|
|
|
#101
Inasmuch as it appears to be a genuine attempt to get the long term costs of Medicare/Medicaid down, I like it. Specifics are hard to find and I don't want to read the bill at this point since it seems DOA anyway.Just curious, what's your opinion on the Ryan-Wyden plan?
It's when you pair "cuts to medicare" with "lower taxes" that you go brain-dead.
#102
I'd argue that tax cuts do spur economic growth, but to a vastly lesser degree than your average conservative would have you believe. (reductio ad absurdum: would 100% tax rate reduce economic growth?). The bottom line is that tax cuts don't pay for themselves through economic growth, so for the purposes of reducing debt, pairing lower spending with tax cuts is pretty dumb.
Our soaring debt/deficit should be the focus of congress at the moment, not regressing taxes. I'd infinitely rather see a simplification of the tax system as this would automatically save money without needing to change the distribution of taxes. A simpler (not to be confused with regressive) tax system is win-win no matter how you put it.
And, in usual conservative fashion, they're for smaller government except in the case of defense! If we're talking about defense then it's totally cool to live high on the hog and not do a damn thing about debt. *Sigh*
The details are basically that it preserves medicare as it is now, but gives people the option to take the voucher alternative.Originally Posted by Starfisher
You forgot tax cutsAnd, in usual conservative fashion, they're for smaller government except in the case of defense! If we're talking about defense then it's totally cool to live high on the hog and not do a damn thing about debt. *Sigh*
#104
Eh, tax cuts contributing to debt are a double edged sword. You can either view it as an indictment of how much we spend or an indictment of how little we finance our government. It cuts both ways.
So, if you want to make the point that lower taxes not accompanied by a decrease in spending leads to an increase in debt, you're absolutely right. Where you put your focus, however, depends on your political stripe.
Given the level of debt, I'm sympathetic to raising taxes. I'm not, however, sympathetic to only raising taxes, because however you spin it, spending must go down in order to achieve financial stability.
We're just living beyond our means. Americans suck at saving and everyone is financing their expenditures (both government and private sector) with money that does not exist. We keep on offloading our excessive consumption onto future generations but at some point the bubble has to explode. The financial crisis of 09 is only one of many to come unless the trend is stopped. It's completely unsustainable.
And, from the looks of it, neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to realize it.
You can easly figure out which is which by looking at a chart of Tax to GDP, and you will see that the US is actually very undertaxed compared to your average first-world country: Federal taxes are only about 15% of GDP, compared to the post-world war 2 average of 20% of GDP.
The truth is actually a lot simpler: Letting the bush tax cuts expire. Letting them expire will not remove the current debt, but will at least remove the deficit and bring the federal government to revenue neutrality. Thats without dealing with social security, medicare/medicaid, or defense. Throw in relatively moderate reforms to all three (Such as raising the Social Security age and doing away with old Cold War-era military bases that do not even make sense anymore considering the Soviet Union is dead) and you can even have a very modest surplus that will slowly pay off the debt.Given the level of debt, I'm sympathetic to raising taxes. I'm not, however, sympathetic to only raising taxes, because however you spin it, spending must go down in order to achieve financial stability.
The only structural reforms that are necessary is Medicare/Medicaid, and thats actually an issue with the entire US for-profit medical system. I would support nationalizing the entire for-profit medical system we currently have in place and turning them into Public Utilities. Of course, you cannot really utter such things without hearing the cries of 'Socialist! Socialist!' from the right... so, meh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17671077
Apparently Rick Santorum has decided to drop out of the race. Article suggests it was because he felt he couldn't win in his home state, or some complications with his daughters' health.
#107
Being really cynical, I think that the Republicans figure they cannot beat Obama. They are pushing Romney to spend all his money and political capital running against Obama now so they can have their real candidate for the next run.
#108
Who though? They don't have anyone in the public eye right now that hasn't already participated in the current race. At least with McCain he had gained some good popular support prior to his campaign (which got quickly destroyed by his close ties to Bush). At this point, every single potential participant in a Republican presidential race has thrown their hand in and gotten it cut off. Mitt Romney is only getting the nomination at this point because he's the last man standing, he doesn't have a prayer* at actually winning this thing.
Maybe if the party focused on the things that a significant number of people on both sides of the party line disagree with Obama on (TSA power, government information acquisition, Homeland Security's power, etc) they'd have a shot, but they seem to be more interested in focusing on a losing proposition of economic plans that get ridiculed and social issues that appeal to no-one but the religious right.
*Speaking of prayer, anyone else notice that the four candidates who said they were told by God to run have all dropped out? Bachman, Cain, Romney, and Perry. Either god sucks at picking winners, or they're a bunch of liars.
God never said they'd win :P
DoW II - Saunders
CoH - CommanderNewbie
#110
No one's ever accused any of the nominees of being honest.Bachman, Cain, Romney, and Perry. Either god sucks at picking winners, or they're a bunch of liars.
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
#111
I'm almost dead certain that McCain sabotaged his own campaign the moment they chose Sarah Psycho as his vice candidate.At least with McCain he had gained some good popular support prior to his campaign (which got quickly destroyed by his close ties to Bush).
"You must be swift as the coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the dark side of the moon."
#112
Yeah. McCain was already being seen as a bit of a RINO amongst Republicans and then sabotaged his chances of attracting the moderates with Palin.
#113
I think a huge part of the problem with this race is people like me. Obama would have to stab someone on national TV to lose my support...and even then he might not lose my vote.
After the pistol whipping that Bush gave this country for 8 years having a figure head who doesn't make the United States look fucking retarded is about all I need. I don't believe there's a politician out there who will 'save' this country. We might as well look good going down in flames!
Only one of us is going to leave here alive and it ain't gonna be me!
No one is above the law...of physics.
This will never happen, though, because the Republicans were the people who originally pushed that kind of government control in the first place (Nearly all of those programs were started under the previous Bush administration). The idea that the Republicans give a shit about small government is one of the biggest lies propagated in the 21st century. Of course, the Democrats also like that kind of control but at least they are honest about it.
If anything, it should be scaring the shit out of the average person that a vast majority of the most unpopular initiatives are 'bipartisan' in that they have wide support across both isles, and that they are primarily being pushed by well-funded lobbists from various lobbying megacorporations, unions, and in some cases even foreign countries/foreign individuals.
They are politicians. Everything that comes out of their mouth is a lie by default. When they speak the truth, it is called a 'Kinsley Gaffe'.Speaking of prayer, anyone else notice that the four candidates who said they were told by God to run have all dropped out? Bachman, Cain, Romney, and Perry. Either god sucks at picking winners, or they're a bunch of liars.
#115
Dooks: So you're at least aware that Obama is practically a carbon copy of Bush in everything but rhetoric?
#116
Most US presidents, once they take office, become more of the same. The truth of the matter is that the US fundamentally goes on the same direction it always has unless there's a monumental effort on the part of the senate, presidency, judiciary, and public to do otherwise. It's a lot harder to change the status quote than we'd like to believe, but that's intentional. If one person (Obama or otherwise) were able to drastically shake things up, then the constitution wouldn't worth a whole lot.So you're at least aware that Obama is practically a carbon copy of Bush in everything but rhetoric?
That's why I don't worry about the candidates too much for the most part. As long as the president has a semblance of rational thought, then I'm usually ok. Of course, I'm worried when we get someone like Palin or Santorum, but there's only so much they can do to drive the country down.
#117
I don't know, I'm under the impression that Bush's dismantling of civil liberties, a process which Obama has continued, was rather historic.
#118
Unlike FDR interning the majority of the American-Japanese population in military camps for the entirety of WW2?
The United States has always been incredibly predictable when it comes to laws and civil liberties. This is not the first time (or the last) when we'll see presidents of all colors adding provisions that strip away civil liberties during war. I'm not saying it's right, but it's nothing new. Frankly, in comparison to some of the heinous acts of previous presidencies (like the one I mentioned above), this is a drop in the bucket. It should give you even more reason to not worry too much about psychos like Santorum. One of the best and worst things about the United States is that it's incredibly difficult to shift its direction.
#119
Bush and Obama aren't identical in policies, but they are both right wing corporatists. Obama just did a very good job of hiding that fact when campaigning.
#120
The difference is that ended. Bush and Obama have made fundamental changes to civil liberties and executive power with no provision for ever ending them or changing them back. And since there is no actual war going on right now, at least not one you can ever declare over, there will never be an external event to trigger a reversion.Unlike FDR interning the majority of the American-Japanese population in military camps for the entirety of WW2?
I do like how this election is now basically between Obaney and Robama. Null change election, here we come!
#121
Starblade, MOST American politicians are right-wing corporatists. That's a huge problem with the system.
#122
I know, but the comparison was specifically Bush to Obama.
Pretty much anyone who isnt is shut out of the whole system by the corporate-owned media, so, yeah.
#124
Actually, that's only partially true. Executive Order 9066 (which interned the Japanese Americans) wasn't officially rescinded 1976, almost 40 years after it was introduced. That was a completely different president and almost a completely different nation at that point. Basically the order was rescinded because the executive branch CHOSE to axe it, not because there was ever an official end established. Something like that may happen with the Patriot Act. Maybe some future president/congress 100 years down the road will choose to rescind it. Maybe it'll happen in 20 years. Maybe it'll never happen. We don't know because most of these executive expansions don't have any technical end in sight.The difference is that ended. Bush and Obama have made fundamental changes to civil liberties and executive power with no provision for ever ending them or changing them back. And since there is no actual war going on right now, at least not one you can ever declare over, there will never be an external event to trigger a reversion.
I do like how this election is now basically between Obaney and Robama. Null change election, here we come!
Again, what I'm saying is that this isn't the first time the executive branch has expanded into "civil liberty" territory. The executive branch of government grows every time a war goes on in the United States, and there's never been a time when it has completely reverted to its previous state. The draft is just one example. It's not technically in effect, but the selective service effectively does the same thing. You could consider something like the draft to be "mandatory", but you could view Bush's and Obama's provisions in the same light. It all depends on perspective, and what matters in the end is that the executive branch grows pretty consistently no matter who gets elected.
Last edited by Buguba; 12th Apr 12 at 1:00 PM.
#125
As a side note, it's interesting to see how cynical politics is these days (in general). This thread 10 years ago would have a very different tone to it, heh.
#126
It's about par for the course actually. It's interesting to compare and contrast what has and hasn't changed between now and even a century ago.As a side note, it's interesting to see how cynical politics is these days (in general).
#127
Yeah, unfortunately it's more or less impossible to attain office if you're not corporatist. Both the left and right are corporatists. Hell, even Ron Paul is corporatist (Anarcho-capitalism could scarcely be more corporatist, when you think about it).
The US is a plutocracy and has been so for... well since it was founded really.
"Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain."
-The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker
A lot of the good treatment of the plebians came during the 1900s with the rise of Communism, the corporatists were genuinely frightened that they might end up being overthrown by the Reds and thus they replied with a very aggressive propaganda campaign in the form of the various red scares, as well as introducing the welfare state which kept the plebians well treated. With the fall of communism in the 1980s, a lot of that fear went away and thus the corporatists are quickly attempting to roll back various welfare and consumer protection systems. To make the bitter pill of austerity easier to swallow, you have shock doctrine introduced by artificial budget crisises which are caused, suspiciously, by a large round of tax cuts to the rich roughly 5-10 years earlier. Those tax cuts are in turn introduced by the completely bullshit idea that they will be revenue neutral by growing the economy by an extremely disproportionate amount (thus you have the idea of trickle down economics).
On top of this you have globalization which allows megacorporations to export their labor requirements overseas into shitty third world countries where they pay a fraction of labor costs that they do in developed countries, the unemployment in western countries then depresses wages downwards (thus making labor costs cheaper in the developed countries).
I also suspect that the corporatists are not expecting the plebians to take it lying down, which is why you have the recent militarization of various police forces with the ongoing war on terror, with body armor, assault rifles, and tear gas. They are very well expecting unrest in the wake of any austerity measures, and are very likely to use force in an effort to suppress that unrest. It has already been done with the relatively small (but worrying, to the plutocrats) Occupy Wall Street protests.
Another potential outcome is that the corporatists end up turning on eachother. In the grand scheme of things, all the various corporate and union lobby groups have differing goals and objectives, and some of them run into direct counter with eachother. We have actually seen the start of this with the recent internet protests against SOPA and PIPA. Sure, they were grassroots, sure, it was a movement for the people, but behind those people were multimillion dollar corporations whom were the ones that used their power to pressure politicians and rally the plebians to pressure the politicians. It was one of those rare situations where corporate interest (for a certain industry) and common interest aligned.
#129
Absolutly. Hence my use of the word figure head. As far as I can tell, there is no candidate who will change things for the better in this country, so we might as well not look like total idiots.Dooks: So you're at least aware that Obama is practically a carbon copy of Bush in everything but rhetoric?
#130
Of course there isn't, yet people still follow this misguided notion that if Jesus F. Washington himself ran for President he would "turn this country around". While the executive branch in the US is one of the strongest in any democracy, it's far from all-powerful. This of course is by design and a good thing. However, it follows that even if you had the best motherfucking President in all of history, he or she may still be SOL because Congress decides to go full retard.Absolutly. Hence my use of the word figure head. As far as I can tell, there is no candidate who will change things for the better in this country, so we might as well not look like total idiots.
What you need is not a new candidate, or a new set of candidates for Congress (by the way, despite an approval rating that can only be described as abysmal, around 90% of representatives get re-elected). What is truly needed is a change in the way the electorate thinks and acts. And having a more educated and skeptical populace would be a very helpful first step.
#131
What does the F stand for?
Freedom. Jesus Freedom Washington: True American Hero.
#133
Exactly right. Interestingly, even if said Jesus F. Washington were to run against a Stalin/Hitler ticket, he'd still only win about 60-40, with only 57% of eligible voters actually casting ballots.
#134
That's because his opponents would claim that "Jesus" was Mexican and demand he produce his birth certificate.
#135
Give to the poor? What, is he some sort of communist?
#136
I heard he doesn't wear an American flag button on his robes either. I wonder if he's Muslim.
#137
I heard he was born in the middle east. Totally a Muslim.
With Santorum out now this race is effectively over? Gods it's going to be a boring slog until Romney secures the nomination. They should speed these things up, don't set dates, just let the candidate get past the post as it were. Once he has the nomination he can discuss with the incumbent President (or other candidate(s) if relevant) when to hold the election.
None of this waiting around! I'm a child of the internet, my attention doesn't span a full year.
#138
When did the last Japanese internment camp close?That was a completely different president and almost a completely different nation at that point. Basically the order was rescinded because the executive branch CHOSE to axe it, not because there was ever an official end established.
When did Guantanamo close?
...
Who suggested that it never did before? I'm not sure if you're making an argument against any position actually taken in this thread.Again, what I'm saying is that this isn't the first time the executive branch has expanded into "civil liberty" territory.
The point is that we're in historically unprecedented territory. There has never been as open ended and active a commitment to the erosion of civil liberties as is occurring today. Japanese internment ended with the war, not in 1976. That was just a technicality. Various suspensions of habeas corpus were short in duration and tied to specific events. There can be no end to the "war on terror", so there will never be a reversion to the mean, as occurred in all previous war-related overreaches, and the legislative dreck piling up isn't just going to evaporate overnight by executive order. That's not even really possible.
If you want a historical precedent, let's look at the war on drugs. That's been failing miserably for nearly 40 years now and even though just about everyone agrees it's a failure, it's still chugging along, grinding up lives and liberty along the way.
In a trivial sense, yes, anything could happen at some point in the future. But that's not really a useful statement. Eventually the sun is going to blow up, so that means civil liberties won't be eroded anymore after that. Hurray?
#139
You've got it wrong, Obama is a Muslin from Bangladesh.
#140
It hasn't been already? No wonder voter turnout is so poor in the USA, the actual campaign part of the voting campaigns havn't even started yet and it's been dragging on for all of eternity. How do the candidates keep their voter bases remotely interested in the process without resorting to mandatory voting?Gods it's going to be a boring slog until Romney secures the nomination.
As an aside, I think mandatory voting is awesome. Still results in lowest common denominator politics (Hi Australia!) but at least it removes one or two layers of hyperbole and theatre, as getting people excited enough to vote is less a priority when people receive fines for not voting. Small mercies make this all worthwhile, I suppose.
Dammit, not again!
#141
To date, only one American citizen has been held in Guantanamo, and that was reported an "accident." More than 2/3rds of the interned Japanese-Americans were American citizens. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. Guantanamo is an awful place, but it doesn't affect your personal civil liberty at all. Even assuming it was problematic for Muslim Americans, I'd throw the same thing back at you: when did American forces vacate Japan? By comparison, when did American forces leave Afghanistan?When did the last Japanese internment camp close?
When did Guantanamo close?
...
My initial post was in response to Aron de Tomato, who posted this:Who suggested that it never did before? I'm not sure if you're making an argument against any position actually taken in this thread.
My argument was that the majority of US Presidents are the same. When he cited the growth of the Executive branch under both Obama and Bush, that's when I brought up that the Executive branch has been growing steadily (under all stripes of leadership) since the United States was founded. I also brought up that it particularly happens during war time.So you're at least aware that Obama is practically a carbon copy of Bush in everything but rhetoric?
I'm saying we're not in unprecedented territory. Everything seems new and historic when you're living in it. For example, if you were to replace the "terrorist" rhetoric of today with "communist", you'd have the Cold War all over again.The point is that we're in historically unprecedented territory. There has never been as open ended and active a commitment to the erosion of civil liberties as is occurring today. Japanese internment ended with the war, not in 1976. That was just a technicality. Various suspensions of habeas corpus were short in duration and tied to specific events. There can be no end to the "war on terror", so there will never be a reversion to the mean, as occurred in all previous war-related overreaches, and the legislative dreck piling up isn't just going to evaporate overnight by executive order. That's not even really possible.
If you want a historical precedent, let's look at the war on drugs. That's been failing miserably for nearly 40 years now and even though just about everyone agrees it's a failure, it's still chugging along, grinding up lives and liberty along the way.
In a trivial sense, yes, anything could happen at some point in the future. But that's not really a useful statement. Eventually the sun is going to blow up, so that means civil liberties won't be eroded anymore after that. Hurray?
Adding to that line of thought, there was no end in sight for the Cold War because we were technically attempting to battle an economic theory. Even right now, if we wanted to, we could continue developing nuclear weapons in the name of fighting "communism". In reality though, we were just mad at Russia. Consequently, when Russia collapsed, the Cold War "ended". It's almost the same issue today. There's no "war on terror" going on in the United States. Terrorism has been a fact of life since the dawn of time, and the United States could care less. The reality is that this is a war on Al-Qaeda. We just call it a "war on terror" because Al-Qaeda isn't a country we can occupy. The moment Al-Qaeda stops running around, the war on terror will fade from the US eye faster than a Britney Spears marriage.
This all leads back to my initial point which is that the US is incredibly predictable, and most presidents are more of the same. I'm not saying these issues aren't important, or that they can't destroy us internally. I am saying that if they ripping us apart internally though, then it's a path we've been on for centuries rather than just the last decade.
Last edited by Buguba; 13th Apr 12 at 9:54 AM.
#142
Al-Qaeda basically isn't running around anymore. That's the point. Prior to this (well, ignoring the "war on drugs"), there always was some significant power out there we were set in opposition against, and its demise would signal the end of the threat. Now we're set in opposition to our own imaginations. They'll never "collapse". There will always be another terrorist organization, because, as you said, there will always be terrorists. Even during McCarthy's worst excesses, at least there was actually a nation-state set in opposition to us.
That's what makes this past decade significant and unique in America's history. Not only does it now exceed all previous "emergencies" in duration by a substantial margin, we've selected a target that can't ever go away and arguably doesn't even exist. Interment ended because the war ended - what if somehow Japan had kept WWII going until now? That's the sort of scenario we're setting ourselves up for at the moment. That hasn't happened before, and as late as the 1990s it was definitively not something that was already in progress.
I know it's cool to point out that everything has happened before, but that too is a trivial and fairly useless observation. I'm sure Romans living during one of their civil wars would scoff at our "eroding civil liberties", and excesses then clearly eclipse anything we've managed to goad ourselves into. A true statement, but irrelevant and largely useless when trying to understand the world we live in today.
Let's put it this way. If this is all a path we've been on for centuries, would you say the national security and internal security policies of Clinton were similar to those of Bush II? What about Bush I? If this is all just the same old, same old, then are we talking a linear erosion of civil liberties or an exponential? Surely, if everything's always the same except a little worse, we should be able to tease out some trends here.
Last edited by Starfisher; 13th Apr 12 at 10:48 AM.
#143
Al-Qaeda is still running around. It's just running around in the form of a dozen other terrorist threats. That plays exactly to your point, but remember that even terrorist cells (like countries) are mortal. In case you didn't notice, the Cold War spanned almost 50 years. That's 50 solid years of steady executive expansion against an invisible enemy. When it DID end though, the executive branch retracted itself slightly. What was the difference then? Was the difference that "that was then and this is now?" Was the difference the president who took office?Al-Qaeda basically isn't running around anymore. That's the point. Prior to this (well, ignoring the "war on drugs"), there always was some significant power out there we were set in opposition against, and its demise would signal the end of the threat. Now we're set in opposition to our own imaginations. They'll never "collapse". There will always be another terrorist organization, because, as you said, there will always be terrorists. Even during McCarthy's worst excesses, at least there was actually a nation-state set in opposition to us.
That's what makes this past decade significant and unique in America's history. Not only does it now exceed all previous "emergencies" in duration by a substantial margin, we've selected a target that can't ever go away and arguably doesn't even exist. Interment ended because the war ended - what if somehow Japan had kept WWII going until now? That's the sort of scenario we're setting ourselves up for at the moment. That hasn't happened before, and as late as the 1990s it was definitively not something that was already in progress.
What I'm saying is that there is no difference. The war on terror is going to play out exactly the same way the Cold War did. It's going to take a long time to play out; nobody will argue that. However, all evidence points towards conflicts ultimately resolving themselves. In US history, executive power has diminished slightly every time the conflict ends.
You're essentially saying that the war on terror will never end, and the executive branch will never retract because of the current people in power. What evidence do you have for that? Moreover, does it even make any sense? Ask yourself this:
A) How are terrorist cells more likely to survive as an eternal threat than socialist-leaning countries are?
B) If the government continuously seeks to expand, then why didn't they catch on to this before? (terrorism has been around since before the United States existed, and terrorists have attacked the US long before the trade centers were built).
C) What is the government's ultimate goal in eroding our civil liberties? (do they want more power? do they want more money? what do they gain from this?)
D) Is the erosion of our civil liberties a bad thing? (we assume the government does it for selfish reasons, but is that true? What if it is a genuine necessity in a time of conflict?).
By the same token, assuming that every new development is a conspiracy to eternally rob you of your personal liberty and possessions is futile and immature. Does it happen? Yup. Should we be concerned? Yup. Should we lose our heads? No. There's is nothing to prove that today is any different from yesterday, and there is nothing to prove that the sun will not rise tomorrow because of it.I know it's cool to point out that everything has happened before, but that too is a trivial and fairly useless observation. I'm sure Romans living during one of their civil wars would scoff at our "eroding civil liberties", and excesses then clearly eclipse anything we've managed to goad ourselves into. A true statement, but irrelevant and largely useless when trying to understand the world we live in today.
The important thing to focus on in times like this is to combat the nature of the executive office altogether, not the individual leading it. If there's consistent growth across time with only few retractions, then the problem lies within the powers of the office rather than any individual in the position. Basically, if you're worried about the president eroding our civil freedoms, then take it up the Constitution. The real issues lie inside the foundation, not within Obama, Bush, Santorum, or otherwise.
Last edited by Buguba; 13th Apr 12 at 11:46 AM.
#144
Meh. They pretty much are all conspiracies to continually increase the government's power and reduce the liberties of individuals... If there were no terrorists the government would manufacture something else to be at war with. It's essentially Orwell's eternal war stratagem from 1984.
#145
And except for a fairly brief period early on, nothing in the Cold War included anything even CLOSE to recording all internet traffic or warrantless wiretapping of anyone they felt like wiretapping. Even Hoover's essentially limitless extra-legal surveillance power pales in comparison to what is being done today.In case you didn't notice, the Cold War spanned almost 50 years. That's 50 solid years of steady executive expansion against an invisible enemy.
You argue that government growth is a constant, and now turn around and question that premise? Interesting tactic, but I'm not sure how to respond. If, as you contend, expansion of power is an eternal constant, why are you questioning that it's a constant?You're essentially saying that the war on terror will never end, and the executive branch will never retract because of the current people in power. What evidence do you have for that? Moreover, does it even make any sense?
Who the hell said that "every new development is a conspiracy"? I'm arguing that new developments in terms of how the US tracks its citizens are historically unprecedented in their scope and duration. There isn't a conspiracy here any more than there's a conspiracy whenever those in power take the easy road and expand that power using the means at their disposal. What happens next is the important part. Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in Maryland was a "conspiracy" to ensure the state didn't secede. But that ended. So far, there's no evidence whatsoever to believe that the steps being taken by government now will ever end, for the reasons I've cited: there is no legislative timeout, there is no external force which will create a moment to say, "Yep, that's done with" and your own argument is that expansion of power is the norm.By the same token, assuming that every new development is a conspiracy to eternally rob you of your personal liberty and possessions is futile and immature.
So what, exactly, do you see being the trigger for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act or the closure of the NSA site in Utah?
#146
Also, honestly, the expansion of federal and executive powers since the Civil War isn't really supported by the constitution, so saying take it up with the constitution isn't really applicable.
The Union's victory in the civil war and the subsequent leashing of the CSA was pretty much the death knell for limiting the powers of the Fed and the executive branch. Everything since then has been inevitable consequences of the federalist faction having taken unquestioned control of the government.
----------
The worst thing about it is that both major parties are Federalist and both their agendas end up feeding power to the elite, but even most of the third parties (And particularly all the halfway viable ones) end up being guided in that direction, whatever other changes they may want to produce.
The Communist party is essentially dead in the US, because the fall of the USSR has convinced everyone that Communism can't work (Which is sort of a shame since the failure of the USSR was a failure of Stalinism specifically, rather than Communism generally), so it's not a threat.
The Libertarian party, which had my vote for years, is sadly dominated by Anarcho-Capitalism which is essentially the wet dream of the ultra-rich, and would end up defeating the theoretical goals of Libertarianism if put into practice. The plebes would be leashed even more tightly than they are now, just with different sorts of chains.
I still want to start a new party, combining fiscal socialism with civil libertarianism, since as I see it, that's the solution that would defang the aristocracy the most effectively.
#147
I never meant to say that government growth is a constant in and of itself. What I've been trying to say is that the government grows in times of conflict and it generally recedes when the conflict subsides. From what I understood that you were saying, you agreed with my premise, but argued that because this conflict has no clear resolution then therefore the government would never recede. I was trying to say that history has proven otherwise.You argue that government growth is a constant, and now turn around and question that premise? Interesting tactic, but I'm not sure how to respond. If, as you contend, expansion of power is an eternal constant, why are you questioning that it's a constant?
If that's not what you're trying to say, then please correct me. Honestly, it wasn't my intention to blow this whole thing into a huge debacle. My hope from the start was just to point out that issues with our government are located in the system itself rather than the people inside it.
I agree with you that the US has taken extreme steps in terms of invading personal privacy that it hasn't done ever before. I don't mean to argue against that. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't the first time the US has done something extreme in the face of conflict. It doesn't do the same thing every time, but generally it does something pretty borderline (whether that be the establishment of detention facilities, suspension of habeus corpus, etc).Who the hell said that "every new development is a conspiracy"? I'm arguing that new developments in terms of how the US tracks its citizens are historically unprecedented in their scope and duration. There isn't a conspiracy here any more than there's a conspiracy whenever those in power take the easy road and expand that power using the means at their disposal. What happens next is the important part. Lincoln suspending habeas corpus in Maryland was a "conspiracy" to ensure the state didn't secede. But that ended. So far, there's no evidence whatsoever to believe that the steps being taken by government now will ever end, for the reasons I've cited: there is no legislative timeout, there is no external force which will create a moment to say, "Yep, that's done with" and your own argument is that expansion of power is the norm.
So what, exactly, do you see being the trigger for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act or the closure of the NSA site in Utah?
The reason I brought up the concept of a conspiracy is because nobody has any idea what will happen next. You're right, these are pretty firm changes that will take a lot more work to undo than just vetoing an executive order. We can either have faith that our government will eventually do away with these provisions when the time is right, or we can expect the worst and they'll never be changed. I was trying to say that the government of the past has generally acted in good faith on the part of the people. Even in the face of more ambiguous conflict, we've seen conflict resolution and we've seen executive growth diminish. I'm hoping we can expect the same in these times. There may not be a clear cut resolution in sight, but that doesn't it it's not there.
If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think we both agree with each other. Civil liberties are at risk right now, and some of the things that the government is doing right now are wrong. I was just trying to point out that the concept of the government taking advantage of conflict isn't independent to this decade. Some of it will rectify itself, but the real problem is the way we treat our executive branch at a legal level. That's something that needs to change regardless of what's going on.
What conflict? Al Qaeda stopped being a threat as soon as Bin Laden's head was delivered on a silver platter. If anything, our continued military presence in Afghanistan is probably doing more to fuel extremism than combat it, especially since the US has undergone a couple of very embarrassing episodes. The scary part is that the war drums are being beaten for the Iranians now, my bet is that when that war inevitably breaks out, we are going to see another massive rollback of freedoms, and perhaps even a reinstitution of the draft, as we pretty much know the US military is not equipped to occupy a country that large and heavily populated.
#149
Violent agreement is fun!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
