World Politics

Page 30 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
But you could apply that to many things. The financial bailouts for example. Farm bills? How about defense spending for war?



I think the problem TFF is that what we have in our government now, and what many "conservatives' think we partly have isn't really capitalism. And I don't mean all the social programs in our country. I'm talking about what many people view as being free-enterprise, laisse faire. This rarely exists in our country, except on the smallest level. Corruption, bribery, collusion, cronyism, all stretch to the farthest depths of government, often at the highest level. Huge industries and thousands of business and individuals have their hands so dipped in the cookie jar it's absurd. Anyone who thinks if we somehow eliminate all social programs, that we'll have a free-market capitalist society where competition determines the market is incredibly naive.

Does anyone think the $X billions used for the financial bailouts are truly "capitalism"?
It has always been a fact that those with real power and money rely on those who think they have a fair shot at attaining it when it comes to privatizing their profit. It is when they need to socialize their losses that they couldn't care two cents what "middle America" thinks. They will just continue funding propaganda campaigns bent on making people think the game isn't rigged, and that return of their tax dollars to them is a moral issue.

Interestingly, the case made by free market prophets is that government is evil, and that politicians are corrupt in an effort to maintain power, and that government corruption is more onerous than any other. What they fail to recognize is that the pursuit of wealth in the private sector is just a rife with corruption only this corruption is brought about by the lust for power AND wealth. See, when those outside of government have the power, and the money, they also have government. Give me a government where lust for power is the predominant evil. I will take that over allowing profit motive to run wild any day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
The point is that Newt has no real world reference for his postulations. Talk about ivory towers. His position is that, contrary to the economic policy of every successful industrialized nation in the 20th century, he and the economists at the Cato Institute know better. Funny thing is that they have NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of their theory in a real world setting. Which makes it still an untested THEORY.

And no, Reagan doesn't count. During Reagan's time in office, we had a PLETHORA of Socialist government in place. Clinton was the first to really put a dent in that.

Lastly, data can be used to show just about anything you want it to if you dig hard enough. However, I would ask you to look at the real world, and not data and answer me this. Did every single major industrialized nation in the world recover from the world wide depression of the 1930's? Did any of those nations do ANYTHING other than increase the level of Socialist economic policy in an effort to help their economic problems? If the answer to the first question is "yes," and it is, and the answer to the second question is "no" and it is, then you have nothing but Newt and a theory to back up your claim. Me, I will take the real world.

Sorry, not trying to be snide, but the revisionist history being put forth by the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, and others is laughably misrepresentative of actual outcomes. I have to say that for a group of people who moan about "elitism," they sure do expect us to swallow their's.
In the article, Higgs rails Newt for agreeing largely with what FDR did.

I don't think our positions are that far appart. The big questions are how much govt is too much? How much regulation is too much? How much taxation squashes free enterprise? How big should the nanny state be?

There are those who think when unemployment is high the govt should extend the unemployment benefits. I think the govt should make conditions to encourage business to hire. It's the difference between getting a hand-out and providing for yourself. I'm not saying there should be no safety net. But what, exactly, has this administration done to encourage job creation? It is text-book how the "stimulus" has not been successful. This is the point Higgs made.

The poster above just demonizes "billionaires" and "tax breaks". If it is jobs people want then JFK, Reagan, and GWB showed how to do it. Encouraging entrepreneurs to hire and take additional risk is really not that difficult.
 
Sep 24, 2009
1,851
0
0
Cart before horse as usual.

Scott SoCal said:
In the article, Higgs rails Newt for agreeing largely with what FDR did.

I don't think our positions are that far appart. The big questions are how much govt is too much? How much regulation is too much? How much taxation squashes free enterprise? How big should the nanny state be?

There are those who think when unemployment is high the govt should extend the unemployment benefits. I think the govt should make conditions to encourage business to hire. It's the difference between getting a hand-out and providing for yourself. I'm not saying there should be no safety net. But what, exactly, has this administration done to encourage job creation? It is text-book how the "stimulus" has not been successful. This is the point Higgs made.

The poster above just demonizes "billionaires" and "tax breaks". If it is jobs people want then JFK, Reagan, and GWB showed how to do it. Encouraging entrepreneurs to hire and take additional risk is really not that difficult.
People don't start businesses for tax breaks. Taxes are paid on profits. You've got it unbelievably backwards, hence VOODOO!

Companies are making huge profits and laying off thousands of people as we speak.

I can tell all of the above issues are academic for you and abstractions. You'll get it someday.... I hope.


Take a look around and open your eyes. It may help.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
buckwheat said:
I'd say thirty years of suffering after the Reagan "Revolution" is enough consideration. How old are you anyway?

Oh, goodbye....
Largest peactime expansion of our economy ever (probably gets too much credit for that considering how far Carter had run the country into the ground). Presided over the fall of Soviet Russia thus winning the cold war without firing a shot. Was probably the last President who could actully work with Democrats and Republicans in a bi-partisan way.

I voted for Reagan twice.

Edit: I voted for Reagan only once as I was not old enough to vote in 1980.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
In the article, Higgs rails Newt for agreeing largely with what FDR did.

I don't think our positions are that far appart. The big questions are how much govt is too much? How much regulation is too much? How much taxation squashes free enterprise? How big should the nanny state be?

There are those who think when unemployment is high the govt should extend the unemployment benefits. I think the govt should make conditions to encourage business to hire. It's the difference between getting a hand-out and providing for yourself. I'm not saying there should be no safety net. But what, exactly, has this administration done to encourage job creation? It is text-book how the "stimulus" has not been successful. This is the point Higgs made.

The poster above just demonizes "billionaires" and "tax breaks". If it is jobs people want then JFK, Reagan, and GWB showed how to do it. Encouraging entrepreneurs to hire and take additional risk is really not that difficult.
I didn't read the article for one reason only. I refuse to buy into the idea that what FDR did was wrong considering the totality of economic policy for every other industrialized nation, and the fact that his policies were little different from any of those others.

I would ask the same questions you have in your first paragraph, but also ad that there is no way to know those answers. Therefore, we have to rely on the changing political tide to correct the excesses of one or the other swing. We may go to far with further social programs. The check for that will come at the voting booth. What cannot be said is that if we instituted the policies of someone like Limbaugh, there is any real world example of doing so before we take that road.

I will give you this, I would like the economic ideas of Ron Paul a lot better if they could be instituted in the real world without destroying our entire economy, because most people cannot begin to fathom the nation that would create.

The basic problem with unfettered Capitalism is the same problem with pure Communism, people are corrupt. There has to be a mix, and sometimes that mix will favor one side over the other. We are not in uncharted territory here. We are FAR from being more heavily influenced by Socialist principles than at other periods in our history. Yet, somehow, we are facing the end of the world if you listen to people like Limbaugh, Palin, and Bachmann. People who know our history know this. People who rely on others to think for them don't. (I am not saying you are in the last group. Just that many of the people lining up to get Sarah's autograph are.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Glad at least someone acknowledged my statement.
You are a moderator now, it is like the boss coming in and trying to talk to everyone at the coffee machine. You politely acknowledge their presence, but really, they are the boss...:D
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
In the article, Higgs rails Newt for agreeing largely with what FDR did.

I don't think our positions are that far appart. The big questions are how much govt is too much? How much regulation is too much? How much taxation squashes free enterprise? How big should the nanny state be?

There are those who think when unemployment is high the govt should extend the unemployment benefits. I think the govt should make conditions to encourage business to hire. It's the difference between getting a hand-out and providing for yourself. I'm not saying there should be no safety net. But what, exactly, has this administration done to encourage job creation? It is text-book how the "stimulus" has not been successful. This is the point Higgs made.

The poster above just demonizes "billionaires" and "tax breaks". If it is jobs people want then JFK, Reagan, and GWB showed how to do it. Encouraging entrepreneurs to hire and take additional risk is really not that difficult.
I agree that most of this is not too far apart. I think tax laws in place to help one class doomed another. With the money available on the cheap and capital gains tax laws ever weakened people did exactly what you said, They took on loads of risk and started real estate/flipping businesses all over the US and the world. Job creation can be done by the government but it can't be sustained. Small biz/entrepreneurs is the way we will find our way back. Stimulus is good as long as the money is divided and only a portion goes to right now things like unemployment and pot hole repair.I am not sure what they call the next level down from ultra consumer but it appears that is where we are headed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I also must say that I am in the camp that FDR, even with his flaws, was the greatest president of the 20th Century, and nobody will change my opinion on that. I know the history, and that is my opinion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
buckwheat said:
People don't start businesses for tax breaks. Taxes are paid on profits. You've got it unbelievably backwards, hence VOODOO!

Companies are making huge profits and laying off thousands of people as we speak.

I can tell all of the above issues are academic for you and abstractions. You'll get it someday.... I hope.


Take a look around and open your eyes. It may help.
You really need to slow down and read. I have never stated that people start business's for tax breaks. Business's are not hiring due to market conditions and partly because of confiscatory tax polices (among other things). Companies making "huge" profits that are expanding do not generally "layoff thousands of people". The govt could modify (even temporarily) tax policy that would encourage people to use more of the money they make to further their enterprise. Imagine the economic impact particularly to unemployment if the Capital Gains tax was suspended?

Just so we are clear, corporations do not exist to provide people jobs.

I'll ask you to take your own advice regarding your last sentence.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
Sticking a needle in someone's arm to execute them for the video taped sexual assault, torture and eventual murder of over a dozen people. Eventually Ng was convicted of the sexual assault, torture and murder of six men, three women and two baby boys. The "vague" definition of torture somehow can be argued applies to a needle stick (something that occurs in hospitals around the world on a second to second basis) which ended up resulting in a delay of his extradition for six years.
It is also not about 'sticking a needle in someone's arm'. It was rather about the specific method of execution in California (cyanide gas asphyxiation) that was deemed inconsistent with the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Otherwise we might as well stone him to death.

In Mr Ng's case against Canada - were he to be extradited to the US while Canada would not have sought any remedy against his execution by means of cyanide gas asphyxiation - Canada would be found in violation of the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. So through its extradition, Canada violated Mr Ng's rights.

Furthermore, according to the Canadian Supreme Court:

"The United States sought to extradite Ng on counts of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, accessory after a murder, conspiracy to kidnap and burglary"
There is no mention of a charge of torture at all, but I have been unable to access the official documents listing the charges against him. (ie The people v Ng.)

And on the 'vague' definition of torture, an international norm which has been consolidated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, enacted in 1994, the following was said in the case of Ng v. Canada:

16.3 In the present case, the author has provided detailed information that execution by gas asphyxiation may cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not result in death as swiftly as possible, as asphyxiation by cyanide gas may take over 10 minutes. Source
More generally then:

16.4 In the instant case and on the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that execution by gas asphyxiation, should the death penalty be imposed on the author, would not meet the test of "least possible physical and mental suffering", and constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, Canada, which could reasonably foresee that Mr. Ng, if sentenced to death, would be executed in a way that amounts to a violation of article 7, failed to comply with its obligations under the Covenant, by extraditing Mr. Ng without having sought and received assurances that he would not be executed
Hence, executions are still allowed for those states that have not ratified the abolition of the DP (Second optional Protocol to ICCPR), such as the US, as long as they would meet the test of "least possible physical and mental suffering". Sticking needles in arms is still allowed, and therefore US sovereignty has not been jeopardized.

Fortunately, new progress is being made not in the field of 'sticking needles in arms' but the (mental) effects of 'being on death row' (see Soering v. UK), which could amount to a violation of the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

It is also interesting to note that his prosecution - who sought the death penalty - costed approximately $11.000.000 in 'tax payers money'.

CentralCaliBike said:
Six out of fifteen leaves 9 - 9 is more than 6, apparently you are saying that the 6 judges have more voting power with the ICJ than the remaining 9. Also, consider who you listed in the voting block of six 6 - France seldom agrees with the United States, Germany or England on any particular issue.
I highlighted that because your source mentioned the existence of 'blocks'. This was the largest block - those who share political, cultural and economic interests - to be found. The other 9 can not be lumped together, because they share none or less similarities and interests, by the standards of the article you mentioned.

6 is less than 9
but there is no coherent group '9'
so in that case, 6 only needs 2 for the majority vote.
Opposition to 6 would therefore require uniting 8.

and 8 is more than 2. ;)

I only went by the source you used, and according to that it should be inferred that France, because of its socio/political/cultural make-up is biased towards the US, the UK, Germany etc.

The opinion that 'France seldom agrees' with the US, UK or Germany is rather unfound statement in this particular instance, first of all because we are talking within the context of the ICJ. I - nor you - have any specific information about France's voting record on the ICJ over the last 60 years.

Secondly, it is unqualified because it does not even refer to any theme or topic in general which could be a cause for (dis)agreement, nor stipulates a time frame. France seldom agrees with the US on what good wine and food tastes like? Or only the last 10 years? ...

The UK, Germany, France, Slovakia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico (all with current justices on the ICJ) all seem to agree on the abolition of the DP. Who would have thought the US would be in agreement with Russia and China on a 'right to life' issue.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You really need to slow down and read. I have never stated that people start business's for tax breaks. Business's are not hiring due to market conditions and partly because of confiscatory tax polices (among other things). Companies making "huge" profits that are expanding do not generally "layoff thousands of people". The govt could modify (even temporarily) tax policy that would encourage people to use more of the money they make to further their enterprise. Imagine the economic impact particularly to unemployment if the Capital Gains tax was suspended?

Just so we are clear, corporations do not exist to provide people jobs.

I'll ask you to take your own advice regarding your last sentence.
I agree with you that profits and layoffs have a funny dynamic. People get really ****ed off to find out the company is in the black but the way they got there was with a reduction of people. I think capital gains should not used as anything for Obama's 1st four years. If he spurs another buy and sell frenzy/trade up mentality for the sake of economic recovery it could be by far the worst industry growth spurt. We have to look past construction as the easiest way to get things rolling again, we have a housing glut and urban spred/clog problems out the ***.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
But you could apply that to many things. The financial bailouts for example. Farm bills? How about defense spending for war?



I think the problem TFF is that what we have in our government now, and what many "conservatives' think we partly have isn't really capitalism. And I don't mean all the social programs in our country. I'm talking about what many people view as being free-enterprise, laisse faire. This rarely exists in our country, except on the smallest level. Corruption, bribery, collusion, cronyism, all stretch to the farthest depths of government, often at the highest level. Huge industries and thousands of business and individuals have their hands so dipped in the cookie jar it's absurd. Anyone who thinks if we somehow eliminate all social programs, that we'll have a free-market capitalist society where competition determines the market is incredibly naive.

Does anyone think the $X billions used for the financial bailouts are truly "capitalism"?
Nailed it, IMO.

I think the biggest problem we have now is the rhetoric is so over-heated we as a country are unable to have a meaningful debate. Signs of this are everywhere, even on this thread.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
I didn't read the article for one reason only. I refuse to buy into the idea that what FDR did was wrong considering the totality of economic policy for every other industrialized nation, and the fact that his policies were little different from any of those others.

I would ask the same questions you have in your first paragraph, but also ad that there is no way to know those answers. Therefore, we have to rely on the changing political tide to correct the excesses of one or the other swing. We may go to far with further social programs. The check for that will come at the voting booth. What cannot be said is that if we instituted the policies of someone like Limbaugh, there is any real world example of doing so before we take that road.

I will give you this, I would like the economic ideas of Ron Paul a lot better if they could be instituted in the real world without destroying our entire economy, because most people cannot begin to fathom the nation that would create.

The basic problem with unfettered Capitalism is the same problem with pure Communism, people are corrupt. There has to be a mix, and sometimes that mix will favor one side over the other. We are not in uncharted territory here. We are FAR from being more heavily influenced by Socialist principles than at other periods in our history. Yet, somehow, we are facing the end of the world if you listen to people like Limbaugh, Palin, and Bachmann. People who know our history know this. People who rely on others to think for them don't. (I am not saying you are in the last group. Just that many of the people lining up to get Sarah's autograph are.)
I don't disagree with most of this. See, I told you we were not that far apart.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
You really need to slow down and read. I have never stated that people start business's for tax breaks. Business's are not hiring due to market conditions and partly because of confiscatory tax polices (among other things). Companies making "huge" profits that are expanding do not generally "layoff thousands of people". The govt could modify (even temporarily) tax policy that would encourage people to use more of the money they make to further their enterprise. Imagine the economic impact particularly to unemployment if the Capital Gains tax was suspended?

Just so we are clear, corporations do not exist to provide people jobs.

I'll ask you to take your own advice regarding your last sentence.
Likewise Scott...you said on about page three of this thread that you were bowing out...

It's the blowhard policies that you believe in up in your decrepit, perverted castle which pretty much destroyed this nation...greed and selfishness twisted into some sort of weird ethic...the republicans have done a job on this country similar to what the hardcore commies did to their beloved russia...just a differ sort of wrecking ball but one powered by propaganda and bull**** and stupidity.

As for Obma, altho I voted for him...I never drank the koolaid some of my Liberal fellows did...he could have started by doing something to promote Unions in this country...the only real force the "lower" classes which I belong to ever had...the cat is just a corporatist and you are seeing that play out in his pandering to the big insurance companies via the health care debate...in the end whatever bill comes forward will be entirely castrated...

But so it goes...this country is just playing out the endgame thanks to those republican crook polices you defend so well...
 
Mar 11, 2009
664
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Laughable. Really.

You may want to look at who actually pays the taxes in this country.
They have the most money so they should pay more taxes, that's just common sense. So they they can whine all they want to I wont be shedding a tear for them.
 
Mar 11, 2009
664
0
0
Cash05458 said:
It's the blowhard policies that you believe in up in your decrepit, perverted castle which pretty much destroyed this nation...greed and selfishness twisted into some sort of weird ethic...the republicans have done a job on this country similar to what the hardcore commies did to their beloved russia...just a differ sort of wrecking ball but one powered by propaganda and bull**** and stupidity.

As for Obma, altho I voted for him...I never drank the koolaid some of my Liberal fellows did...he could have started by doing something to promote Unions in this country...the only real force the "lower" classes which I belong to ever had...the cat is just a corporatist and you are seeing that play out in his pandering to the big insurance companies via the health care debate...in the end whatever bill comes forward will be entirely castrated...

But so it goes...this country is just playing out the endgame thanks to those republican crook polices you defend so well...
+1
I couldn't agree with you more.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cash05458 said:
Likewise Scott...you said on about page three of this thread that you were bowing out...

It's the blowhard policies that you believe in up in your decrepit, perverted castle which pretty much destroyed this nation...greed and selfishness twisted into some sort of weird ethic...the republicans have done a job on this country similar to what the hardcore commies did to their beloved russia...just a differ sort of wrecking ball but one powered by propaganda and bull**** and stupidity.

As for Obma, altho I voted for him...I never drank the koolaid some of my Liberal fellows did...he could have started by doing something to promote Unions in this country...the only real force the "lower" classes which I belong to ever had...the cat is just a corporatist and you are seeing that play out in his pandering to the big insurance companies via the health care debate...in the end whatever bill comes forward will be entirely castrated...

But so it goes...this country is just playing out the endgame thanks to those republican crook polices you defend so well...
Post #732 speaks to your sentiment. Sorry we can't have discussion. Your choice.
 
Mar 11, 2009
654
0
0
I like him.

At least he went and honored the dead soldiers sent back from the war, Bush was hiding these kind of truths.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
You are a moderator now, it is like the boss coming in and trying to talk to everyone at the coffee machine. ..:D
What the ??? I'm not the boss! I'm still like you, really!

Scott SoCal said:
I think the biggest problem we have now is the rhetoric is so over-heated we as a country are unable to have a meaningful debate. Signs of this are everywhere, even on this thread.
Glad you agree, Scott. And you're right, I think the over-heated rhetoric is what's killing the country, to be honest. So many people agree on many things, but we have everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Ann Coulter to Bill O'Reilly pulling on one end blaming the other side, which has Air America and their ilk on the other doing the exact same thing.

Agree with what TFF says on Ron Paul. While not pragmatic, there is a lot of credence in what Paul says. Would encourage those who think all Republicans are like Dick Cheney to listen to Peter Schiff, or the man I referenced some pages ago, Andrew Bacevich.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Having followed the reignited discussion on US politics and the state of the country, does anyone believe (from both sides of the spectrum) that this could be a time and a situation in which a third Party would emerge?

Would it be a welcome development?

Would it be a necessary development?

Has it ever happened before in the history of the US, can it ever happen?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
titan_90 said:
They have the most money so they should pay more taxes, that's just common sense. So they they can whine all they want to I wont be shedding a tear for them.

I just don't get where you are coming from. A person starts a business by putting their capital at risk. They hire people to work for them. The business grows. They hire more people.

And they are the problem?

I'm not a big fan of corruption, either corporate or govt. I'm not fan of Countrywide, AIG and the like. I'm no fan of corporations that screw people for profit. I don't like corporations that screw their employees, just as I don't like unions that screw corporations. I know there needs to be rules, guidelines and regulations. The way the employers (wealth in general) are demonized just makes me wonder where we are headed. As the burden keeps getting piled on those that employ others there will be more and more pressure to employ fewer and fewer people. The "wealthy" can only handle so much financial burden without fundamentally changing the way they do things (like not putting their capital at risk). No one should shed tears for the wealthy but do you really think being confiscatory with tax policy toward wealth and wealth creation is the best way moving forward?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Post #732 speaks to your sentiment. Sorry we can't have discussion. Your choice.
Yeah Scott...you're such a reasonable open-:(minded guy...but of course...keep kidding yourself about self deluding ideas like that...my loss I suppose...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cash05458 said:
Yeah Scott...you're such a reasonable open-:(minded guy...but of course...keep kidding yourself about self deluding ideas like that...my loss I suppose...
Now I can't argue my position? You are tough to please.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Having followed the reignited discussion on US politics and the state of the country, does anyone believe (from both sides of the spectrum) that this could be a time and a situation in which a third Party would emerge?

Would it be a welcome development?

Would it be a necessary development?

Has it ever happened before in the history of the US, can it ever happen?
I think there is more frustration of elected officials than at any time in my adult life. I think that there is as good a chance as ever for a third party to emerge. Having stated that I don't think it will happen. The industrial complex that is the two-party system is just too much for a third party to overcome.

Personally, I would welcome a third party as neither of the two we have is all that. We could call it the "Anti-Corruption Party". The "I Can't Be Bought and Sold Party". The "Common Sense Party".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY