dood when fiat fails what do you think they run to? gold, silver, oil.... etc! commodities. fiat money NEVER WORKS when the people don't have control of it.
That's true. Fiat currency, in the hands of people looking to gain power, will always fail the people. That's why I suggested that the US Treasury should be in control of the issuance of currency so as to limit the inflation and hoarding of monetary power. Without fractional reserve and the power to issue money that doesn't exist, the .01% will lose their power to dictate how we exist as a society. So yes, give the power to control money to the people and fiat currency will serve to make us prosperous.
Commodity based currency is too easy to manipulate by hoarding the commodity used to back the currency. Fiat currency controlled by a government agency that exists to serve the public good is a far better plan. This also means we must get rid of the bribery that currently corrupts our government.
It's more scarce than other precious metals used in coinage. It's the third rarest metal in the world (silver is the 9th). It's rare enough to do damage to the economy. In fact, it was used to do just that. The bankers got the government to outlaw the possession of gold bullion and required it to be surrendered in exchange for US currency. The price of gold fell dramatically. They bought up all the gold at the low price and then made a killing trading it when prices shot back up.
That's true. Fiat currency, in the hands of people looking to gain power, will always fail the people. That's why I suggested that the US Treasury should be in control of the issuance of currency so as to limit the inflation and hoarding of monetary power. Without fractional reserve and the power to issue money that doesn't exist, the .01% will lose their power to dictate how we exist as a society
if that's the very least we do than yes, and that's as simple as putting the federal reserve under the National Treasury.
And continuing to belong to the most corrupt party in that system that has done the most damage is not exactly a vote of confidence. If he's going to lay blame on 5 "failed" federal agencies then when does he accept responsibility for things his party has done to make matters worse? You also have to look at what makes those agencies ineffective, for the most part its been republicans trying to weaken them so they can find some fault and use it as an excuse to get rid of the protections and regulations.
Well he ran first as a libertarian, but since the system is rigged he couldn't win. It is not intellectually honest to say the GOP are "his party". He does not vote along party lines or take marching orders from the GOP leadership.
Mark, I'm sorry but almost all of what you said is simply not true. What you're saying is a rehash of the media's talking points against him. I think you'd benefit from reading up on him, and better yet, read the books that he wrote.
But just in short, just addressing all the things you wrote that I know are simply not true:
- He's not for going BACK to a gold standard. This isn't about returning to the way things were. He'd like to legalize competition with the US dollar on American soil. Some of those competing currencies will be gold-backed. But it's not within his plan to return the US-Dollar to a gold standard, even though he will maintain that the US was better off when we had the standard.
- His reasons for shutting down the Fed has nothing to do with Isolationism. Calling him an isolationist is simply media slander. He's far from it, as most his foreign policies revolve around free-trade.
- He's actually not a fan of Ayn Rand at all, and his son is not named after her. Not only that, but plenty of Libertarians had lots of clashes with Rand and her followers. So much so that Rothbard and her had somewhat of a rivalry, and he even wrote a play mocking Atlas Shrugged called The Brow of Zeus. Again, the whole Ayn Rand hate thing is a media talking point, and is simply not relevant.
- His support of the national sales tax has nothing to do with Cain. His plan is to eliminate the IRS completely and replace it with nothing. He said repeatedly that in order to make the transition not so harsh (from having the IRS to not having it) he'd support a TEMPORARY national sales tax. But he said repeatedly in his books that the goal is "abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing". If this is doable without a national sales tax, then that's what he'll support.
- About ending the wars, I'm sorry but Obama said repeatedly during the campaign, which btw was the prime reason I didn't support him, that he's FOR the war in Afghanistan. All his rhetoric against the Iraq war was simply that it was foolish to get into Iraq when there are more important battles to fight in the middle-east, Afghanistan specifically. Case in point, he constantly reinforced the war there, and now towards the end of his administration there's no end in sight to the middle-east wars. This is a far cry from what Paul is talking about, which is full 100% withdrawal, coupled with shutting down those military bases.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is simple case of fact vs. fiction. Most of the things that you're slamming Paul for are things the Media and his opponents invented that he never said. From a "return" to a gold standard, right down to naming his kid after Ayn Rand. Just complete BS. And it's no different than when the republicans slam Obama from being a Marxist or a secret muslim or what have you.
So then the only way he can get to be president is by trying to fool enough republicans into thinking he's one of them... and this isn't worrying?
Its bad enough that the GOP doesn't play well with other parties, but it would be taken to a whole new level if they didn't cooperate with the president from their own party.
I can't be so sure he wouldn't take at least a few of his ideas from the GOP play book. He would be forced to if he wanted to get anything through congress. Unless of course the democrats take back the House, then he would break a sacred GOP rule:
"There is no compromise! Only single party rule! Like China and Iran but... American!"
I suppose the Bradley Manning trials are semi-appropriate for this thread. Admittingly, I haven't known much about this whole deal (wikileaks) until recently. Having a career marine as a brother, it is kind of a touchy subject. It just breaks my heart hearing about someone who exposed gross military misconduct being treated as a national traitor, who could possibly be facing the death penalty.
I would stop think about this thing in PARTY terms, that is a joke. Why vote for IDEOLOGIES?
why not vote for the constitution? The democrats and republicans BOTH hate ron paul, because he is telling the truth. he just HAS to go by the system to get to have a say.
These parties, BOTH, step and shit all over the constitution. I don't understand how you can defend either of them.
I have kind of wanted to write something about how I feel about Ron Paul and why I may register to vote for the first time in my life to vote for him.
I am very familiar with Paul's economic background. In fact, we have hung out with the same people. I have no doubt that if he gets elected and institutes many of his economic policies, the immediate effect will be a complete economic disaster. It is pretty simple to see why-- many of the specialized workers employed by the government, or by government contractors, will not be able to find work in the free market once their gravy train runs out (mercenaries, IRS auditors, etc). It will mean hundreds of thousands of more people, many of whom have few applicable skills, out of work.
In many ways this is the worst possible time to try some of these economics ideas, but there is something that matters a lot more to me than our economy.
What matters to me is that I am tired of living with a sense of shame and culpability.
I feel guilty because my tax dollars fund secret torture prisons. They fund unjust wars. They prop up evil governments.
I feel ashamed because I believe in American values, and I don't mean middle-eastern theocratic xenophobia that pretender "patriots" tout as the basis for our country. I mean the foundational ideas of Western culture given to us from the Greeks: The Republic, Democracy, Science, Logic, and the ones that we came up with ourselves like Equality, Freedom, Inclusiveness and most recently Transparency.
Lady Liberty says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I believe all of that so deeply that it is sad and cheesy, and all I could manage for years was a sense of bitter cynicism about how far away we were from the things that made us great.
Why bother voting or protesting when it will never make a difference?
And then things got much much worse, and I realized that in some sense it was my fault. Specifically, my cynical feeling of helplessness was to blame.
The Occupy movement is proof enough how wrong I was. The most powerless people in our society still have the power to get out there in the streets, make people aware of their struggle, and inspire others.
So the reason I would vote for Ron Paul is that while his economic policy is akin to cutting off an infected limb, and will cause a lot of pain in the short run, he is the only person running for President that is even talking about putting an end to the pathetically shameful behaviors that have become our trademark style.
And so I owe it to the jailed whistle blowers, journalists and protester. I owe it to the innocent civilians killed in pointless wars of aggression. I owe it to people who are harmed by corporations that are above the law. I owe it to the massive number of people in prison that have done nothing wrong. I owe it to myself and every future American.
Once we stop wasting money on pointless wars on drugs and "terror", and stop giving handouts to the biggest failures of our economy, the long term result will be a brighter economic future. I think it will be a bumpy road, but it will be worth it.
- He's not for going BACK to a gold standard. This isn't about returning to the way things were. He'd like to legalize competition with the US dollar on American soil. Some of those competing currencies will be gold-backed. But it's not within his plan to return the US-Dollar to a gold standard, even though he will maintain that the US was better off when we had the standard.
Every time he talks about it, he says things like "we did it once before after the civil war we can do it again". He supports competing currency as a step to get back to a gold standard. His intermediary step sounds confusing and it sounds like it opens the door to allow corrupt people to manipulate the newly created currency markets.
- His reasons for shutting down the Fed has nothing to do with Isolationism. Calling him an isolationist is simply media slander. He's far from it, as most his foreign policies revolve around free-trade.
I'm not linking his stance with the Fed with his isolationist leanings. It's not so much that he is an isolationist, its that his policies of "non-intervention" would lead to an isolated America.
- His support of the national sales tax has nothing to do with Cain. His plan is to eliminate the IRS completely and replace it with nothing. He said repeatedly that in order to make the transition not so harsh (from having the IRS to not having it) he'd support a TEMPORARY national sales tax. But he said repeatedly in his books that the goal is "abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing". If this is doable without a national sales tax, then that's what he'll support.
His plan would have the same effect the Cain plan would. Slash taxes for the rich while raising them on the poor and at the same time causing a massive hole in every program. Which then can be used as justification to shut them down. He would end a lot of perfectly solvent programs that have wide public support and the backlash would be tremendous.
He only serves 4-8 years but his ideas would need to be maintained long after he's gone. A lot of his plans would take longer than he would have time to implement them and that's assuming he could get congress and the American people to sign off on the ideas.
How does he push that through? Suck it up crown me king for life so I can get it all done? In order to get to my utopia I have to fuck over everyone, several times? I'm not going to willingly screw myself over or anyone else for that matter, just so someone can test out some social engineering theories. If he's going to do it, he can do it without my vote.
- About ending the wars...
I don't think any American president wants the war in Afghanistan to carry on, everyone knows its a major drain on everything from the economy to our international reputation. If Obama had a clear way to get out he would take it, as would anyone else.
I agree with Paul's stance, and it will work great at keeping us out of future wars if Americans are smart enough to adopt it. BUT it does very little to get us out of the war we are in now. Just pulling the troops out isn't an option, he knows it but he's willing to talk big like Obama did to gain support.
His plan would have the same effect the Cain plan would. Slash taxes for the rich while raising them on the poor and at the same time causing a massive hole in every program. Which then can be used as justification to shut them down. He would end a lot of perfectly solvent programs that have wide public support and the backlash would be tremendous.
I don't see how eliminating any and all federal taxes (abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing) would increase taxation on the poor. It makes no sense. 0% tax is 0% tax, rich or poor.
Again, the whole schtick about a national sales tax is in case just flat-out abolishing the IRS would need a period of easing into. So he's suggesting it as a temporary thing to facilitate the transition. But ultimately, his goal is replacing the IRS with nothing.
He only serves 4-8 years but his ideas would need to be maintained long after he's gone. A lot of his plans would take longer than he would have time to implement them and that's assuming he could get congress and the American people to sign off on the ideas.
How does he push that through? Suck it up crown me king for life so I can get it all done? In order to get to my utopia I have to fuck over everyone, several times? I'm not going to willingly screw myself over or anyone else for that matter, just so someone can test out some social engineering theories. If he's going to do it, he can do it without my vote.
Totally agreed. Which is why I'm not actually going to vote for him, or anyone. I was merely letting you know where he stands on things, not that I think he should be president and try them.
I was saying the same thing you did to all the star-struck Obama supporters during the 2008 campaign. Even if Obama was the liberal wet-dream of a president that people think he is, he'll only be in office for so long, and eventually an "evil republican" will take his place, and undo whatever good Obama would accomplish. Not that he will accomplish anything, but just for the sake of argument...
So what good are all the promises he makes? Why would anyone support such a system to begin with?
voting is irrelevant indeed.
seriously, one president cannot stop huge corporations with endless money and heavy influence on police, army and the justice system. it will take a full scale revolution for things to change. as long as there are people willing to sign up with the army without knowing that they signed up with the devil to commit genocide for oil and money there wont be any change to the status quo.
you cannot expect the biggest industrial facility of this country to be dismantled so easily.
I don't see how eliminating any and all federal taxes (abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing) would increase taxation on the poor. It makes no sense. 0% tax is 0% tax, rich or poor.
Again, the whole schtick about a national sales tax is in case just flat-out abolishing the IRS would need a period of easing into. So he's suggesting it as a temporary thing to facilitate the transition. But ultimately, his goal is replacing the IRS with nothing.
To get to no tax, we have to wind down a lot of programs that people have built their lives around. People count on social security, medicare and pensions. They paid into them and they where told they would be there when they needed them. They trusted the government to deliver and they didn't have the luxury of doing something else with that money.
I think it would be HIGHLY irresponsible to just shut them off, and so does Paul, he admits its going to be a long process to wind everything down. You basically have to make a new deal with a new generation that says you're on your own, the older generations aren't going to go for it, if it doesn't flat out kill them it will seriously screw them over. We should be a country that honors its commitments.
I also think that as a transition those programs should be there for people that want them, so to get to zero tax you have to convince people they don't need those programs and to opt out without being a dirty underhanded scumbag like most of the republicans who like to set fire to the social safety net every few months.
To get past that long period of adjustment he wants to cut the rich a break and dramatically increase the pain on the poor, while also cutting the programs they would depend on. Ouch... How about instead of cutting the taxes at top, cut them at the bottom? Give the working class a break and boost the economy so they have less of a need for the programs. But that doesn't play well with rich donors in his party so it has to be more trickle down...
I was saying the same thing you did to all the star-struck Obama supporters during the 2008 campaign. Even if Obama was the liberal wet-dream of a president that people think he is, he'll only be in office for so long, and eventually an "evil republican" will take his place, and undo whatever good Obama would accomplish. Not that he will accomplish anything, but just for the sake of argument...
So what good are all the promises he makes? Why would anyone support such a system to begin with?
I agree and a lot of people who thought Obama would be "the one" and "save the world" woke up to the fact that he can't live up to the hype, he's just one guy in one office that is part of bigger machine. He even made a few small noises to that effect in his inaugural address that a lot of people have forgotten. They shrugged and walked away leaving him to his work and then yelling at him when he didn't wave his magic wand. They say crap like "oh I guess he wasn't the guy... oh this guy over here says he is... lets go follow him". That is a major part of the problem, people buy into the hype and think they don't have to do anything.
The problems only get solved when people put their egos aside and listen to their "enemies" and politicians are incapable of putting their ego aside. Average people need to find ways to make things work in spite of politicians, instead of thinking they'll do all the work for them.
There isn't a perfect guy who has an easy solution. There are a lot of average people who need to get involved and fix things.
One of the problems I have with Ron Paul is that like Obama he doesn't necessarily advocate for the personality cult that circles him, but he doesn't put an end to it either.
I think it would be HIGHLY irresponsible to just shut them off, and so does Paul, he admits its going to be a long process to wind everything down.
Right, but that's why, as you said, he doesn't actually want to shut anything down on the spot. Other than maybe the Fed.
Almost all of his plans involve offering an alternative. He's not calling for SS to be shut down, but to give younger people the option to opt-out. That effectively shuts it down in the long run, while still taking care of those dependent on it in the short run. Likewise for everything. Even the problems in the USD, instead of "shutting down" the USD or going back to some gold standard, just legalize competition in it.
As far as I know, the Fed and the IRS are the only things he's calling for an immediate shut down for. I would add the military industrial complex in there, but he doesn't want to eliminate the military altogether, so I guess it doesn't count. But shutting down all those military bases is a good start.
The problems only get solved when people put their egos aside and listen to their "enemies" and politicians are incapable of putting their ego aside.
I'd like to agree with that, and I think that it's a fair statement, but there does seem to be a fundamental divide between those that don't want to live under a government burden, and those that don't see it as a burden at all. I really dislike the whole political enemy thing, but it does seem to apply in this case, wouldn't you say?
When people like me say that I want to opt-out of social security, there are a lot of people who oppose it and their response is essentially the middle-finger. Likewise, when the opposite side says they want to increase government welfare, the response is the same.
I don't see how those two groups can live together under the same government. Unless we either accept that everyone will be unhappy with the situation, or learn to live and let live, which seems extremely unlikely.
I agree that there should be an option to opt of federal programs. But here's my rule, once you opt out you can never opt back in. Once you're out you're out for good and no bitching when you turn 65 with almost no money in the bank. But guess what if that did happen I guarantee you people are going to want to opt in and take advantage of SS or Medicare without having put anything into it over the decades of their life.
I would take you up on that deal on the spot if it were possible.
Likewise, if I can choose to opt out of the IRS, and then if a terrorist attack happens on my house, the military won't "cover me" by bombing Iraq, I'm cool with that too.
hey if the US got rid of their nuclear weapons program they could give almost everyone in the USA a house!
BUT then the Ruskies would NUKE the US!
Oh wait... I don't think we have anything to worry about.Palin is standing on the boarder keeping a watchful eye. She will use her elite skeet shooting skills to take them down if they ever do launch.
The rest of the world doesn't need nukes. Don't worry world, America is doing a great job of gutting itself from the inside out, soon we'll be done and you can parade the caRcAss around like a trophy. Trust me you want to spend that nuke money on something else...
...
In many ways this is the worst possible time to try some of these economics ideas, but there is something that matters a lot more to me than our economy.
What matters to me is that I am tired of living with a sense of shame and culpability.
I feel guilty because my tax dollars fund secret torture prisons. They fund unjust wars. They prop up evil governments.
I feel ashamed because I believe in American values, and I don't mean middle-eastern theocratic xenophobia that pretender "patriots" tout as the basis for our country. I mean the foundational ideas of Western culture given to us from the Greeks: The Republic, Democracy, Science, Logic, and the ones that we came up with ourselves like Equality, Freedom, Inclusiveness and most recently Transparency.
Lady Liberty says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I believe all of that so deeply that it is sad and cheesy, and all I could manage for years was a sense of bitter cynicism about how far away we were from the things that made us great.
Why bother voting or protesting when it will never make a difference?
And then things got much much worse, and I realized that in some sense it was my fault. Specifically, my cynical feeling of helplessness was to blame.
The Occupy movement is proof enough how wrong I was.
...
Ganemi, this society reflects government, so when kleptocrats run the system the whole country acts like lousy scumbags. I think this 2012 election is as important, as the elections of 1860. And that's exactly what needs to happen, new people in office RESPECTING the system and changing the mind state of the people.
These days the government doesn't care about the CONSTITUTION the CFR sees following the constitution as "INFANTILE". That's Bullshit. Banks are like royalty, 300 mil is pocket change to them.
I understand your frustrations mate, but that situation your parents are in has little to do with corporations and the government - and a lot to do with your average person being a dickweed. The fact that your parents are honest business owners and other people aren't is just a flip of a coin, it's inevitable. It's not corporations that have a bullshit sense of entitlement, it's your average citizen.
And the government didn't make them that way. Nor did corporations. It was we the people who did it. We created the "American dream", which promises prosperity and wealth, along with equality. With that mentality, frankly, this was the only possible outcome.
I don't really get the libertarian SS hate - the amount of good it does outweighs the amount I pay into it. Do you think taking that money and saving it for retirement is better?
I don't really get the libertarian SS hate - the amount of good it does outweighs the amount I pay into it. Do you think taking that money and saving it for retirement is better?
It all depends on a various amount of things. As long as your on top of your own investments and follow the market at a basic level, Its entirely possible to invest in your own retirement through IRA's, 401k's, and other low risk vehicles for investment. Especially if you work for a company with company matching on your investment in your 401k's.
But that in of itself is the problem, You have to be on top of it, and take a sense of personal responsibility in order to secure a good retirement plan and make sure you stay on top of that. It takes a certain level of education to do this, and there are tons of people who don't understand even the basics about investing to have them make educated decisions about their investments. (Which was a big part of the housing crash when people took on loans they couldn't afford because they didn't understand what they where getting into thanks to a lack of education of the system and predatory lenders.)
Lets say I have 200 bucks taken out of my paycheck for social security, If I didn't have to pay that money, that could be 200 bucks more a month put towards paying off my Student loans, and there for cutting down on the interest I must pay on them thus saving me more money in the long run. Or say I would rather put it into a 401k with my company because my company will match my 401k investment. So I would essentially be getting 200 more bucks in 401k matching through my own investments.
SS is popular with most people because it is secure, safe, and hassle free. Knowing that no matter what you do, the government will compensate you for your investment into the system.
For most people, it is a good system, as you would not have to worry about educating yourself too heavily about the system in order to benefit from it. But the big argument is that on average, you will get more return out of that money you earn that you are putting into the system if you invest it privately. You don't even need some snazzy 401k matching plan. Certain IRA's can be invested into by anyone, and they are very attractive forms of retirement investment, especially since its tax deductible.
So there is a legitimate reason for being of the mindset that SS is a bad investment. Especially given that my generation is paying into a system that will bankrupt itself before we can ever benefit from it unless something is done to reform it. And you can probably do better with your own money if you invest it privately.
But I think you hit the nail on the head. The amount of good that the SS does do for people that aren't educated about our financial system far outweighs the bad it brings on the middle class that might be able to make smarter investments with their money tailored to their own situation, rather then a blanket that covers everyone. But I hope that that at least shows a light on the other side of the coin.
Depending on your perspective, there's also the notion that SS is not only a huge budget hole (second only to the military), but it's funded so poorly that the chance of anyone our age seeing anything from it is slim. In that case, if you believe that, it's perfectly reasonable to think that you can do a better job at saving for retirement than SS would.
Yeah, but you were ever so subtly hinting at that when said accident does happen, I'll be getting money from the government, which is really your money. So that means that I won't pay in, and still get benefits.
To which I say, that's my problem isn't it?
A rhetorical question as well, you see. Of course it isn't. It's everyone's problem. And herein lies MY problem. That the government makes it their business to push "benefits" on me. Then when I have no choice but take them, they say "see? you DO need us".
They will never let you Opt-out, that's too much. Social security, income tax, it's all forms of legal plundering. Using your money to fund their business and Bank bailouts. :poly118:
Bigjohn, if you opted out of SS the assumption is you would not qualify for benefits. Im sure we would raise money to help you in an unrandian fashion .
why is it so evil or radical to opt-out. It's your money...? what's the big deal?
I personally think that Mandates are for Communist countries and CHOICES are for Free ones.
Because everyone that opts out puts more burden on the rest of us. But lets privatize it so it rides on the stock market that always goes up and never crashes, the free market is a self correcting force for good, right?
Occupy Wall Street because it's a nice place that takes care of us?
Opting out is simply not an option because these systems work on large averages of people. If people were allowed to opt out we would see a large amount of the rich and well off doing so and leaving the poor and destitute in the social security system which would then quickly go bankrupt. When the system goes bankrupt the government will need money to prop it back up. That money will come from the tax payers.
Social Security is mistaken as a bank account that you pull on in your retirement years, but its really been flawed since its beginning. Here is an excerpt from the first person to receive monthly SS benefits.
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."
why is it so evil or radical to opt-out. It's your money...? what's the big deal?
I personally think that Mandates are for Communist countries and CHOICES are for Free ones.
Damn those communist nordic countries and their lofty highest standards of living.
edit: to be less snarky though. When you're in a social security or universal healthcare, you're not just paying for yourself. When you're in a system like that you're also paying for everyone else.
That might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a fantastic system and I gladly pay to help others less fortunate than me. I think it's the most caring system and one of empathy as well as security.
Solidarity is an ingrained part of Swedish society, so of course my opinions are colored by my upbringing, but the fact of the matter is that we (nordic countries) score highest in standards of living, equality and happiness indexes.
I think security and health has a lot to do with it.
Because everyone that opts out puts more burden on the rest of us. But lets privatize it so it rides on the stock market that always goes up and never crashes, the free market is a self correcting force for good, right?
Occupy Wall Street because it's a nice place that takes care of us?
Dude, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Privatize it? Who said anything about the stock market? That's the whole point of an opt-out, if you like it... just opt-in. It's not a one-sided thing.
And come'on man.. "Randian Fashion"? You're being ridiculous. First off, to assume that anyone that mentions anything that's even slightly anti-government or even slightly pro free-markets is a fan of Rand. I read some of her stuff... and hated all of it. Not a fan of hers at all. So why this constant pestering at being an Ayn Rand fan? As if that's the worse thing in the world, even if someone were.
This is just as bad as when Democrats mention something as simple as extending unemployment benefits, and the other side is all "OMG! Marxists! Let's just socialize the whole damn country and start speaking Russian while we're at it!". Someone just mentions something as normal as a desire to not be forced into a system, and it's "OMG! Randian! Let's just abandon the sick and the poor and let them starve to death while we're at it!".
You guys are sadly missing my point. If they take you're money without your consent well then what is it? and Justin i didn't say anything about the free market.
ANd to insinuate that there is a free market today, is retarded. The system is so deregulated and the SEC is in BED with wall st.
The free market has NEVER existed properly.
a free market is EXACTLY what they don't want, because it serves the people not special interests. REMEMBER SUPPLY AND DEMAND? I'm actually stunned that you'd defend a system that has failed us repeatedly. CENTRAL BANKS HATE FREE MARKET, because if fail you fail. therefore you can't take risks like they do now.
BANK OF AMERICA has like 78 trillion dollars just on RISK. (derivatives)
It's legal gambling man, open your fucking eyes.
And it makes no sense how someone can say that if i opt-out then the system doesn't work. That's bullshit. IF IT'S MY MONEY, then IT's MY MONEY!
These BANKS are using SS to bail themselves out without the consent of the people. that's socialism but used only for the banks.
They're playing casino with your money. How can you honestly call this a free country?
dude ganemi, wake up dood. YOU're GETTING LOST IN FUCKING RHETORIC. fucking waste of time.
THINKING IN TERMS OF PARTIES IS DEAD. WHY? well how long will you believe that they are different?! WHEN!? for fuck sake they step all over the constitution.
LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're one of those liberals who probably loves Michael moore bla bla bla etc. [i was there too yay socialize everytime and make us happy!!]
STOP. go read your FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
and while you're at it FIND ME A FREE SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
cuz all i find is china, lao, vietnam, o and CUBA! very free countries!
SOCIALISM IS FLAWED~!!!!!!!!!!!! it sounds nice OF COURSE!
but you know what sounds nicer? taking out these SOCIALIST bankers.
call it FASCISM, CORPORATISM WHATEVER it's the same shit! it's PLUNDERING!
think about your liberties. stop thinking DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN cause the founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were thinking about freedom not these IDEOLOGIES YOU'RE FOOLED into voting for time and time again. Stop defending a party that doesn't give a shit about you.
dude ganemi, wake up dood. YOU're GETTING LOST IN FUCKING RHETORIC. fucking waste of time.
THINKING IN TERMS OF PARTIES IS DEAD. WHY? well how long will you believe that they are different?! WHEN!? for fuck sake they step all over the constitution.
LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're one of those liberals who probably loves Michael moore bla bla bla etc. [i was there too yay socialize everytime and make us happy!!]
STOP. go read your FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
and while you're at it FIND ME A FREE SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
cuz all i find is china, lao, vietnam, o and CUBA! very free countries!
SOCIALISM IS FLAWED~!!!!!!!!!!!! it sounds nice OF COURSE!
but you know what sounds nicer? taking out these SOCIALIST bankers.
call it FASCISM, CORPORATISM WHATEVER it's the same shit! it's PLUNDERING!
think about your liberties. stop thinking DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN cause the founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were thinking about freedom not these IDEOLOGIES YOU'RE FOOLED into voting for time and time again. Stop defending a party that doesn't give a shit about you.
All of those countries you just listed as socialist nations are actually formerly labeled communist nations that have become quasi-dictatorships. So many people completely mislabel dictatorships as communist or socialist. There has never been a real socialist or communist nation. They are not even close to socialism.
Capitalism isn't, and never was, a good economic system. It promotes economic inequality that enables corruption, exploitation, and profiteering. It strives to compete for monetary resources (not serve as utility nor fulfill needs) to expand it's ability to compete for monetary resources. It's main driving force is not utility to life and society, but to generate demand for goods regardless of their utility to human kind so long as they serve the self-serving goal to expand economic power.
Capitalism is the ceaseless pursuit for more economic power. It seeks to acquire this power and concentrate it in the hands of the few so it can further cement it's hold on that power. It is, and always will be, a system to exploit the labor of the many to uplift the few to a higher standard of life while the lower class must struggle to pull together what they can to achieve the minimum standard in modern society. It is a pyramid scheme where those that serve the least amount of utility to society are allocated the most economic resources through the exploitation of those that serve the highest utility to society.
Capitalism is no good for anyone but those that control the means of production and through their economic power they dictate to the working class how they will use their utility to serve the self-serving profit motives of the capitalist. Labor is not allocated to where it is most beneficial to the needs of society, but to where it is most profitable for the capitalist. If the means of production does not directly serve the public good, then it serves whomever controls it. There is no such thing as a for-profit company that serves the public good, because the profit motive will always overrule it, as it has done with corporations. Corporations, for example, were granted charters to form a business with limited liabilities for the owners so that they were free to better serve the public good. Now, the priority of the public good has been overtaken by the mandate to generate profit for its shareholders.
Anybody who thinks that capitalism will serve the economy faithfully through competition, "supply and demand", and a "survival of the fittest" philosophy has been utterly fooled. Capitalism is a game and the fastest way to victory in this brutal competition is to cheat at the expense of everyone else. The prize is maximum economic power. The workers are the pawns. They are instruments through which capitalists exploit the power of industry to win the competition and claim the prize. Those that seek power always seek to gain more.
You cannot balance it either. It will not balance itself because there is no balance inherent in it and no amount of law will make it otherwise. Law is only as effective as the support it receives from society. If people don't support it or even oppose it, there is nothing you can do to make the law apply to them.
Replies
That's true. Fiat currency, in the hands of people looking to gain power, will always fail the people. That's why I suggested that the US Treasury should be in control of the issuance of currency so as to limit the inflation and hoarding of monetary power. Without fractional reserve and the power to issue money that doesn't exist, the .01% will lose their power to dictate how we exist as a society. So yes, give the power to control money to the people and fiat currency will serve to make us prosperous.
Commodity based currency is too easy to manipulate by hoarding the commodity used to back the currency. Fiat currency controlled by a government agency that exists to serve the public good is a far better plan. This also means we must get rid of the bribery that currently corrupts our government.
@Justin-Meisse
It's more scarce than other precious metals used in coinage. It's the third rarest metal in the world (silver is the 9th). It's rare enough to do damage to the economy. In fact, it was used to do just that. The bankers got the government to outlaw the possession of gold bullion and required it to be surrendered in exchange for US currency. The price of gold fell dramatically. They bought up all the gold at the low price and then made a killing trading it when prices shot back up.
if that's the very least we do than yes, and that's as simple as putting the federal reserve under the National Treasury.
Well he ran first as a libertarian, but since the system is rigged he couldn't win. It is not intellectually honest to say the GOP are "his party". He does not vote along party lines or take marching orders from the GOP leadership.
But just in short, just addressing all the things you wrote that I know are simply not true:
- He's not for going BACK to a gold standard. This isn't about returning to the way things were. He'd like to legalize competition with the US dollar on American soil. Some of those competing currencies will be gold-backed. But it's not within his plan to return the US-Dollar to a gold standard, even though he will maintain that the US was better off when we had the standard.
- His reasons for shutting down the Fed has nothing to do with Isolationism. Calling him an isolationist is simply media slander. He's far from it, as most his foreign policies revolve around free-trade.
- He's actually not a fan of Ayn Rand at all, and his son is not named after her. Not only that, but plenty of Libertarians had lots of clashes with Rand and her followers. So much so that Rothbard and her had somewhat of a rivalry, and he even wrote a play mocking Atlas Shrugged called The Brow of Zeus. Again, the whole Ayn Rand hate thing is a media talking point, and is simply not relevant.
- His support of the national sales tax has nothing to do with Cain. His plan is to eliminate the IRS completely and replace it with nothing. He said repeatedly that in order to make the transition not so harsh (from having the IRS to not having it) he'd support a TEMPORARY national sales tax. But he said repeatedly in his books that the goal is "abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing". If this is doable without a national sales tax, then that's what he'll support.
- About ending the wars, I'm sorry but Obama said repeatedly during the campaign, which btw was the prime reason I didn't support him, that he's FOR the war in Afghanistan. All his rhetoric against the Iraq war was simply that it was foolish to get into Iraq when there are more important battles to fight in the middle-east, Afghanistan specifically. Case in point, he constantly reinforced the war there, and now towards the end of his administration there's no end in sight to the middle-east wars. This is a far cry from what Paul is talking about, which is full 100% withdrawal, coupled with shutting down those military bases.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is simple case of fact vs. fiction. Most of the things that you're slamming Paul for are things the Media and his opponents invented that he never said. From a "return" to a gold standard, right down to naming his kid after Ayn Rand. Just complete BS. And it's no different than when the republicans slam Obama from being a Marxist or a secret muslim or what have you.
Its bad enough that the GOP doesn't play well with other parties, but it would be taken to a whole new level if they didn't cooperate with the president from their own party.
I can't be so sure he wouldn't take at least a few of his ideas from the GOP play book. He would be forced to if he wanted to get anything through congress. Unless of course the democrats take back the House, then he would break a sacred GOP rule:
"There is no compromise! Only single party rule! Like China and Iran but... American!"
I am pretty sure you know this is less about fooling republicans and more about getting on the ballot in every state.
Am worried about Paul being dishonest, compared to Obama, Newt or Romney?-- not at all, since all those guys are pathological liars and Paul is not.
[ame="
I suppose the Bradley Manning trials are semi-appropriate for this thread. Admittingly, I haven't known much about this whole deal (wikileaks) until recently. Having a career marine as a brother, it is kind of a touchy subject. It just breaks my heart hearing about someone who exposed gross military misconduct being treated as a national traitor, who could possibly be facing the death penalty.
Dan Choi articulates my personal opinion quite well:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/21/iraq_combat_veteran_dan_choi_forcibly
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/Todd-Purdum-on-National-Security
@MARK:
I would stop think about this thing in PARTY terms, that is a joke. Why vote for IDEOLOGIES?
why not vote for the constitution? The democrats and republicans BOTH hate ron paul, because he is telling the truth. he just HAS to go by the system to get to have a say.
These parties, BOTH, step and shit all over the constitution. I don't understand how you can defend either of them.
I am very familiar with Paul's economic background. In fact, we have hung out with the same people. I have no doubt that if he gets elected and institutes many of his economic policies, the immediate effect will be a complete economic disaster. It is pretty simple to see why-- many of the specialized workers employed by the government, or by government contractors, will not be able to find work in the free market once their gravy train runs out (mercenaries, IRS auditors, etc). It will mean hundreds of thousands of more people, many of whom have few applicable skills, out of work.
In many ways this is the worst possible time to try some of these economics ideas, but there is something that matters a lot more to me than our economy.
What matters to me is that I am tired of living with a sense of shame and culpability.
I feel guilty because my tax dollars fund secret torture prisons. They fund unjust wars. They prop up evil governments.
I feel ashamed because I believe in American values, and I don't mean middle-eastern theocratic xenophobia that pretender "patriots" tout as the basis for our country. I mean the foundational ideas of Western culture given to us from the Greeks: The Republic, Democracy, Science, Logic, and the ones that we came up with ourselves like Equality, Freedom, Inclusiveness and most recently Transparency.
Lady Liberty says:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I believe all of that so deeply that it is sad and cheesy, and all I could manage for years was a sense of bitter cynicism about how far away we were from the things that made us great.
Why bother voting or protesting when it will never make a difference?
And then things got much much worse, and I realized that in some sense it was my fault. Specifically, my cynical feeling of helplessness was to blame.
The Occupy movement is proof enough how wrong I was. The most powerless people in our society still have the power to get out there in the streets, make people aware of their struggle, and inspire others.
So the reason I would vote for Ron Paul is that while his economic policy is akin to cutting off an infected limb, and will cause a lot of pain in the short run, he is the only person running for President that is even talking about putting an end to the pathetically shameful behaviors that have become our trademark style.
And so I owe it to the jailed whistle blowers, journalists and protester. I owe it to the innocent civilians killed in pointless wars of aggression. I owe it to people who are harmed by corporations that are above the law. I owe it to the massive number of people in prison that have done nothing wrong. I owe it to myself and every future American.
Once we stop wasting money on pointless wars on drugs and "terror", and stop giving handouts to the biggest failures of our economy, the long term result will be a brighter economic future. I think it will be a bumpy road, but it will be worth it.
better that than rampant plutarchy .
unless I suddenly become wealthy - in which case socialism is bad
obama i guess signed this.!!>!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/20/1047142/-Updated:-The-day-President-Obama-signs-the-NDAA,-I-will-remember-this
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0111/obama_signs_ndaa_377c1992-ed7a-4720-b6f7-3cab1fe76506.html
I'm not linking his stance with the Fed with his isolationist leanings. It's not so much that he is an isolationist, its that his policies of "non-intervention" would lead to an isolated America.
His plan would have the same effect the Cain plan would. Slash taxes for the rich while raising them on the poor and at the same time causing a massive hole in every program. Which then can be used as justification to shut them down. He would end a lot of perfectly solvent programs that have wide public support and the backlash would be tremendous.
He only serves 4-8 years but his ideas would need to be maintained long after he's gone. A lot of his plans would take longer than he would have time to implement them and that's assuming he could get congress and the American people to sign off on the ideas.
How does he push that through? Suck it up crown me king for life so I can get it all done? In order to get to my utopia I have to fuck over everyone, several times? I'm not going to willingly screw myself over or anyone else for that matter, just so someone can test out some social engineering theories. If he's going to do it, he can do it without my vote.
I don't think any American president wants the war in Afghanistan to carry on, everyone knows its a major drain on everything from the economy to our international reputation. If Obama had a clear way to get out he would take it, as would anyone else.
I agree with Paul's stance, and it will work great at keeping us out of future wars if Americans are smart enough to adopt it. BUT it does very little to get us out of the war we are in now. Just pulling the troops out isn't an option, he knows it but he's willing to talk big like Obama did to gain support.
I agree whole heartily, except I think we can get there without crashing the system.
I don't see how eliminating any and all federal taxes (abolishing the IRS and replacing it with nothing) would increase taxation on the poor. It makes no sense. 0% tax is 0% tax, rich or poor.
Again, the whole schtick about a national sales tax is in case just flat-out abolishing the IRS would need a period of easing into. So he's suggesting it as a temporary thing to facilitate the transition. But ultimately, his goal is replacing the IRS with nothing.
Totally agreed. Which is why I'm not actually going to vote for him, or anyone. I was merely letting you know where he stands on things, not that I think he should be president and try them.
I was saying the same thing you did to all the star-struck Obama supporters during the 2008 campaign. Even if Obama was the liberal wet-dream of a president that people think he is, he'll only be in office for so long, and eventually an "evil republican" will take his place, and undo whatever good Obama would accomplish. Not that he will accomplish anything, but just for the sake of argument...
So what good are all the promises he makes? Why would anyone support such a system to begin with?
seriously, one president cannot stop huge corporations with endless money and heavy influence on police, army and the justice system. it will take a full scale revolution for things to change. as long as there are people willing to sign up with the army without knowing that they signed up with the devil to commit genocide for oil and money there wont be any change to the status quo.
you cannot expect the biggest industrial facility of this country to be dismantled so easily.
I think it would be HIGHLY irresponsible to just shut them off, and so does Paul, he admits its going to be a long process to wind everything down. You basically have to make a new deal with a new generation that says you're on your own, the older generations aren't going to go for it, if it doesn't flat out kill them it will seriously screw them over. We should be a country that honors its commitments.
I also think that as a transition those programs should be there for people that want them, so to get to zero tax you have to convince people they don't need those programs and to opt out without being a dirty underhanded scumbag like most of the republicans who like to set fire to the social safety net every few months.
To get past that long period of adjustment he wants to cut the rich a break and dramatically increase the pain on the poor, while also cutting the programs they would depend on. Ouch... How about instead of cutting the taxes at top, cut them at the bottom? Give the working class a break and boost the economy so they have less of a need for the programs. But that doesn't play well with rich donors in his party so it has to be more trickle down...
I agree and a lot of people who thought Obama would be "the one" and "save the world" woke up to the fact that he can't live up to the hype, he's just one guy in one office that is part of bigger machine. He even made a few small noises to that effect in his inaugural address that a lot of people have forgotten. They shrugged and walked away leaving him to his work and then yelling at him when he didn't wave his magic wand. They say crap like "oh I guess he wasn't the guy... oh this guy over here says he is... lets go follow him". That is a major part of the problem, people buy into the hype and think they don't have to do anything.
The problems only get solved when people put their egos aside and listen to their "enemies" and politicians are incapable of putting their ego aside. Average people need to find ways to make things work in spite of politicians, instead of thinking they'll do all the work for them.
There isn't a perfect guy who has an easy solution. There are a lot of average people who need to get involved and fix things.
One of the problems I have with Ron Paul is that like Obama he doesn't necessarily advocate for the personality cult that circles him, but he doesn't put an end to it either.
Right, but that's why, as you said, he doesn't actually want to shut anything down on the spot. Other than maybe the Fed.
Almost all of his plans involve offering an alternative. He's not calling for SS to be shut down, but to give younger people the option to opt-out. That effectively shuts it down in the long run, while still taking care of those dependent on it in the short run. Likewise for everything. Even the problems in the USD, instead of "shutting down" the USD or going back to some gold standard, just legalize competition in it.
As far as I know, the Fed and the IRS are the only things he's calling for an immediate shut down for. I would add the military industrial complex in there, but he doesn't want to eliminate the military altogether, so I guess it doesn't count. But shutting down all those military bases is a good start.
I'd like to agree with that, and I think that it's a fair statement, but there does seem to be a fundamental divide between those that don't want to live under a government burden, and those that don't see it as a burden at all. I really dislike the whole political enemy thing, but it does seem to apply in this case, wouldn't you say?
When people like me say that I want to opt-out of social security, there are a lot of people who oppose it and their response is essentially the middle-finger. Likewise, when the opposite side says they want to increase government welfare, the response is the same.
I don't see how those two groups can live together under the same government. Unless we either accept that everyone will be unhappy with the situation, or learn to live and let live, which seems extremely unlikely.
Likewise, if I can choose to opt out of the IRS, and then if a terrorist attack happens on my house, the military won't "cover me" by bombing Iraq, I'm cool with that too.
Money well spent...
Oh wait... I don't think we have anything to worry about.Palin is standing on the boarder keeping a watchful eye. She will use her elite skeet shooting skills to take them down if they ever do launch.
The rest of the world doesn't need nukes. Don't worry world, America is doing a great job of gutting itself from the inside out, soon we'll be done and you can parade the caRcAss around like a trophy. Trust me you want to spend that nuke money on something else...
This. Very well said. All of it.
@MM - That picture is disturbing
These days the government doesn't care about the CONSTITUTION the CFR sees following the constitution as "INFANTILE". That's Bullshit. Banks are like royalty, 300 mil is pocket change to them.
I understand your frustrations mate, but that situation your parents are in has little to do with corporations and the government - and a lot to do with your average person being a dickweed. The fact that your parents are honest business owners and other people aren't is just a flip of a coin, it's inevitable. It's not corporations that have a bullshit sense of entitlement, it's your average citizen.
And the government didn't make them that way. Nor did corporations. It was we the people who did it. We created the "American dream", which promises prosperity and wealth, along with equality. With that mentality, frankly, this was the only possible outcome.
It all depends on a various amount of things. As long as your on top of your own investments and follow the market at a basic level, Its entirely possible to invest in your own retirement through IRA's, 401k's, and other low risk vehicles for investment. Especially if you work for a company with company matching on your investment in your 401k's.
But that in of itself is the problem, You have to be on top of it, and take a sense of personal responsibility in order to secure a good retirement plan and make sure you stay on top of that. It takes a certain level of education to do this, and there are tons of people who don't understand even the basics about investing to have them make educated decisions about their investments. (Which was a big part of the housing crash when people took on loans they couldn't afford because they didn't understand what they where getting into thanks to a lack of education of the system and predatory lenders.)
Lets say I have 200 bucks taken out of my paycheck for social security, If I didn't have to pay that money, that could be 200 bucks more a month put towards paying off my Student loans, and there for cutting down on the interest I must pay on them thus saving me more money in the long run. Or say I would rather put it into a 401k with my company because my company will match my 401k investment. So I would essentially be getting 200 more bucks in 401k matching through my own investments.
SS is popular with most people because it is secure, safe, and hassle free. Knowing that no matter what you do, the government will compensate you for your investment into the system.
For most people, it is a good system, as you would not have to worry about educating yourself too heavily about the system in order to benefit from it. But the big argument is that on average, you will get more return out of that money you earn that you are putting into the system if you invest it privately. You don't even need some snazzy 401k matching plan. Certain IRA's can be invested into by anyone, and they are very attractive forms of retirement investment, especially since its tax deductible.
So there is a legitimate reason for being of the mindset that SS is a bad investment. Especially given that my generation is paying into a system that will bankrupt itself before we can ever benefit from it unless something is done to reform it. And you can probably do better with your own money if you invest it privately.
But I think you hit the nail on the head. The amount of good that the SS does do for people that aren't educated about our financial system far outweighs the bad it brings on the middle class that might be able to make smarter investments with their money tailored to their own situation, rather then a blanket that covers everyone. But I hope that that at least shows a light on the other side of the coin.
401k's mentioned in the occupy wall street thread, that's nice. A scheme to convince people to trust their retirement to wall street.
That's my problem isn't it?
The correct answer to my rhetorical question is no, the money you saved from opting out could not cover the unforseen concequences.
To which I say, that's my problem isn't it?
A rhetorical question as well, you see. Of course it isn't. It's everyone's problem. And herein lies MY problem. That the government makes it their business to push "benefits" on me. Then when I have no choice but take them, they say "see? you DO need us".
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1612930123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324699673&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: The Law (9781612930121): Frederic Bastiat: Books[/ame]
My mind is sound... ? lol great quick read everyone in here would enjoy it.
I personally think that Mandates are for Communist countries and CHOICES are for Free ones.
Because everyone that opts out puts more burden on the rest of us. But lets privatize it so it rides on the stock market that always goes up and never crashes, the free market is a self correcting force for good, right?
Occupy Wall Street because it's a nice place that takes care of us?
Social Security is mistaken as a bank account that you pull on in your retirement years, but its really been flawed since its beginning. Here is an excerpt from the first person to receive monthly SS benefits.
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."
:poly142:
Damn those communist nordic countries and their lofty highest standards of living.
edit: to be less snarky though. When you're in a social security or universal healthcare, you're not just paying for yourself. When you're in a system like that you're also paying for everyone else.
That might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's a fantastic system and I gladly pay to help others less fortunate than me. I think it's the most caring system and one of empathy as well as security.
Solidarity is an ingrained part of Swedish society, so of course my opinions are colored by my upbringing, but the fact of the matter is that we (nordic countries) score highest in standards of living, equality and happiness indexes.
I think security and health has a lot to do with it.
Dude, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Privatize it? Who said anything about the stock market? That's the whole point of an opt-out, if you like it... just opt-in. It's not a one-sided thing.
And come'on man.. "Randian Fashion"? You're being ridiculous. First off, to assume that anyone that mentions anything that's even slightly anti-government or even slightly pro free-markets is a fan of Rand. I read some of her stuff... and hated all of it. Not a fan of hers at all. So why this constant pestering at being an Ayn Rand fan? As if that's the worse thing in the world, even if someone were.
This is just as bad as when Democrats mention something as simple as extending unemployment benefits, and the other side is all "OMG! Marxists! Let's just socialize the whole damn country and start speaking Russian while we're at it!". Someone just mentions something as normal as a desire to not be forced into a system, and it's "OMG! Randian! Let's just abandon the sick and the poor and let them starve to death while we're at it!".
ANd to insinuate that there is a free market today, is retarded. The system is so deregulated and the SEC is in BED with wall st.
The free market has NEVER existed properly.
a free market is EXACTLY what they don't want, because it serves the people not special interests. REMEMBER SUPPLY AND DEMAND? I'm actually stunned that you'd defend a system that has failed us repeatedly. CENTRAL BANKS HATE FREE MARKET, because if fail you fail. therefore you can't take risks like they do now.
BANK OF AMERICA has like 78 trillion dollars just on RISK. (derivatives)
It's legal gambling man, open your fucking eyes.
And it makes no sense how someone can say that if i opt-out then the system doesn't work. That's bullshit. IF IT'S MY MONEY, then IT's MY MONEY!
These BANKS are using SS to bail themselves out without the consent of the people. that's socialism but used only for the banks.
They're playing casino with your money. How can you honestly call this a free country?
EEDIT: HIGH FIVE TO BIGJOHN. for fuck sake.
THINKING IN TERMS OF PARTIES IS DEAD. WHY? well how long will you believe that they are different?! WHEN!? for fuck sake they step all over the constitution.
LOOK AT THE VOTING RECORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're one of those liberals who probably loves Michael moore bla bla bla etc. [i was there too yay socialize everytime and make us happy!!]
STOP. go read your FUCKING CONSTITUTION.
and while you're at it FIND ME A FREE SOCIALIST COUNTRY.
cuz all i find is china, lao, vietnam, o and CUBA! very free countries!
SOCIALISM IS FLAWED~!!!!!!!!!!!! it sounds nice OF COURSE!
but you know what sounds nicer? taking out these SOCIALIST bankers.
call it FASCISM, CORPORATISM WHATEVER it's the same shit! it's PLUNDERING!
think about your liberties. stop thinking DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN cause the founders of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA were thinking about freedom not these IDEOLOGIES YOU'RE FOOLED into voting for time and time again. Stop defending a party that doesn't give a shit about you.
WHAT has Obama done?!?! oh yeah the same ass shit.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45674390/The_Size_of_the_Bank_Bailout_29_Trillion
DISSENT. DISSENT. DISSENT.
[ame="
All of those countries you just listed as socialist nations are actually formerly labeled communist nations that have become quasi-dictatorships. So many people completely mislabel dictatorships as communist or socialist. There has never been a real socialist or communist nation. They are not even close to socialism.
Capitalism is the ceaseless pursuit for more economic power. It seeks to acquire this power and concentrate it in the hands of the few so it can further cement it's hold on that power. It is, and always will be, a system to exploit the labor of the many to uplift the few to a higher standard of life while the lower class must struggle to pull together what they can to achieve the minimum standard in modern society. It is a pyramid scheme where those that serve the least amount of utility to society are allocated the most economic resources through the exploitation of those that serve the highest utility to society.
Capitalism is no good for anyone but those that control the means of production and through their economic power they dictate to the working class how they will use their utility to serve the self-serving profit motives of the capitalist. Labor is not allocated to where it is most beneficial to the needs of society, but to where it is most profitable for the capitalist. If the means of production does not directly serve the public good, then it serves whomever controls it. There is no such thing as a for-profit company that serves the public good, because the profit motive will always overrule it, as it has done with corporations. Corporations, for example, were granted charters to form a business with limited liabilities for the owners so that they were free to better serve the public good. Now, the priority of the public good has been overtaken by the mandate to generate profit for its shareholders.
Anybody who thinks that capitalism will serve the economy faithfully through competition, "supply and demand", and a "survival of the fittest" philosophy has been utterly fooled. Capitalism is a game and the fastest way to victory in this brutal competition is to cheat at the expense of everyone else. The prize is maximum economic power. The workers are the pawns. They are instruments through which capitalists exploit the power of industry to win the competition and claim the prize. Those that seek power always seek to gain more.
You cannot balance it either. It will not balance itself because there is no balance inherent in it and no amount of law will make it otherwise. Law is only as effective as the support it receives from society. If people don't support it or even oppose it, there is nothing you can do to make the law apply to them.