World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

LOL!

CentralCal - You gave me a scenario where you think things are headed, I believe. But you didn't answer my second question, if everything from Medicare to SS to OSHA to NOAA to HHS to the National Parks were all shut down, or immediately privatized like the true conservatives wish, what would the country look like in 5, 10, 20 years?

 

[BroDeal]

Before 9/11 there was an attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 - there have been multiple embassy bombings over the past several decades - the bombing in Beirut in 1983. all by a dedicated political, cultural and religious ideology that has the destruction of the United States on the to do list right after the destruction of Israel.

Fail.

The U.S. supports the ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation of the Palestinians by supplying financial and miliatry aid to Israel. It also props up or provides security guarantees to every Middle East dictatorship with the exception of Syria and Libya. The oppressed have a fundamental human right to fight for their freedom by striking at their oppressor. If the U.S. does not want to suffer occasional attacks on itself then it should remove its boot from the necks of others. All of America's problems with the Middle East stem from its disgraceful and bigoted treatment of muslims.

The U.S. spends more money on its military than the combined totals of the next 45 highest spending countries. It spends nearly as much as the entire rest of the world combined. It operates more than 700 military bases outside the U.S. That is not done for defense. Defense would require a small fraction of the current U.S. military footprint. It is done to exert power over the world and enrich the connected. It is all laid out in white papers from the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[BroDeal]

Does anyone really consider China to be communist anymore?

Only those who are so stuck in the long gone past.

And does anyone really think federal government bills such as the health care bill, or Medicare, or OSHA or NOAA, etc will potentially lead the United States to a full Soviet-like government and society?

Yes, yes they do. Flip on talk radio or Faux News to find out how providing basic health care for the common man is an express elevator down to socialism hell. These loons use the socialism charge against any policy they dislike. For some reason the U.S.' vast miliary spending, which dwarfs the various little programs that these loons are always whinging about as stepping stones to communism, somehow escapes criticism.

What do people think would happen if we eliminated all of those government programs and laws? What would the country look like in a year, five years, 10? 20?

The country would look just like it did before we had such programs and laws. Pick up a book by Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair for a good idea of what the so called Libertarians have in mind what life for the average person should be like.

The Gilded Age provides a good blueprint for where the U.S. and much of the rest of the world is headed.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Fail.

The U.S. supports the ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation of the Palestinians by supplying financial and miliatry aid to Israel. It also props up or provides security guarantees to every Middle East dictatorship with the exception of Syria and Libya. The oppressed have a fundamental human right to fight for their freedom by striking at their oppressor. If the U.S. does not want to suffer occasional attacks on itself then it should remove its boot from the necks of others. All of America's problems with the Middle East stem from its disgraceful and bigoted treatment of muslims.

There are Palestinians living in Israel - the Palestinians and the other Arab nations surrounded Israel have stated publicly and repeatedly that they will not be happy until there are no Israelis in the middle east - it is the Muslim groups that do in fact support ethnic cleansing.

The governments the United States "props" up have a much better track record on human rights than the taliban in Afghanistan or Iraq under Hussan.

Like their position on Israel, fundamentalist Muslim groups have a political goal of bringing the whole world to the worship and law of Islam - this has also been stated publicly and often but many are not listening. Allowing Palestinians to destroy Israel (and kill or move all Israelis from the middle east) will not satisfy those who have a belief that the whole world must be under the subjugation of Islam. The number of people who support Islam as the only world power are not a minority. I have no issue with those who would like to convert and evangelize but I do with the significant percentage who wish to conquer and subjugate.

Now, I feel oppressed by the tax dollars that come out of my paycheck and support people that have no desire or intent of being productive ever - do I have a fundamental right to fight for my financial freedom?

The U.S. spends more money on its military than the combined totals of the next 45 highest spending countries. It spends nearly as much as the entire rest of the world combined. It operates more than 700 military bases outside the U.S. That is not done for defense. Defense would require a small fraction of the current U.S. military footprint. It is done to exert power over the world and enrich the connected. It is all laid out in white papers from the American Enterprise Institute.

One of the main reasons that many other countries do not spend the money financially is because the United States is doing it for them (something I am not in favor of at times). However, though some might want to ignore history, that is what cost the United States severely in WWII - the complete lack of attention to the military and an interest in staying out of world affairs other than what is happening in the western Hemisphere.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

LOL!

CentralCal - You gave me a scenario where you think things are headed, I believe. But you didn't answer my second question, if everything from Medicare to SS to OSHA to NOAA to HHS to the National Parks were all shut down, or immediately privatized like the true conservatives wish, what would the country look like in 5, 10, 20 years?

I believe that you will begin to find out fairly soon (it would have been longer if we were not in the process of setting up another massive entitlement with the Health care program). The fact is we have given entitlements to programs that this country simply cannot pay for. You can cut the military budget for a time and hope for the best politically but when you cut entitlements you end up with social chaos.

We have set up society to depend on these organizations (at least of things of a social program nature) so it would be ugly. However, had we taken a different path I believe society would have been able to handle things much better then they are being handled now.

 

[fatandfast]

Only those who are so stuck in the long gone past.



Yes, yes they do. Flip on talk radio or Faux News to find out how providing basic health care for the common man is an express elevator down to socialism hell. These loons use the socialism charge against any policy they dislike. For some reason the U.S.' vast miliary spending, which dwarfs the various little programs that these loons are always whinging about as stepping stones to communism, somehow escapes criticism.



The country would look just like it did before we had such programs and laws. Pick up a book by Charles Dickens or Upton Sinclair for a good idea of what the so called Libertarians have in mind what life for the average person should be like.

The Gilded Age provides a good blueprint for where the U.S. and much of the rest of the world is headed.

Lincoln,Garvey, Sinclair,Dickens and Tocqueville all used words that we never say today. Playing with words is failing the president and his people. When Obama started conversation(s) with terms where he substituted and made equal,"socialized" for "public" or "universal". He screwed up. When he tried to play with words and told his staff and press crew not to use the phrase "war on terror" because it was related to the old administration it was a big screw up. When he thought that his humble talk show self would work in any situation it was a screw up that lead to drinking beer at the White House for a matter that should have been settled in somebody's front yard. When his plan started to slip, the town hall format almost sank him and any hope of affordable health care for the uninsured. He had many chances to make being healthy/health care a civil rights issue but caved to the right when they started the illegal aliens don't deserve anything chant. Divide and conquer and they did ,excluded the browns,blacks and yellows and go forward, big screw up.

He can act the part of esq. whenever and it's suits him best. The adoption of anything other than universal health care for everybody will sink him and yet another of his grand plans. He needs to stop all the soft shoe and win or loose stick to the...a.. plan. Close the prisons in Cuba.period. Set a date for to withdraw troops period. stay at home and find out about what is going to pay for the baby boomers lifes, if it's based on banks and 401k's he better start guarding the till. As people start retiring you can't give them a bailout check every month. There are a few terms and words that are never to be spoken in American English..socialized anything is taboo. Don't quote 2Pac or Biggie Smalls no matter who tells you it's good idea. Old blue haired people think socialized anything is a bad idea.

 

[Cobblestones]

I put it here, since this is essentially our 'politics' thread:

20 years after fall of Berlin wall, people get dissatisfied with capitalism.

Capitalism is a system based on competition and it's main competitor disappeared 20 years ago. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it's not doing so well any more.

 

[Bala Verde]

Isn't USA's current economic crisis a sign of economic transition, similar to economic transitions of former Communist States?

After the Soviet implosion they (USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany) had to transition into a free market. They had to relinquish their expensive public programs because their real economy wasn't efficient, productive, and competitive enough in the world market, and as such couldn't support such (extravagant) State expenses. On top of that political pressure from the 'Cold war winners' forced them to make fundamental changes to their economies and become integrated in the world market. There were those who favored painful short term shock therapy and others who insisted on long term gradual adaptations.

The USA with its reliance on/preference for a demand driven economy (Reagan, W. Bush) has a population that needs to spend, to keep the economy g(r)o(w)ing. Low taxes, easy credit, very competitive price discounting while household debt ballooned.

The US economy was fueled with hypothetical money, and has grown beyond actual capacity. It's as if the US pretended to have double the amount of people who actually earned money, given its consumption rate, although in reality it was half the amount of people, spending beyond their means. Now people stop spending for whatever reasons (unemployment, difficult to get credit) the economy seems to adjust to reflect the actual economic capacity. Since the US economy was so bloated due to its reliance on hypothetical money, many people will become/stay unemployed, because their jobs relied on unhealthy forms of consumption.

Since the US is a large country that has an impact on world demand/prices, other countries - the exporters to the US - will obviously also feel the crunch. Much of Chinese prosperity possibly relies on US (over)consumption.

Aren't Obama's economic policies thus not intended to mitigate these effects, just like some Eastern European countries did when they were forced to transition to a different economy? Doesn't the US economy just need to shrink to reflect actual capacity? Could Obama do anything else, but spend and support a great number of companies, as government is basically taking over USA's household debt to prevent the economy from entering a depression? In a way, Obama seems to choose gradual adaptation over shock therapy. Could he realistically have chosen shock therapy?

If one opts for lowering taxes, spending is encouraged, but hasn't that been part of the current problem and lead to the over-expansion of the economy?

To me it seems like we are facing a structural recalibration of the US economy - cutting out excess spending, moving towards a more fiscally sound demand-driven economy - and those fundamental transitions are (see Eastern Europe) always very painful for quite a while.

Any thoughts?

 

[Cobblestones]

That's pretty much it. Private consumption is taking a dive. The stimulus tries to fill the hole. It helps fighting unemployment, it improves infrastructure and adds to the GDP. But it is way too small to fill the hole. I argued with Scott how much stimulus there should be. He's afraid of inflation and growing debt. My position is that inflation won't be the problem, but growing debt will eventually be a concern, but not until we increase the stimulus 2-3 fold. Both of us cited expert opinions for our positions. Which probably means, no one knows for sure.

Anyway, the bigger question is, which economic system will produce the best living conditions over the long run. History suggests that laissez-faire capitalism produces bubbles and large boom/bust cycles and leads to re-distribution of wealth to the top, likely creating social instability. A planned economy on the other hand, is too ineffective, since planning typically mismanages resources yielding surplus of unwanted goods and shortages in other places. Again, if you're looking at history and world data, you see that the best living conditions (for the whole population) are achieved in the Scandinavian countries. When you look at their economies, you'll see that government does play a big role, however, it mostly employs market forces instead of central planning.

 

[titan_90]

Fail.

The U.S. supports the ethnic cleansing and brutal occupation of the Palestinians by supplying financial and miliatry aid to Israel. It also props up or provides security guarantees to every Middle East dictatorship with the exception of Syria and Libya. The oppressed have a fundamental human right to fight for their freedom by striking at their oppressor. If the U.S. does not want to suffer occasional attacks on itself then it should remove its boot from the necks of others. All of America's problems with the Middle East stem from its disgraceful and bigoted treatment of muslims.

The U.S. spends more money on its military than the combined totals of the next 45 highest spending countries. It spends nearly as much as the entire rest of the world combined. It operates more than 700 military bases outside the U.S. That is not done for defense. Defense would require a small fraction of the current U.S. military footprint. It is done to exert power over the world and enrich the connected. It is all laid out in white papers from the American Enterprise Institute.

You are correct, the USA has no one else to blame for the current rage of the Middle East against us than it's own policies. We need to mind our own business and work on our own problems and not starting wars all over the world. Just imagine if we spent the obscene defense budget on actually improving the lives of every American instead of giving it to corporations and taking human life.

 

[ruamruam]

Just imagine if we spent the obscene defense budget on actually improving the lives of every American instead of giving it to corporations and taking human life.

Just imagine, the schools, health care, public transport systems, culture etc....

The military industrial complex don't want you thinking like that. They want you afraid so they can spend your money on the military and weapons. It's a mad world.

 

[scribe]

Grandfather always said that no matter how bad your situation gets with the money, if you have your health, you have some hope of working out of it.

Health = wealth

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Interesting comments on Scandanavian countries. New Zealand's system may apply as well.

Very interesting post Bala Verde. This last bit caught my eye:

If one opts for lowering taxes, spending is encouraged, but hasn't that been part of the current problem and lead to the over-expansion of the economy?

Yes, within the way our system is set-up, I think so. It's almost impossible to pinpoint what got us here, but I think it's a dynamic form of a cycle, not a singular policy shift. We could point to about 1967 and LBJ and the hubris and military on one side, and the hippies and drop outs on the other. Or we could point to the tax code change of 1986 that cut taxes for the wealthy in half, but also grew the economy. But then look at Clinton raising taxes on the wealthy, but cutting capital gains, leading to growth. And W cutting taxes for the wealthy mostly, but everyone too, which didn't lead to much any growth at all it seems. So as you can see, no easy answer that can be fixed by what some sell as principles of policy. The economy, and country, is too dynamic for that.

Then there's issues on energy and oil dependence, and how we dug ourselves into this rut. Both by importing too much oil, not increasing CAFE standards, but also by rejecting nuclear power, while countries like Japan, Germany, even China or France have very successfully moved ahead with it.

As a slight aside, I'd encourage anyone in America to read Andrew Bacevich's book, or watch this great interview with Bill Moyers. This guy really understands the US over the last 30 years and how we got where we are today.

I think large parts of the problem many are now facing is that working people have taken it on the chin for quite a few years for several reasons. Health care costs have grown much higher than that of inflation, pensions hardly exist anymore, we don't make many consumer goods in this country anymore, but refuse to buy that which is. Or what is (US autos for example) is perceived as poor product. Wages have also been stagnant for especially the middle class, for many years, while higher education has become very expensive. All while people got easier credit, and spent all of it without thinking. And we've been conditioned in a sense to think that's what drives the economy. Spend everything, don't save anything. It's a strange warping of Art Laffer's supply-side proposals some 30 years ago now.

One of the strangest things to me is that if you go into a bookstore all the books on how you can get rich without producing or making or creating much of anything. It's all on investments, or things like spam. Whatever happened to the old American saying about how "hard work pays off"?

One of the strangest things to me was when the bailouts were happening, how the fundamental changes in peoples principles were put to a crucible. And how some staunchly anti-government people voted in favor of the bailouts. This includes people like Henry Paulson, even Joe Wilson. While a perceived "liberal" like Peter DeFazio was against it. And how some people quietly voted for/against the so called "Bush" bailouts, while vocally supporting the so called "Obama" bailouts/stimulus bills. Or vice-versa. If you're for/against big government... did anyone stand on that principle and vote entirely in favor or against all of those massive government takeover/spending bills?

This leads to what appears to be an obvious problem - corruption. It seems painfully obvious to anyone that what most politicians do is go where the money winds blow. They'll favor spending, if those who benefit/lobby will back their re-election.

Finally, if you add up all the bailouts and stimulus bills dating back to the first auto maker loan in I believe early 2008. This includes all the financial bailouts, the Fannie/Freddie bailout, the bank "loans", the AIG bailout, and the auto bailouts, plus Obamas stimulus packages, the whole tab comes to something like $42,000 per every tax paying US citizen (have heard higher and lower numbers, if someone would like to try to verify). If the government would have just instead cut a check to everyone for that amount, everyone would have paid off their credit cards, caught up on their mortgages, and spent the rest, maybe saving a tiny amount. This would have probably caused a short spike in inflation, but long-term, no more than it will already. The mortgage crisis wouldn't have happened, the banks would still be in business, even AIG would still be afloat. And, people would be happier. But would it have changed the direction of the country?

 

[Anonymous]

Once enacated, here are some of the new ways Americans can go to prison.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/JCTletter110509.pdf

Interesting reading...

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.”

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…”

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.

I think we are all saved now. Thank goodness for Nancy Pelosi.

 

[BroDeal]

Just imagine, the schools, health care, public transport systems, culture etc....

The military industrial complex don't want you thinking like that. They want you afraid so they can spend your money on the military and weapons. It's a mad world.

It goes beyond that. Defense in the modern age is ultimately tied to the size of the economy. The vast sums of money spent on the military act as a drag on economic growth. Ironically, in the long run the over spending on defense today will damage the security of the country tomorrow. Most of the military budget should be spent on infrastructure, whether it is transportation, education, or even regulation to maintain real, functioning free markets. Captial spending on the country's future would not only make the country safer in the end, but the citizens would obtain a better standard of living.

After the Soviet Union fell there was supposed to be a peace dividend. It never happened. Without the bogeyman of communism to defend against, a new enemy had to be invented to maintain the flow of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of corporations. Thus the fantasy of islamofascism was born, the perfect opponent for American religious crazies who think they are living in the end times. This enemy came with its very own Emmanuel Goldstein in the form of Osama bin Laden. Now even more money "needs" to be spent buying high tech, sophisticated weapon systems to fight a handful of ne'er-do-wells living in caves.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't USA's current economic crisis a sign of economic transition, similar to economic transitions of former Communist States?

After the Soviet implosion they (USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany) had to transition into a free market. They had to relinquish their expensive public programs because their real economy wasn't efficient, productive, and competitive enough in the world market, and as such couldn't support such (extravagant) State expenses. On top of that political pressure from the 'Cold war winners' forced them to make fundamental changes to their economies and become integrated in the world market. There were those who favored painful short term shock therapy and others who insisted on long term gradual adaptations.

The USA with its reliance on/preference for a demand driven economy (Reagan, W. Bush) has a population that needs to spend, to keep the economy g(r)o(w)ing. Low taxes, easy credit, very competitive price discounting while household debt ballooned.

The US economy was fueled with hypothetical money, and has grown beyond actual capacity. It's as if the US pretended to have double the amount of people who actually earned money, given its consumption rate, although in reality it was half the amount of people, spending beyond their means. Now people stop spending for whatever reasons (unemployment, difficult to get credit) the economy seems to adjust to reflect the actual economic capacity. Since the US economy was so bloated due to its reliance on hypothetical money, many people will become/stay unemployed, because their jobs relied on unhealthy forms of consumption.

Since the US is a large country that has an impact on world demand/prices, other countries - the exporters to the US - will obviously also feel the crunch. Much of Chinese prosperity possibly relies on US (over)consumption.

Aren't Obama's economic policies thus not intended to mitigate these effects, just like some Eastern European countries did when they were forced to transition to a different economy? Doesn't the US economy just need to shrink to reflect actual capacity? Could Obama do anything else, but spend and support a great number of companies, as government is basically taking over USA's household debt to prevent the economy from entering a depression? In a way, Obama seems to choose gradual adaptation over shock therapy. Could he realistically have chosen shock therapy?

If one opts for lowering taxes, spending is encouraged, but hasn't that been part of the current problem and lead to the over-expansion of the economy?

To me it seems like we are facing a structural recalibration of the US economy - cutting out excess spending, moving towards a more fiscally sound demand-driven economy - and those fundamental transitions are (see Eastern Europe) always very painful for quite a while.

Any thoughts?

I think much of your post is as good an explaination as I have seen as to what is happening but I do not believe the US (or Global) economy is a zero sum game.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWRjMjIxMDE4NGRmZDdmMDE0OGEwZmZmMjI5ZGZiZTg=

Many believe the economy to be a zero sum game and those typically are the wealth re-distributionists like our current administration. Confiscatory taxation is bad for everyone, top to bottom.

 

[Sprocket01]

Get used to it - ideas like universal health care (and any other outgrowth of socialism) limit the ability and desire for upward mobility through work and innovation. Russia and China are shining examples of political aristocracies > the political elites have what they took from the business elites and a lot more. The citizens ended up with a lot less than their counterparts in the rest of the world as a result.

But this is just rhetoric. Most of western Europe - countries that you would consider "socialist" but certainly are not anything like China or Cuba - now have higher social mobility than the US. You're more likely to break out of the lower classes if you're born in these countries than if you're born in the US. So when you hear this stuff about backward old Europe holding people back, and America's unique system where the poor can break out to be whatever they want to be, it's just not the truth.

In the US the media love the stories of the guys who started with nothing and then became a success - indeed, any TV presenter who comes from a poor background who can spout away about this is alway shoved onto a prime time TV show, like Shaun Hannity, to maintain the myth. But the reality is they are rare. They're speaking for a class of people that was overwhelmingly born to other rich people. It's a fraud really. You've been sold a lie.

 

[Anonymous]

More obvious trolling.

First generation wealth creation in the US is strong, probably stronger than at any time in the history of the US, particularly by first generation immigrants.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

BroDeal - you really need to watch that interview with Andrew Bacevich. He's a former US Army Colonel, West Point, PhD from Princeton, combat experience in Viet Nam, Gulf War, etc. He's not some guy with an axe to grind against anyone, or for anyone. He just really has a very detailed grasp on what you're talking about.

Interesting point on Europe, Sprocket. I had a friend of mine who had lived in Germany and Belgium pretty much echo your statement.

 

[Sprocket01]

More obvious trolling.

First generation wealth creation in the US is strong, probably stronger than at any time in the history of the US, particularly by first generation immigrants.

I don't know the figures on immigrants - I wasn't refering to this group. I'm talking about the ability to move out of your socioeconomic group. In Britain it has stalled and is similar to the US, but most of western Europe is better than the US. Given they have big social programs, as you would say, maybe this is not the issue that holds people back.

 

[scribe]

Execution makes me uncomfortable. John Allen Muhammed going down right now as I type. Hope no one minds me sticking my thought here.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Execution makes me uncomfortable. John Allen Muhammed going down right now as I type. Hope no one minds me sticking my thought here.

No, my thoughts exactly. Execution is a disgusting aberrance in the history of the human race. Doesn't take away from what this guy did, but execution is not an answer. 100 years from now, generations are going to be laughing and sneezing at us the way we prosecute criminals, hopefully, and various other stupidity how our society deals with things. Shame.

 

[scribe]

I can deal with someone in a cell for the rest of this life. I easily forget about them and their situation. I don't feel any sort of closure with an execution.

 

[clarkhopes]

U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament.
The decision to award one of the world's top accolades to a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, came as a big surprise and provoked strong international criticism as well as praise.

 

[scribe]

Scraping star wars = major foreign policy success.