What is your MyCard?The New World OrderWho wants to be on the Advertising Team?


World & Politics


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"Despite the constant negative press covfefe" - Donald Trump


The Virginia Governor election is a perfect example.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/local/virginia-politics/governor-exit-polls/




settingsOptions
There are 63 Replies

You mean to tell me this is a revelation for you?

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

No?

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

Then what're you getting at?

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

The demographic displacement of white people has only one ending : a far left country


This is going to happen regardless if whites are displaced or not. Look at socialist europe for instance.

Posted November 8th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

This is going to happen regardless if whites are displaced or not. Look at socialist europe for instance.


You do realize europe exemplifies more of the same, right? They're taking in more non-whites than we are.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Then what're you getting at?

Im simply showing statistics and leaving it open to the interpretation of readers.

This is going to happen regardless if whites are displaced or not. Look at socialist europe for instance.

I would completely disagree. Not comparable. 2 different regions, 2 different situations. Also lot of example of right wing/nationalist politics in Europe that I shouldn't have to go into it just because of a select few far left countries (which are being destroyed from within)

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

More non whites

They were on the left before the whole migrant thing Germany voted in merkle in 2002-2000? A good 12 years before the importation of migrants.

Destroyed from within

I laughed. These countries became far more stronger thanks to left wing policies. Look at Germany . Before merkel took over it was the laughing stock of the EU. Aside from the whole migrant thing which was executed horribly it's now the strongest country in the EU. And thanks to Trump a good number of individuals consider her to be the leader of the Free world.

Posted November 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

And it is comparable. Look at the shift to the left this country took in the early twentieth century. Leftist progressive ideas were even thrown around and highly popular when Theodore Roosevelt ran under his progressive party. The country was largely white back then.

Even California had a large communist party during this time. Well before any migrants we're flooding in. Sorry dude shifting to the left is inevitable.regardless of who is displaced.

Posted November 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

he thinks France and Germany are now stronger


My sides have left orbit

Sorry dude but the shift to the right has already happened. It's why we have President Trump .

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

The shift to the right has already happened

Then what's the point of this post? Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million in a election against a democratic canidate that was not only hated by both the left and the right but in a election that had the lowest turn out ever last I checked.

We both know this country will continue moving to the left regardless of how desperately the right attempts to cling on. Your post pretty much implies that.

It doesn't help your case that the election news coming out these last few days has democrats beating out Republicans in both local, county and State elections.

Let's not forget that Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president ever and managed that before his first year in office.

But hey amazing shift to the right.

Edited November 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I think the biggest takeaway from these results is that white voters are stupid.

Posted November 8th by Temerit
Temerit

The shift to the far right has already happened for the Republican party. How that plays to the general electorate is a bit of a different story. If there's one common bond between people on the left and on the right, it's a woefully negative opinion of political parties (I think the last poll I saw indicated 37% thought highly of Democrats and 33% of Republicans, so we're pretty much in a nation where only about a third of the population actively *likes* political parties). Trump is not really any more indicative of the direction of the general populace than Obama was, and Obama was the first Democrat to win two elections with more than 50% of the vote. Why certain people get elected is always a multi-faceted thing.

I don't think it's at all inaccurate to argue that the Republican party has been well under way in its shift to the far right. Given how generally unpopular both parties are, it's kind of hard to make any sweeping statements about the general direction the "American people" are leaning, especially in a single election.

But this is sort of the thing about a nation that values freedom, liberty, democratic principles, and self-governance. People will change. It's sort of why the Democratic-Republican party dropped a lot of the classic Jeffersonian anti-federalist agenda in the years after Jefferson. As more and more Americans getting into politics came of age post-Revolution, many of the political philosophies argued for the creation of a republic were forgotten because gaining independence was no longer a thing. Running a nation was. So when you're concerns in 1820 have to do with securing the western territories and not preventing an unchosen government from implementing taxes without adequate representation, or agents of a government from overseas occupying your city to enforce them. The people just a generation removed from the Revolution grew in a fundamentally different time with fundamentally different concerns and circumstances. So, the Democratic-Republicans started implementing some platforms that were formerly popular among the extinct Federalist party: a standing national army and navy, federal funds for internal improvements, a national bank, expanded foreign ministries, among other things. Things that anti-federalist Republicans of the 1770s and '80s would have despised became central to the Republican platform of the 1810s and '20s (and beyond) because the circumstances changed. The government then changed and grew as well. And that, in part, occurred so easily because the population had shifted. A generation removed from the issues causing the Revolution shifted the beliefs of the people.

Posted November 8th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

I think the biggest takeaway from these results is that white voters are stupid.




Posted November 8th by nullfather
nullfather

I think the biggest takeaway from these results is that white voters are stupid.

Take a hike, anti white

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

His family has probably been here as long as yours loo

Posted November 8th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

The shift to the far right has already happened for the Republican party. How that plays to the general electorate is a bit of a different story. If there's one common bond between people on the left and on the right, it's a woefully negative opinion of political parties (I think the last poll I saw indicated 37% thought highly of Democrats and 33% of Republicans, so we're pretty much in a nation where only about a third of the population actively *likes* political parties). Trump is not really any more indicative of the direction of the general populace than Obama was, and Obama was the first Democrat to win two elections with more than 50% of the vote. Why certain people get elected is always a multi-faceted thing.

Pretty sure no one likes the two party system. That is why both parties are having so much infighting. While I guess one could argue that the GOP (or more accurately, a small faction of) has "shifted to the right" there are still people like Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, John McCain etc who are pretty moderate in many important areas (immigration, healthcare, etc). Trumps Administration has differed from Obamas so much in that Obama got 100% cooperation from his party, whereas there is some pushback against Trump within his own party by political opportunists.

The fact that Trump, who was the only candidate preaching nationalism, was able to beat out 16 other people and subsequently win the general imo shows that the shift to the right has happened, imo.

Edited November 8th by #85
#85

Seems like a good thing.

Most whites in America seem utterly incognizant of the idea that major investments in human capital at home are needed for the functioning of a healthy post-industrial society. Any such investments are wrongfully derided as icky evil Stalinist socialism of the sort that will cause evil Communisit things like bread lines and secret police and famines and male infertility.

Maybe many of them vaguely understand this, but only through the short-sighted lens of classical liberalism. This leads to a fuck-you-I-got-mine mentality that honestly needs to go away before it ruins us all.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Why do you want people to be dependent on the free goodies of others rather than create an environment where they are able to fend for themselves, JB?

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

Their labor pays into those goodies. It was those goodies that allowed American soldiers returning from the Second World War to access the tools they needed to improve themselves: cheaper education, ubiquitous and affordable housing, enough money to partake in a growing consumer economy. They built up assets that they could then pass on to their children.

The way it works now, people work hard, often at several jobs, while corporations make record profits. That money is not reinvested in people and infrastructure and education and better wages. Instead it gets squirreled away in offshore accounts.

Socialism today is already in place in the service of corporations and the military. Their profits were attained by taking advantage of the power and labor and resources of this country, but they have no obligation to cultivate the conditions that make it great.

A certain amount of private initiative is fine. We need it, in fact. But taken to an extreme, it results in the creation of a ravenous global elite with loyalty to nothing but its own profits.

Gone are the days when most people could strike out for the frontier and take care of themselves with nothing but a few acres of land and some animals. Modern prosperity requires a large-scale and regulated interplay between disparate sectors of society. The sheer complexity of specialized, post-industrial society requires that we collectively invest in ourselves.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

If you want to be captain save-a-ho thats fine, but I couldn't care less about your social contract.

The way it works now, people work hard, often at several jobs, while corporations make record profits.

Profit? The horror.

That money is not reinvested in people and infrastructure and education and better wages. Instead it gets squirreled away in offshore accounts.


Prehaps for the very reason that people want a piece of their earnings

Socialism today is already in place in the service of corporations and the military. Their profits were attained by taking advantage of the power and labor and resources of this country, but they have no obligation to cultivate the conditions that make it great.

Had nothing to do with "taking advantage of". Its called innovation and ingenuity.

A certain amount of private initiative is fine. We need it, in fact. But taken to an extreme, it results in the creation of a ravenous global elite with loyalty to nothing but its own profits.

A lot of systems end that way. Including the marxist garbage you are advocating.

Gone are the days when most people could strike out for the frontier and take care of themselves with nothing but a few acres of land and some animals. Modern prosperity requires a large-scale and regulated interplay between disparate sectors of society. The sheer complexity of specialized, post-industrial society requires that we collectively invest in ourselves.

Yeah, this part is unfortunate. Living off the land is true freedom. The people are better suited with Soil.


Posted November 8th by #85
#85

It is not my business to delve into why you would find profits horrifying.

That they are being accumulated in record amounts while citizens in the West find their prospects for the future diminished from where they were half a century ago does testify to how poorly the scale of those profits serves as an indicator of the economic well-being of the average person.

Nationalism as a response to these diminished prospects is stupid because it does not address the problem. Nationalism is simply a symptom of it, like a temper tantrum on a societal scale.

Neither nationalism nor more classical liberalism are the answers. Even Dark Enlightenment thinkers like Nick Land admit that classical liberal economics as practiced amongst Anglo-American Protestants was a historical aberration, a manifestation of an Age of Discovery and colonialism (and the cheap and plentiful land attending it) that can never return again.

Society is no longer rural or frontier-based. New York City alone has over two times as many people within its borders today as the entire United States did in 1776. Such a society demands collective plans and an interplay of public and private funding. Telling people to fend entirely for themselves is no longer a viable model for society. Unless you aspire to be a failed-state.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

The great irony inherent in the philosophies of the Alex Joneses of the world is that while they howl and scream that the Jewish New World Order conspiracy seeks to diminish the global population in the service of Satanic Cultural Marxism, the free-for-all classical liberalism they've wedded themselves to demands even greater population reductions in order to be viable. That, or an unaccountable corporate tyranny without checks or balances to enforce the ideology on a still living population.

In other words, they themselves are the agents of the New World Order.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

America was never intended to be the hyper inclusive society the far left wishes it was

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

The fact that Trump, who was the only candidate preaching nationalism, was able to beat out 16 other people and subsequently win the general imo shows that the shift to the right has happened, imo.


This oversimplifies many, many issues that contribute to an election cycle or campaign. I've been on the record many times saying that people shouldn't read too much into election results as a means to tell the definitive "will of the people," because elections are messy and complicated. Looking at the 2016 GOP primaries, it's hard to definitively say Trump won because Republicans clearly want a more nationalistic approach and to move further to the right when we ultimately saw that platform against a dozen more traditional conservative candidates who syphoned votes off one another. It'd be easier to make such a claim about the "shift to the right" if it had been just Trump versus someone like Kasich alone, or even just Bush (although Bush comes with his own baggage that makes it tricky to gauge what exactly people are voting for - which is another thing: I'd actually argue a lot of Americans tend to vote *against* something more than the vote *for* something in national elections). If that had been the case, with exclusively two differing platforms, that would be a lot more telling.

But I don't think Trump is the result of a new thing. I don't disagree that it indicates that the Republican party is pushing further to the right, but that has largely been happening for a while. Decades, even. Trump is the culmination of that. And even pointing out his win in the primaries specifically points to the party itself. The Republican party moving further to the right does not mean the "American people" are moving further to the right any more than the Democratic party starting to embrace more leftist candidates like Bernie Sanders on a wider level means the "American people" are moving further to the left. In the case of Trump and the general electorate, you can't ignore that Trump got just 46% of total votes, which means more Americans voted *against* him. You also can't ignore his approval rating, or the string of recent elections that did not go in favor of the Republican party. Similarly, all the Bernie fans can't just ignore that at the end of the day, Bernie did well in caucuses, but in every state that was determined by the voters, he failed to win the majority over Clinton. Nor could they ignore that when Obama was finally starting to push more liberal policies in his first term, mid-term elections came back Republican.



Prehaps for the very reason that people want a piece of their earnings


You look at this exclusively from one perspective. Do you not see how many individuals who are working 60+ hour work weeks across multiple jobs just to break even might see the same thing being true of these corporations? Laborers work hard, but don't see much reward for it. Meanwhile, the people and corporations that utilize their labor see record profits. Are you really not able to understand why those workers see this situation as some people taking a piece of their earnings? Are we to understand that if you worked 60 hours one week for a company because you wanted the extra hours and overtime pay, hoping to maximize your own profit off your own labor, but then your boss (who makes substantially more than you do) refuses to pay you that over time pay and subsequently cuts your hours to cut his own costs and maximize his own profit off your labor, that you're just going to sit there and take it without complaint?

Why are workers in this capitalistic system not entitled to maximize the profits of their own labor? Why are only corporations allowed to do so?


Profit? The horror.


Unchecked profits and financial hoarding is problematic to the idea of a healthy democratic society of individual freedom and liberty. Many of our founding fathers were just as afraid of an oligarchy forming as they were of a monarchy emerging. Part of the entire movement was predicated on the idea that every citizen should be able to capitalize on their own labor.

Posted November 8th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

I always point out William Bradfords socialism experiment as why it fails.

Your ideology of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fancy way of saying "some people need to be carried by the backs of other people". Many , myself included would prefer to opt out of this forced captain save a ho charity.

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

So what? The Founders never intended machine guns, rock and roll, air planes, skyscrapers, and 24-hour pizza delivery either.

But they did intend to leave us with a society that was capable of change overtime. Thomas Jefferson said that one generation has no more right to bound future generations to it than does one nation have the right to bound others to its own control.



Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Go back to Europe!

Posted November 8th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

So why should Americans hand their country over to foreigners?

Posted November 8th by #85
#85

Tell that to the indigenous americans

Posted November 8th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

They were on the left before the whole migrant thing Germany voted in merkle in 2002-2000? A good 12 years before the importation of migrants.


Incorrect. Migrants were coming through long, long before the refugee crisis.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Most black families have been in the US longer than most white families, and most Hispanics are indigenous to the continent. Asians are the group that comes from furthest afield, but I wouldn't worry about them hurting the country, as they seem to do well here.

It doesn't look to me like Americans are really losing anything of value to foreigners.

Except the natives who lost a whole lot.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Tell that to the indigenous americans

How did handing it over work for them?

Most black families have been in the US longer than most white families

Not sure thats true. Seeing the actual numbers would be interesting. Going off the top of my head, I think its 10% of white Americans are descended from people who came on the Mayflower. I'd imagine they are closer than that statement implies.

It doesn't look to me like Americans are really losing anything of value to foreigners.

Unsurprising because "the nation" isnt of value to you.

Except the natives who lost a whole lot.

Most Indians died from smallpox without ever seeing a white man. The idea of white man coming in slaughtering everyone is probably in the head of a lot of the left, but isn't reality.

Edited November 8th by #85
#85

It doesn't look to me like Americans are really losing anything of value to foreigners.


If the graphic is to be believed (which it is), americans as a whole lost a whole lot of quality of healthcare thanks to it. I lost healthcare altogether because of it. Last time i checked, these people seem to think healthcare is a big deal.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

And that's not even considering taxes and other policies that would result from this.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

I stated that fact because it is something many whites seem to ignore or are unaware of. The US ceased partaking in the slave trade by 1807. Increases in the American slave population after the 1810s were based almost entirely on natural increases amongst blacks who were already here. That means the overwhelming majority of blacks in our country today can trace their origins to families who were already here by the 1810s, even if they have no physical proof due to lack of family records. Slaves, after all, weren't allowed the luxury of keeping traces of their lineages.

This was long before the three primary waves of post-Revolution European immigration. It is from these waves that most whites in the country today can trace their descent, seeing as those descending from the first white inhabitants have long since become outnumbered by these new arrivals.

Most blacks and Hispanics, by this measure, are "more" American than whites if "more American" means having gotten here first.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Foreigners didn't take your healthcare. You're being denied it by people who probably look like you. They love insurance companies more than they care if you get coverage.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

How many old hispanic families here actually are identified as hispanic, anymore? That's what happened to the majority of native americans: interbreeding. Most whites aren't even pure white. Way back we actually did have quite a large multicultural melting pot that did america very well. Yet, now, we have issues with people who are not invested in the country coming up through borders, magically dead people are voting, and racial tensions are rising. With so many sub-communities of people who reject american culture, we have to begin to ask if america even has a culture anymore, or if it's just a conglomeration of warring cultures.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Foreigners didn't take your healthcare. You're being denied it by people who probably look like you. They love insurance companies more than they care if you get coverage.


Foreigners voted for leftist politicians who took it from me.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"The nation" isn't of value to me? What a strange and unfounded assertion. You might wish to elaborate, 85. Do you and I mean different things went we say "the nation"?

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Most whites aren't even pure white

Average European American is 98% white, thats pretty damn white unless you are going by one drop rule.

Way back we actually did have quite a large multicultural melting pot that did america very well.

Not sure entirely Northern/Western European stock (save for spanish florida) qualifies as "multicultural melting pot"

Do you and I mean different things went we say "the nation"?

Probably. I'm talking about the geographic landmass.



Posted November 8th by #85
#85

Average European American is 98% white, thats pretty damn white unless you are going by one drop rule.


Any stats on this?

Not sure entirely Northern/Western European stock (save for spanish florida) qualifies as "multicultural melting pot"


Look at Texas as a country.



Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/claims-that-us-is-a-genetic-melting-pot-appear-overblown-if-youre-white/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans
You see all of those different ancestries in each of these groups,” Bryc explains. The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American, the team reports online today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. Latinos, meanwhile, carry an average of 18% Native American ancestry, 65.1% European ancestry (mostly from the Iberian Peninsula), and 6.2% African ancestry.

With respect to European Americans, the percentages are much more different than African Americans or Latinos, with European American genomes being 98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.



Posted November 8th by #85
#85

I like the beauty and variety of the American landmass more than any other landmass in the world. As for the people living in this land, I think it would be best to allow them to invest in their own human capital rather than give another blank check to the Pentagon, the banks, and the corporate/lobbyist complex.

You seem to acknowledge, 85, that the latter can use the country's resources to innovate, but it is as if you have no faith in the people to do so, and to use their own local businesses and their own government to this end.

Posted November 8th by Just Because
Just Because
 

First link already cites ancestry.com, which i've already personally verified to contain hoax information just to connect the dots. I used to get the name "kohlrak" getting hits on ancestry.com, suggesting that there's a family from africa named "kohlrak." Now, after speaking of ancestry.com positively, I can't find the study itself, the method of testing, or really anything. I call bullshit on it.

Second link is suspect, because they're citing a genetic study done by the exact same organization, except they failed to mention Havard. Mind you, 23andMe was nailed by the FDA for inaccurate genetics studies, not even relating to that which we're talking about. Find a better study, rather than the same one talked about by 2 different sites.

Posted November 8th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

hey 85, can you set your avatar to Android 13 for a week?



Posted November 8th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

Universal healthcare is cheaper per capita, and yields a better quality of life, than private insurance systems. It is right-wing obstructionism and fear-mongering, and neoliberal Democratic compromise and subservient accommodation, that has given us our ramshackle, unstable, subpar "healthcare".

Universal healthcare is the real "conservative" option by the very definition of the word: streamlined, simplified, and has the best outcomes at the lowest cost. A "liberal" system, by definition, would be what we have now: strange, unconventional, pointlessly complex, recklessly experimental, and open to all sorts of needless and extraneous influences.

The idea that immigrants and foreigners and "left-wing" policies are what has taken your healthcare away from you is asinine. The burden of such people upon our system is minuscule to the point of irrelevance as concerns this conversation.

And even if we didn't have enough money right now to implement Universal Healthcare (and, to be sure, we do have enough), it is a fact that every year the majority of our discretionary spending goes toward the military. If this were cut by a third or two, it could be dedicated to the creation of a world class healthcare system, and the Pentagon would still have more than enough to adequately defend this country.

If anything, foreigners have maintained our present quality of life by buying our debt and tolerating the petrodollar, a system that allows us to spend way beyond our means. The people you need to blame for losing your healthcare are a lot closer to home, but they have succeeded, sadly, at tricking you into believing otherwise.

Posted November 9th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Universal healthcare is cheaper per capita, and yields a better quality of life, than private insurance systems. It is right-wing obstructionism and fear-mongering, and neoliberal Democratic compromise and subservient accommodation, that has given us our ramshackle, unstable, subpar "healthcare".


Fearmongering doesn't take my healthcare away. And, maybe it is cheaper per capita, but not only was I forced out of healthcare, i was then punished to the tune of almost $1000 bucks because I couldn't afford it, nor did i want to take a risk on the known security vulnerabilities with the site. And why $1000? Because if they don't get money from everyone with a job, it would cost more to insure those who choose not to work, not that those people didn't already have healthcare programs to support them. No, the people who were supposed to be insured from it were people like me, who ended up not getting insured. And, yes, this was one of the major reasons I had for quitting my last job: without full time all the money i spend goes back into working, then i get hit with this "tax" on top of it, for a service that I don't even get.

Universal healthcare is the real "conservative" option by the very definition of the word: streamlined, simplified, and has the best outcomes at the lowest cost. A "liberal" system, by definition, would be what we have now: strange, unconventional, pointlessly complex, recklessly experimental, and open to all sorts of needless and extraneous influences.


Absolutely not. First off, the rationing by lack of competition stagnates those persuing medical careers. As for best cost, the question is "for whom?" What procedures am I paying for, and how many of them are necessary? For example, is transexual operations and/or medicine necessary for survival and is it covered? Are contraceptives actually medically necessary and am I paying for them, now? We could go on on a list, but the point remains that the competition allows people to pay for the plans that best cover their own needs. You know what worked even better before? No insurance, with none of that fine crap. I've been paying out of pocket for what little i see a doctor, now, on top of getting that nasty little "tax." With insurance, you are basically gambling that you will use your insurance equal to or more of the value that you pay, but the reality is that, on average you don't, otherwise the companies would go out of business (since they also have the management overhead cost). Insurance is for "incase you don't have enough money saved for your medical costs." Most people would, if their insurance money went straight to a "medical account" instead of an insurance company. This is most cost effective, since there's less red tape, not as much overhead in what you can and cannot get in the form of treatment (especially since some treatements don't lead to more usage down the line [you'd think that they'd want the option that is most likely to prevent more usage of the insurance, but many doctors now work for clinics that also own insurance companies, like Geisinger]), fewer secretaries, no need for medical coders, etc. You could say that costing those jobs is a bad thing, but they're all jobs you have to have some sort of degree to get, anyway, so the average person who needs a job isn't really benefitting from that system.

The idea that immigrants and foreigners and "left-wing" policies are what has taken your healthcare away from you is asinine. The burden of such people upon our system is minuscule to the point of irrelevance as concerns this conversation.


Not according to the very statistics shown in the OP.

And even if we didn't have enough money right now to implement Universal Healthcare (and, to be sure, we do have enough),


We're in debt. Don't pretend we have enough money for anything, right now.

it is a fact that every year the majority of our discretionary spending goes toward the military. If this were cut by a third or two, it could be dedicated to the creation of a world class healthcare system, and the Pentagon would still have more than enough to adequately defend this country.


Don't get me wrong, I hate the military industrial complex, but have you done any research into what kind of work it does? R&D is expensive, and improvments in technology regarding war can mean everything should all hell break loose.

Now, if you really want to check up on where money is being objectively wasted, look at education, especially post secondary education. Do legit research, and you will be appalled. I've found even the left has spoken about the issues where the more money given to schools, especially public colleges, almost never goes in the way of making education more accessible, but just turns into hiring more personel for jobs that aren't even deemed necessary (like hall monitors). It's a nasty area that needs it's funding cut, meanwhile we need civil reform around the country where people have a more logical way of going about getting certification for things that they can teach themselves on (like IT, comp. sci, etc) where people have proven that they can be quite competent on their own without some sort of educator.

Random article i found about K-12, so not entirely related, but it should be enough to get you into looking into it. The hardest part is that trying to look up the funding will also get you results as if you were looking for money to help pay your way into school.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/where-school-dollars-go-to-waste/384949/
If anything, foreigners have maintained our present quality of life by buying our debt and tolerating the petrodollar, a system that allows us to spend way beyond our means. The people you need to blame for losing your healthcare are a lot closer to home, but they have succeeded, sadly, at tricking you into believing otherwise.


Those are different foreigners, who are not inside our country.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Incorrect. Migrants were coming through long, long before the refugee crisis.


not enough to warrant a change though. Like I said leftist politics saved europe and brought several countries back to their prime. And that was done under white people.

But hey its becoming evident that the world as a whole will be moving more and more to the left and theres nothing 85 can do about it.

Posted November 9th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

The stats in the original post relate to how people voted. It says nothing about who is burdening the system.

I don't see how competition would disappear, nor do I see how people pursing medical careers would stagnate. Good doctors are still needed everywhere, and even in countries with universal healthcare they still receive ample incentives to do what they do. My father trained as a surgeon and no one in his social circle has expressed fear that their drive or desire to be doctors would be destroyed by universal healthcare.

Our being in debt is irrelevant to the issue. When the Pentagon needed a blank check for Iraq, they found a way to pay for it. In any case we wouldn't even have to commit to those sorts of tricks. There is already enough in our yearly discretionary spending that can be reallocated from the military and toward healthcare without changing the total debt at all. No "putting it on a credit card" like in Iraq. No extra quantitative easing.

On the contrary, given that universal healthcare would be cheaper than what we have now, not only would it not increase the debt -- it would help us get spending under control. This conclusion does not require an ounce of pretend or make-believe.

A country's finances are not like that of a person's. Debt can take up more than 100% of a nation's GDP, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fundamentals of economic production are at all stymied. It is those fundamentals that matter above all else.

I'm not saying at all that we should do that with our debt. But even if we did the country would not collapse so long as we could still produce goods and services for others and ourselves. If this wasn't true then Japan (which long ago reached the point at which their debt-to-GDP ratio was far in excess of 100%, and last year was far in excess of 200%) would have collapsed into an orgy of economic misery and chaos decades ago.

Not only are we avoiding that situation altogether, but universal healthcare would make it more likely that we would avoid it.

Your current complaints seem to be about Obamacare. That is a wholly different beast than universal healthcare. I should make it clear, in case it wasn't before, that I am not defending Obamacare and never preferred it. It has some good ideas (such as upping the age at which kids can remain on their parents' insurance, and rules regarding preexisting conditions), but I otherwise find it profoundly unsatisfying. Not to mention it hits you with a fine if you don't use it.

Everything wrong with it could be fixed by completely scrapping it and going over to universal. Basic healthcare would be a publicly funded service. The insurance and lobbyist middle men who drive up costs would be cut out entirely. And if you wanted private care you could still buy private care of your own accord.

The chances that someone would use universal healthcare for gender reassignment surgery should be of little concern. The transsexual population is very small compared to the general population. The number of transsexuals whose transition includes the surgical component is even smaller. Given that the suicide rate amongst such people can be as high as 40%, transitioning is something that can save lives and it, therefore, is a valid medical expense, not a cosmetic whim like plastic surgery.

Public funds are used for things we don't approve of all the time. Even if you don't like wars, cops, highways, corporate subsidies, and schools for other people's kids (even if you yourself are childless) you're still paying for those things. In a modern society we pay for other people's needs and endeavors and they, in turn, pay for ours.

As for the education issue you've raised, I will look into that. What I know about it so far tells me that it is absolutely abysmal. Like with healthcare, other countries have found out how to spend less but get better results.

But I do know that military waste as it presently stands cannot be chalked up to R&D alone. The military-industrial complex has, in many regards, become a jobs creation program. More tanks are produced than the Pentagon needs or asked for because Congressmen in the districts where they are built have lobbied for continued production. As a result we have military hardware that sits completely unused at certain sites. Due to deregulation as pertains to contractors, the F-35 fighter has cost over $1 trillion to develop when it should have cost a small fraction of that. And this is before counting our military overreach in all manner of global operations.

In light of the aforementioned issues, immigrants are a convenient scapegoat, but if we got rid of them all tomorrow these issues would not be helped in the least. Removing them would also remove the value they generate for the economy.

These are all complex issues, and there are many different ways we can approach them from conservative and progressive angles. 85's brand of right-wing nationalism is the least effective course I can think of.

Posted November 9th by Just Because
Just Because
 

The stats in the original post relate to how people voted. It says nothing about who is burdening the system.


Don't strawman me. The original post said how certain groups of people tend to vote for the same politicians that add kludge to the system.

I don't see how competition would disappear, nor do I see how people pursing medical careers would stagnate. Good doctors are still needed everywhere, and even in countries with universal healthcare they still receive ample incentives to do what they do. My father trained as a surgeon and no one in his social circle has expressed fear that their drive or desire to be doctors would be destroyed by universal healthcare.


Price setting. All the nursing homes in my state need kitchen personel, but no one's stepping up to the plate. The next step when there's a universal payer is to make the argument for universal prices and payment. Doctors will become public servants, rather than practitioners setting their prices in the free market. Most doctor's have even less freedom, since clinics are taking over and health insurance providers prefer clinics, which tend to run things more like a factory (which is actually the nickname the local practitioners have for the local clinic: "the factory").

Our being in debt is irrelevant to the issue. When the Pentagon needed a blank check for Iraq, they found a way to pay for it. In any case we wouldn't even have to commit to those sorts of tricks. There is already enough in our yearly discretionary spending that can be reallocated from the military and toward healthcare without changing the total debt at all. No "putting it on a credit card" like in Iraq. No extra quantitative easing.


No, but you said we had enough money. We really don't. It's a separate issue, but the whole situation is a ticking time bomb. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and since currency represents resources, someone's resources are getting stolen by all of this. Otherwise, the government could just cancel all the IOUs tomorrow and no one would care, right? Oh right, the debt actually is owed to somebody. At some point, there's going to be a collection, and if there are foreign collectors, there will be war.

On the contrary, given that universal healthcare would be cheaper than what we have now, not only would it not increase the debt -- it would help us get spending under control. This conclusion does not require an ounce of pretend or make-believe.


Cheaper per capita, which is much different. And, to be honest, I don't actually buy this "cheaper," but there's not way to actually qualify this. The bank account idea is the cheapest form.

A country's finances are not like that of a person's. Debt can take up more than 100% of a nation's GDP, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fundamentals of economic production are at all stymied. It is those fundamentals that matter above all else.


No, they're not, of course. We're just borrowing from our children, or maybe our grandchildren, or somebody. That bill will have to be paid, even if it's in blood.

I'm not saying at all that we should do that with our debt. But even if we did the country would not collapse so long as we could still produce goods and services for others and ourselves. If this wasn't true then Japan (which long ago reached the point at which their debt-to-GDP ratio was far in excess of 100%, and last year was far in excess of 200%) would have collapsed into an orgy of economic misery and chaos decades ago.


No, but there will come a tipping point. At the end of the day, someone's getting screwed. The question is, "who?" Money represents resources. These resources don't come out of thin air, which is why we experience inflation.

Not only are we avoiding that situation altogether, but universal healthcare would make it more likely that we would avoid it.


How?

Your current complaints seem to be about Obamacare. That is a wholly different beast than universal healthcare. I should make it clear, in case it wasn't before, that I am not defending Obamacare and never preferred it. It has some good ideas (such as upping the age at which kids can remain on their parents' insurance, and rules regarding preexisting conditions), but I otherwise find it profoundly unsatisfying. Not to mention it hits you with a fine if you don't use it.


Universal healthcare is ultimately more borrowing (to some debtor) or stealing (in the form of taxes). This is unethical. As for obamacare, yes. But if you want to talk about the end game, universal health care, sure. That will just add to the spending that will inevitably end in either starvation or bloodshed, or maybe both.

Everything wrong with it could be fixed by completely scrapping it and going over to universal. Basic healthcare would be a publicly funded service. The insurance and lobbyist middle men who drive up costs would be cut out entirely. And if you wanted private care you could still buy private care of your own accord.


Except, even if i buy my own private care, i'm still forced to pay for the universal care, but I'm willing to bet that private care would become illegal over time.

The chances that someone would use universal healthcare for gender reassignment surgery should be of little concern. The transsexual population is very small compared to the general population. The number of transsexuals whose transition includes the surgical component is even smaller. Given that the suicide rate amongst such people can be as high as 40%, transitioning is something that can save lives and it, therefore, is a valid medical expense, not a cosmetic whim like plastic surgery.


Pennies add up. Don't you dare limit this to transexuals.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak



Public funds are used for things we don't approve of all the time. Even if you don't like wars, cops, highways, corporate subsidies, and schools for other people's kids (even if you yourself are childless) you're still paying for those things. In a modern society we pay for other people's needs and endeavors and they, in turn, pay for ours.


Except certain people are of the benefit class and certain other people are of the social slave class. Though, I'm all for privatising all of those, except cops and war. Those are the real purpose of the government: internal and external threats. The rest is not a fundemental job of government. Government is to protect the society, and the society is to sort out it's own problems.

As for the education issue you've raised, I will look into that. What I know about it so far tells me that it is absolutely abysmal. Like with healthcare, other countries have found out how to spend less but get better results.


It's absolutely out of control, and now that we live in the software age, there's no reason why video lectures aren't possible. Pay teachers to answer questions and to teach lessons where lectures aren't applicable. And it's not like we can't come up with something more involving with that technology than lectures, either. If schools utilized modern technology properly, we could teach more in a much smaller period of time with an even smaller budget. Education and certification as a whole needs revamped entirely. It's inefficient, cost ineffective, and it's destroying jobs and employment opportunities both.

But I do know that military waste as it presently stands cannot be chalked up to R&D alone. The military-industrial complex has, in many regards, become a jobs creation program. More tanks are produced than the Pentagon needs or asked for because Congressmen in the districts where they are built have lobbied for continued production. As a result we have military hardware that sits completely unused at certain sites.


Unused doesn't mean it won't be. The idea is to prepare for use, not make more tanks in a bum rush when war breaks out and someone's bombing the tank production facilities. Waste and redundancy are very, very different. The constant attempts to shut down the A-10 really bothers me, and it shows that there's more to this.

Due to deregulation as pertains to contractors, the F-35 fighter has cost over $1 trillion to develop when it should have cost a small fraction of that.


The F-35 is a special beast that needs a whole topic of it's own. But, for the sake of sanity, in the name of "budget cuts" we tried to make a universal fighter that could do everything in a single package, and it's an absolute joke. The avionics suit are the only thing about it that's any good. Russia's way ahead of us with thrust vector technology, and the USAF says that thrust vector is worthless. IRL, dogfights do happen. Sticking entirely to BVR engagements is not a realistic expectation of a war, and that will cost anyone who operates the F-35 and anyone who relies on the support their lives. They thought they could just throw money at a problem and somehow magically solutions are created. You could pay me our nation's debt, and it still wouldn't allow me to draw blood from a stone.

And this is before counting our military overreach in all manner of global operations.


How much is overreach vs how much is holding key areas? For example, the Korean war wasn't so much of a proxy war for us, but us getting a good barrier between Russia and Japan. Sure, we never cared about South Korea, but we cared about Japan, so South Korea made our interests in Japan safer. I hate to say that incase any south koreans might be reading (and I do know of one who could be here reading this), but that's the whole truth.

In light of the aforementioned issues, immigrants are a convenient scapegoat, but if we got rid of them all tomorrow these issues would not be helped in the least. Removing them would also remove the value they generate for the economy.


The issue still isn't immigrants themselves. It's the ones who have not adopted our culture, which the left notoriously caters to with welfare programs. Get rid of those, and it'll have a profound effect on the voting, which in turn has an effect on the issues.

These are all complex issues, and there are many different ways we can approach them from conservative and progressive angles. 85's brand of right-wing nationalism is the least effective course I can think of.


I don't care about 85's personal brand of nationalism. I care about words, ideas, etc. If his are good, i'll go with them. If yours are good, I'll go with them. I'll know which are good, based on the arguments. But you two alone are not the only ones with ideas. I have my own, and regardless of any similarity I may have with someone else, that does not mean we can be counted in the same ranks. My idea regarding immigrants is simple: we cannot have open borders while having a welfare state: because people will come here for the welfare instead of the opportunities. It's one thing if the welfare provides a method through which people can get a foothold into society and then break away and contribute on their own, it's another when there are large numbers of people who scam the system. And, yes, the system is made to be scammed, currently.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Actual political issues and discussion rather than identity politics for a change.

Incorrect. Migrants were coming through long, long before the refugee crisis.

Nowhere near the levels of 2015 onwards though.

And of course Merkel and the CDU (and CSU) are considered to be on the centre-right both in Germany and wider Europe. Germany have had for a long time strong investment policies, that fortifies its manufacturing and engineering excellence so as to provide for a muscular industrial strategy (nonexistent in the UK) and maximised exports. The stereotypical image of the German ruling centre-right is of humourless beancounters who are solely concerned about business stability and budget surpluses. To describe them with the catch-all of 'leftist' - especially in the pejorative - does not accurately describe Germany and its domestic policies in a German and European context.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the military industrial complex, but have you done any research into what kind of work it does? R&D is expensive, and improvments in technology regarding war can mean everything should all hell break loose.

R&D is never an overwhelmingly large portion of a defence budget. The largest expenditures are always going to be operational, maintenance of exising assets, systems and equipment and of course personnel (i.e. salaries, pensions etc.).

Otherwise, the government could just cancel all the IOUs tomorrow and no one would care, right? Oh right, the debt actually is owed to somebody. At some point, there's going to be a collection, and if there are foreign collectors, there will be war.

Most of the US's debt liabilities as part of its gross national debt - indeed like most countries with a fiat currency and monetary sovereignty - are owed to itself, and not foreign creditors. The idea that you are in debt enslavement with say China is a myth.

Edited November 9th by Arch
Arch
 

Actual political issues and discussion rather than identity politics for a change.


Despite all my effort, I really can't get people to break away from it. So, what i learned to do is block half the site.

Nowhere near the levels of 2015 onwards though.


No, but everything does matter.

And of course Merkel and the CDU (and CSU) are considered to be on the centre-right both in Germany and wider Europe. Germany have had for a long time strong investment policies, that fortifies its manufacturing and engineering excellence so as to provide for a muscular industrial strategy (nonexistent in the UK) and maximised exports. The stereotypical image of the German ruling centre-right is of humourless beancounters who are solely concerned about business stability and budget surpluses. To describe them with the catch-all of 'leftist' - especially in the pejorative - does not accurately describe Germany and its domestic policies in a German and European context.


I don't know much about modern germany, per se, aside from it's issues controlling migrants. I do hear rumors of merkel being muslim, hence her opposition to gay marriage, though. But, I would say, that if you are focused on getting production out of your country, you will see economic growth, people will be able to be more independent of social systems, etc. It's a no-brainer: production jobs are a positive for your economy, and service jobs are a net neutral. America has become largely service economy, which is why the job market isn't doing well right now, and millenials are having trouble living on their own.

R&D is never an overwhelmingly large portion of a defence budget. The largest expenditures are always going to be operational, maintenance of exising assets, systems and equipment and of course personnel (i.e. salaries, pensions etc.).


I don't know about how much R&D is, aside from it being expensive. Most people don't know what it costs to maintain and operate the air-forces alone. To think that AIM-120s are so expensive, but are primarily used to defense, it just shows you how bankrupt we would go if we went to war and didn't get air superiority within a week. And airplanes typically need some form of repair after taking off and landing. And if this kind of mentality spreads out to the other branches (lets' not forget the other branches have airplanes, too) you slowly start to see where the money goes. And let's not forget what Israel has shown us about the importance of air power.

Most of the US's debt liabilities as part of its gross national debt - indeed like most countries with a fiat currency and monetary sovereignty - are owed to itself, and not foreign creditors. The idea that you are in debt enslavement with say China is a myth.


Right, which is a bigger issue. I'd love to know who we're in debt with. Most people actually don't knwo that, but I also don't knwo who we're actually in debt with, outside of our own children. Since you seem to know that much (which i did, too, believe it or not) maybe you could answer the rest of the question: Exactly who are we domestically in debt to? That's alot of IOU going to people, and the banks wouldn't be able to cover it all.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

No strawmen here. You referred me to the OP graphs as a means of finding who took your healthcare and who is burdening the system. None of those graphs actually show who is doing either. At all.

The price setting fear hasn't materialized in countries that actually have universal healthcare. Even now we need doctors in both a public and private capacity either way, and universal healthcare isn't going to diminish that need. Going into the medical field is not purely a business decision. I can tell you that they tend to go into the field because of a deeply personal desire to help people. Their motivation is like cops and firefighters in that sense. The money is good too, of course, and if you want money, then you're still handsomely paid under either system.

We do have enough money for this. Like I said, it wouldn't require new money. Cutting the insurance companies and lobbyists out of the mix wouldn't increase costs. So under what scenario would we not have enough money?

In regards to debt, you say that money represents resources. It actually no longer does, at least not in a straightforward way. Arch rightly mentioned that we are operating under a system of fiat currency, and have been for decades now. Under such a system money has value because the government says it does. That allows them to print more of it when, for whatever reason, the economy needs more liquid assets. It was often the absence of such assets that used to cause bank runs and what not.

Money represents a corresponding tangible resource, to a point, in the sense that people still use it as a medium of exchange, but it is also accurate to say that the use of money nowadays represents a general vote of confidence that the fundamentals of the economy at large are still functioning.

As long as the fundamental productive and service capacity of the country remains intact, then such debt can conceivably be written off as conditions warrant. I'm not saying that this system is without problems, or even that this is the most desirable state of affairs, but people don't seem to understand how debt at a national and international level works and assume, understandably, that it must work the same way that it does at the level of personal finance. If you don't like the service economy and want to bring back production, we can use our debt to finance that instead of supporting corporate welfare and corporate hoarding.

Having a fiat currency with fiat-based debt isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as people are fed and are producing. We should therefore use our funds to invest in human capital. Treating this issue like a personal finance issue is how Europe ended up with austerity. And while wanting to reduce spending can be good, you must also invest in your people at some point, or else they will not be able to grow the productive capacity of your economy and the contraction will get worse.

For what it is worth, I do admire the discipline of fiscal conservatives who ask, as a matter of personal and societal principle, that we live within our means. But they also often underestimate just how much the economic usefulness of common people can be cultivated and grown overtime by reallocating existing resources. Their fetish for deregulation and privatization is also incompatible with the carefulness that the word "conservative" implies.

As for our unused military hardware, I think you underestimate the scale and scope of it. Of course we need to keep around a little extra in case we need to use it, but we are past that point. The Pentagon knows where that point is and does not want any more. But once you get the ball rolling with lobbyists, congressmen, and contractors, it is hard to stop. We really don't need any more tanks. We are literally making them now for the sole purpose of keeping people's jobs. That is socialism for the military. And it is not even the sort of socialism that helps the general public.

There is no reason that cops and the military require that much socialism, and the people none at all. I would rather people have homes, healthcare, transportation, and education so that they can take of themselves and grow the economy than I would have more tanks sitting in desert depots to satisfy the manufacturer.

Non-white people are less afraid of voting for such public spending (on average) because we live largely in cities and see how positive the impact can be when it is done right. New York couldn't be so productive without major utilities, public transportation, modern metropolitan police, and other such collective efforts. And this is not to suggest that such money is perfectly managed either, but we do not fall into the trap of believing government to be inherently oppressive or evil. Government is what you are able to make of it.

I do not see why a privately owned tyranny would be necessarily better than a public tyranny. The emphasis should be on creating responsive systems that work well and are accountable, and that have checks against tyranny. The libertarian fetish for removing all forms of government, no matter the consequence to the common man, is incompatible with this goal.

Posted November 9th by Just Because
Just Because
 

Canada is a far left country and it's 90 percent white. Lol

Posted November 9th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

No strawmen here. You referred me to the OP graphs as a means of finding who took your healthcare and who is burdening the system. None of those graphs actually show who is doing either. At all.


Ok, let's look at this again, shall we?

The idea that immigrants and foreigners and "left-wing" policies are what has taken your healthcare away from you is asinine. The burden of such people upon our system is minuscule to the point of irrelevance as concerns this conversation.


Not according to the very statistics shown in the OP.


The burdening on the system is spending, which is left-wing policies, which the foreigners are contributing to. The left wing policies are precisely what has caused what was half-working into something that's barely working.

The price setting fear hasn't materialized in countries that actually have universal healthcare. Even now we need doctors in both a public and private capacity either way, and universal healthcare isn't going to diminish that need. Going into the medical field is not purely a business decision.



Maybe not with health care, but it has with other industries that have gone into such regulation. Just look at Venezuela, for one small example. But, tell me, where are these public doctors?

I can tell you that they tend to go into the field because of a deeply personal desire to help people. Their motivation is like cops and firefighters in that sense. The money is good too, of course, and if you want money, then you're still handsomely paid under either system.


Maybe, but so do artists. How well is sculpting and painting degrees doing anyone, right now? Or how about IT? Look how great IT is doing in india. And it's not like there's not a booming gaming industry, yet game designers don't do well, either, unless you have all your ducks in a row, which is easier said than done, since most of it requires a good bit of startup money. Passions don't pay bills, and when they don't you go find something else to do and call it a hobby.

We do have enough money for this. Like I said, it wouldn't require new money. Cutting the insurance companies and lobbyists out of the mix wouldn't increase costs. So under what scenario would we not have enough money?


It's tied to the other funding. If we cut out the military entirely, any other welfare programs we have, etc, we have plenty of money and could even pay off the national debt, but you have to look at the big picture. The most efficient system is to not have insurance at all, but instead all that money goes into a bank account. Now days you can make payments, anyway, so insurance isn't even necessary as long as you have a fulltime job that gives you at least 20 bucks a week extra in "spending money" after all your bills are paid.

In regards to debt, you say that money represents resources. It actually no longer does, at least not in a straightforward way. Arch rightly mentioned that we are operating under a system of fiat currency, and have been for decades now. Under such a system money has value because the government says it does. That allows them to print more of it when, for whatever reason, the economy needs more liquid assets. It was often the absence of such assets that used to cause bank runs and what not.


That doesn't change that it represents resources. If it did not, no one would accept payment. That's no different from me giving you a piece of paper saying that it has a value of one kodolar. Why would anyone use that as currency and accumulate kodolars? The dollar has value in that it represents a standard provided by government. So, right now, someone's picking up IOUs and is doing work for free, even if it's not direct. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't the government just print money and pay off the IOUs?

Money represents a corresponding tangible resource, to a point, in the sense that people still use it as a medium of exchange, but it is also accurate to say that the use of money nowadays represents a general vote of confidence that the fundamentals of the economy at large are still functioning.


Right. People offer both physical resources and services for this currency. For all the more is printed and/or borrowed, people are essentially offering up these goods and services for free, since there's no value returned to them for being given that money. There's no reason why the government can't just print out enough money to give every working person $1,000,000 to start up a business, right? Or better, why bother taxing at all? Imagine what everyone could accomplish if no one paid taxes.

As long as the fundamental productive and service capacity of the country remains intact, then such debt can conceivably be written off as conditions warrant. I'm not saying that this system is without problems, or even that this is the most desirable state of affairs, but people don't seem to understand how debt at a national and international level works and assume, understandably, that it must work the same way that it does at the level of personal finance.


You keep saying it's different, but don't explain how it's different, especially when it actually is the exact same system.

If you don't like the service economy and want to bring back production, we can use our debt to finance that instead of supporting corporate welfare and corporate hoarding.


I'm against publicly funded welfare in general. I believe private entities such as churches have done a good job of it throughout history. We've simply passed that job on to the government and gave our funds in the form of taxes, so we didn't have enough money to keep the old charities afloat. As for corporate hoarding, where's the money? Yet, we still have ridiculous spending. And would not anything that could bring back production jobs also be considered "corperate welfare" and "corporate hoarding" if using public funds?

Having a fiat currency with fiat-based debt isn't necessarily a bad thing so long as people are fed and are producing. We should therefore use our funds to invest in human capital. Treating this issue like a personal finance issue is how Europe ended up with austerity. And while wanting to reduce spending can be good, you must also invest in your people at some point, or else they will not be able to grow the productive capacity of your economy and the contraction will get worse.


The best way to invest in your people is to stop strong arming them. But here's the issue, if people were producing, would not that currency be backed by something, still? See, fiat currency exists to protect service economies, and, despite fiat currency, it's still falling apart.

For what it is worth, I do admire the discipline of fiscal conservatives who ask, as a matter of personal and societal principle, that we live within our means. But they also often underestimate just how much the economic usefulness of common people can be cultivated and grown overtime by reallocating existing resources.


It's immoral. If I don't take anything from the system, I will still get strong armed into paying money for things I don't benefit from under the fact that if i fail to do so, people with guns are going to put me in a cage. This is immoral.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak



Their fetish for deregulation and privatization is also incompatible with the carefulness that the word "conservative" implies.


The idea is that you get more bang for your buck with micromanagement when you have all the micro-processes doing that micro-management for you. Government has shown with SSI programs that it is terrible at handling things. Then, look at public mail services. Who's doing better, USPS or Fedex? Or how about USPS vs DHL? Package from Texas took a month to get here (supposedly 2 weeks) and i got a package from Japan in 2 days. Who do you think managed to get it there?

As for our unused military hardware, I think you underestimate the scale and scope of it. Of course we need to keep around a little extra in case we need to use it, but we are past that point. The Pentagon knows where that point is and does not want any more. But once you get the ball rolling with lobbyists, congressmen, and contractors, it is hard to stop. We really don't need any more tanks. We are literally making them now for the sole purpose of keeping people's jobs. That is socialism for the military. And it is not even the sort of socialism that helps the general public.


Got some numbers that we can disect and play with?

There is no reason that cops and the military require that much socialism, and the people none at all. I would rather people have homes, healthcare, transportation, and education so that they can take of themselves and grow the economy than I would have more tanks sitting in desert depots to satisfy the manufacturer.


Cops aren't buying tanks.

Non-white people are less afraid of voting for such public spending (on average) because we live largely in cities and see how positive the impact can be when it is done right. New York couldn't be so productive without major utilities, public transportation, modern metropolitan police, and other such collective efforts. And this is not to suggest that such money is perfectly managed either, but we do not fall into the trap of believing government to be inherently oppressive or evil. Government is what you are able to make of it.


Positive because you benefit from it. And how productive is new york? How much does it produce in value, and how much does it pay into the system? Because those of us outside of cities keep paying for these cities that we don't live in.

I do not see why a privately owned tyranny would be necessarily better than a public tyranny. The emphasis should be on creating responsive systems that work well and are accountable, and that have checks against tyranny.


The nice thing about capitalism is that tyranny gets harder with it. The more independent people can be, the harder it is to control them. The more dependant they are, the more you can threaten them with what you provide them with.

The libertarian fetish for removing all forms of government, no matter the consequence to the common man, is incompatible with this goal.


Anarchy is impossible on the large scale. Time and time again people have come to me with arguments, but it's impossible. Yet the direct opposite is unsustainable. The idea is to realize what government should and should not be playing with, and let everything else deal with evolution and natural selection, so that it can properly improve.

Posted November 9th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

I won't touch on every point because we could go on forever, and a lot of what it boils down to are simple differences in outlook and philosophy that you are entitled to have. Indeed, these differences are to be expected. I wouldn't expect a person in a city and a person in the country to have the same attitude on guns, for example, because both groups have a different relationship with the need (or lack of need) for personal firearms. So I'll just address what I find most glaring this time.

Where are the public doctors? My whole life I've been surrounded by people who work for the CDC or public health boards or clinics. Smart, passionate people who wouldn't be inclined to quit if we suddenly had universal healthcare tomorrow. From doctors at large, I've seen nothing but support for the idea of the US switching to universal healthcare because they know that would be the best way to save lives. I'm sure you can always find doctors who would disagree.

There is so much interplay between public and private in something like medicine. Whether we have a system based on private insurance or public funds, their jobs really aren't going to change. You used Venezuela as an example when you could have used almost every other country in the civilized world.

You mention people outside cities having to foot the bill for cities when it is actually the exact opposite. Places like New York and LA pay more dollars into the system than they take. Rural red areas take more dollars than they pay in. This makes sense, given that the majority of our GDP comes from just a few metropolitan areas.

New York City generates $1.5 trillion each year. The city (which generates the majority of New York state's GDP) pays more into the New York state government than it receives; rural areas in the north and west of the state receive more in aid and subsidies than they pay in. At the state level New York as a whole pays more into the federal government than it receives: for every dollar they give they receive 91 cents back. Some states in the South receive as much as two dollars for every one they pay. This trend is the same between blue states and red states, and cities and rural areas in other parts of the country.

If we set it up so that every locality just kept its money at home, the cities would fare much better than other areas. In fact, cities would finally have more money to use on improvements for themselves whereas rural areas would suddenly be without the subsidies on which they have long depended. Some left-leaning advocates of limited federal government have already started to point this out.

The militarization of police has been a hot topic lately, so I am surprised you haven't heard that some police departments are actually buying armored personnel carreiers along with all sorts of equipment that small-town departments really don't need: M113s, mine-detectors, grenade launchers, and so on. These are not like battle tanks that are built with a big primary gun, but if you saw an M113 rolling down your street, quibbling over the semantics of a tank vs an APC would not be your highest priority.

Just as certain lobbies have realized they can build Abrams tanks for the sole purpose of keeping jobs, manufacturers have realized they can sell extra military equipment to small-town police. More often than not, the lobbyists and congressmen feeding these programs come from more sparsely districts where they are too afraid to tell their constituency that what is left of their manufacturing base amounts to the most ill-conceived form of corporate welfare.

The article you linked from The Atlantic mentioned millions in misspent education funding. Further inquiries on my part showed millions more misspent in various states all over the country. This is a serious issue to be sure, but the blatant waste in the military boggles the mind:

This year we're going to spend $4.5 billion so that around 1,000 people in Ohio can keep their jobs. They're building tanks, drones, planes, and weapons that the Pentagon has already said it doesn't need. Similar programs in other states amount to billions more. R&D is only 12.5% of the total defense budget. Nearly 50% is spent on general maintenance. A little under a quarter is spent on personnel. Maintenance and personnel sound super important, and they are in essence, but there is a lot in there that also protects needless jobs. The Pentagon has said we could cut hundreds of billions and still be able to fight our wars.

All this taken together, the idea that our cities are full of overly sensitive, greedy hedonists who are lazily robbing the innocent, pure, hardworking people of "real" America is one of the most pernicious lies that has ever been told. These cities are nodes of logistics, culture, technology, manufacturing, communications, media, education, and innovation, and the largest of them have economies that, in size, eclipse that of entire countries.

It is evident beyond doubt that these cities benefit the country at large, even if people who don't live in them would be loathe to admit it. This is only a problem in the sense that places outside these core cities are less likely to be properly invested in. This sort of investment is exactly what I have been calling for for years. The trillions spent on "nation building" in Iraq would have been better spent building up Middle America. But somehow, the people who pointed this out 14 years ago were considered "less patriotic" than the people who wanted to blow things up.

Posted November 10th by Just Because
Just Because
 

I know this was directed at Arch, but to answer the question of who owns US debt: 76% of it is owned by the American public.

It is tied up in mutual funds, social security funds, banks, the Fed, state governments, and just normal people. Anyone can buy debt in the form of treasuries. This has been true since 1789.

Who do you think is more likely to finance this debt? The parts of the country who are paying more into the government than they take, or the parts paying less?

Posted November 10th by Just Because
Just Because
 

No, but everything does matter.

My point was that the OP's suggestion that migrants somehow infiltrate 'left-wing politics' into a system can't be extrapolated to Germany as an explanation as it's not a very good one. Germany has been loosely social democratic and business/industry focused for years irrespectively of migrant numbers.

I don't know much about modern germany, per se, aside from it's issues controlling migrants. I do hear rumors of merkel being muslim, hence her opposition to gay marriage, though. But, I would say, that if you are focused on getting production out of your country, you will see economic growth, people will be able to be more independent of social systems, etc. It's a no-brainer: production jobs are a positive for your economy, and service jobs are a net neutral. America has become largely service economy, which is why the job market isn't doing well right now, and millenials are having trouble living on their own.

There are a number of reasons that Germany does so well. Overreliance on services is certainly a contributor to weakness in an economy, but it's a rule of thumb. The US is better placed than most to rebalance though.

And Merkel is a Lutheran Christian, and leads the CDU - Christian Democrats is in the name. That's why she most likely opposed gay marriage. She isn't a Muslim.

I don't know about how much R&D is, aside from it being expensive. Most people don't know what it costs to maintain and operate the air-forces alone. To think that AIM-120s are so expensive, but are primarily used to defense, it just shows you how bankrupt we would go if we went to war and didn't get air superiority within a week. And airplanes typically need some form of repair after taking off and landing. And if this kind of mentality spreads out to the other branches (lets' not forget the other branches have airplanes, too) you slowly start to see where the money goes. And let's not forget what Israel has shown us about the importance of air power.

R&D for the US defense budget, for example, typically hovers around 10%, depending on the fiscal year.

If you want to reduce budget overheads in the DoD you'll have to look at what current policy deems is necessary in terms of operational capability (i.e. how many simultaneous campaigns the US thinks it is capable of doing) and the amount of personnel you have. That's typically ~67% of the budget, not including the procurement costs.

And air power is overrated and overemphasised in modern military theory. I feel you're bound to disagree, but you should probably make a new thread if you wanted to discuss it at length.

Right, which is a bigger issue. I'd love to know who we're in debt with. Most people actually don't knwo that, but I also don't knwo who we're actually in debt with, outside of our own children. Since you seem to know that much (which i did, too, believe it or not) maybe you could answer the rest of the question: Exactly who are we domestically in debt to? That's alot of IOU going to people, and the banks wouldn't be able to cover it all.

Just Because largely answered your question. The (commercial) banks haven't got much to do with it. Fiscal budgeting on the part of states that utilise fiat currency is largely an expression of accounting.

The dollar in your pocket is indebted to you.

Edited November 10th by Arch
Arch
 

There are too many entertainment-oriented jobs that do not return anything of lasting and material value back into the economy. Combined with a culture of gross self-indulgence and you have a sinking ship model.

Posted November 10th by Kaot0
Kaot0

What I have studied on war, through numerous historical case studies, also agrees with the idea that air power matters much less than people realize. You must have robust forces on the ground ready to impose your will or stabilize the situation if you want a safe end to hostilities. And that doesn't even touch the idea of insurgencies.

Lest the usual suspects think this view was imposed on me by a university system that peddles only falsehoods and Western "self-hatred," I was taught by a man who was a low-key nationalist and an openly rabid Eurosceptic whose classes were steeped in realpolitik. But ultimately, he was fair.

Posted November 10th by Just Because
Just Because
 

I agree with the air power bit.

Posted November 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 
Reply to: The demographic displacement of white people has only one ending : a far left country

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on