Hostile Takeover of Washington is brewing

[Strike For The South]

Booby Jindals state is a shithole and he is only good for when the GOP wants to trot out its brown bigrade

[ICantSpellDawg]

Booby Jindals state is a shithole and he is only good for when the GOP wants to trot out its brown bigrade

How are sentiments where you are? Coming to terms with expanding government or becoming more hostile?

[Strike For The South]

How are sentiments where you are? Coming to terms with expanding government or becoming more hostile?

Texas likes expanding government in the form of massive AG subsidies, militiriazed borders, and a forigen policy that keeps the bases over.

The same old boys out in the Permian basin were HOWLING for the feds help in the 80s when the wells hit a lull. Its just funny how their tune changes when they are making the money

Not like any of it matters, the old boys up in Austin are about to have start making some serious concessions to a Hispanic community that has been criminally neglected.

The people yipping about expanding government will be dead in 20 years, This is a generational rather than an ideological struggle

[Greyblades]

Classic argument, "you never complained when your guy was doing it, why are you complaining now that our guy is doing it". Never ending cycle.

Classic arguments have thier place. When someone makes that argument it means (or at least implies) that the accused doesnt mind the problem when his side is in power or in fact may even want the problem to exist.

Jindal is obviously guilty of this and is not to be trusted to actually fix it. Jindal, Perry and thier ilk will grandstand, moan, and make a big show that the president is doing nothing while avoiding giving actual support to fixing the problem until a republican assumes office once again. Upon which they will forget the problem even existed until the next time the republicans lose POTUS.

He is poison to the cause you are apparantly supporting and everything he says has been said by many others more honest in thier intent. I assume you would understand why I would be skeptical of your own integrity when it appears it took his words to draw you to pushing this agenda.

Most of us were caught by surprise that the government believes the Patriot act gave them authority to have secret laws and warrant-less mass surveillance of US citizens. One of the major proponents of the law says that those permissions were never and could never have been granted under the protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and most certainly weren't implied under the bill that was passed.

Well of course you were caught by surprise: most of the congressmen didnt read it when they signed it! And when they did, the republicans still didn't give a shit until after Obama came into office. That a good portion of the democrats dont give a shit about it now just adds to my disillusionment with the entire political system.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I decide to leave my apartment for 3 days to attend MLG Anaheim and this thread happens.

[Ironside]

I need to start voting Democrat. Obviously my GOP leanings have been sapping my mind. Nobody can look at a conservative agenda and believe in it unless they are a drooling idiot.

The current problem is more that the Republicans got a influencial faction that treats realism and sanity as treason. They have to be appeased, or they vote in a real nutter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its not THE GOVERNMENT its actually thousands of myriad agencies. In the USA there are over 90,000 distinct governments. The agencies the Tea Party has the biggest problems with (FDA, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, and so on) have way less power on the national stage than most of the groups funding campaigns to dismantle them! Its not black and white, and smaller government crusades are almost entirely misguided at the most fundamental levels.

You are correct that referring it to as though it were a single entity is, at best, a convenient shorthand. Government is a byzantine concatenation of bureaus, agencies, programs, and regulations -- most with their own organizational political agendae and half or more of them unaware of what the other pieces are doing.

I am an avid fan of downsizing this ouroboric beast, but you are VERY much correct that efforts to do so, to date, are usually better intentioned than thought out.

The government we have is an accretion developed over more than a century and cannot be pruned back with two quick pieces of legislation and a rousing "huzzah!"



And yes, to those of you who were in doubt about post #23. the eye-rolling smiley was supposed to indicate sarcasm.

[Fisherking]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

I assume that you meant "entity", but just in case you have been using a word incorrectly I am bringing it up. This is not to be petty, I appreciate when people correct my usage which will aid me in argument in the real world.

[Fisherking]

I've always been a fan of downsizing the wastefulness and byzantine-ness (heh) of government, but the way the right goes about it is something I find morally abhorrent. All the agencies I listed off are vital for keeping corporate monsters out of the system, and they need more funding, not less. Not to mention what the tea party would do to social welfare programs if they could!

There's not a single small-government movement out there that isn't either anti-poor, or so poorly thought out that they are anti-poor without realizing it. De-regulation is only a backdoor to more extreme corporate welfare.

*The corruption in government comes from the outside. After decades of a lawmaker ---> lobbyist ----> $$$ career map for countless lawmakers and presidential appointees from both sides, and the seeming total subversion of the supreme court on the issue of defining bribery and corruption, it can be hard to tell the difference. These are all problems of big corporations and massively rich individual donors being able to reach in with impunity. To attack it you need strict laws, harsh regulation, and maybe even a constitutional amendment to deal with the fact that the supreme court's definition of bribery is too narrow to enforce in a world of SuperPACs. The Dems benefit probably more than the republicans from this system, but what the far right wants to do would only make it worse! And they'd screw the poor while they were at it! Its absurd, and I can't respect the position.

You know, I am some what left of center and no advocate of unregulated free trade but people should have the sense to see what is before their eyes and stop swallowing the trip passed out by which ever party you think is representing you.

The primary reason in the US for business regulation to include their anti-trust laws is to prop up prices for favored sectors of the economy and to help their corporate buddies.

That brings in a lot of campaign donations but it hurts everyone who is not the beneficiary of the government largess.

As for the Tea Party, you have much more in common than you have differences. The left has always been prone to eating their own but they are a threat to the establishment rather than to the public. But you swallow the load they give you.

Remember who voted to defund the NSA? It was Tea Party types on the right and civil libertarians on the left. Who defeated the issue? The rank and file hacks from both parties that talk the party line and never deliver anything to the people.

You are a willing pawn of the established order. When will you see?

One thing I will give you, however, is that any government legislation title usually does the opposite of what the title claims.

[Ironside]

That would be because it is a single enmity. It is called the executive branch. Each and every one of them headed by a political appointee.

Those agencies are the creation of a vast network of regulations primarily designed to help government favored business interests.

Contrary to what you may think those huge business corporations corrupting the government are not the result of a competitive economy. They are the result of government intervention, regulation, and controls which favored those corporations or their owners, who were politically connected.

I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.

That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.

[Fisherking]

I'm not sure how that's supposed to improve the situation. That some companies have a corrupting streak and prefers to eliminate the compitition through unfair means are the default position, goverment or not. Claiming otherwise is fundamentally missing out on the basics on competition.

That means that you have to have a regulating body with enforcement powers, that those companies will try to corrupt. Also known as the current situation.

That is just the point. Government only provides corrupt trade practices. If companies eliminate one another there is no problem until there is a monopoly and without government intervention that is not likely to occur.

Businesses may require product safety regulation etc but in the US it is more about corporate welfare and price supports.

It is much closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism.

[Fisherking]

Dude, it's really as simple as the stance on the poor. I grew up in poverty, thanks to the Army I'm mostly out of it now. All my friends have food stamps, and they all need them. If the tea party had a sensible stance on social welfare, I'd support them. But they don't, in fact the main support for the Tea Party are the sorts of people who think people are poor because they somehow deserve it, sprinkled in with bitter rednecks and white trash who just want to burn the whole thing down. That, I won't support.

I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.

People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.

That is a topic for its own thread.

[Fisherking]

Ya, that's an abhorrent view that is worth fighting wherever it is found. The Tea Party is rife with that sentiment, and its backers are empowered by it. You see this is a minor part of the Tea Party, but you're wrong. It is a cultural norm within most of the Tea Party, not brought up because it is a given.

Here is a big assumption on your part however that they want to do nothing, which I have not found to be the case.

I have heard a negative income tax (minimum income for all) and various training and support ideas. The main objective being no permanent underclass.

Decent ideas lost by coverage of people shouting about welfare queens.

In the meantime in other parts of the country people are understanding that Occupy and Tea Party have most of the same goals in mind.

[Kadagar_AV]

I understand the emotion of the issue. The thing is that the Tea Party only stands for a few issues and is not a united body. Their political views are only half formed.

People don’t hate the poor. Most are just about as poor as you. But those further to the right resent a paid underclass and see it as keeping people dependant on government.

That is a topic for its own thread.

I read somewhere that Walmart employees got state subsidiaries for more than 2 billion usd... The same year Walmart went + 17 billions...

Maybe the companies should start paying their employees wages they can actually live on.

[Idaho]

The very concept of the "revolutionary right" is fascist. Rich, privileged people wanting to subvert democracy because they fear their views and status are in danger of being overlooked, or possibly vetoed by the democratic mass. They are backed by big business, and their leaders are funded by big business.

Fascism in Europe developed in the same way under the same threats. The rising revolutionary movements of the left. Of people fighting against the concentration of wealth - of 5% owning 95%. At the same time as this left wing protest were right wing protests. The fascists (backed by media tycoons, lords, big businesses) claimed that democracy wasn't working, and that this concentration of wealth was because of Jews and communists. At the time the two groups probably appeared to have common ground in discontent with the world as it is. Just as the Tea baggers and occupy seem to have a common thread now.

But don't be fooled. One is reactionary, built by the powers that be, and is highjacking the rightful discontent to foist fascism upon us. Yeah, laugh away, but remember that the fascists were considered just a fringe source of outrage - right up to, and including 1933.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You don't need a "right to revolution" - it is extra constitutional. We have a right to arm for it, but fully expect to cross the Rubicon if push comes to shove. The government, however, has a right to quell insurrection and secure people and their property from violent criminality.

The second amendment is a right to prepare for warranted and popular insurrection, but not a right to engage in it. Does that make sense? It is where law and natural rights get fuzzy.

[HopAlongBunny]

Don't Americans ever tire of someones Nietzschean "will to power" clothed in the wool of the lamb?

[Fisherking]

There are lots of reasonable tea-partiers, but they don't set the agenda. At best "moderate" tea party types will talk about long-term reform of the institutions that surround employment and secondary education, they see these things in terms of social engineering in a dispassionate way, at best. You show me a Tea Party caucus at any level that's willing to put a $15 min. wage on the table, and I'll eat my shoe. Well, figuratively eat my shoe.

Look, I am with you on paying a living wage. It is just that you can’t set a minimum wage that is going to work. No matter how much you may wish it politics does not void economics. Wage and price controls don’t work in the long run. My divergence from the free traders is that I believe that businesses have to be socially responsible, pay a decent wage, and bring value to the community other than political donations.

To me the largest political divide is not left and right but authoritarian vs. individual rights and liberties.

The very concept of the "revolutionary right" is fascist. Rich, privileged people wanting to subvert democracy because they fear their views and status are in danger of being overlooked, or possibly vetoed by the democratic mass. They are backed by big business, and their leaders are funded by big business.

Fascism in Europe developed in the same way under the same threats. The rising revolutionary movements of the left. Of people fighting against the concentration of wealth - of 5% owning 95%. At the same time as this left wing protest were right wing protests. The fascists (backed by media tycoons, lords, big businesses) claimed that democracy wasn't working, and that this concentration of wealth was because of Jews and communists. At the time the two groups probably appeared to have common ground in discontent with the world as it is. Just as the Tea baggers and occupy seem to have a common thread now.

But don't be fooled. One is reactionary, built by the powers that be, and is highjacking the rightful discontent to foist fascism upon us. Yeah, laugh away, but remember that the fascists were considered just a fringe source of outrage - right up to, and including 1933.

Here you assume everyone on the right is authoritarian. There are authoritarians left and right. To me there is little difference between living under a Stalinist government or a Nazi government. We are already living under a fascist managed economy. Government laws which protect some businesses at the expense of the less politically connected is exactly where we are today.

Again, the most important divide is not left and right it is authoritarian and libertarian.

I want to make my own decisions. I do not want to be property of the state managed for the greatest public benefit.

[Ironside]

That is just the point. Government only provides corrupt trade practices. If companies eliminate one another there is no problem until there is a monopoly and without government intervention that is not likely to occur.

Businesses may require product safety regulation etc but in the US it is more about corporate welfare and price supports.

It is much closer to mercantilism than it is to capitalism.

You're missing the fundamentals of competition. There's 3 levels of it. There's fair play. There's self cheating (think doping), and there's destructive play (think poisoning your compeditors).

You don't want the two last ones. Does companies try to abuse the laws to get this space? Yes. Why? Because they're forbidden to do this otherwise, by the same lawmakers. The Rockefellers of the world aren't allowed to use his methods anymore (due to a stronger goverment).
Electrical companies can only properly compete if the grid is declared neutral, (not very free). Some markets aren't very monopolic in nature, some are.

That means that a "hands-off" method will create monopolies in some markets. So my suggestion of higher vigilance in preventing the companies to abuse the law has one problem, while your's about the free market fixing everything, except when it doesn't, has another.

Do you think the Koch brothers are funding libertarians and supporting gutting out the state because they believe in libertarian policies? Or is it to abuse those movements to get more money?

Look, I am with you on paying a living wage. It is just that you can’t set a minimum wage that is going to work. No matter how much you may wish it politics does not void economics. Wage and price controls don’t work in the long run. My divergence from the free traders is that I believe that businesses have to be socially responsible, pay a decent wage, and bring value to the community other than political donations.

To me the largest political divide is not left and right but authoritarian vs. individual rights and liberties.

That's nice. Of course free markets promotes psychopathic behavior (that's why they're so common as CEO:s). So don't expect companies to become socially responsible by natural means. And since the US hate unions, you can't get to union/company salary negotiations (to be fair, it took a while before both parts agreed to do proper negotiations, rather than trying to impose on the other). Sweden got no minimum wage btw. Not needed by law, since the unions do the control if companies step out of line and undercuts the salary.

[Fisherking]

Trickle down economics is a total fraud, and that's the only argument people have against raising the minimum wage. The working poor have a right to demand an increase in their wages, especially when wall street is breaking records! This is why I can't take you so-called libertarians seriously, you casually deny a living wage to people who totally deserve it based on bogus arguments invented by the very people and corporate entities you claim to be against.

You misunderstand.

I am not talking about trickle down. But setting an artificial wage in numbers doesn’t work.

It should be a portion of the profit from the business. The more successful the business the higher the wage. Look at Costco for an example. There should be no corporate boss making $60 million and paying employees $7.00 an hour. Earnings should be tied to profitability and employee contributions to that profit. Beyond that base subsistence, training, and even micro loans for business startups should be provided.

There will always be poor but we should do everything to reduce their numbers and earnings disparities.

If your way worked I would be in favor of it. It just doesn’t. It just reduces the number of jobs and or drives up prices leaving everyone just where they started.

People need to do what works and not just what sounds good. You want philosophy to trump science and it just doesn’t work that way.

Get a grounding in economics.

[Sir Moody]

You misunderstand.

I am not talking about trickle down. But setting an artificial wage in numbers doesn’t work.

It should be a portion of the profit from the business. The more successful the business the higher the wage. Look at Costco for an example. There should be no corporate boss making $60 million and paying employees $7.00 an hour. Earnings should be tied to profitability and employee contributions to that profit. Beyond that base subsistence, training, and even micro loans for business startups should be provided.

There will always be poor but we should do everything to reduce their numbers and earnings disparities.

If your way worked I would be in favor of it. It just doesn’t. It just reduces the number of jobs and or drives up prices leaving everyone just where they started.

People need to do what works and not just what sounds good. You want philosophy to trump science and it just doesn’t work that way.

Get a grounding in economics.

how exactly are you going to make companies follow this without law and Government to step in when they inevitable don't?

[Fisherking]

You're missing the fundamentals of competition. There's 3 levels of it. There's fair play. There's self cheating (think doping), and there's destructive play (think poisoning your compeditors).

You don't want the two last ones. Does companies try to abuse the laws to get this space? Yes. Why? Because they're forbidden to do this otherwise, by the same lawmakers. The Rockefellers of the world aren't allowed to use his methods anymore (due to a stronger goverment).
Electrical companies can only properly compete if the grid is declared neutral, (not very free). Some markets aren't very monopolic in nature, some are.

That means that a "hands-off" method will create monopolies in some markets. So my suggestion of higher vigilance in preventing the companies to abuse the law has one problem, while your's about the free market fixing everything, except when it doesn't, has another.

Do you think the Koch brothers are funding libertarians and supporting gutting out the state because they believe in libertarian policies? Or is it to abuse those movements to get more money?



That's nice. Of course free markets promotes psychopathic behavior (that's why they're so common as CEO:s). So don't expect companies to become socially responsible by natural means. And since the US hate unions, you can't get to union/company salary negotiations (to be fair, it took a while before both parts agreed to do proper negotiations, rather than trying to impose on the other). Sweden got no minimum wage btw. Not needed by law, since the unions do the control if companies step out of line and undercuts the salary.

Look, I am not saying there should be no laws regarding fair compaction. I don’t favor a total free market.

I am skeptical of large moneyed interests intervening to get their way. But stronger government is not necessary to prevent the abuses. Stronger government only infringe upon personal liberties.

If you have studied the histories of government interventions you would know that they have never favored fair competition. They have been used as price supports for favored industries or individual companies or corporations. They favor the rich and not the people.

If regulation causes prices to rise or supply to decrease to the level of shortage then I don’t see it as a good thing. I don’t necessarily favor less government regulation I just favor it at lower levels in government. I favor a more decentralized government where it is easier for the people to have a voice over one all powerful central government ignoring the will of the people to favor their rich benefactors.

If I don’t like local government I can try to change it or move some place I like better. If I don’t like a huge central government it gets much, much more difficult to have an impact or to avoid it.

I don’t want a government or anyone else telling me how I must live and what I must do.

A free individual owns himself and his output, which he my contribute to whom ever or what ever his choice.

A slave owes his output to his master who may tell him what he may keep. Just where do you think most of us stand today?

[Fisherking]

I really question which of us has the lesser grounding, frankly. Let's review some facts:

1.) Wall Street has hit record highs recently, with the DOW among others breaking their own records several times in the last year.
2.) Adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is lower than it was in the '70s.
3.) A major factor in our slow economic recovery is a lack of purchasing power on part of the consumer. Power the consumer could have if big business had to pay a living wage. Instead, unsustainable labor practices are propped up by stop-gap measures like the SNAP program (food stamps) which would organically shrink if people got paid more at work (since its very easy to move up the income bracket slightly and find yourself no longer eligible for SNAP!).

All the facts say a raise in the minimum wage would be a good idea. And even if its not, it is something that the government can do immediately to rectify a great social injustice: the fact that such a significant portion of American workers can barely afford to live in this country. History has proven again and again that you have to pull peoples' teeth to get paid a living wage, I guess inflation works just slow enough for people to just ignore it.

*You might say "But Cube! Big business might be able to afford to pay more (and indeed it might be fair, since they created the problem over decades of predatory hiring practices and unsustainable labor-pool manipulation) but what about small businesses!? Surely they can't afford it!?"

To that I say, you may be right. If the problem is that the rules are so vastly different for big businesses as compared to small businesses, we should be looking at how that was allowed to happen. If the answer is that it happened because of loose regulation and cartel-like behavior by almost every major american employer (and I daresay it might be!), then perhaps more than a minimum wage increase is in order--not less!

I made no distinction between big business or small. If a business can’t pay a living wage to its employees it has no reason to operate.

Setting an arbitrary minimum wage doesn’t work because prices will only rise costs making everyone less money. The guy at the bottom got nothing and everyone else too a hit also. You only inflated pricing or cost jobs. The economy is not better off.

Wall Street is a bad measure of the economy at large. The results of the regulations are what need to be examined. Many laws help to eliminate fair competition. Very many do the exact opposite of what the title purports. Most of this has been going on for the last 150 years. There is a lot more to it than just wages.

Most all of it can be laid at the feet of the central government. You listen to a party line and think these guys are the ones to vote for, they will help, but they never do. They have theirs and you can go off!

That is going to have to be addressed before we have anything beyond rich and poor. Most all of us will be the poor. Because they are happy to have a permanent underclass that thinks government will be the answer to their problems. Meanwhile they have those lucky enough to have a job, they take their wages to support the underclass, leaving them not much better off than the others. They suffer the same scam using different words with the same results.

It is just divide and rule.

It is up to all of us to break that hold on power and actually have a government of the people and for the people.


Otherwise we are all slaves for ever.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I favor a more decentralized government where it is easier for the people to have a voice over one all powerful central government ignoring the will of the people to favor their rich benefactors.

If I don’t like local government I can try to change it or move some place I like better. If I don’t like a huge central government it gets much, much more difficult to have an impact or to avoid it.

I don’t want a government or anyone else telling me how I must live and what I must do.

A free individual owns himself and his output, which he my contribute to whom ever or what ever his choice.

A slave owes his output to his master who may tell him what he may keep. Just where do you think most of us stand today?

+1000

[Husar]

I would just like to say that indeed Fisherking's idea of tieing wages to company profit or similar measures (such as a measure for shareholder value) of company success is a better idea than a minimum wage.

With a minimum wage you create a temporary fix and will likely increase inflation instead of keeping it low enough so people won't have to care. Companies will see higher costs and adjust their prices to keep the profits and shareholder value they have now (or increase them even). Tieing wages to a measure that reliably represents company success means that if they increase their income they will also increase their labor costs at the same time, not by the same amount, but maybe a certain percentage so that gowth is still incentivized (although a certain upper cap may not hurt actually and could prevent monopole formation).

And no, without a cap it is not punishing success, it is just distributing the success to all who contribute to it. If you do include a cap where being more successful means you generate less profit/shareholder value, then this could be done per branch, so that a clothing company could still become more successful by venturing into the spaceship business. That would actually incentivize innovation, wouldn't it?

[The Lurker Below]

It only seems inconsistent because you refuse to have a three dimensional view of government.

As Federal government is not here for me (not a rich person), I can only view the government in one dimension, the view that they are spending my money on stuff that isn't for me. So for my money, Bill Clinton set the standard as best president. By that same standard Obama and Bush are the worst presidents of my lifetime, and Bush Sr. stands a distant third.

No takeover of Washing is brewing. However, there seems to be glimpses of hope that someday localities (states) will be recovering some of their authority.

[Fisherking]

GC, this is a topic I am loath to bring up. Most people will make the incorrect assumption that I am anti-immigration, which I am not. I would be just as happy in a world without borders as with a national government. It is just that such a government would have to have strict controls over its powers. That is something lacking most everywhere.

The reason for falling wages is a glut in eligible workers. This is brought about, in part, by illegal immigration. This suppresses wages.

The mantra is that those people take jobs no one else wants. The truth is that if no one took those jobs at the current pay levels than the employer would have to raise wages in order to find staff.

Neither political party has done much to stem the tide of illegal workers. This keeps wages low and makes it difficult to find employment above subsistence levels. It does help employers, especially employers of large corporations with low skill entry levels to higher profits.

It is of value to both political parties. One use the illegals as voters and new members of the underclass and the other uses them as bogymen.

[HopAlongBunny]

A contrarian group that might just test/prove Nader's assertion that what the US really needs is billionaires with "social conscious" to solve America's problem with money in the political sphere:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0EZ05920140624

[Beskar]

A contrarian group that might just test/prove Nader's assertion that what the US really needs is billionaires with "social conscious" to solve America's problem with money in the political sphere:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0EZ05920140624

They have my vote.