Dante Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 These goals are admirable and I agree with most of them.But I'm afraid of Libertarians because of their stance on military strength. Also I think we have to protect ourselves internationally. I love the idea of a lean, streamlined federal government which is what it would take to cut spending 43%. I know nothing of this guy so no idea if he is a fraud like the others here say.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 These goals are admirable and I agree with most of them.But I'm afraid of Libertarians because of their stance on military strength. Also I think we have to protect ourselves internationally. I love the idea of a lean, streamlined federal government which is what it would take to cut spending 43%. I know nothing of this guy so no idea if he is a fraud like the others here say. Cutting defense spending is not the same as cutting defense, much in the same way that cutting from the education budget is not the same thing as cutting education. Oddly, the later is an argument conservatives strongly agree with, but can't, for whatever reasons, connect to the former.
Dante Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Cutting defense spending is not the same as cutting defense, much in the same way that cutting from the education budget is not the same thing as cutting education. Oddly, the later is an argument conservatives strongly agree with, but can't, for whatever reasons, connect to the former. If it's efficiency we are talking about I'm all for it. Military, education or whatever government department it is. They should be spending money like it's their own. I know this is a fantasy but still doesn't make it wrong.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 If it's efficiency we are talking about I'm all for it. Military, education or whatever government department it is. They should be spending money like it's their own. I know this is a fantasy but still doesn't make it wrong. It's a combination of maintaining the best defense oriented military in the world in combination with a reduction or elimination of our occupational forces around the globe and an end to our "nation building" foriegn policy goals.
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 End the fed, no bailouts, do not increase spending, cut defense, first ammendment, legalize weed and gay marriage, uphold the constitution, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! Childish and unrealistic.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Childish and unrealistic. I think you mispronounced "marginalized by unscrupulous power brokers", but YMMV.
GG Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I think you mispronounced "marginalized by unscrupulous power brokers", but YMMV. What would you replace the unscrupulous power brokers with?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 What would you replace the unscrupulous power brokers with? Ideally? A lack of unscrupulous power brokers.
GG Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Ideally? A lack of unscrupulous power brokers. Are we back to a full circle of childish and unrealistic?
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Are we back to a full circle of childish and unrealistic? I'm not sure what's childish about the advocation of a few reasonable measures which would tear the reigns away from the special interests, statists, corporatists, and bankers who dominate our daily lives. Tell me please, if you would, what is childish about repealing the 14th and 17th amendments, instituting single term limits, a constitutional amendment mandating sunset clauses on all federal laws, an end to federal subsidies, the abolishion of the Federal Reserve, the disolving of many federal agencies, and the end of imperial foreign policy? You may disagree with several of those suggestions, but that doesn't magically render those goals childish. One's willingness to dismiss those goals out of hand as meritless, using nothing but handwavium and logical fallacy as his ammunition might be enough to earn such a person the lable of childish in my eyes, however. Edited October 20, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I'm not sure what's childish about the advocation of a few reasonable measures which would tear the reigns away from the special interests, statists, corporatists, and bankers who dominate our daily lives. Tell me please, if you would, what is childish about repealing the 14th and 17th amendments, instituting single term limits, a constitutional amendment mandating sunset clauses on all federal laws, an end to federal subsidies, the abolishion of the Federal Reserve, the disolving of many federal agencies, and the end of imperial foreign policy? You may disagree with several of those suggestions, but that doesn't magically render those goals childish. One's willingness to dismiss those goals out of hand as meritless, using nothing but handwavium and logical fallacy as his ammunition might be enough to earn such a person the lable of childish in my eyes, however. You've got a lot of strawmen in that argument. I'll address just one. You do recognize that the previous Fed chairman was an Ayn acolyte and he ran the office in the misguided belief that banks would never put their survival at risk.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) You've got a lot of strawmen in that argument. I'll address just one. You do recognize that the previous Fed chairman was an Ayn acolyte and he ran the office in the misguided belief that banks would never put their survival at risk. First of all, I haven't made an argument. I asked a question. Arguments are declarative, questions aren't, so no, I didn't strawman anything. That's not how the language works. Secondly, to address your point I'll simply refer you to Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute who believes Greenspan "betrayed" Rand's teachings. (his words, not mine) He goes on to state, "Ayn Rand would have never advocated for the kind of policies Alan Greenspan instituted," and that "I think we should have let banks fail, let auto companies fail [and] let housing prices tank to reach their true bottom. If we'd done that back in 2008-09, we'd have gone deeper into recession but we would be out of it today." Edited October 20, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker
GG Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 First of all, I haven't made an argument. I asked a question. Arguments are declarative, questions aren't, so no, I didn't strawman anything. That's not how the language works. Secondly, to address your point I'll simply refer you to Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute who believes Greenspan "betrayed" Rand's teachings. (his words, not mine) He goes on to state, "Ayn Rand would have never advocated for the kind of policies Alan Greenspan instituted," and that "I think we should have let banks fail, let auto companies fail [and] let housing prices tank to reach their true bottom. If we'd done that back in 2008-09, we'd have gone deeper into recession but we would be out of it today." Just because you decide to use question marks does not negate your strawmen arguments. Each of your "questions" is a standard simplistic strawman to a very complex set of circumstances. Do we want large evil bankers controlling our lives? Well, uhm, no? But, it's much more difficult to come up with with a realistic and unchildish alternative that wouldn't be worse than what you're trying to fix. I wonder if that's why after 3 years of trying financial reform, no one has come up with a better idea yet. Secondly, it's nice of Dr Brook to opine on Chicago's building codes after Mrs O'Leary's cow kicked over the lamp. Of course Rand wouldn't approve the bailouts, but the point is that the reason we need the bailout in the first place was Greenspan's long held belief that banks and other financial institutions would not place themselves in a position where they would imperil their health, let alone the global financial system If you look at the tenets of Basel capital standards, there's a lot of Randian logic to the bank capital formulation. And as for the trope that if the banks were allowed to fail we'd be out of this mess by now, that's the same logic that Obama's advisers used in selling the stimulus. Yet, if we're still here after the global crisis that was caused by a second tier investment bank going dark for 24hours, imagine what would happen if Citi, Merrill, Morgan Stanley or Goldman were to collapse. You're right in the first assertion, you're woefully wrong in the second.
dayman Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Look the bottom line is it isn't ideas that will change this country. It will take a man to run on a platform of process reform. Literally...the entire platform needs to be process reform. The modern day lincoln.And someone will probably shoot him. Edited October 20, 2012 by TheNewBills
3rdnlng Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Look the bottom line is it isn't ideas that will change this country. It will take a man to run on a platform of process reform. Literally...the entire platform needs to be process reform. The modern day lincoln.And someone will probably shoot him. You're right, we need another Reagan. Lincoln would probably do since he was another Republican. You're right about both of 'em getting shot though.
dayman Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 You're right, we need another Reagan. Lincoln would probably do since he was another Republican. You're right about both of 'em getting shot though. Lol...not Reagan. We probably need more than anything else some brilliant man, moderate in his views, who quite the Senate or retired sometime ago...to come back and set things right in the House and Senate. Run on a platform that target house/senate rules that no common man understands, explain it too them and why they hurt. Run not against the parties...but to reign them in. Someone who can somehow communicate that Washington is broken not b/c America is polarized, but b/c politics is partisanized in a way that is worse than it has been, and in a way that we can't accept. Someone who will end careers.
3rdnlng Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Lol...not Reagan. We probably need more than anything else some brilliant man, moderate in his views, who quite the Senate or retired sometime ago...to come back and set things right in the House and Senate. Run on a platform that target house/senate rules that no common man understands, explain it too them and why they hurt. Run not against the parties...but to reign them in. Someone who can somehow communicate that Washington is broken not b/c America is polarized, but b/c politics is partisanized in a way that is worse than it has been, and in a way that we can't accept. Someone who will end careers. I'm of the ilk that I don't need a former Senator to be an executive. I think I'd like someone with experience running things.
dayman Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 I'm of the ilk that I don't need a former Senator to be an executive. I think I'd like someone with experience running things. The problem is the running of Congress...as much people like bash the president. It's teh parties and Congress....plain and simple. Nobody is going to fix that w/ out both having clout and experience as well as being pissed yet having pull/respect.
3rdnlng Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 The problem is the running of Congress...as much people like bash the president. It's teh parties and Congress....plain and simple. Nobody is going to fix that w/ out both having clout and experience as well as being pissed yet having pull/respect. Hey, you're a lawyer and I won't hold that against you. The nature of your job doesn't put you in an executive position. There are no scenarios where anyone who hasn't been placed on the line and had to make difficult decisions isn't more qualified than your guy. Obama fits that description. That's really sad.
dayman Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Hey, you're a lawyer and I won't hold that against you. The nature of your job doesn't put you in an executive position. There are no scenarios where anyone who hasn't been placed on the line and had to make difficult decisions isn't more qualified than your guy. Obama fits that description. That's really sad. Stop being stupid and think about what I'm saying if you care to discuss.
Recommended Posts