1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do things need to get worse before America will wake up and smell what is cooking?

Discussion in 'Serious' started by AcidJiles, 6 Apr 2011.

  1. AcidJiles

    AcidJiles New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    376
    Likes Received:
    4
    America is significantly messed up in a way that will take decades to correct even if serious action is taken soon. The sooner more people in America realise this the better. At the moment many people are either apathetic or naive about what is happening. The more that are directly affected in a bad way by the republican changes the greater the force in the opposite direction. This opposition can't be short term either, it needs to be powerful and long term for real changes for the better in American politics.

    Without massive support necessary changes on issues such as campaign contributions and necessary corrections to wealth distribution which can have a lasting effect on America will be unlikely to get through and importantly might be reversed after an election. A shift in the American conciousness is needed and I don't know how this is going to happen until more Americans are pushed to the edge. America needs a revolution, not a violent one but a revolution of thought and the only thing I can see causing this is for more American lives to be impacted badly.

    I do not see this as a good thing in the short term by any means but in the long run if this is what is necessary for real change then so be it.

    I genuinely ask is there any way other than this to get the American public to realise what is happening to them?

    All thoughts/comments welcome.
     
  2. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    The problem I see is that

    1. People don't see anything they do (i.e. who they elect) as making a difference

    and

    2. If the revolution comes any time soon, I think it will be for the worse, not better.

    The Libertarian movement over here is getting out of hand. Too many people feel that the government does nothing for them, despite evidence to the contrary, and that they would be better off without it.

    The thing that concerns me the most though is that the truth n is no longer relevant in American politics. The (mostly) tight wing talking heads can say anything, no matter how far fetched and easily disproven, and millions will believe it as gospel truth. It's hard to have an intelligent debate when one side makes up their facts.
     
  3. AcidJiles

    AcidJiles New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    376
    Likes Received:
    4
    Your no. 1 is true hence why a revolution is needed to change this so that who you elect actually does make a difference.

    The lack of truth means people need to see with their own eyes when services etc are taken away from them. The greed and corruption at the top needs to become so large that it can't be hidden from the people and they see for themselves it at work. Then opinions will change and see the need serious political upheaval.

    If there is a better way I would love to hear about it, but at this point I don't think the average American will get it unless it is shoved in their face and their life.
     
  4. sp4nky

    sp4nky BF3: Aardfrith WoT: McGubbins

    Joined:
    15 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    1,706
    Likes Received:
    53
    I think part of the problem is that people cannot see what is wrong with the current situation.

    Can you specify what, precisely, is so messed up? Don't hold back.
     
  5. Steelez

    Steelez Member

    Joined:
    16 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    417
    Likes Received:
    11
    I've been saying exactly the same thing about the UK (except transpose the US politics to the UK situation).
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2011
  6. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    As a Libertarian, I'm going to report back to the home base how much influence we have achieved. They will be shocked.
     
  7. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    201
    I wouldn't say that the Libertarian movement has gotten out of hand. In fact, I would agree with a number of things the Libertarian party promotes. However, I do have a problem with the Tea Party and its ultra conservatism in Libertarian trappings.
     
  8. Da_Rude_Baboon

    Da_Rude_Baboon What the?

    Joined:
    28 Mar 2002
    Posts:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    135
    As a non us citizen what is a libertarian?
     
  9. grritsshawn

    grritsshawn I'm not insane I'm a modder

    Joined:
    20 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    777
    Likes Received:
    12
    No wat i am american and i can say this...american government is ****ed up if i could i would smack everyone in the government. We attack and kill people for no reason!!!
     
  10. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    Libertarians are a 3rd party that fundamentally believe in freedom through a "hands-off" approach to government. They fit in a weird place in the political landscape that sometimes alienate various groups. They are frowned upon by conservatives for their stance on legalizing drugs and a very narrow scope of the use of military force. They are avoided by "liberals" because of their stance of opposing a nanny-state removing decisions of the individual.

    They have never really had any political clout. But with things breaking down the way they are, the do get more and more attention lately. I won't prothelatize but you can read more at lp.org
     
  11. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    112
    Libertarians believe the basis for all laws should be an individuals liberty.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    [​IMG]

    Mind you, it's a tad bit complex since when you put 5 Libertarians in a room, you get 7 differing opinions.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2011
  12. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    The European equivalent is the Anarchist movement, without the violent bits (so far).

    @ Eddie...

    I wondered if you were going to show up for this thread.

    You're right, I'm grouping the Tea Party folks and the Libertarians in together, which isn't strictly correct. To quote, well, myself, all groups are defined by the actions of their craziest members. This usually doesn't work out for the more mainstream members, and the old school libertarians are getting screwed by the Tea Party folks usurping their label.

    Personally I find it really hard to take the Tea party seriously since they said nothing when the problem was being created, but only popped up to blame the next guy.

    <RANT> What drives me absolutely crazy about the current political situation is that no one is willing to talk about fixing the problems that got us here. The current deficit was caused by cutting taxes. The Bush administration cut taxes while increasing spending (two wars) and surprisingly enough, this led to significant debt problem. There were other factors at play, but the tax cuts and the wars account for about 80+% of the problem. What has the republican and tea party response to this? End the wars? No. Raise taxes? Of course not. Instead, lets destroy all the positive benefits of government, and maybe cut taxes even more in the process.

    The bottom line for me is WE HAVE TO RAISE TAXES!!! The Bush administration chose to make significant cuts in the government's revenue and the tea party is trying to balance the shortfall this created by taking away service people depend on. End result: The rich have more money and the rest of us get less.

    If you want me to get behind budget cuts then show me progress on the revenue side of the ledger. Start by throwing out the Bush tax cuts and doing something about the fact that most corporations pay no income tax, despite how much they wine about the high marginal rates in the US. Get some more income coming in and then you can talk to mer about further cuts. </rant>
     
  13. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    Equating Libertarians with Anarchists is disingenuous. It may seem like "anarchy" to you to have relatively less government. But to attribute the philosophy to Anarchism is hyperbole at best.

    Reality check: the "Bush" tax cuts are now the "Obama" tax cuts. Using your technique, Cinderella is a horrible story about a chick with some mean sisters. Historically speaking, cutting taxes has proven to provide long-term increases in REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT. Harding in '21, Kennedy in '66, Reagan in '83, Bush in '06. In every incident, revenues rose. In all those examples save one, the government manage to spend all the additional revenue and then some more. If your boss gave you a 50% raise and you increased your personal spending by 75%, is it your tendency to blame your boss for your economic predicament?

    Also historically speaking, we have also dramatically raised taxes, both personally and corporately to pay for services and it resulted in 10 years of depression with revenues to the government declining and unemployment rising and staying above 20% year after year.

    The CBO projects by current trends that tax rates will need to be about 88% by 2036 to cover spending that is happening right now. So you will get your wish of higher taxes whether you like it or not but I don't think it will have the prosperous effects you claim it will have.

    If people are unsettled now with our current situation. Tell me, who is seeding the seeds of "anarchy" when the path takes everyone to 88% in the foreseeable future?

    We have had this discussion before. I quote facts, you indicate "need". The need for something has never generated wealth. Only when people can use their resources for their own accommodations does wealth get created. Government services are at the expense of wealth, if you want to continue to provide services via the government, logic dictates that you should also be in favor of creating wealth and the established and proven methods to do so.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2011
  14. AcidJiles

    AcidJiles New Member

    Joined:
    19 Jun 2006
    Posts:
    376
    Likes Received:
    4
    These are a few of many currently:

    America is a cross between a plutocracy and a democracy at the moment. The democracy is fading and the plutocracy is taking over. Seats are effectively bought and paid. Both parties are bought and paid for by special interests.
    A huge income inequality. The past 30 years have seen the ordinary citizens income in real terms fall while the ultra rich has grown massively.
    Lies spread as truth throughout much of the media.
    Largest prison population in the world by percentage and number. 1/5 of African Americans between 20-35 are in prison.
    Ridiculous amounts of money spent on the military (war spending and other)
    Massive disengagement in the political process by everyone but the extremes.
     
  15. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    You want to talk about real anarchy look who is advocating it. These are not libertarians, they are the diametrically opposite.
     
  16. Er-El

    Er-El Member

    Joined:
    31 May 2008
    Posts:
    482
    Likes Received:
    10
    Well the way I always saw it is there's 2 types of libertarians: minarchist (meaning small government) , and anarchist (no government), just as with authoritarians it's usually split between socialism and conservatism.

    If you ask me I think politicians like Ron Paul need to do a better job of educating people how in the long run their policies will have a better lasting effect on the country and people are more likely to be better off.
    It seems like you've got the same dilemma as any other democracy. People tend to vote for those who promise a quick-fix solution for everything but it's quite clear those very politicians who get into power do more damage than good.

    And the Tea Party seem like a bunch of confused crowd to me from what I see on youtube. They claim government has gotten too big, but then they're in favour of the 2 wars, against same-sex and won't really say how the current administration is any different than the last few you had. They strike me more as Conservatives.
     
    Last edited: 7 Jun 2011
  17. carpetmonster

    carpetmonster New Member

    Joined:
    27 Jan 2011
    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    25
    There is a reason, a very good one, it is called 'Disaster Capitalism'. Some people consider disaster capitalism is a 'conspiracy theory' like the one where people believe Pharmaceutical firms act in the best interest of the patient, before profits. However all you have to do is read a few pages of Naomi Klein's book, (I disagree with some of what she says personally), to see, 'Disaster Capitalism' is very real, and going on right now.
     
  18. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    I'm speaking of the European flavor of anarchism, which advocates for minimal government administered locally. Anarchism as a legitimate political party has a long history in Europe and is the closest political equivalent I know of to American Libertarianism.

    You may recall Obama tried to bring them to an end, which would result in more income for the government which could be used to reduce the national debt. Calling them the "Obama tax cuts" is hardly fair.

    Uh huh, and who did that spending? Wasn't the democrats. Reagan really started the ball rolling by cutting taxes while at the same time increasing defense spending. You want to see where the death of the middle class began, look to 1980. That strategy has been popular electorally since then, but unfortunately the chickens have come home to roost.

    As for your example, if my boss decided to give away a significant portion of the company's revenues while at the same time increasing spending, then yeah, I would blame him when the company goes under.

    [​IMG]

    Prior to the Reagan tax cuts the top marginal tax rate was over 70%. Lets assume for the moment that only the top 1% of Americans pay the top marginal rate, Given that that top 1% controls between 42% of the wealth in the US, returning to pre-Reagan marginal rates would go a long ways. We all need to pay more in order to maintain the benefits of living in a modern society, especially those who have benefited from tax cuts in the past.

    Alternatively, keeping the same marginal rates but reducing deductions for those earning over $400,000 would go a long ways. Finally, maybe we should do something about the fact that most corporations pay NO income taxes. We've adopted an attitude inn this country of "anything a business does to make money is OK, no matter how much it damages the country". Until that changes, we're pretty much screwed because those business sure aren't doing anything for the average US citizen.

    I will be quite honest and say I don't give a rat's rear end about "creating wealth". People are, by their nature greedy and will keep on doing that. Lot's of wealth got created during the housing bubble or the tech bubble or the bubble after the deregulation of the S&Ls. Plenty of wealth gets created by destroying entire mountains to get cheap coal or by making things overseas using cheap labor. Creating wealth offers no incentive to act responsibly or to insure that value improves the society at large. We've spent the last 30 years finding out that wealth doesn't "trickle down" unless it is forced to.
     
  19. Er-El

    Er-El Member

    Joined:
    31 May 2008
    Posts:
    482
    Likes Received:
    10
    But there never really has been real wealth creation. I think far too often economic growth has meant inflation rather than 'real' wealth creation which is what pays for schools, roads, police and nurses. If the people on lower incomes are fighting a constant battle against inflation and more stealth taxes then government is really just hiding the fact that it's distributing wealth from the poor to the rich.

    And you can go into whole different debate about why those companies were incentivised to cause so much environmental damage in the first place. Quite often those companies lobby the government for subsidies in exchange for cheap energy or something. Whereas if politicians were more tough on them and didn't get involved (while trying not to sound too naive) there would be more of a reason for the market to look into better and cheaper alternatives.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2011
  20. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    But he didn't did he. And it didn't stop him from listing "cutting taxes" in speeches to follow. And if you don't like them called the "Obama tax cuts" then you need to talk to a vast majority of the press.

    I don't care who overspent, you think I won't admit that but it is a prime example of the problem at hand. Congress holds the purse strings. At the time, Tip O'Neal lead the congress and signed that bill. Reagan signed it. Both are guilty of overspending. But it evades and reinforces my point that revenues were raised. The fact that Reagan and a Democratic congress overspent the money is not in denial. I explicitly said so regarding: Kennedy, Reagan and Bush.

    Returning to pre-Reagan marginal rates would also go a long way to returning the country to a pre-Reagan economy of high-inflation and unemployment, hence the changing in the rates in the first place. I'm consistently bewildered how this gets disjointed as if the laws of cause and effect can be willingly suspended.

    I love how the top 1% that pays the vast majority chunk of the taxes paid simultaneously also benefited from the tax cuts in the past. What color is the grass when you are both sides of the fence?

    Your adjustment to my analogy about your boss and spending makes the fatal logical mistake that the money source is the government and is "allowed" to the people. If that were the case, the government wouldn't need to tax at all, they would merely spend what they are producing. The resource is not the government. The resource is the economic activity of the population. It's a non-starter.
     
    Last edited: 6 Apr 2011

Share This Page