Capitalism: a Love Story

[Sirrus_Asura]

What I mean is the car is inanimate, it has no control over what happens, just like government. It is the people involved in government and the policies that shape the government that decide how it operates, whether they built it, try to fix it, sell it, drive it, or any other role that takes place in that government you can't blame an inanimate object for problems. A bebe gun can kill you just as well as a .50 cal can miss you entirely - it all depends on those criteria I defined.

I'm pretty sure I've got it spot on brother, just another example of perspective I think. I see it from a different angle from you so it's hard to paint a clear picture.

You define government as an inanimate object? Unless you're playing a game of semantics, this makes very little sense from where I'm standing and doesn't really change the fact that the people in control are still caving to lobbyists and special interests.

This isn't capitalism's fault; it's your politicians' (And by proxy the gov that they make up) fault for caving to money.

The people who make up government are the government (Unless I'm missing something).

[Solefald]

How would adding more government employees thus adding more salaries federal employees in their aides and the Benefits for each and every one and their travel and lodging expenses actually shrink government again? You think that would stop lobbyist? you do realize that heads of committees set the agenda right? Which is why Progressives are up in arms about Max Bacus pretty much having the Democrats by the balls. All a corporation would have to do is buy the heads of the respective committees they want to influence and exactly what gets solved?

Slicing up the congressional districts into smaller portions would reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering and thereby better reflect the political desires of different places. Plus you solve the whole issue of having only 1 federal elected official per 750,000 people or whatever the ratio is. Plus the more heavily populated areas of the country (the coasts) would (hopefully) be more adequately represented.

I didn't mean to endorse a 7500-member House of Representatives, that's a bit too unwieldy, but a tripling or quadrupling of the current size would be fine .

[Cadsuane]

In Canada it's what, one federal MP per 100000 citizens?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You define government as an inanimate object? Unless you're playing a game of semantics, this makes very little sense from where I'm standing and doesn't really change the fact that the people in control are still caving to lobbyists and special interests.

This isn't capitalism's fault; it's your politicians' (And by proxy the gov that they make up) fault for caving to money.

The people who make up government are the government (Unless I'm missing something).

That's just your interpretation of government. Capitalism is an ideal, government isn't an ideal. You can use an ideal to direct government, but government on its own is nothing.

Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what I mean by it doesn't matter if it it's big or small, that's semantics, it's all in how its designed, built, sold, and driven. Of course it can always be redesigned, upgraded, retrofitted, put back out on the lot, rented, leased, hire and fire drivers - you get the point.

Blaming government for all your problems is an inadequate and frankly preposterous way of getting a point across. Now you can get down to nuts and bolts and talk policy, lawmaking, ideals and so forth and you're getting somewhere. Whenever I hear someone say they don't like government interference or big government they're telling me they don't understand enough of what's really happening to make informed decisions on particular issues so let's blame us the whole damn thing.

If you don't want to be taxed on healthcare you need to worry about where your other tax dollars going first, and then worry about how big business is taking advantage of you unfairly, and then this debate wouldn't even be happening.

You're trying to win a boxing match by flicking the ref in the ear.

[Sirrus_Asura]

This is what I mean by it doesn't matter if it it's big or small, that's semantics, it's all in how its designed, built, sold, and driven. Of course it can always be redesigned, upgraded, retrofitted, put back out on the lot, rented, leased, hire and fire drivers - you get the point.

Blaming government for all your problems is an inadequate and frankly preposterous way of getting a point across. Now you can get down to nuts and bolts and talk policy, lawmaking, ideals and so forth and you're getting somewhere.

Politicians have no roll in all of the above mentioned? I'm not blaming *government*, I'm blaming the people running *our government*. If you thought I meant the first, then we're not even on the same page.

[Rammses]

In PolySci classes we were always shown it's poor people who statistically have the most sex and children, because they're poor and they can't afford other forms of entertainment. Which humans by all statistics, prefer to sex.

I don't know. Maybe they have sex more frequently due to lack of other entertainment, but that doesn't necessarily result in more children. The natural desire to have sex would occur often enough regardless of all other circumstances, that the difference on actual impregnation rate wouldn't be very big, taking ovulation cycles and 9-month cooling down periods into account... The significant factors would be culture and education (what happens when you have a desire to have sex) and birth control (what happens when you do have sex).

Unless by entertainment, you were referring to actually having children..

- Under what we're discussing, i would imagine that we would see a decreasing population or some form of balance, because there is less birth and an increase of longevity, but this situation is currently posing a substantial problem for countries with those very same characteristics. An aging work force and decreasing natality, but it would seem that this might only be an issue in capitalism.

I'd say there are just too many factors involved to make any predictions about future population growth, even as speculation, without first speculating about how the world will look in the future. For example, lack of living space in urban environments probably has a significant effect on the current population growth of Japan and South Korea, while near-future advancements in medicine, biology and psychology could lead to child raising being much less of a bother or worry for many people, thus having a positive effect on populaton growth in wealthy socities.

Maybe the government and/or media would be able to encourage a birth rate beneficial to society with relatively harmless measures in the future?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Politicians have no roll in all of the above mentioned? I'm not blaming *government*, I'm blaming the people running *our government*. If you thought I meant the first, then we're not even on the same page.

Yes, and the the majority of the people that have been running our government ( into the ground ) in the past 30 years have Republicans / Conservatives and they preach smaller government. Wait, wut?

[Sirrus_Asura]

Yes, and the the majority of the people that have been running our government ( into the ground ) in the past 30 years have Republicans / Conservatives and they preach smaller government. Wait, wut?

So what are you against? The idea behind message they claim to follow or the actions they take? They're quite different you know.

Business's / People are too heavily vested in our current government corruptness to shrink it through politics and playing by the rules.

Any politician who claims that he can shrink government by any reasonable amount in a short time is a lair or hasn't realized the harsh reality of it all.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

So what are you against? The idea behind message they claim to follow or the actions they take? They're quite different you know.

Business's / People are too heavily vested in our current government corruptness to shrink it through politics and playing by the rules.

Any politician who claims that he can shrink government by any reasonable amount in a short time is a lair or hasn't realized the harsh reality of it all.

So why are we all up in arms now over healthcare and claiming it's draconian when it's actually a step back in the right ( left ) direction. We're finally using this power to help the people that need it and not the ones that merely want of it.

These people in power have pledged to cut waste, corruption, excess government programs, and reduce our spending yet every time they come into power they do the opposite and then claim government doesn't work. All the while the base is screaming fkya and hi-10ing each other.

Regardless of how informed or intelligent you are your questions and suggestions are in lines with these very people, and I'm going to try and delicately sidestep a Godwin here but to the left that's like saying "Oh well you see under Hitler he raised the budget and lowered unemployment."

It still doesn't make up for the fact that particular atrocities; whether they be militaristic, economic, social - were all committed and brought to a head at this point by ruling conservatives.

So all of these conservative / republican / libertarian "theories" that voters bought for years and years, regardless of the fact that they were correctly applied or not, were sold as snake oil and that's the shifting sand you and swamp and poh are standing on.

And I said this before at this point we're doing what those with financial might want us to do, argue about something as easy to fix on a national level about healthcare, and while we're looking at this hand wave about they're continuing to reach deep into our pockets with the other.

[Sirrus_Asura]

And I said this before at this point we're doing what those with financial might want us to do, argue about something as easy to fix on a national level about healthcare, and while we're looking at this hand wave about they're continuing to reach deep into our pockets with the other.

Don't lump libertarians in with Bushhead Neocons plox. Republicans and Libertarians are two diferent things. God knows how buttsore Dem's get when they hear the words "Blue" and "Dog" in the same sentence. I can't think of any politicians that were out there saying "IMAH libertarian", got elected and went and fucked shit up any more hardcore than some dem has.

[Casty]

The problem is human beings.

[alt]

I don't get it.

He says that democracy is the solution to capitalism, but free-market capitalism and modern democracy pretty much go hand-in-hand.

Or is he referring to the fact that we are not a true direct democracy, but rather a democratic republic? But if he is calling for a direct democracy as the solution, that makes no sense either, since its never gonna work on our scale.

I don't understand what he is trying to say.

[Leif]

Jesus. I wasn't gone a few hours but we've already jumped from capitalism vs. socialism to Karl Marx to Asia to technology to czars back to capitalism vs. socialism to health care to Neocons.

No wonder its hard to nail down a liberal's concrete position on anything. So before I get criticized for not seeing Karl Marx as messianic again, I better jump on to something else quick!

Since we're going in seemingly random directions, I pick health care!

These people in power have pledged to cut waste, corruption, excess government programs, and reduce our spending yet every time they come into power they do the opposite and then claim government doesn't work. All the while the base is screaming fkya and hi-10ing each other.

You have two problems: 1) You believe liberals to be capable of fiscal responsibility, 2) You believed them when they told you they have "reduced spending" and have "made government work".

No liberal will ever cut spending, "balance the budget", or act responsibly with taxpayer money. Ever. They have never done so. Every major non-military-related government program or department I can think of can be pointed out as another liberal failure.

The post office (price hikes every other week, has to outsource to FedEx), the DMV (yeah, those go-getters), the Department of Education (liberals: we need more money for education to fix the schools, real people: but we have given you "more money" for education for the past 20 years and the only result is sucky teachers, rich administrators, and children who can't read at 18, liberals: more money!), Social Security and Medicare (bankrupt), Cash for Clunkers (people who actually used 'clunkers' as their driving vehicles were not the kind of people who could pull together thousands of dollars in the few weeks the program was active - my grandmother, who is sitting on quite a bit of cash, towed in a 30-year-old truck with a dead battery that has not been used in a decade. she bought a civic.... also, car dealers waiting on hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the government), bailouts (large portions of unspent money, going to states where the least help is needed, funding programs that have little impact on job rate... obama promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%... it will now hit 10%....).... AND ON AND ON AND ON....

You can't go around talking about the greatness of government when it is the cause of all the problems that we have (health care, education, shitty post office, etc). Proclaiming that government is the solution to government-created problems truly is stupid.

I mean, the truly efficient government programs are defense programs. Not surprisingly, that's the first thing Democrats always try to cut.

God knows how buttsore Dem's get when they hear the words "Blue" and "Dog" in the same sentence.

Which dems? The ones that campaign as socialists and then act as socialists? Or the ones that get elected from states like Alabama that are really socialists at heart but act like they want to get reelected?

If you don't want to be taxed on healthcare you need to worry about where your other tax dollars going first, and then worry about how big business is taking advantage of you unfairly, and then this debate wouldn't even be happening.

That makes no sense. If I don't want to be taxed I should look to see what else I am being taxed on? And that makes complaints about paying for a huge government program invalid? What? Not only is big business not taking advantage of me, thanks to big business goods are cheaper and I have more money to spend elsewhere. I

I've never honestly seen so many myths about the free market and capitalism at once. It's not even possible to debunk them all.

[Demosthenes11]

You have two problems: 1) You believe liberals to be capable of fiscal responsibility, 2) You believed them when they told you they have "reduced spending" and have "made government work".

fuck ya man, republicans have been doing great with both

you are an idiot

[Leif]

fuck ya man, republicans have been doing great with both

????????

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

parrot stuff and then this gem:

I've never honestly seen so many myths about the free market and capitalism at once. It's not even possible to debunk them all.

This is why you and your kind are dangerous, you treat facts as myths, you call intellectuals "elite" and demonize them, you simply make shit up out of thin air to make your case, and you use scare tactics along with threats and bullying to get your points across.

The last time liberals were in power we climbed out of a Depression, created Social Security, put men on the Moon, and created a budget surplus. The last time conservatives were in power you bankrupted SS, ruined the space program, faked evidence for a war, put us into the biggest deficit we've seen as a nation, reduced regulation for banks which created out current credit crisis.... need I go on?

Just because you like to get earfucked every morning by people pissed off enough with who they are that they take it out on gays, immigrants, intelligentsia, and art doesn't mean that pillow talk flies with the rest of the world.

Again, read yourself some books and learn you some ( I know, I know colleges are evil liberal breeding grounds and re-education camps ), drop the furious rage anthem, and spew some mildly educated bullshit we can disprove instead of mildly retarded gibberish we laugh at.

Help me help you.

[Gregorio]

If you want to talk about corruption in generalities but be vague enough about it to say big government doesn't work then chew on this fuckstick: the regulation that hurts government is as a result of lobbyists representing corporations who write and inject policy into bills that defends the businesses making the most money - the problem with corruption is capitalism my friend.

If you give PEOPLE who are representing our government the power to appease these lobbyists, then the government who empower these people are the problem, not the companies who kiss the asses of the PEOPLE in power.

Who, when looking to get ahead, wouldn't kiss the ass of the people who hold the power?

EDIT: Just now noticed that 3 pages have been added on since I left this page idle hours ago. Apologies if the topic has been addressed/derailed.

[Olo401]

Slicing up the congressional districts into smaller portions would reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering and thereby better reflect the political desires of different places. Plus you solve the whole issue of having only 1 federal elected official per 750,000 people or whatever the ratio is. Plus the more heavily populated areas of the country (the coasts) would (hopefully) be more adequately represented.

I didn't mean to endorse a 7500-member House of Representatives, that's a bit too unwieldy, but a tripling or quadrupling of the current size would be fine .

For quite a while I've advocated for increasing the size of the House so that the ratio is closer to 1:250k, which would give us about 1200 Reps. Not so much because the population demands it, but because you have states like mine where the ratio is 1:500K and states like like Alaska where the ratio is 1:700K. That's unfair to the reps and unfair to the citizens whom they represent.

Either that, or overhaul the Constitution so that we have a parliamentary system with a President and no Senate. Either way will allow to government to function more efficiently and more in line with the views of the citizens.

[Solefald]

The post office (price hikes every other week, has to outsource to FedEx), the DMV (yeah, those go-getters), the Department of Education (liberals: we need more money for education to fix the schools, real people: but we have given you "more money" for education for the past 20 years and the only result is sucky teachers, rich administrators, and children who can't read at 18, liberals: more money!), Social Security and Medicare (bankrupt), Cash for Clunkers (people who actually used 'clunkers' as their driving vehicles were not the kind of people who could pull together thousands of dollars in the few weeks the program was active - my grandmother, who is sitting on quite a bit of cash, towed in a 30-year-old truck with a dead battery that has not been used in a decade. she bought a civic.... also, car dealers waiting on hundreds of thousands of dollars because of the government), bailouts (large portions of unspent money, going to states where the least help is needed, funding programs that have little impact on job rate... obama promised unemployment wouldn't go above 8%... it will now hit 10%....).... AND ON AND ON AND ON....

You can't go around talking about the greatness of government when it is the cause of all the problems that we have (health care, education, shitty post office, etc). Proclaiming that government is the solution to government-created problems truly is stupid.

The postal service is required by law to be financially self-sufficient, just like a private enterprise! That's why you see regular increases in stamp prices. Although it could and probably will receive a taxpayer bailout, that's a different and much more complicated topic.

I'm not going to bother responding to the other stuff because it's outright false. Unless, you can come up with specific references to back up your claims, but that would require actual work on your part.

I mean, the truly efficient government programs are defense programs. Not surprisingly, that's the first thing Democrats always try to cut.

Yeah the F-22 program was so necessary and efficient, coming in exactly on time and on budget and all. That's why Bob Gates, that wily Democrat, just had to cut it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

We're not making fun of it, we're making fun of the hypocrisy of someone who screams small government is asking for 15x more representatives.

I'd be enamored if the system was so oversaturated and representative of the people that lobbyists couldn't hold sway.

You have some catch up homework to do before jumping in midfight.

It's not hypocrisy, there's a difference b/w increasing elected representatives and increasing unelected unaccountable to the people bureaucrats. And liberals didn't put a man on the moon. If JFK were alive today he would be laughed out of the Democratic party.

And if the post office is required by law to be financially self sufficient how does it lose billions of dollars every year and stay in business?