6666 Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 Republican logic: Bigger debt which lines the pockets of rich pricks = good Bigger debt which helps people = socialist and bad (even though the point of government and tax is supposed to be for the benefit of a country) Maybe they could cut down on their ridiculously, moronic military spending... Just a thought.
Cicero Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 11 minutes ago, 6666 said: Republican logic: Bigger debt which lines the pockets of rich pricks = good Bigger debt which helps people = socialist and bad (even though the point of government and tax is supposed to be for the benefit of a country) Maybe they could cut down on their ridiculously, moronic military spending... Just a thought. Within the means of the US Constitution.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 44 minutes ago, Cicero said: Within the means of the US Constitution. What does that really mean though? The constitution is also a very short document (not even 1000 words) from the 1700s, and courts use mental gymnastics to get around it all the time. There’s a whole portion of the 2nd Amendment that was explained away by one justice. The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect people from government searches, but courts have created so many exceptions if it were a piece of cheese it’d be Swiss cos of all the holes. If the constitution is meant to be strictly interpreted you can’t have people like Scalia essentially eliminating clauses from a very short amendment (the second) in an already very short document. There is also the issue of interpreting it strictly when the world has changed so much since the 1700s. If it’s meant to be a living document, there should be more amendments made so there’s less judicial interpretation - the US courts are now so partisan, they pack lifetime appointments pushing political agendas into what is supposed to be as politically neutral as possible. That’s not ideal. But the process to add or make changes to the constitution requires such a strong majority and America is just so divided and partisan, you never see the constitution evolve through legislation. In my opinion, if the constitution is meant to evolve and the branch of lifetime appointees are the current people in charge of its evolution... in this very partisan system it’s just not ideal. It hampers democracy. Having legislatures in charge of the controlling laws in America means more accountability to lawmakers, the people that are there because people voted for them.
El Profesor Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 Trump is a clown, but nothing he´s done is as harmful as the Iraq War. Yet, the media and a significant part of the democrats portray George W. Bush as a model of ethics and civism in comparison to Trump. That drives me crazy. Give me Trump any day over W.
Harry Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Cicero said: As opposed to AOC and Bernie's socialist and unrealistic Green New Deal policy that would cost 93 trillion. Just need the banks to print more money is all like AOC said. Federal spending has more to do with the deficit than tax cuts. It wasn't a policy though mate it was a statement of ideals championed by someone looking to make a splash. To be fair the costing was done by a conservative agency, and the climate change part of it was only 8 trillion.
Harry Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Cicero said: As opposed to AOC and Bernie's socialist and unrealistic Green New Deal policy that would cost 93 trillion. Just need the banks to print more money is all like AOC said. Federal spending has more to do with the deficit than tax cuts. It wasn't a policy though mate it was a statement of ideals championed by someone looking to make a splash. To be fair the costing was done by a conservative agency, and the climate change part of it was only 8 trillion.
Harry Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 8 hours ago, Cicero said: As opposed to AOC and Bernie's socialist and unrealistic Green New Deal policy that would cost 93 trillion. Just need the banks to print more money is all like AOC said. Federal spending has more to do with the deficit than tax cuts. It wasn't a policy though mate it was a statement of ideals championed by someone looking to make a splash. To be fair the costing was done by a conservative agency, and the climate change part of it was only 8 trillion.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 5, 2019 Posted March 5, 2019 Didn't the GOP push for tax cuts while increasing spending... thus creating a likely deficit crisis in the near future?
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 10 hours ago, 6666 said: Republican logic: Bigger debt which lines the pockets of rich pricks = good Bigger debt which helps people = socialist and bad (even though the point of government and tax is supposed to be for the benefit of a country) Maybe they could cut down on their ridiculously, moronic military spending... Just a thought. Their moronic military spending enriches shareholders and executives of the military industry complex. Therefore it’s totally reasonable spending. Once you take that money and use it to improve infrastructure & towards education and healthcare, that’s benefiting millions. Therefore it’s communism/socialism
Harry Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Their moronic military spending enriches shareholders and executives of the military industry complex. Therefore it’s totally reasonable spending. Once you take that money and use it to improve infrastructure & towards education and healthcare, that’s benefiting millions. Therefore it’s communism/socialism Trump actually seemed to have intentions on infrastructure but it hasn't really materialized yet... maybe if he winds up facing a highly liberal opponent he can run on an agenda of infrastructure and economic performance... Do you guys view trump as better than 50-50 to be reelected? That would be the best assumption I think as it will ensure the most competitive approach.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Harry said: Trump actually seemed to have intentions on infrastructure but it hasn't really materialized yet... maybe if he winds up facing a highly liberal opponent he can run on an agenda of infrastructure and economic performance... Do you guys view trump as better than 50-50 to be reelected? That would be the best assumption I think as it will ensure the most competitive approach. I have no idea what his odds are. He’s got a low approval rating, but because overall voter turnout is generally low his base of 35-40% is made up of a demographic that generally always turns up to vote. I also agree the best approach for democrats is to believe the odds are in his favour. I can’t vote in the US though.
Cicero Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Their moronic military spending enriches shareholders and executives of the military industry complex. Therefore it’s totally reasonable spending. Once you take that money and use it to improve infrastructure & towards education and healthcare, that’s benefiting millions. Therefore it’s communism/socialism If you are against military spending, taxation for a public good, you should be totally fine with the logic of someone invading your home and killing you. I'm assuming by improve, you mean free?
6666 Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 15 hours ago, Harry said: Trump actually seemed to have intentions on infrastructure but it hasn't really materialized yet... maybe if he winds up facing a highly liberal opponent he can run on an agenda of infrastructure and economic performance... Do you guys view trump as better than 50-50 to be reelected? That would be the best assumption I think as it will ensure the most competitive approach. The Democrats just seem to be relying on "we're not the Republicans" and while that's great, it's not going to inspire a lot of people especially as they go against people within the party that actually challenge the corporatist side of politics. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see another Republican win.
6666 Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 3 minutes ago, Cicero said: If you are against military spending, taxation for a public good, you should be totally fine with the logic of someone invading your home and killing you. I'm assuming by improve, you mean free? Not sure how any of that made sense...
Cicero Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 1 minute ago, 6666 said: Not sure how any of that made sense... Which part
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 50 minutes ago, Cicero said: If you are against military spending, taxation for a public good, you should be totally fine with the logic of someone invading your home and killing you. I'm assuming by improve, you mean free? By improving infrastructure I meant fixing the crumbling roads. That’s not free, it costs taxpayer money. By improving education, I think that the US and UK both need to work on introducing kids to critical thinking at a younger age. Also being against wasteful military spending that accomplished nothing is not the same as saying we should have no army. So your “logic” of saying I should be okay with someone invading my home and killing me isn’t really logic at all - just a bullshit argument. America can defend itself without wasting so much money. Look at the US Navy’s LCS program, a multi-billion dollar program that only benefits NASSCO (largest ship building company in America) and is by many people’s accounts a series of utterly useless ships. Billions being pissed away right there, not keeping us any safer. But then I’m told America can’t afford healthcare & the best that’s possible is just Obamacare. Also I’m surprised Obamacare isn’t a republican wet dream, it props up an entire American industry (health insurance), which lets medicine makers and doctors charge Americans far more than reasonable (when you compare America to the rest of the western world). It’s also weird how all other first world nations can afford it - even the other superpower in the world can afford it - but the west’s superpower maintains that it cannot.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 Also it looks like the experts were right and this administration were wrong. Trade war hasn’t done a fucking thing for America... except make the trade deficit (that the orange moron promised to slash) rise: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47472282
Inverted Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 The fact that the American founders did not want a large standing army (or even any standing army) has not stopped the American establishment from making America the most militarised country in the world. The fact that the founders were extremely wealthy landowners and merchants, who didn't want government being controlled by the masses however, has been honoured very faithfully. Ultimately the US Constitution was written by the wealthiest men of the time in order to protect their interests. Upholding it as some moral authority is stupid when at heart it's simply an instrument designed to cement the power of the class who wrote it.
Cicero Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 31 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: By improving infrastructure I meant fixing the crumbling roads. That’s not free, it costs taxpayer money. By improving education, I think that the US and UK both need to work on introducing kids to critical thinking at a younger age. Also being against wasteful military spending that accomplished nothing is not the same as saying we should have no army. So your “logic” of saying I should be okay with someone invading my home and killing me isn’t really logic at all - just a bullshit argument. America can defend itself without wasting so much money. Look at the US Navy’s LCS program, a multi-billion dollar program that only benefits NASSCO (largest ship building company in America) and is by many people’s accounts a series of utterly useless ships. Billions being pissed away right there, not keeping us any safer. But then I’m told America can’t afford healthcare & the best that’s possible is just Obamacare. Also I’m surprised Obamacare isn’t a republican wet dream, it props up an entire American industry (health insurance), which lets medicine makers and doctors charge Americans far more than reasonable (when you compare America to the rest of the western world). It’s also weird how all other first world nations can afford it - even the other superpower in the world can afford it - but the west’s superpower maintains that it cannot. I should've been clearer. Being OK with wasteful military spending wasn't my point. Of course you have a right to be against that. My point was being against the whole idea of being taxed for the military in general. It is a public good which we all consume through it's protection. If you are against paying for that service, then by that logic, you should OK for someone to invade your home and kill you. That isn't bullshit at all. Free market healthcare is the only end goal for Republicans. 23 minutes ago, Inverted said: Ultimately the US Constitution was written by the wealthiest men of the time in order to protect their interests. Upholding it as some moral authority is stupid when at heart it's simply an instrument designed to cement the power of the class who wrote it. It was ultimately written to protect an individual's positive and negative rights. Which was made abundantly clear.
Inverted Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 18 minutes ago, Cicero said: I should've been clearer. Being OK with wasteful military spending wasn't my point. Of course you have a right to be against that. My point was being against the whole idea of being taxed for the military in general. It is a public good which we all consume through it's protection. If you are against paying for that service, then by that logic, you should OK for someone to invade your home and kill you. That isn't bullshit at all. Free market healthcare is the only end goal for Republicans. It was ultimately written to protect an individual's positive and negative rights. Which was made abundantly clear. The founders as a class were mostly classically-educated slaveholders and aristocrats, and designed the USA to be an Athenian-style slave republic - lots of very eloquent expressions of high-minded ideals, and in practice a brutal oligarchy of a tiny minority. Its easy to be idealistic about citizens' rights when you only count about 5% of the population - landholding, educated, white men - to really be citizens. If you want a real revolutionary movement, look at France. The American "revolution" was essentially a coup by one elite against another.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 7 minutes ago, Cicero said: I should've been clearer. Being OK with wasteful military spending wasn't my point. Of course you have a right to be against that. My point was being against the whole idea of being taxed for the military in general. It is a public good which we all consume through it's protection. If you are against paying for that service, then by that logic, you should OK for someone to invade your home and kill you. That isn't bullshit at all. Free market healthcare is the only end goal for Republicans. It was ultimately written to protect an individual's positive and negative rights. Which was made abundantly clear. Right but I’m not saying America shouldn’t have a military, because that would be insane. I don’t think Republicans have an end goal with healthcare. They couldn’t get rid of Obamacare, it’s even popular in some very very red states like Kentucky. The most they could do was get rid of the individual mandate, ultimately leading to insurance being more expensive for consumers - but with the elimination of the tax penalty for being uninsured more people feel more comfortable going uninsured. I think aside from the fact that people should be able to get care when they are ill or injured, there’s good business reasons to support public healthcare. Firstly, right now American employers are subsidising healthcare plans for their employees - and healthcare is one of the big benefit pulls that make companies get applicants. These costs have just gone up substantially - with public healthcare people no longer will need to rely on their employers for care. That’s a massive overhead reduction for thousands of US businesses. Secondly, more accessible care for worker likely means a healthier workforce. Logic dictates sick and tired workers are probably less efficient than healthy workers - especially in those jobs where health coverage is not a benefit most workers receive. More efficiency is better for any business. But with the popularity of the ACA, I don’t think the Republicans have a real endgame. Replacing it would be very unpopular, to where even that 35-40% in those deep deep red states that would feel the effects. Adding to it or returning the individual mandate is “socialism” to them so meaningful reform won’t really happen. There are also a lot of wealthy Americans profiting off of what is essentially subsidies for insurance companies. If you look at Nixon’s proposed healthcare reforms from the 70s and Obamacare in the form that it originally passed, you’d be surprised to know that that recently passed law was very very very similar to the same solution many prominent Republicans supported in the 70s. And I think that’s pretty telling of how far right America’s right has shifted over the decades. As for the part on the constitution’s meaning - you’re both right. It protects against government interfering on individual rights. It also gives all political power to landowning (at the time, these were the rich people) American men (not women). Unless you were a Native American or black, in which case you were either part of a centuries long genocide or a slave.
Cicero Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Inverted said: The founders as a class were mostly classically-educated slaveholders and aristocrats, and designed the USA to be an Athenian-style slave republic - lots of very eloquent expressions of high-minded ideals, and in practice a brutal oligarchy of a tiny minority. Its easy to be idealistic about citizens' rights when you only count about 5% of the population - landholding, educated, white men - to really be citizens. If you want a real revolutionary movement, look at France. The American "revolution" was essentially a coup by one elite against another. There is a deeper philosophical existence in the constitution to think the founders only cared about their self interest. There will always be a continuous conflict between politics and morality, however it shouldn't be at a cost of your individual liberty being threatened. That is where the intervention of positive and negative rights are introduced. Positive rights are not self fulfilling, which in turn restricts an individual's freedom and therefor creates inherent conflict. Be it a peasant or an aristocrat, no one can leverage power on your individual rights. That is the true nature of negative rights and the US has built it's success off that foundation.
Dr. Gonzo Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 1 hour ago, Cicero said: There is a deeper philosophical existence in the constitution to think the founders only cared about their self interest. There will always be a continuous conflict between politics and morality, however it shouldn't be at a cost of your individual liberty being threatened. That is where the intervention of positive and negative rights are introduced. Positive rights are not self fulfilling, which in turn restricts an individual's freedom and therefor creates inherent conflict. Be it a peasant or an aristocrat, no one can leverage power on your individual rights. That is the true nature of negative rights and the US has built it's success off that foundation. What happens if protecting one group of groups individuals liberties is creating problems for another group of people and their ability to do ordinary day to die stuff, like say going to school
Cicero Posted March 6, 2019 Posted March 6, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: What happens if protecting one group of groups individuals liberties is creating problems for another group of people and their ability to do ordinary day to die stuff, like say going to school The issue there is thinking collective social justice should override individual justice. Positive rights and negative rights conflicting once more.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.