Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Aslowhiteguy

Poll reveals dems prefer socialism over capitalism.

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, nocoolnamejim said:

Neither. But how they (and their ancestors) got there matters. When I talk about crony capitalism, I am not referring to either of those example individuals. I'm talking about the fact that the rich have far more influence and power among the decision makers of our country than the poor.

Nicole Trustfundbaby's daddy likely can afford to heavily donate to influence lawmakers. Heck, daddy is probably on a first name basis with several. 

The Citizen's United Supreme Court decision basically legalized influence peddling. Our politics were already slanted towards the rich before that, but unlimited amounts of Super PAC money has basically transformed our politics to the point where politicians on both sides of the aisle can basically be bought and sold at will. Big banks, social media titans, etc. are on the verge of basically writing the laws that govern their companies themselves.

 

30 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I think you're arguing the same thing. There's the free market, which both tends to reward behaviors you describe, but also tends to raise all boats so Joe Idiot ends up retiring a millionaire anyway because he bought a house in 1972 and it appreciated (also, he's been seeing raises his whole life). Then there's crony capitalism, where those with money use their money to influence how laws are made to make more money. They aren't doing it by capitalism; they're doing it by using government influence to favor them, or even to outright get jobs or contracts that are valuable from the feds. Those are 2 different economies. 

 

 

That is why government needs to be small.  The reason there is crony capitalism is because the tapeworms are unable to defend themselves and often willing to participate in the activity.  It is always funny to me why everyone blames the businessman for buying the tapeworm.  Why is not the tapeworm the bad guy too?

Small government at the very least is less vulnerable because they have less money and fewer programs to be taken advantage of.  

Also government closer to the people is less vulnerable because the people can watch it better.  We have the majority of our tax dollars going to a massive federal government that is completely corrupt and vulnerable to cronyism.  The Senators and Congressman outright sell pork for votes and the government is so big they can hide these projects in plain sight and no citizen can call them on it. 

We need to flip the pyramid and the majority of taxes need to be given to local government which is always more effective.   The least amount of taxes should be sent to the federal level and in fact it should be the bare minimum to keep a defense department funded and provide for the national courts and trade deals and that is about it.   All other government programs should be the responsibility of the local governments.

Don't complain about "crony capitalism".  Complain about dirty tapeworms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

Oh horseshit.  Mitt Romney said Russia was a huge threat and Obama poo poohed his claim.   That worked out pretty good.

I think we need to distinguish between Russia as a military threat vs Russia as a cyber threat. The traditional view, championed by hawks within the GOP and the military establishment, was that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was a military threat.  The relative ineffectiveness of Russian weapons and the Russian military has been been demonstrated repeatedly in recent decades, and the Russian economy is a fraction of what it was. Despite some professionalization of a small portion of the Russian military, it is nowhere near the threat is was perceived to be 30 years ago. My perception is that Romney (and Obama) was referring to that "traditional" threat.

The current Russian (as opposed to Soviet) threat is very different. They are not challenging us militarily. The are using social media and other digital means to increase social conflict in our divided society. IMO that is not what Romney was referring to.

This distinction is often missed in discussions on here. When someone (no doubt a liberal) argues for a more aggressive posture against Russia they're not arguing for a military response. They're advocating a response to Russian cyberattacks through sanctions or counter measures.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blurrules, pure capitalism as exemplified by the Hoover administration is a miserable economic system. Only ignoramuses like Libertarians with a captal "L" would disagree.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I think we need to distinguish between Russia as a military threat vs Russia as a cyber threat. The traditional view, championed by hawks within the GOP and the military establishment, was that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was a military threat.  The relative ineffectiveness of Russian weapons and the Russian military has been been demonstrated repeatedly in recent decades, and the Russian economy is a fraction of what it was. Despite some professionalization of a small portion of the Russian military, it is nowhere near the threat is was perceived to be 30 years ago. My perception is that Romney (and Obama) was referring to that "traditional" threat.

The current Russian (as opposed to Soviet) threat is very different. They are not challenging us militarily. The are using social media and other digital means to increase social conflict in our divided society. IMO that is not what Romney was referring to.

This distinction is often missed in discussions on here. When someone (no doubt a liberal) argues for a more aggressive posture against Russia they're not arguing for a military response. They're advocating a response to Russian cyberattacks through sanctions or counter measures.

Overall, I agree with your take.

That said, I think Russia is constantly going against our interests, whether that's with the Chinese, in Syria, or in election meddling.  They are a pain in the ass, and I think they're much more of a problem than Obama and Trump would like to admit. 

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Bauer said:

Oh horseshit.  Mitt Romney said Russia was a huge threat and Obama poo poohed his claim.   That worked out pretty good.

Or did Obama just say that China was a bigger concern?

Was he wrong? I don't  think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

blurrules, pure capitalism as exemplified by the Hoover administration is a miserable economic system. Only ignoramuses like Libertarians with a captal "L" would disagree.

The only thing worse than pure capitalism, is every other pure ism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Or did Obama just say that China was a bigger concern?

Was he wrong? I don't  think so.

Sure he was wrong for vary obvious reasons.

1) We have no control over Russia.  We can't hurt them much economically.  We can't threaten them militarily because of their massive nuclear arsenal.  Politically they can't be threatened much as they don't have free elections.

2) China on the other hand is basically a quasi ally.  They are so dependent on our trade for the stability of their economy and the stability of their country politically.  We have significant power to influence their actions.  Our real allies Japan, South Korea,  Australia all magnify our power.  China does have nuclear weapons and their political system is immune to our influence so long as their economy is running along good.

There is no doubt Russia is more dangerous than China.  Always has been.

Obama's "pivot to the pacific", strategy is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters of the last century.  Driving Russia and China together so China could get a secure supply of energy and Russia gets another market which only strengthens their power over western Europe is a complete disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...