POLITICAL THREAD

[BlueRaider22]

(Warning hyperbole coming) Over 90% of those who align themselves with Dem/Rep did so because they truly believe what the party stood for. They did so because of a "My granddaddy was a Rep my daddy was a Rep, so I'm a Rep" mindset.....or they fell for false propaganda like "Dems are for the poor and Reps are for the rich."

Neither party stands for a fraction of what they once did. They've almost melded together. Much of theirs "stances" are so closely aligned now. They both know that most people are moderate.....therefore it makes sense to play moderate to get the most votes.

 

[liveblue92]

It sounds like you're on a side.

No I'm socially liberal and
fiscally conservative.

I'm all for equality for all, I'm pro choice, atheist, etc.

IMO it's common sense that you get what you put in to life. If you work hard, you can become successful. Society today is for lowering your expectations. "Just be mediocre, but expect to have the same lifestyle as those who are willing to do what you won't." Everyone gets a trophy.

 

[liveblue92]

I agree with Chris Rock. "Anyone who takes a side before they hear the issue is an idiot."

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Also it's the GOP who keeps trying to do away with social security.

The Republicans wanted to privatize a portion of Social Security. That makes sense on several fronts. One, philosophically, I don't really believe the government has the authority to force people to contribute towards a retirement program. It just goes against the idea of liberty. Second, as the baby boomers retire, the burden that everyone else has to pay to support those retirees will grow quite large because of the way Social Security was established. You aren't paying your own way, the working generation is paying for the generation that is currently retired. The solution would be to gradually convert Social Security to where your contributions create an annuity that pays for your retirement. If it could be gradually converted and privatized, it would solve some of these issues.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

The Republicans wanted to privatize a portion of Social Security. That makes sense on several fronts. One, philosophically, I don't really believe the government has the authority to force people to contribute towards a retirement program. It just goes against the idea of liberty. Second, as the baby boomers retire, the burden that everyone else has to pay to support those retirees will grow quite large because of the way Social Security was established. You aren't paying your own way, the working generation is paying for the generation that is currently retired. The solution would be to gradually convert Social Security to where your contributions create an annuity that pays for your retirement. If it could be gradually converted and privatized, it would solve some of these issues.

Nah...

 

[liveblue92]

Also it's the GOP who keeps trying to do away with social security.

Doing away with SS is one thing. I don't plan on drawing SS by the time I'm at retirement age anyway. But making someone pay into it for every pay check for 40-50 years, then using it to pay for someone else's medical insurance who won't go get a job, seems unethical to me.

And the idea of penalizing someone for not having health insurance is ridiculous as well. Let me do whatever the hell I want if it's not hurting you.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Doing away with SS is one thing. I don't plan on drawing SS by the time I'm at retirement age anyway. But making someone pay into it for every pay check for 40-50 years, then using it to pay for someone else's medical insurance who won't go get a job, seems unethical to me.

And the idea of penalizing someone for not having health insurance is ridiculous as well. Let me do whatever the hell I want if it's not hurting you.

See above. Let Chomsky show you the way. #WWCD

 

[BlueRaider22]

Saw an article on yahoo main page talking about how SS just turned 85 and that "it's starting to show its age." I was under the impression that it has been on life support and the gubment has been keeping it alive.

It was never meant as a sole retirement.....merely a supplement. Unfortunately people treat it as their only income. It's being crushed under its own weight.

My plan is to position myself where if I get it great.....if I don't who cares.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Nah...

View embedded media

I didn't listen to all of it because right off the bat he full of crap. For starters, Reagan had a democratic congress that he worked with. Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Whenever I here someone trying to attribute deficits to Presidents, then I know they have an agenda right off the bat and aren't being truthful in their comments.

The idea that he throws out about anyone who wants to change Social Security doesn't care about other people is just plain garbage and is easy to dispute. First, not believing that the government has Constitutional authority to force people to make charitable contributions has nothing to do with caring about other people. Second, studies show that conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do. Conservatives care about other people, but they do not believe that government has the authority to forcibly take someones income for the purpose of giving it someone else without their consent.

After hearing those remarks, nothing else he had to say was worth my time to listen to because he is obviously not interested in truth. He is interested in propaganda and talking points. He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I didn't listen to all of it because right off the bat he full of crap. For starters, Reagan had a democratic congress that he worked with. Congress controls the purse strings, not the President. Whenever I here someone trying to attribute deficits to Presidents, then I know they have an agenda right off the bat and aren't being truthful in their comments.

The idea that he throws out about anyone who wants to change Social Security doesn't care about other people is just plain garbage and is easy to dispute. First, not believing that the government has Constitutional authority to force people to make charitable contributions has nothing to do with caring about other people. Second, studies show that conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do. Conservatives care about other people, but they do not believe that government has the authority to forcibly take someones income for the purpose of giving it someone else without their consent.

After hearing those remarks, nothing else he had to say was worth my time to listen to because he is obviously not interested in truth. He is interested in propaganda and talking points. He has absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

Hahahahahahahahaha Chomsky has no credibility?! Hahahahaha

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Hahahahahahahahaha Chomsky has no credibility?! Hahahahaha

I am assuming that in your circles a socialist has much credibility, but in my circles they are pretty much thought of as fools. To each his own I guess.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I am assuming that in your circles a socialist has much credibility, but in my circles they are pretty much thought of as fools. To each his own I guess.

Chomsky is Anarchist. Not a socialist. Get it right. He is the father of Modern linguistics. In my opinion he is the most unbiased and brilliant mind of the twentieth and twenty first century. He calls out both parties and speaks the truth.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Chomsky is Anarchist. Not a socialist. Get it right. He is the father of Modern linguistics. In my opinion he is the most unbiased and brilliant mind of the twentieth and twenty first century. He calls out both parties and speaks the truth.

He is a libertarian socialist. I'm sure you love him. In my opinion he is a fool. Most of what I quoted from his interview was foolish remarks that have no truth to them whatsoever.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

He is a libertarian socialist. I'm sure you love him. In my opinion he is a fool. Most of what I quoted from his interview was foolish remarks that have no truth to them whatsoever.

You'll defend your party no matter what haha good luck with that.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

He is a libertarian socialist. I'm sure you love him. In my opinion he is a fool. Most of what I quoted from his interview was foolish remarks that have no truth to them whatsoever.

And by the way, I do love him.

 

[liveblue92]

You'll defend your party no matter what haha good luck with that.

Agree to disagree I guess...

 

[DaBossIsBack]

How can you not agree with this?

 

[BlueRaider22]

I don't know much about Chomsky but the 1st video wasn't too bad.

Now the 2nd sounds good in theory but if there are 1 billion people in the U.S. and each one has a part in making/shaping policies then you will have 1 billion different views for each topic. Not to mention that 98% of that 1 billion will never have more than a slight understanding of the topics before making those policies. That would likely be disaster of epic proportions.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

View embedded media

How can you not agree with this?

Let me start by saying his view of the world is very jaded and does not reflect my own. I don't think most people are all about maximizing their own benefit at the expense of other people. So I think he is wrong before he even gets started. This country is extremely charitable. That has historically been a distinguishing characteristic of our country. Second, nothing he is saying is new. Our founding fathers considered Democracy when forming our government. The problem with Democracy is that it becomes a dictatorship of the majority. In other words, when groups decide policy, the majority always get their way and the minority never get theirs. It is simply tyranny by the majority. I can't remember who it was that made this analogy, but I thought it was a good one. If one person decides to take away your liberty we call it a dictatorship and recognize that it is wrong and not in the interest of liberty. If the majority votes to take away your liberty, how does that legitimize it more than when one person does it. It is still tyranny. There is nothing magical about Democracy.

Finally, he acts as though corporations control society. I do think we need to work to reduce special interest influence in government, but it is a fallacy to think corporation control what products are made and how they are distributed without any input from the population. Many corporations that were leaders in their market have gone bankrupt because they did not respond to the needs of their customers. The profit motive causes corporations to respond efficiently to the needs, wants, and desires of their customers. You can find examples in every industry where corporations did not do that well and they no longer exist. I think much of what he says ignores reality and focuses on a fantasy, Utopian, world that can't and doesn't exist. That is common among socialists and communists.

Do we have problems. Absolutely, because no system is perfect and every system is only as good as the people who run it. Our problem, in my opinion, is the rampant expansion of government control over many aspects of our lives. So I would agree with him in terms of government having too much authority and influence.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Let me start by saying his view of the world is very jaded and does not reflect my own. I don't think most people are all about maximizing their own benefit at the expense of other people. So I think he is wrong before he even gets started. This country is extremely charitable. That has historically been a distinguishing characteristic of our country. Second, nothing he is saying is new. Our founding fathers considered Democracy when forming our government. The problem with Democracy is that it becomes a dictatorship of the majority. In other words, when groups decide policy, the majority always get their way and the minority never get theirs. It is simply tyranny by the majority. I can't remember who it was that made this analogy, but I thought it was a good one. If one person decides to take away your liberty we call it a dictatorship and recognize that it is wrong and not in the interest of liberty. If the majority votes to take away your liberty, how does that legitimize it more than when one person does it. It is still tyranny. There is nothing magical about Democracy.

Finally, he acts as though corporations control society. I do think we need to work to reduce special interest influence in government, but it is a fallacy to think corporation control what products are made and how they are distributed without any input from the population. Many corporations that were leaders in their market have gone bankrupt because they did not respond to the needs of their customers. The profit motive causes corporations to respond efficiently to the needs, wants, and desires of their customers. You can find examples in every industry where corporations did not do that well and they no longer exist. I think much of what he says ignores reality and focuses on a fantasy, Utopian, world that can't and doesn't exist. That is common among socialists and communists.

Do we have problems. Absolutely, because no system is perfect and every system is only as good as the people who run it. Our problem, in my opinion, is the rampant expansion of government control over many aspects of our lives. So I would agree with him in terms of government having too much authority and influence.

Sigh. On to the next..

 

[sluggercatfan]

Let me start by saying his view of the world is very jaded and does not reflect my own. I don't think most people are all about maximizing their own benefit at the expense of other people. So I think he is wrong before he even gets started. This country is extremely charitable. That has historically been a distinguishing characteristic of our country. Second, nothing he is saying is new. Our founding fathers considered Democracy when forming our government. The problem with Democracy is that it becomes a dictatorship of the majority. In other words, when groups decide policy, the majority always get their way and the minority never get theirs. It is simply tyranny by the majority. I can't remember who it was that made this analogy, but I thought it was a good one. If one person decides to take away your liberty we call it a dictatorship and recognize that it is wrong and not in the interest of liberty. If the majority votes to take away your liberty, how does that legitimize it more than when one person does it. It is still tyranny. There is nothing magical about Democracy.

Finally, he acts as though corporations control society. I do think we need to work to reduce special interest influence in government, but it is a fallacy to think corporation control what products are made and how they are distributed without any input from the population. Many corporations that were leaders in their market have gone bankrupt because they did not respond to the needs of their customers. The profit motive causes corporations to respond efficiently to the needs, wants, and desires of their customers. You can find examples in every industry where corporations did not do that well and they no longer exist. I think much of what he says ignores reality and focuses on a fantasy, Utopian, world that can't and doesn't exist. That is common among socialists and communists.

Do we have problems. Absolutely, because no system is perfect and every system is only as good as the people who run it. Our problem, in my opinion, is the rampant expansion of government control over many aspects of our lives. So I would agree with him in terms of government having too much authority and influence.

^^^^^^^^^ding, ding, ding. Ring the bell KO'd. Good job CAT. The world has NEVER been a fair and equal place and never will be...It always has and always will live by the golden rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules. You don't like your lot in life, CHANGE IT instead of expecting someone else to do it for you. I come from a family of 13 children and we lost our parents at young ages for both of them. We have all done quite well with a couple of us doing "very" well.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

Had the Pubs cut the EPA further, perhaps they wouldn't have been at the site to screw it up. Of course the EPA didn't produce the chemicals that were in a stable spot. They produce nothing but regulations.

guess we'd be better off if we just let companies do whatever they want. Really working well in China. Fantastic air/water quality over there. You ever seen pictures of big cities like NY before the clean air regulations were put into place in the 70s? Yeah looks like China.

 

[MegaBlue05]

I can't agree with conservatives about privatization of SS, although it's a catch 22.

I don't trust the government to handle it, but I also don't trust private companies to do what's best for ME as opposed to the only thing that matters to all of them — their bottom line. And yes, I firmly believe 90+ percent of all companies would screw over their own families if it meant making a few extra bucks. My moral quandary is who do I trust less: government or business. Right now, it's a close race with no leader.

All I know is I've paid into SS every pay period since I was 16, and when it comes time for my old ass to not work, somebody better have MegaBlue's gubment (private?) money check.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

^^^^^^^^^ding, ding, ding. Ring the bell KO'd. Good job CAT. The world has NEVER been a fair and equal place and never will be...It always has and always will live by the golden rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules. You don't like your lot in life, CHANGE IT instead of expecting someone else to do it for you. I come from a family of 13 children and we lost our parents at young ages for both of them. We have all done quite well with a couple of us doing "very" well.

I have done very well for my self. I would, by most standards, be considered wealthy. I can and do travel all over this world. My "wealth" still doesn't even remotely compare to the top 1%. Corporations are running and ruining this country. They are obviously doing a good job of controlling the population through the media as well. If you want to be on board with them then by all means. I'll keep fighting the good fight.

 

[liveblue92]

I can't agree with conservatives about privatization of SS, although it's a catch 22.

I don't trust the government to handle it, but I also don't trust private companies to do what's best for ME as opposed to the only thing that matters to all of them — their bottom line. And yes, I firmly believe 90+ percent of all companies would screw over their own families if it meant making a few extra bucks. My moral quandary is who do I trust less: government or business. Right now, it's a close race with no leader.

All I know is I've paid into SS every pay period since I was 16, and when it comes time for my old ass to not work, somebody better have MegaBlue's gubment (private?) money check.

I wouldn't count on that. Better start investing in a 401k.

 

[sluggercatfan]

I have done very well for my self. I would, by most standards, be considered wealthy. I can and do travel all over this world. My "wealth" still doesn't even remotely compare to the top 1%. Corporations are running and ruining this country. They are obviously doing a good job of controlling the population through the media as well. If you want to be on board with them then by all means. I'll keep fighting the good fight.

So what if you are not a 1% that is why they call them that. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?. I will tell you I would LOVE for those that have enormous wealth to use it to help others succeed , but I'm not in favor of giving folks money that have no intentions of working . I know that if I had the wealth of some these 1% I would do things differently than some do, but I'm not for the redistribution of wealth like the progressives are and I'm assuming you are one of them.

 

[sluggercatfan]

I wouldn't count on that. Better start investing in a 401k.

If he is 50+ his SS is probably ok.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I can't agree with conservatives about privatization of SS, although it's a catch 22.

I don't trust the government to handle it, but I also don't trust private companies to do what's best for ME as opposed to the only thing that matters to all of them — their bottom line. And yes, I firmly believe 90+ percent of all companies would screw over their own families if it meant making a few extra bucks. My moral quandary is who do I trust less: government or business. Right now, it's a close race with no leader.

All I know is I've paid into SS every pay period since I was 16, and when it comes time for my old ass to not work, somebody better have MegaBlue's gubment (private?) money check.

Why would you be trusting in private companies if SS were privatized? Do you invest in a 401K or other investments now? If so, do you let them pick your investments for you and monitor your investments for you? I suspect you don't. I suspect you pick your own investments and pay attention to how well they are doing. If you think some are doing poorly, you pull your money out of those and invest in something else. That's how private SS would be. It would be just like a 401K. Another point, which was misrepresented at the time privatizing a portion of SS was being considered. The stock market, over the long term, has outperformed all other investments. Tell me why the government and the Democratic party was trying so hard to stop lower income people from having access to the market, when it has historically been the best place to put your money over the long term?

 

[DaBossIsBack]

So what if you are not a 1% that is why they call them that. Have you ever gotten a good job from a poor man?. I will tell you I would LOVE for those that have enormous wealth to use it to help others succeed , but I'm not in favor of giving folks money that have no intentions of working . I know that if I had the wealth of some these 1% I would do things differently than some do, but I'm not for the redistribution of wealth like the progressives are and I'm assuming you are one of them.

So a CEO makes 300 times more than the guy busting his ass doing the labor and you're cool with that? Wage slavery man. I'm not cool with it. I'm not talking redistribution of wealth. I'm talking equality.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I have done very well for my self. I would, by most standards, be considered wealthy. I can and do travel all over this world. My "wealth" still doesn't even remotely compare to the top 1%. Corporations are running and ruining this country. They are obviously doing a good job of controlling the population through the media as well. If you want to be on board with them then by all means. I'll keep fighting the good fight.

I'm not sure what fight you are fighting. You haven't refuted anything I have said or made any arguments of your own. All you have done is play videos and let someone else do your thinking for you.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

So a CEO makes 300 times more than the guy busting his ass doing the labor and you're cool with that? Wage slavery man. I'm not cool with it. I'm not talking redistribution of wealth. I'm talking equality.

I will agree with you that CEO pay in many corporations are out of control. However, that is a board of directors issue. The board is supposed to look out for the investors of the company and instead, in some cases, are looking out for the CEO. The problem is that the CEO uses shareholder money to treat the board like kings and in return the board takes care of the CEO. They are in bed with each other, when the board should be protecting the investors interest. That's not true everywhere, but it is certainly true in some corporations.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I'm not sure what fight you are fighting. You haven't refuted anything I have said or made any arguments of your own. All you have done is play videos and let someone else do your thinking for you.

All my thoughts and beliefs in this arena align with Chomsky 100%. I am no expert and I do not possess the knowledge yet to go toe to toe with people who are better versed. It would not benefit the cause I'm just beginning to understand and promote. Chomsky can better articulate my feelings and opinions in a more concise and intelligent manner.

 

[sluggercatfan]

So a CEO makes 300 times more than the guy busting his ass doing the labor and you're cool with that? Wage slavery man. I'm not cool with it. I'm not talking redistribution of wealth. I'm talking equality.

Why do you think they hold the positions they do? It is a proven fact that the more educated you are the more money you make. Do you honestly think the guy busting his ass doing the labor could do a CEO's job?

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I will agree with you that CEO pay in many corporations are out of control. However, that is a board of directors issue. The board is supposed to look out for the investors of the company and instead, in some cases, are looking out for the CEO. The problem is that the CEO uses shareholder money to treat the board like kings and in return the board takes care of the CEO. They are in bed with each other, when the board should be protecting the investors interest. That's not true everywhere, but it is certainly true in some corporations.

And the corporation is in bed with Washington. Not all of them but a large enough number to influence policy.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Why do you think they hold the positions they do? It is a proven fact that the more educated you are the more money you make. Do you honestly think the guy busting his ass doing the labor could do a CEO's job?

Did the guy busting his ass have the opportunity to attend a private college, university, Ivy League institution? College all of a sudden affordable in America? Also it's naive to think that all CEOs of multinational corporations simply went to school and earned that job. You think the CEO of 21st century fox went to Morehead St and worked his way up the ranks? Hell no.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

All my thoughts and beliefs in this arena align with Chomsky 100%. I am no expert and I do not possess the knowledge yet to go toe to toe with people who are better versed. It would not benefit the cause I'm just beginning to understand and promote. Chomsky can better articulate my feelings and opinions in a more concise and intelligent manner.

I would encourage you to expand your viewpoint a little and apply some common sense to what you hear Chomsky say. For example, my point about Democracy. How do you envision that the liberty of the people in the minority would be protected in a society where groups vote on everything? Keep in mind that, although Democracy is common word used to describe our system, we are technically a Republic. Our fathers rejected Democracy for the very reason that there is no good way to protect the rights of the minority point of view in a Democracy.

I would encourage you to read some Milton Friedman, The Federalist Papers, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, etc. Weigh those ideals versus what Chomsky says and see which ones ring more true. I'm not arguing that we have a perfect system, because I don't think one exists, or ever will exist. I'm saying the original ideals of the founding fathers represent the best political structure known to man if protecting individual liberty is your goal. However, like any system of government, it gets perverted over time by the people who run it and have agendas they want to see accomplished. We have definitely gone off course and I'm not sure we can ever regain what was meant to be, but I'm not ready to abandon the idea of it.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

And the corporation is in bed with Washington. Not all of them but a large enough number to influence policy.

Whose fault is that? It is ours for electing people who allow themselves to be influenced by money and power. We have to recognize that bureaucracies are that way. They grow and expand their power base. That's why limited government is critical for liberty and prosperity.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Did the guy busting his ass have the opportunity to attend a private college, university, Ivy League institution? College all of a sudden affordable in America? Also it's naive to think that all CEOs of multinational corporations simply went to school and earned that job. You think the CEO of 21st century fox went to Morehead St and worked his way up the ranks? Hell no.

You are looking at the world with too narrow a perspective. Corporations come and go. Many new corporations are created every day that become the dominant play in the market. Those new companies are started and created by people of all walks of life. Microsoft, Papa Johns, Google, Under Armor, Nike, etc. They all didn't even exist at some point during my life. There are many. many, more just like that. There are opportunities to create wealth and it doesn't require attending an Ivy League school and a private school. Intelligence and hard work still pay off. Even in existing corporations, the CEO is not exclusively from Ivy League schools and Private Colleges.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

I would encourage you to expand your viewpoint a little and apply some common sense to what you hear Chomsky say. For example, my point about Democracy. How do you envision that the minorities liberty would be protected in a society where groups vote on everything? Keep in mind that, although Democracy is common word used to describe our system, we are technically a Republic. Our fathers rejected Democracy for the very reason that there is no good way to protect the rights of the minority point of view in a Democracy.

I would encourage you to read some Milton Friedman, The Federalist Papers, Ludwig Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, etc. Weigh those ideals versus what Chomsky says and see which ones ring more true. I'm not arguing that we have a perfect system, because I don't think one exists, or ever will exist. I'm saying the original ideals of the founding fathers represent the best political structure known to man if protecting individual liberty is your goal. However, like any system of government, it gets perverted over time by the people who run it and have agendas they want to see accomplished. We have definitely gone off course and I'm not sure we can ever regain what was meant to be, but I'm not ready to abandon the idea of it.

Our system is a plutocracy and has been for quite a while now. And minimal government is exactly what I want since I consider my self a libertarian socialist. We are gonna have to agree to disagree because our world views are vastly different. I could say the same thing about yours in regards to being narrow.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

You are looking at the world with too narrow a perspective. Corporations come and go. Many new corporations are created every day that become the dominant play in the market. Those new companies are started and created by people of all walks of life. Microsoft, Papa Johns, Google, Under Armor, Nike, etc. They all didn't even exist at some point during my life. There are many. many, more just like that. There are opportunities to create wealth and it doesn't require attending an Ivy League school and a private school. Intelligence and hard work still pay off. Even in existing corporations, the CEO is not exclusively from Ivy League schools and Private Colleges.

Any of those corporations control the media? Six major corporations control the media. They have a direct influence in the information you and I receive. They are heavily involved in the outcomes of elections. US propaganda is some of the best in the history of the modern world.