prevent those in government from abusing their power in spite of what's written down on a piece of old parchment?" The answer, as far as I can tell, is: "Not much."
As far as electing people who agree to govern according to the laws, good luck with that. People don't seek power over other people because they're altruists, and the one or two honest politicians you might be able to dig up will get swallowed up by the system. The problem is endemic to power. Also, I have zero interest in defending conservatives, but I don't see liberals doing much better.