The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
rms
Active Member
Not really true. Obama's personal actions in releasing non-violent minor drug possession "criminals" will have an impact on getting rid of the drug war. Drone strikes and our use of military force globally is a Presidential power outside of declaring war. I have faith that someone with a good head on his shoulders, but a tad too "socialist" for me (Sanders) is better than anyone else out there. And isn't there a possibility of up to 2 supreme court appointees in the next 2 terms or something like that?
Dak
mentat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/14/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech-annotated/#
Entire speech. There's all the "Jesus was a 'liberal'" stuff in there, unequal outcomes equals injustice is in there, sprinkles in quotes from his Popeness. He may as well have read off of prog Facebook posts.
The only legitimate statement in the entire speech was that the economy is rigged. Pretty hard to dispute that. But the how of its rigging must be understood to "de-rig" it, and at best Sanders doesn't know. I think he does know, based on his history of sandbagging Fed audit bills.
rms
Active Member
I don't get the problems with the connection to the Bible/Pope when speaking to a largely right wing audience at a Christian college. I think that's the first time i've even heard him reference any kind of religion in his dialogue.
I've been thinking about this in my head, but is it even possible to de-rig a capitalist economy? Is it impossible to cure wealth inequality? I'm starting to think capitalism, in its nature, creates fiscal inequality and the more techonology improves, the more it favors the wealthy/elite.
Now with that said I don't think it should just be a scenario of "well we just gotta live with the inequality"--but what is the solution to being fixed? Outside of cutting federal subsidies?
In all, I think his focus on wealth inequality and helping out the middle class is what the next President should be focused on. Not scaring us into a Russia/China/Iran/North Korean World War or What's up with all these gays?
I've been thinking about this in my head, but is it even possible to de-rig a capitalist economy? Is it impossible to cure wealth inequality? I'm starting to think capitalism, in its nature, creates fiscal inequality and the more techonology improves, the more it favors the wealthy/elite.
Now with that said I don't think it should just be a scenario of "well we just gotta live with the inequality"--but what is the solution to being fixed? Outside of cutting federal subsidies?
In all, I think his focus on wealth inequality and helping out the middle class is what the next President should be focused on. Not scaring us into a Russia/China/Iran/North Korean World War or What's up with all these gays?
Dak
mentat
Because tossing out some bits from a religious text or appealing to authority (amusing in this case because LU is Protestant, not Catholic) to a religious crowd is pure demagoguery.
Capitalism does create a measure of inequality. In fact it's a feature, not a bug. There are numerous works explaining the advantages as well as disadvantages to increasing wealth in a, let us say less rigged economy. Inequality itself does not cause issues, but the source does, as well as the "floor". Socialists really just complain about the ceiling. "It's not right people are starving if yadayadayada." No, it's not right people are starving full stop. How did it occur and how do we fix it. Socialists are fine with everyone starving as long as everyone starves. Cause equality.
All this wealth increase for the "top .01" that Sanders quotes is all paper wealth (which does get recycled into tangibles), and it's driven by the Fed/banking system set up, which could and should be entirely absent from a market economy.
Capitalism does create a measure of inequality. In fact it's a feature, not a bug. There are numerous works explaining the advantages as well as disadvantages to increasing wealth in a, let us say less rigged economy. Inequality itself does not cause issues, but the source does, as well as the "floor". Socialists really just complain about the ceiling. "It's not right people are starving if yadayadayada." No, it's not right people are starving full stop. How did it occur and how do we fix it. Socialists are fine with everyone starving as long as everyone starves. Cause equality.
All this wealth increase for the "top .01" that Sanders quotes is all paper wealth (which does get recycled into tangibles), and it's driven by the Fed/banking system set up, which could and should be entirely absent from a market economy.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
Dak
mentat
Want =/= be fine with. "FOH". However, if it were a choice between basically everyone starving, and relative comfort for everyone with a "top .01", regardless of how it was achieved, it's pretty obvious the choice that you would make.
Mort Divine
Shrine Maiden of the In-Crowd
rms
Active Member
Well the demagoguery is on their side in this scenario if they are in fact against equal rights for gay couples. Unless some logical piece has come out, I haven't heard a "rational" discourse against it. (Unless we're talking about nuclear family and the destruction of that) And we must remember that Bernie is the underdog here, he is largely unknown outside of internet "progressives" and has to be a Politician in that way to even out the field. I'd rather he do that than take big payments.
I do agree there are positives and negatives for fiscal inequality but i'm not sure I agree when you say inequality does not cause issues but the source does. What is the separation there?
It will be hard to change "tradition", and I do think I agree with Hamilton's initial plan for Federal funded private gains, but outside of someone like Bernie, who gives America the best opportunity to separate the Fed from private economy? Rand Paul--maybe?
Dak
mentat
What's the difference between theft and earning? Rape and lovemaking?
Pfft, Rand. Such a massive disappointment. Neither Sanders or Paul is going to do anything substantial about the Fed, but Rand might give it a token gesture. Even then, the president is limited in what he or she could do anyway in that regard. It's a significant bully pulpit though.
I stand by my original statement. They are all garbage, at least Trump is amusing.
Actually, it pretty much is.
Matt
Active Member
You're a no regulation/no fed involvement in the economy type of guy right? Do you think that unethical and sometimes purely evil things that the richest do would just stop when suddenly they truly could do whatever they want?
Dak
mentat
Matt
Active Member
Plenty. It's not perfect, and the system definitely needs improvement, but very few economists support the ideas you favor because they just aren't realistic. Free market economics looks great in textbooks, but that's about it. One of my graduate professors is about as conservative/libertarian as you can get and even he acknowledges that the Fed is a 'necessary evil'.
Dak
mentat
Well if there's plenty, please give me one evil of a market capitalist economic system that the Federal Reserve System of the United States of America prevents. Notice I said nothing about "regulation" in broad terms. I'm not talking about the SEC or the CFTC or the FIRA etc. Just the Federal Reserve.
rms
Active Member
I don't get the comparison of the first one, unless maybe you are referring to the earning of the businessman? But the 2nd one implies consent..not sure where you are going with this?
Well probably, it's probably in the hands of Congress and the first step towards that, I think, is changing the decision around Citizens United. I do believe there is a possibility for new Supreme Court justices, so that will have an impact. Then actually having someone talk about it is always a good thing
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
rms
Active Member
I have a hard time believing that less than 50 people have a drastic impact on crime in a region as large as Southern California (mass + population)
And how many "crack and heroin" dealers? I am having a hard time finding recent pardons vs. commutations/pardons from the 50/60/70/80s..
And how many "crack and heroin" dealers? I am having a hard time finding recent pardons vs. commutations/pardons from the 50/60/70/80s..
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
What's the "less than 50 people" number? Are you implying that only 50 people from southern california region have been released since prop 47?
I personally know more than at least 10 or so dope dealers that were released in the last year or so, and that's just in my area. A few of my hardcore prison baby friends were also released early, one of them was busted with about* an ounce of meth just a few months before he got out. Like i said, drug related crimes and murders have risen in just about every city around here since then. Im sure it's pretty easy for someone who lives in Boulder(i checked the numbers) or other cities where stuff like this is almost non existent to think otherwise. The people here in LA, San Bernardino/Riverside and the ghettos of Orange County see it and feel it, we dont need to read about it.
I personally know more than at least 10 or so dope dealers that were released in the last year or so, and that's just in my area. A few of my hardcore prison baby friends were also released early, one of them was busted with about* an ounce of meth just a few months before he got out. Like i said, drug related crimes and murders have risen in just about every city around here since then. Im sure it's pretty easy for someone who lives in Boulder(i checked the numbers) or other cities where stuff like this is almost non existent to think otherwise. The people here in LA, San Bernardino/Riverside and the ghettos of Orange County see it and feel it, we dont need to read about it.
Similar threads
