What a crock. Or maybe it's just a derailment into ill-fitting terminology. Let's try swapping "nationalist" for "jingoist" and/or "American exceptionalist." You of all people can't seriously be arguing that flag-waving, framer-naming, etc., aren't a major factor in both how we work our internal politics and how we are perceived abroad?
Or are you taking Rick Perry's talk about Texas seceding from the union seriously?
How does people ranting about the framers intent being lost make them nationalist? If anything it should be the reverse, they're unhappy with the course of the nation, not blindly following it. Texas shouldn't need to secede for rank displeasure to discount nationalism as a driving force behind the activity of the population.
Wow. Maybe you could have read up on the manifesto, because you're fucking wrong.
Noted, that is a rather stupid mistake isn't it? You win, I'll leave the immigrant property siezure off the list of similarities between fascism and marxism. I guess I get to add emigrant property though, they did steal that too. Not exactly a win for marxism, but whatever. Speed reading does have it's drawbacks.
[quote]"Trickle down" theory is better described as "trickle up" theory. While companies spend money in the short term, they'll get profit in the long term. This is a benign process in general. Long term, however, consumers will always make a net loss while companies get a net profit.[quote]
Wealth is a fixed amount, the more one person has, the less another has. This is pie theory. Pie is not economics, it's generally a fruit filled dessert.
Wealth is created when you improve resources. I can farm, cook, work wood and metal, I have architectural knowledge complex enough to build my own lodging and such. With a few minutes time, I can find diagrams on building simple engines and distilling fuel alchohol. It's technically possible, with my varied skillset, to build my own home and modern transportation, live entirely at a subsistance level while still staying modern. I have the tools and the land required to do it. I don't have the time. I can't build a house anywhere near as fast as a team of construction workers purchasing materials from a supply depot can. I can't build a car anywhere near as fast, or good, as Ford can. I can't grow my own food with as little work as the agricultural industry does with all of the high volume equipment they use to make it easier.
I can cook better than any storebought crap, and probably most restaurants. I'll accept that I'm shorting myself if I eat something I haven't prepared myself. I gain from my purchases, I do not lose. If I did lose, a subsistance life would grant me superior free time for the same level of improvement.
[quote]It's an extremely simple process. Money goes to wealthy people because they have the resources to make more money. Poor people get poorer because they don't. It's not as if it's the fault of wealthy people... they're just doing exactly what they're expected to do.[quote]
This isn't economics. It's propaganda. Income mobility has been proven, there are plenty of previously rich people on the poor list this year. Some of them lost hundreds of millions to find themselves middle class or worse. Wealthy people that continue gaining wealth do so because they provide a product others want to pay them for. Shortcut gamblers in the stock market aside.
If you haven't looked outside of the window, you'll notice that America has an increasing wealth gap between the poorest 20% and wealthiest 20%. This isn't a suprise in a free market, even though it's not healthy. To argue trickle down theory is basically to argue that everyone can be wealthy, which is nuts.
Everyone that works is wealthy. Most of the people that don't are wealthy. Why must you compare a poor person in this country to a rich person in this country? Why not compare them to a rich person in a country where people have a subsistance lifestyle? Hell, just comparing our poor with France would be enough. We have people on welfare with new cars in this country. How can you call someone poor when they have adequate food, shelter, transportation, and a high level of completely optional property and free time? I was supposedly poor as a kid, qualified for food stamps and whatnot, not that we bothered to apply. Fifty years earlier I'd have been filthy stinking rich, the envy of the neighborhood.
The expansion has less to do with how much money rich people make, and more to do with how they aren't being taxed at 70% in the first place. People have been screaming about the expanding gulf since the 80's, oddly enough when they dropped the tax rate. That's also about the same time the middle class stopped working three jobs to support a family, but I guess we're going to go back to that pretty soon.
Fact is, the only reason we're a well educated country now is that the government paid for college educations of all our soldiers after WWII.
We're a well educated country? As of 2004, less than 25% of veterans over 25 have a bachelors or higher. Even at peak numbers, only 49% of college admissions were veterans, that was 1947. Only 7.8 million WW2 veterans persued any sort of education. They're running larger percentages than the general population, but they're nowhere near a majority of college educations, and never have been. The GI bill has helped a little, but it's hardly the cause for higher education. What passes for higher education anyway.
Trickle down theory is basically debunked except in politics as a rationalization for heavy-handed supply-side policies.
As opposed to Keynesian economics, which was debunked in 1920, yet still got to give us a Great Depression and stagflation in the 70's? Kennedy cut taxes, revenue went up. Reagan cut taxes, revenue went up. Bush cut taxes, revenue went up. The only problem is the assholes in congress perpetually spend more money than they bring in, outpacing economic expansion with government bloat. Supply side tax cuts have never failed to increase revenue. Even as a percentage of gdp, each round has put the country further above the average.
You could have fooled me, with your
supposition of the government being evil and all.
I suppose the military is evil, being "government controlled" and all. And our police force. And the fire department. The marine corp is so inefficient these days. Blackwater could do all the fighting much better. *end sarcasm*
As a response to an earlier comment... why would the police ever enforce laws against bribery and coersion if they are a part of the "evil government"? You don't make any sense.
Either government is evil and completely unreliable.... or it's not. Make a choice. Hint: One of the choices is sane.
Option C, necessary evil, although it is completely unreliable, your sanity aside. It's the most dangerous force in the country and must be very carefully monitored and controlled or it will destroy you. How many military take-overs have there been in the last century? How many democratic republics have become dictatorships after a gradual expansion of power?
How many haven't? There's a reason the United States, a baby of a country with a scant 234 years and a full scale civil war to show for, is the longest running in existence. They don't last very long, Athens made it a whopping 280 years as a democracy, if you discount the interruptions. Switzerland is the only place where democracy is actually lasting, and they make the US with it's republic look like an oligarchy. They're far more similar to what we started as, and they've managed to maintain it for the most part.
Countries destroy themselves vastly more often than outside forces do, your own government is your biggest threat.
The constitution? You mean that socialist document that says that one of the purposes of government is to "promote the general welfare"? Yeah, I agree.
Nice, contextual argument there... I tell you what, you tell me what Marx says, I'll tell you what the Constitution says, deal?
The general welfare did not refer to the welfare program. They're rolling over in their graves every time some neanderthal politician uses that to justify the latest state program. The general statements in the preamble are expressly named under the expressed powers given to the federal government, those being the only powers given to the federal government. Redefining a document doesn't change the original meaning, it just makes you wrong.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."
Cant get much more authoritative than the author. He also wrote the original works it was based on in the Federalist Papers.
You sir, are a moron. SFR doesn't go toward commercial fishing regulation. Sorry. Try again.
Yeah, I am. Yes, it does. Sport fishing doesn't happen if there aren't any fish because the commercial fishermen caught them all. All commercial fish have a "material value in connection with sport or recreation in the marine and/or fresh waters of the United States." Alaska Fish and Game regulates commercial fishing in Alaskan waters. Alaska Fish and game is funded by the SFR Act. The SFR Act funds the management of the commercial fishing industry. Any commercial fishing done in state waters is under direct management of the state fishing regulatory bodies, and they're all funded by the SFR Act. Government not doing the job you pay it to do is the norm.
Out of curiosity, why, when calling me a moron, do you also call me sir? It seems... pointless?
[quote]You say that the government has been running deficits since it started a mixed economy. Well, it has always run a mixed economy and the USA has always had a deficit since its inception. What is your point? What is your proposal?[quote]
Uhhhh, no. You are wrong. The USA has been in debt ever since we've been a country. In fact, the US has only been debt free one time in its entire history (1835) and it was for only a brief period. Don't mistake budget surplus and budget deficit with being completely free of debt. They are 2 different things. It looks like you failed to look at any of the records that you've mention.
As you cede my point, you can stop arguing with yourself now.
Those two statements contradict each other to an extent. All I am saying is that less the less corporate money that gets put into our government, the better. By allowing corporations to spend money on our elections, it allows them to run our government. I'm not disagreeing that they haven't already been able to do it. That doesn't make it any more right.
I am not talking about striping the right of free speech from some individual. Corporate funds are different that private individual funds. I am merely pointing out the fact (hypocrisy) that you feel that corporations running our government is bad, but then don't think the Supreme Court ruling is wrong. But, I'm sure you won't see the hypocrisy in that...just a guess.
Expressing your view is not running the government. Corrupt politicians that do favors for companies because they put out some advertisements in favor of them are criminals. For you to say corporations spending money on advertisements is wrong, you must apply that standard to other things. A politician is no less corrupt for doing an individual favors in return for campaign money, so no money should be allowed. A state where only rich people can get elected?
If I have a billion dollars, I can run for president. I can blow a couple hundred million and make a go of it. Ignore that I'm a complete jackass and would call you all a bunch of fucking retards on national television and end my political career before it began, pretend I'm normal. If I don't, I'm pretty much fucked, good luck getting through party machinery just to win a local election. If I don't want to run for president, I can't give my money to someone intelligent that does. These limitations on financing have done nothing but cement power in the two primary political bodies, they're the only non-billionaires that can run.
Campaign finance laws criminalize completely normal behavior in place of prosecuting the illegal activity that is already illegal to begin with. Most of congress should be in jail, so should most of our presidents. Making this or that form of contribution illegal hasn't even put a dent in it. Until this population of idiots stops electing crooks, it's not going to change. If we ever do, who can contribute is irrelevant. Exxon can walk up to Joe Shmoe and say hey dude, we'll give you a billion dollars to buy your presidency, and Joe Shmoe will say fuck you, I'm calling the police.
Bacteria can survive a certain stress up to a point, eg temp around 54oC OR aW of 0.936 ect., But if they have two stresses together they can survive neither as well eg temp of 49oC AND aW of 0.944. Humans I figure must be the same. If you have a safety level for a known carcinogen then thats deemed safe. In the real world you may have heaps of different carcinogens all at their safety levels, collectively increasing the chance of cancer to not so safe levels. Cancer, don't play with it.
Wonderful post, but there's absolutely no rational reason to make a sugar substitute illegal for doing less than sugar itself does. It's status as a carcinogen isn't even real. It doesn't cause bladder stones in people even at such high levels like it does rats. it's why Saccharin is still legal in this country. The reverse is true in most countries. Saccharin is illegal for no reason and Cyclamate is legal. They did it because they were morons.
Edit, gah! Too long...