"Freedom" thread or something

What the hell does "haw" mean ?

From the details originally released, I think people deserve to be outraged about no arrest being made. With that said, the man is not guilty of anything. He deserves a trial. I see the need for justice being perverted into a need for revenge. This road leads us to a very quickly deteriorating situation. Let's see a trial and let us see justice done if this man be guilty.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Even when you get intelligent people, political discussion just does not lend itself to the medium. I remember one time Carl Sagan was getting into it with some pseudo-libertarian guy who called. Basically it goes, Caller: Poignant point that could lead to a very interesting discussion Moderator: Realizes this to be very abstract and time consuming with little to no umph moments. Derides the caller in a calm voice Sagan: I'll use the authoritarian position of me being famous and a guest on this show to refute your point simply by stating my unsubstantiated opinion confidently. Caller: Either realizes what's going on and tries a new question or is too stupid to see it so he keeps pounding his head against the wall Listeners: This caller is stupid or crazy because Sagan and the moderator are so smart and well spoken

This is pretty much right on, and not just that medium.  With slight variations but the same net outcome you could include most television "journalism" also. 

Even when you get intelligent people, political discussion just does not lend itself to the medium. I remember one time Carl Sagan was getting into it with some pseudo-libertarian guy who called. Basically it goes,

Caller: Poignant point that could lead to a very interesting discussion

Moderator: Realizes this to be very abstract and time consuming with little to no umph moments. Derides the caller in a calm voice

Sagan: I'll use the authoritarian position of me being famous and a guest on this show to refute your point simply by stating my unsubstantiated opinion confidently.

Caller: Either realizes what's going on and tries a new question or is too stupid to see it so he keeps pounding his head against the wall

Listeners: This caller is stupid or crazy because Sagan and the moderator are so smart and well spoken

Listening to NPR just makes a sheep who thinks himself to be educated. I would say that's the most dangerous type of sheep. Seriously, NPR and PBS have fallen off a cliff. 

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's one way to look at it. The other way is to recognize that just continuing down the path also matters. You're talking about unsustainable programs as if they will perpetuate. What you cut matters just as much as what you kill by not cutting. Yeah I hate it when people say that the wealthy create jobs. However, those with the ability to invest in large scores of capital do tend give rise to economic development. Actually the programs are sustainable, what isn't is the parasitic relationship we have between those who actually make things and those at the top of the economic ladder who don't. Speculation doesn't create any real jobs, gas marketing does not...

Really? Social Security is sustainable? Explain that one to me.

First off, you picked two activities which could theoretically not provide jobs. What is that supposed to say? I could retort with saying something like opening a Sonic or a UHaul storage facility.

Your falling into a Marxist flawed ideology here. Do you want me to explain the benefits of the two activities you mentioned? Do you want to explain the relationship between production and worth to me?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: That's one way to look at it. The other way is to recognize that just continuing down the path also matters. You're talking about unsustainable programs as if they will perpetuate. What you cut matters just as much as what you kill by not cutting. Yeah I hate it when people say that the wealthy create jobs. However, those with the ability to invest in large scores of capital do tend give rise to economic development.

Actually the programs are sustainable, what isn't is the parasitic relationship we have between those who actually make things and those at the top of the economic ladder who don't.

Speculation doesn't create any real jobs, gas marketing does not...


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 20 2012 at 16:18

Slartibartfast wrote: JJLehto wrote: Why I changed Slart is I realized 1) our government is f**ked. 2) there is no way to "help the middle classes" while sustaining the programs I wanted. 3) we DO need to reduce our deficits here and abroad. It hit me the only way to fix the government is to reduce it. If that happened we could lower taxes across the board, including property and sales taxes which are regressive. It'd also force us to end our foreign policy. Oh and ending the fed/returning to gold standard will ease inflation, also a tax that hurts middle class and working people most. So yeah, call me a limited/efficient liberal now. Well, the problem here is people wanting to reduce government without regard to the consequences.  It all sounds nice to just cut it.  What you are cutting matters.  All of these slash and burn cutting government types don't give a crap about the consequences of doing that or they pretend that it doesn't matter or that we'll have a utopia.  So you want to cut the deficit?  The wealthy should kick in first.  This f**king nonsense that they are the job creators burns my shorts because if they really were, we'd be fantastically well off as a country with all the tax cuts they have been given.

Like I said...I'm still a liberal. I support a progressive income tax because I don't care what anyone else says, that is fairest way. Here's the thing, as you know I was all about the wealthy paying their fair share...but they already don't. Romney got flak for paying like 17% in income tax? Must be the limit...because I believe Warren Buffet (with his tens of billions) paid around 17% while his employees paid 33%, this is by his own admittance.
So I realized jacking it up is honestly pointless, and those lower earners in the top bracket (like $400,000 a year) will get hammered. Not quite fair since millionaires and the real big whales are the target.

I also support some government programs still, but obviously you must know as it is now is messy and not really sustainable. Frankly, I'm a little surprised. I thought you'd know me well enough to know I don't advocate insane rash cuts. As you said, what matters.

My scenario, (maybe I'll write a book on it) tell me what you think because I'm working on this:
1. Drastic cut to the defense budget/change in foreign policy. Few Americans are willing to admit it but not only would it make us safer, but it would lift a huge chunk of government spending.
2. Make rational cuts to wasteful spending.
3. Gotta be willing to open the postal service up to competition, look at cutting some useless departments, privatizing certain things.
4. With what I see as rational cuts in government we could lower taxes but eliminate loopholes. You can't get out of it, but it's lower. How about 25% on the top? 10-20% for the rest. It'd be like 15% cuts for most of America. Big cuts in property and sales tax, because you know those are regressive and hurt middle/working class families.
This could allow us to keep some important government programs.
5. Gotta eliminate (or radically alter) the Fed to stave off inflation, which is also a tax that is regressive.

Or maybe use sometime of negative income tax like Milton Friedman suggested. Everyone gets a certain amount of $ that naturally cuts off at a point, then you become a tax payer. Lower earners would get a net payment from the government and it could lead to a more drastic reduction in welfare, which is good but messy and prone to abuse. Like now, you can live off it if you chose but there's a real incentive to look for work. Look into it man.




Edited by JJLehto - March 20 2012 at 15:48

JJLehto wrote: Why I changed Slart is I realized 1) our government is f**ked. 2) there is no way to "help the middle classes" while sustaining the programs I wanted. 3) we DO need to reduce our deficits here and abroad. It hit me the only way to fix the government is to reduce it. If that happened we could lower taxes across the board, including property and sales taxes which are regressive. It'd also force us to end our foreign policy. Oh and ending the fed/returning to gold standard will ease inflation, also a tax that hurts middle class and working people most. So yeah, call me a limited/efficient liberal now.

Well, the problem here is people wanting to reduce government without regard to the consequences.  It all sounds nice to just cut it.  What you are cutting matters.  All of these slash and burn cutting government types don't give a crap about the consequences of doing that or they pretend that it doesn't matter or that we'll have a utopia.  So you want to cut the deficit?  The wealthy should kick in first.  This f**king nonsense that they are the job creators burns my shorts because if they really were, we'd be fantastically well off as a country with all the tax cuts they have been given.