Well, Kurtster, you know I have been trying to piece together what makes you tick.. so far it appears to me that you think the following (please correct me where I got it wrong):
1) government is a dead weight sitting on society and needs to be trimmed back - and by corollary, government is full of selfish individuals (the establishment) who are creaming it at the expense of the taxpayer 2) other countries are creaming it at the expense of the US due to one-sided trade deals and currency manipulation 3) illegal immigrants are also creaming it at the expense of the US taxpayer and should be deported 4) Russia is an exemplary country that we should all aspire to become similar to 5) no other country has democratic institutions like the US 6) no other country supports the US in its battle for democratic institutions or if so, they only pay lip service to such institutions 7) the greatest threat to the constitution lies in an infiltration of Muslims who it is assumed want to install Sharia law.
IF any of the above is more or less what you think, then I think it is a pretty easy job to demonstrate that most of these beliefs are simply wrong on the basis of the facts, whether you or I want them to be true or not. Some of the others are just questions of opinion and we can discuss that till the cows come home. But the good things about facts are that they can be substantiated and maybe we can even come to some kind of agreement on the odd point or two.
Here is what I think about those very same issues: 1) government is indeed a great mass sitting on the private sector, but it also provides some enormous advantages (when it works like it should). It provides infrastructure, secures our health, educates us and by its very mass can cushion the wildest swings that the private economy is prey to.. it gives us courts of law, levels the playing field and pursues criminals.. I kind of like it and pay my taxes willingly (all 42% of them). 2) Assuming this is true (which I don't actually), surely the only proper response is to push for more open and more free trade? 3) Illegal immigrants are actually vital to some sectors of the economy like agriculture. Based on most of the statistics I have seen is that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are net contributors to economic performance 4) Russia is an agrarian backwater run by corrupt oligarchs who spend all their money in Europe. These guys are traitors to their own country. 5) The US did not invent democracy or even the concept of natural rights. The US is just one member of an international brotherhood that lives and breathes such values. It is not even the best at it. 6) Most other countries view trade, opening borders and providing assistance as a whole lot more conducive to world peace and the advance of democracy than bombing the shit out of them because of imaginary threats. 7) the greatest threat to your constitution is a demagogue who attacks a free press and wants to install his own cronies in the other arms of government so that he can override the checks and balances drawn up by your founding fathers. That is a real and acute danger. The other dangers, such as a demographic shift towards Sharia are neither acute nor particularly credible in this age of diversity.
Beaker wrote:
This is why Trump got elected. An unwillingness to listen to each other. By usually, one side of the convo.
I'm listening.
1) agree mostly. Not a dead weight, its necessary, to protect the borders and citizens, build and maintain roads, collect the trash, make sure that the water runs and the lights go on when you flick the switch, assuming you pay your bills on time. It is terribly inefficient. Those who decide what gets spent and those who spend it are largely unaccountable. There is a problem that everyone ignores (in the USA). There is no zero based budgeting. Departments and agencies spend money regardless of need in order to maintain the size of their slice of the pie. If money is not spent, their budgets will be reduced in the next fiscal year, which results in wasteful and unnecessary spending. Increases are automatic, 8% yoy IIRC (provided all the allocated money is spent), not based on need. Whenever you hear a discussion about the budget and cuts, its always termed that a reduction in the increase of the next year's spending is discussed as a pure budget cut which is misleading since the previous year's budget is not being cut, just the increase is being cut. This kind of thinking predisposes an unaccountable bureaucracy to think in terms that it has to spend whether its justified or not and to find creative ways to spend waste money and assures its own growth just for the sake of growth. This more often than not results in crazy rules and regulations that cause more harm than good to the system. 2) sure, let's reciprocate the way other countries allow the USA to do business with them. If they tax our imports, we tax theirs. You don't tax ours, we don't tax yours. Its got to be a two way street. The whole system is corrupt at every level with price supports and subsidies that no one knows the true cost of anything anymore. Here for example, we pay farmers to grow somethings and pay them not to grow other things. On paper, it makes sense, but in practice its thoroughly abused since most farming is done by corporations who don't need the supports and the consumer / taxpayer loses. 3) Yes, more or less. 4) No, never said that; totally disagree with your assumption of my thinking 5) Yes, but no. You earlier stated that the values of our Constitution are not unique. True that, but no where else do you find all of the same rights in practice in the same place. We have assembled the best of everything and put it into one package. Do we need to go into the weeds on this ? 6) No never said that. 7) No. The greatest threat to our Constitution is selective enforcement, misinterpretation and complacency.
73% of the population lives in urban areas while 27% in rural ones.
The Soviet era saw some of the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century, including the world's first human-made satellite and the launching of the first humans in space. By the end of 1990, the Soviet Union had the world's second largest economy, largest standing military in the world and the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.
Today, they are still a lot more than just a petrol station for the EU.
Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc. Gender:
Posted:
Feb 26, 2017 - 1:07am
kcar -
That chart is very misleading in order to blame social programs. For example, Soc. Sec. & Medicare is not part of the general budget, since it is paid for separately through its own tax (FICA/payroll tax), but it's lumped in with "Unemployment and Labor" - whatever that means.
Now if you take the discretionary budget, meaning those things Congress has a choice to spend on or not to spend on, as opposed to mandatory expenditures like Soc. Sec. & Medicare which are earned-benefit programs, then the picture is quite different:
...where we see that Military spending is by far the greatest area, up to 60% if you add in Veteran's Benefit spending. That's the lion's share of your "Big Government" right there.
What also needs to be said here is that FICA/payroll taxes are only paid on the first $127,200. earned. In other words, someone that makes $200k or $1 million or $20 million per year pays the same FICA as someone making $127k. So once again, the rich and well-to-do get another huge break in their tax burden that lower incomes do not enjoy.
Well, Kurtster, you know I have been trying to piece together what makes you tick.. so far it appears to me that you think the following (please correct me where I got it wrong):
1) government is a dead weight sitting on society and needs to be trimmed back - and by corollary, government is full of selfish individuals (the establishment) who are creaming it at the expense of the taxpayer 2) other countries are creaming it at the expense of the US due to one-sided trade deals and currency manipulation 3) illegal immigrants are also creaming it at the expense of the US taxpayer and should be deported 4) Russia is an exemplary country that we should all aspire to become similar to 5) no other country has democratic institutions like the US 6) no other country supports the US in its battle for democratic institutions or if so, they only pay lip service to such institutions 7) the greatest threat to the constitution lies in an infiltration of Muslims who it is assumed want to install Sharia law.
IF any of the above is more or less what you think, then I think it is a pretty easy job to demonstrate that most of these beliefs are simply wrong on the basis of the facts, whether you or I want them to be true or not. Some of the others are just questions of opinion and we can discuss that till the cows come home. But the good things about facts are that they can be substantiated and maybe we can even come to some kind of agreement on the odd point or two.
Here is what I think about those very same issues: 1) government is indeed a great mass sitting on the private sector, but it also provides some enormous advantages (when it works like it should). It provides infrastructure, secures our health, educates us and by its very mass can cushion the wildest swings that the private economy is prey to.. it gives us courts of law, levels the playing field and pursues criminals.. I kind of like it and pay my taxes willingly (all 42% of them). 2) Assuming this is true (which I don't actually), surely the only proper response is to push for more open and more free trade? 3) Illegal immigrants are actually vital to some sectors of the economy like agriculture. Based on most of the statistics I have seen is that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are net contributors to economic performance 4) Russia is an agrarian backwater run by corrupt oligarchs who spend all their money in Europe. These guys are traitors to their own country. 5) The US did not invent democracy or even the concept of natural rights. The US is just one member of an international brotherhood that lives and breathes such values. It is not even the best at it. 6) Most other countries view trade, opening borders and providing assistance as a whole lot more conducive to world peace and the advance of democracy than bombing the shit out of them because of imaginary threats. 7) the greatest threat to your constitution is a demagogue who attacks a free press and wants to install his own cronies in the other arms of government so that he can override the checks and balances drawn up by your founding fathers. That is a real and acute danger. The other dangers, such as a demographic shift towards Sharia are neither acute nor particularly credible in this age of diversity.
Beaker wrote:
This is why Trump got elected. An unwillingness to listen to each other. By usually, one side of the convo.
I'm listening.
Strikes me that you have captured a lot of kurtster's opinions. Maybe I'm wrong—kurtster, what do you think?
I agree with most of your opinions, NoEnz, with some variations.
1) "Great Mass"? Well...I think the military budget needs to be cut. We spend as much on defense as the next 7-8 biggest spenders combined. People love to talk about cutting the federal government down, but often have a great deal of trouble finding where to cut.
To wit:
Good luck trying to cut the two biggest wedges: you would invoke political armageddon.
2) AFAIK currency manipulation was a problem with Japan and more recently China. The latter country largely stopped doing that about 10 years ago. Our economy has benefited from almost all trade deals—greatly in some cases, negligibly so in others (NAFTA, eg). I'd agree with your call for more and freer trade, but with more support for individuals and industries hurt by increased trade (eg. job re-training).
3) Agree with you on illegal immigrants. They've become the Bogeyman for people suffering more from manufacturing outsourcing, automation and decline of industries (eg coal-mining).
4) Russia is largely a petrodollar state, though—its economy rose with oil prices in the 00s and has suffered with their decline.
5) Agree with you. I think democracy in this country has taken some serious steps backward, with decreased public faith in our governments, politicians, news-providing organizations and election systems. Citizens United vs. FEC was a perversion of legal thought and a perfect indication that the Supreme Court occasionally shows a complete failure to grasp real-world events and a basic understanding of human nature. Our elections should be strictly publicly funded.
7) I dunno where you're getting your info about sharia law in America, but I rely on Victoria Jackson for the straight scoop.
This is why Trump got elected. An unwillingness to listen to each other. By usually, one side of the convo.
So ...
...
Trump got elected because the process broke down. The GOP of Reagan died a nasty death, taken over by Priebus and Bannon, and the old guard was too rigid to believe it was happening. The Reagan conservatives are now relegated to history.
On the Democratic side, the party thought it was sewn up, believed their own press, did not do enough leg work in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio (not to mention Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania), and watched as Clinton ran up the vote count in all of the wrong places.
On the voter side, not enough turned out at the polls. Votership was abysmal for such an important election, and anyone who did not vote is indirectly responsible for this crap.
On the media side, the newspapers and electronic media spent more time focusing on Trump's bullshit Tweets and not enough on who he really was. Having followed him as a New Yorker since the 1980s, I knew him exactly for what he was: a con artist and a snake in the grass who would sell his own flesh and blood if it gave him leverage in a situation. The media was focused on pussygrabbing, hoping that would be enough to send him down, but it turns out it wasn't.
The unwillingness to listen to each other that you cite is a symptom of the problem. The president is proceeding as if he was given a mandate of 67% or greater, when in fact he didn't won neither a majority or plurality. His failure to acknowledge that has its consequences in a national dialog that will worsen over the years. If people think they are not being represented, they will care less about listening and more about being heard. As president, DJT is obligated to listen, but he won't, and for that reason, he will fail as a leader.
I have no problem understanding your point of view even if I disagree with a lot of it. But you can't understand my point of view at all. Makes me wonder, a lot. I must conclude that in your mind, I have no valid thinking, period.
Well, Kurtster, you know I have been trying to piece together what makes you tick.. so far it appears to me that you think the following (please correct me where I got it wrong):
1) government is a dead weight sitting on society and needs to be trimmed back - and by corollary, government is full of selfish individuals (the establishment) who are creaming it at the expense of the taxpayer 2) other countries are creaming it at the expense of the US due to one-sided trade deals and currency manipulation 3) illegal immigrants are also creaming it at the expense of the US taxpayer and should be deported 4) Russia is an exemplary country that we should all aspire to become similar to 5) no other country has democratic institutions like the US 6) no other country supports the US in its battle for democratic institutions or if so, they only pay lip service to such institutions 7) the greatest threat to the constitution lies in an infiltration of Muslims who it is assumed want to install Sharia law.
IF any of the above is more or less what you think, then I think it is a pretty easy job to demonstrate that most of these beliefs are simply wrong on the basis of the facts, whether you or I want them to be true or not. Some of the others are just questions of opinion and we can discuss that till the cows come home. But the good things about facts are that they can be substantiated and maybe we can even come to some kind of agreement on the odd point or two.
Here is what I think about those very same issues: 1) government is indeed a great mass sitting on the private sector, but it also provides some enormous advantages (when it works like it should). It provides infrastructure, secures our health, educates us and by its very mass can cushion the wildest swings that the private economy is prey to.. it gives us courts of law, levels the playing field and pursues criminals.. I kind of like it and pay my taxes willingly (all 42% of them). 2) Assuming this is true (which I don't actually), surely the only proper response is to push for more open and more free trade? 3) Illegal immigrants are actually vital to some sectors of the economy like agriculture. Based on most of the statistics I have seen is that immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are net contributors to economic performance 4) Russia is an agrarian backwater run by corrupt oligarchs who spend all their money in Europe. These guys are traitors to their own country. 5) The US did not invent democracy or even the concept of natural rights. The US is just one member of an international brotherhood that lives and breathes such values. It is not even the best at it. 6) Most other countries view trade, opening borders and providing assistance as a whole lot more conducive to world peace and the advance of democracy than bombing the shit out of them because of imaginary threats. 7) the greatest threat to your constitution is a demagogue who attacks a free press and wants to install his own cronies in the other arms of government so that he can override the checks and balances drawn up by your founding fathers. That is a real and acute danger. The other dangers, such as a demographic shift towards Sharia are neither acute nor particularly credible in this age of diversity.
Beaker wrote:
This is why Trump got elected. An unwillingness to listen to each other. By usually, one side of the convo.
Just wanted to point out the blatant irony of you desperately trying to make some kind of point as you presume to claim that I'm "desperate" while claiming to understand what I'm posting and why.
If there's mocking to be done, let it be aimed squarely at you and your attitude of superior than thou.
This is especially rich from the guy who was soooo sure that Obama would lose (twice) and is now in here doing a victory dance. You can't even be bothered to leave your history up, selectively erasing any trace on a regular basis so we only have a vague memory of how wrong you've been. You didn't even bother coming around to do the standard trolling boosting in October.
Just wanted to point out the blatant irony of you using a nelson meme to desperately try and make the point that trump won because his opponents mocked his supporters.
Location: At the dude ranch / above the sea Gender:
Posted:
Feb 24, 2017 - 7:16pm
Beaker wrote:
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I honestly don't know how to communicate with you. It's like you live on an entirely different planet.
This is why Trump got elected. An unwillingness to listen to each other. By usually, one side of the convo.
That rewrites history. What really happened is that Trump performed a hostile takeover of the GOP. They had no good candidates that would run, and couldn't agree on a unifying platform that someone could represent because, internally, they couldn't get unified. So as candidates fell by the wayside, Trump remained. Not because he's the best - unless you think that tenacity is the sole criterion of a politician. And some folks do.
Simultaneously, the Democrat party insisted that Clinton should be their candidate, despite the unwillingness of most people to want her. They might settle for her, but they didn't want her. In fact, a lot of people wanted someone else, but were denied. So they had to settle.
And then we ran out of time. There had to be a choice, but it was a crap choice. So we got a crap President. Note: either choice might have had its problems, but there is no contending that Trump is a good President by any metric except number of times he's said he's good.
Is this because people were unwilling to listen? Sometimes, when faced with ignorance or worse (Tea Party comes to mind - they weren't about to compromise, were they?) it's not right to listen. It is not true that the opposite opinion always deserves consideration. TV likes to have two opinions because it means there will be conflict, but sometimes the other perspective ("let's not vaccinate") is just flat wrong and we should - as intelligent people - be absolutely unwilling to entertain that idiocy for a second.
I honestly don't know how to communicate with you. It's like you live on an entirely different planet.
Global GDP has risen ginormously in recent years. F'ing billions have been lifted out of poverty. And you call this oppressive? Central banking cartel?? They can hardly get their own business straight. They are tinkering with a machine no one really can predict. This doesn't make them a cartel. Most central banks are struggling to steer between recession and inflation, with varying degrees of failure.
Russia does have a low level of public debt... along with a whole host of other developing nations. Its per capita GDP is only 26k, rank 52. Putin is a 19th century tsar living in the 21st century. His country will never flourish while a bunch of oligarchs cream all the profits and invest them in questionable schemes overseas.
Russia a threat? I don't think so. Putin possibly, like any crazy demagogue. But Russia per se? No. They belong in Europe. They just haven't realised it yet. If they got rid of their dictator, installed modern institutions and business practices they could be a flourishing developing economy. Can't see it happening under the current leadership.
I have no problem understanding your point of view even if I disagree with a lot of it. But you can't understand my point of view at all. Makes me wonder, a lot. I must conclude that in your mind, I have no valid thinking, period.
So Russia is not a threat ? Great, then we don't need NATO anymore, now do we ? The EU can stand up for itself and defend itself, all by itself. Cool. The USA should withdraw from Europe immediately. We can sure save a hell of a lot of buckos.
Globilization, borders are imaginary lines ? Good, then let's end the Olympics, the ultimate expression in tribalism. Now let's pick a language for everyone to speak, immediately. We need a common currency, a flag, um what else ... oh yeah, a common sport, soccer ! Wait that won't work because team sports are tribalistic rituals. No more baseball, football, ice hockey and especially curling. Let's keep going. No need for any kind of affirmative action, we're all the same. We'll all eat the same food, regardless of ethnic inherited differences. But what are we going to use for a world government constitution ? What will we do with the people who prefer the beach to the mountains ? I know, we'll put everyone in Nebraska. Better yet, Oklahoma ...
Ya got me ... with a little luck North Korea will send its nukes around the world and detonate EMP's and send us all back into the Stone Age.
Think nothing of this. I'm high on MSG from the left over Chinese carryout from last night. This to shall pass.
WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and several other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.
Reporters from The Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Los Angeles Times and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer only allowed in reporters from a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed.
Those organizations included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.
...
“It was clear that they let in a lot of news outlets with less reach who are Trump-friendly,” said Noah Bierman, a White House reporter for The Los Angeles Times, who was barred. “They let in almost every network but CNN. That’s concerning, the handpicking aspect of it.”
Two of the barred outlets, CNN and The Times, have been a particular focus of Mr. Trump’s ire. And during the presidential campaign, some journalists from BuzzFeed News and Politico were prohibited from attending Trump rallies.
Representatives of the barred news organizations made clear that they believed the White House’s actions on Friday were punitive.
“Apparently this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don’t like,” CNN said in a statement.
