Political discussion thread

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: If being a respectful, dependable, and positive employee is too much to ask for in the private sector, then pack your things and let someone more grateful have the position.  If you hate corporations and their demands, then go become a teacher and see how you like working for the public. As long as I'm treated with respect, I return the respect.  I am always dependable.  I've missed two days in the last two years, due only to food poisoning.  I do my job and I do it with a smile.  If that's not enough for an employer than that's too bad.  And I really don't mind trading 40 hours of my time in order for enough money to survive and have a few creature comforts.  But when they poke their nose into my personal business, or when they demand extremely long hours or want to pay low wages, then no, I'm not going to kiss someone's behind for a piece of....job.  And you have the right to tell them to kindly f**k off.

And I have a couple of times in my life.  But ultimately, who suffers for that?  The employer?  Not bloody likely.  Nope.  It was I who suffered for it.  The employer I'm sure gave not one of those f**ks.  Better to prevent employers from demanding extremely long hours, paying low wages and involving themselves in people's personal lives.  Protect those who are economically weak.  The economically powerful can and will take care of themselves.

Sometimes I feel as if life simply consists of licking the boots that have the least dogsh*t on them. I don't feel any semblance of pride within my inane position of occupation. I sell people Sirius/XM radio service in a call center. Yet there's nothing else around here I could go for with my current finances/school degrees. I don't wish to go to college, either. I'm too interested in impractical things that are worth very little money. I have sh*tty dreams and life goals. I want to become a master music box hand-craftsman. Some days I want to drop everything and become homeless, pick up my saxophone, and travel the world with a few friends as a minstrel group. Most days I want to be an obscure, poverty-stricken writer. It'd be interesting to die like Poe did.

Edited by Alitare - October 14 2012 at 19:14

thellama73 wrote: [QUOTE=HackettFan ] Shoot, in Texas, oil companies actually have their very own legal power of eminent domain!Can you cite your source here? If this is true, it's a power granted by the government, and I agree the government should not grant that power.They've been using it too to prepare for the transcontinental pipeline even though that hasn't even been approved. But they don't really care about a given individual's right to negotiate fairly with them.

I heard about this on NPR. I just did a quick Google search on it. Here is a citation from the NY Times. There are others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/texas-judge-rules-transcanada-can-seize-pasture-for-keystone-xl.html?_r=2&

By the way, you make the qualification that corporations cannot LEGALLY force you to give them your money, regulate people's behavior and so on. On the other hand, when an example is provided, you claim it to be an issue with the government. Your position is non-falsifiable. This is another problem I have libertarianism. It's an ideology, but not logically sound philosophy. I have enjoyed the discussion, though. Best.

thellama73 wrote: HackettFan wrote: thellama73 wrote: [QUOTE=HackettFan ] Shoot, in Texas, oil companies actually have their very own legal power of eminent domain!Can you cite your source here? If this is true, it's a power granted by the government, and I agree the government should not grant that power.They've been using it too to prepare for the transcontinental pipeline even though that hasn't even been approved. But they don't really care about a given individual's right to negotiate fairly with them. I heard about this on NPR. I just did a quick Google search on it. Here is a citation from the NY Times. There are others. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/texas-judge-rules-transcanada-can-seize-pasture-for-keystone-xl.html?_r=2& By the way, you make the qualification that corporations cannot LEGALLY force you to give them your money, regulate people's behavior and so on. On the other hand, when an example is provided, you claim it to be an issue with the government. Your position is non-falsifiable. This is another problem I have libertarianism. It's an ideology, but not logically sound philosophy. I have enjoyed the discussion, though. Best. The complaint (as I understood it) was that government needs to regulate companies because they are just as capable of oppressing the masses as government. In order to support that claim, you have to give an example of a company doing something oppressive as a result of lack of regulation. The examples you give are of companies oppressing people by being like government, not by being like companies.

Mmm.. I at least see how you're scoring things now. I realize too that you are responding others who may have focused more on regulation. My focus was running the full gamut of things that liberals advocate politically that conservatives cast the label of socialism on. This certainly includes regulation, but is also much broader. For instance, with a single payer system in health care, I'm not talking about adding regulation. I'm talking about eliminating a good chunk of the health care industry, because I don't think there should be anyone profitting at all within the domain of coverage. I made nor care about any distinction as to whether corporations were oppressing the masses by their own means or through governmental means (d, all of the above). If you agree that corporations should not be granted (official) governmental powers, then it's great to know where we agree. I am also concerned about unofficial ruling powers and sociological impact (in which I may not actually be proposing a legislative solution, as with the Walmart example). I brought up the historical concept of feudalism for the following reasons:

a. It was a counter-boogey man to the socialism charge and quite at odds with it.
b. It was novel, and, as we saw, could raise an eyebrow, and hopefully add a new way of looking at things. I could have spoken of oligarchic rule too, but I thought this direction contributed more.
c. Feudalism is an example of decentralized government that did NOT by most accounts contribute to individual liberty. Modern day feudalism would be equivalent to a portion of libertarianism run amok and forsaking its mission. I think of mining towns. I think of people afraid to leave their job for loss of benefits, I think of deregulation that decreases or eliminates competition in regions that are not hubs of activity, etc.
d. If libertarians can entertain other boogeymen besides government, then liberals and libertarians can find more common ground.
e. Libertarians should not be voting Republican. They might consider voting Democratic in order to be more consistent with their mission of individual freedom.

You said also: "My claim is non-falsifiable because it is non-false. It is true by the definition of what government is. Similarly, the claim "all registered Democrats belong to the Democratic Party" is unfalsifiable, since it is true by definition."

Yes, but if that were to be a bone of contention for some reason, we would have to agree to make it falsifiable in principle, or there would be nothing to discuss. It would all be decided in advance by whoever speaks their axiom the loudest. Admittedly, I didn't pick up on how tightly you were maintaining the focus of the discussion on regulation, though.

Analysis of the second debate: still for Obama

that's all

I'm still for Obama but I think Romney won the second debate--  that's 2 to 0.    Of course Obama, like Biden, is playing defense which is unavoidable I suppose.    The problem is he's also being defensive, which is unappealing and ineffective, and I still think he's in all kinds of trouble largely from the voting groups he shouldn't have to worry about at this point.

I thought Romney did magnificently (his only blunder was using the word "tariffs") but it is a shame the moderator interrupted him to correct him when she didn't even understand what he was saying.

He was not disputing what was said in the rose garden, he was trying to lay a trap where he would say "If you knew it was an act of terror the day afterwards, why did your staff persist on calling it a spontaneous demonstration for two weeks?" But he got cut off before he could pull the trigger and now everyone thinks he bungled his facts.

A minor comment out of nowhere. I just finished watching PBS' "The Fabric of Cosmos" and I can say: even though I support Mitt's supposed (emphasis in "supposed") desire to cut spending, leave PBS for last man. The only place on tv where some type of brain is still somewhat used.

Edited by The T - October 18 2012 at 22:29

I don't think it's stupid to cut wasteful spending where you can, even if it is small. Remember, we're talking about millions of dollars here, even if that is nothing as far as the government is concerned. Cut what you can get away with, even if it is small and eventually it will add up.

This was our budget in 2010.  The blue bar is the money our government took in.  The red bar is what our government spent.

But to show you how horrifying this is, look at peach block- that's mandatory spending.  We can't cut that even if we wanted to.  Our discretionary spending is represented by the yellow block.  That's what we can cut. 

That's a tiny fraction of our receipts that is going to controllable spending.  And as the debt grows, that scarlet bar called "Interest" grows and grows too, extended mandatory spending.

Cut PBS and the other "department" related expenditures and we'll still be borrowing money.
Cut funding to the military and we'll still be borrowing money.

I've shown elsewhere that the top 25% of income earners pay 86% of the income tax, and that you would have to tax them at 98% of their income to balance our budget.

Any real solutions?