|
Bombadilillo posted:If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. This really sums up my experiences with a lot of socially conservative people. It's like there's some noble glory in being silent. It's a lot of "I want to be left alone but people who care about things keep making noise!! I hate noise!!" A lot of my young friends are the same way, the typical "yeah I support equality with [group], but it's really lame and uncool when they're out protesting and putting up facebook notifications about recent injustices. Can't they just chill?" e: Basically a post-inequality belief, I guess.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
More from the painter.quote:McNaughton responses to Criticisms of The Forgotten Man
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
I really wish conservatives would point to a single thing that Obama has done that is socialist. Seriosly, just one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
When people throw out the "redistributing wealth thing" you need to throw the gauntlet at them. Wealth is not stagnant, it's either going up, or down. And the 2 groups it's moving between the most are the miniscule amounts of extremely wealthy, and everyone else regardless if they're making $65,000 or $18,000 a year. Either admit you love the rich and they should just have all the wealth since the saying is true, it takes money to make money. The rich have all the money, they will use it to get the rest and destroy you. Or admit you love the government welfare even if you're not on more obvious welfare programs. That's it, there's no in between, cause I mean christ, anything the government does that cost money as long as wealth is not equally divided is a redistribution of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Thenipwax posted:I really wish conservatives would point to a single thing that Obama has done that is socialist. Seriosly, just one. Obamacare, obviously. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
I got a huge response from a very Libertarian friend on Facebook and would LOVE to hear what you all think of it. There's a lot here, and it started after I made a comment on something he said about our economy adopting the "pillars of socialism." He hasn't gotten mean yet, but I'd love a solid rebuttal or two while I'm at work and don't have a ton of time to respond. For your tl:dr pleasure! \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ That whole great depression thing was largely due to the attempted control over the economy through the newly created (1913) fiat central bank, known as the Federal Reserve. A central bank is the most significant pillar of socialism, (communism, fascism, monarchy, or any other central power) as it is the chief means by which governments gain and retain control over the currency of a country, and thus the people themselves. This tool creates a demand for other pillars of socialism. Fiat currency (which is the tool of all central banking) allows governments to spend at will without having to tax the people directly, by devaluing the currency over time, thus taking from the wealth of the people slowly, being nearly unnoticeable over time. This continuous destruction of wealth hurts the poorest (who have only a fixed income, if anything), and benefits those who are able to secure contracts and subsidies from government under control of politicians, who are voted into power promising handouts. The purchasing power of the lowest incomes ( the 99%) decreases over time, and as related factors transpire, the people who are suffering demand assistance, and vote in whomever seems most likely to provide them with the most assistance (I don't blame them). Due in part to people being unlikely to be willing to pay higher taxes, or at least a significant increase in taxes over a short period, the funds for this assistance come through and increase in debt, and through the creation of more fiat currency. This compounds the devaluation of the currency; raising prices, which effects most those with the least purchasing power, who in turn demand more action and assistance from the government. Many of those in power, and those with connections to those in power, who have less than honorable intentions, take advantage of this situation and place themselves into position to be able to best benefit from the programs and laws that are created with the best intentions to help the people. Policies are further implemented which allow these manipulators to siphon money from the pockets of the people, under the guise of assistance or protection. Many people who need it do get help, but it is overall a tool to enrich a select few. Loose monetary policy and an atmosphere of easy credit which come about when central bank policy is directed to stimulate the economy, contributes to (and even wholly creates) speculative bubbles in whichever industry stands to benefit at the time. When the unsustainable bubble comes crashing down, and the inevitable correction begins to occur, policy is loosened further in order to further stimulate and "save" the economy from the impending correction and suffering that will result. This creates a new bubble, and so on and so forth, until the debt builds up to an unsustainable level, and the currency itself comes crashing down. Unfortunately, when unsustainable corporations or programs created under this system of crony-corporatism at the behest of the government come crashing down, the people demand more authority and control over the economy from the same government which assisted in the creation of and then bailed out the large corporations. That we can solve the problem by delegating more power to the entity which created the problem is simply madness. The pillars of socialism that are in place, namely federal government subsidies and programs, eventually manifest as a direct result of the implementation of a fiat central bank, and it is these policies themselves which require a fiat central bank to be able to implement and continue, which also leads inevitably to the destruction of a currency. The next step is for the creation of a new currency and stricter regulations, under control of always a higher authority, which also happen to be those who own the largest corporations, which, believe it or not, lobby for MORE regulation, in order to shut down competition. I urge you to read "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" for an in depth history and understanding of fiat central banking. http://www.billiondollarbailout.com/The-Creature-from-Jekyll-Island-by-Edward-Griffin.pdf I am also open to any reading suggestions you may have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Actually the most significant pillar of socialism is that the workers control the means of production. well, cheers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
You know what crazy political claim I'm still amused about, even though it's not currently seeing the rounds (for obvious reasons)? "Well, really, the state of the economy is largely a result of the economic policies put into place 8 years ago." How convenient that this clearly applied when Bush had his downturn in 2001-02, but doesn't apply to Obama now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:You know what crazy political claim I'm still amused about, even though it's not currently seeing the rounds (for obvious reasons)? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I think you meant to say the best part is the non-Euclidean bench that guy is sitting on. Lincoln looks like part of a barbershop quartet. How ironic that he probably never went to the barber. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
TerminalSaint posted:A classic. Have fun: McNaughton FINE ART Company. http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353 Most of the paintings have a special page where you can learn all you ever wanted to know about right-wing art, and more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
You know who coudn't give a gently caress about the plight of the forgotten man? Franklin Delano Roosevelt. gently caress, the CCC probably built that goddamn bench.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
I love the explanation about the black soldier in the Jesus picture. "Represents the average American soldier, name on uniform is 'King', could stand in as a symbol for MLK". Yes, the military is often used to symbolize MLK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
I've fallen really behind on this thread, so pardon me if this is a rehash, but a friend just posted this on Facebook: I've heard it said that it's misled, if not dishonest, to liken the national budget to a household budget, but can anyone explain why? I'd love to debunk this because I'm sure it's stupid....
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I've heard it said that it's misled, if not dishonest, to liken the national budget to a household budget, but can anyone explain why? I'd love to debunk this because I'm sure it's stupid.... Came up like last page man. Try asking a question: "In what way is the United States federal government like an average family?" Wait a minute for an answer. This actually worked for me, I got "I can't think of a single way." back and that proved to be the basis for an "aha" moment with the person I was talking with. Supporting information: a family cannot print money, a family cannot take out hundred billion dollar loans at 1% interest, a family cannot collect taxes, a family cannot add or subtract money assets from the total economy, a family cannot issue bonds, the Chinese government and other huge investors do not park their excess money in the average family... etc. etc. The most odious comparison is the national deficit to a credit card bill. Credit card companies are notorious for charging high interest; if the U.S. was borrowing money at the same interest as a family credit card, we would honestly be in trouble. But it doesn't. It borrows at 2% interest or less. The more complicated answer is that government debt is totally different from family debt. Family debt can be thought of as negative money, to an extent. The family has to pay it back and will be in trouble if it doesn't. The U.S. government will never pay back its debts and nobody expects it to. Government debt (i.e. bonds) is an extremely safe money-linked asset that people buy when they are looking for a safe investment. The U.S. has millions of creditors, and they are not looking to get payed back as a group. Bonds are far, far more liquid than family debt; because there are so many U.S. bonds and the U.S. has access to so much cash, especially since it can print its own in an emergency, there is no real risk that the average investor won't get payed back. There are always new investors, so the government can always roll over the debt. If the world flat out stopped buying U.S. bonds we would be in trouble, but they don't, because it's a good investment because it's safe. Even if there was an emergency, we could print money and use it to buy our own debt for a limited time. Basically, the only scenario in which all U.S. debt is called in at once is a total global economic collapse, I mean like Mad Max style, and in that situation government debt would be the least of our worries. As an aside, the idea that our children will have to "pay back the debt" is ridiculous. As I said, no one expects the U.S. to pay back the debt in general. That's not how government debt works. Even then, U.S. debt is mostly owned by U.S. citizens. So the idea that America's children will be in hock to some shadowy creditor is ridiculous. In fact, this kind of thinking is spawned by a bad understanding of government debt that sees it as similar to family debt. The reality is that America is largely in hock to its own people, and therefore when we are dead, it will be more realistic to say that the American government is in debt to our children, rather than our children being in debt to the government. That was a lot of words but the basic point is that thinking of government debt as family debt gets the issue completely, ridiculously wrong. If you think about it for a few seconds, you can see that, because families and the federal government are not at all alike. Just ask that question, "In what way is the federal government like an average family?" and the whole argument should start to unravel, because as my friend said, "I can't think of a single way." And he was right. edit: One final common argument I'd like to put to rest: the idea that the interest on the national debt will become unsustainable. History indicates that will not happen. Why? Because the economy, inflation, and population continue to grow every year. We are actually still paying interest on the debts incurred during WWII, they are just totally negligible to the modern government because of inflation and the growth of tax revenues. Sure, we will be paying the interest on debts sold in the modern day for decades, but in 30 years they won't matter. As I said before, the scenarios in which the historical trends don't support this conclusion, like the economy shrinking year over year for a decade, or the population crashing instead of growing, are so nightmarish on their own that government debt would be a minor niggle in comparison. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I've fallen really behind on this thread, so pardon me if this is a rehash, but a friend just posted this on Facebook: It all has to do with scale, and the ability of a government to accrue large amounts of debt through what are essentially very large loans. Through its size and the powers granted to it by the constitution, the government can greatly influence the economy by moving large amounts of money around at once and investing it preferably in welfare, public works and small businesses, as the return on the dollar to the economy is much greater there than investment in large corporations. As the money spreads through the lower classes, they begin buying more essentials and eventually luxury goods, creating more demand, which creates more work, which creates more wages, which creates more buying, etc etc. Once the cycle plays through, you should be able to cut back on the welfare and public works since less people will need to use them naturally lowering expenditures, the strengthened economy creates a larger tax base naturally raising income and you use the new income to pay off the debt and save for future downturns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
What's a good site/explanation to send to paultards to showcase how evil Ron Paul is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
If someone is at the point where you're calling them a "paultard" you probably won't convince them of anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
Sankis posted:If someone is at the point where you're calling them a "paultard" you probably won't convince them of anything. It can't hurt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What's a good site/explanation to send to paultards to showcase how evil Ron Paul is. Lew Rockwell is he head of the Von Mises Institute(The main Austrian economics think tank) and he keeps an archive of articles on and by Ron Paul. Fortunately he's also the exact kind of poo poo stain you'd expect someone in that position to be so he even documents the completely batshit insane stuff since he agrees with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I've fallen really behind on this thread, so pardon me if this is a rehash, but a friend just posted this on Facebook: If a family has seven times its income in credit card debt, the carrying cost of that debt is probably more than its income. This situation will end in bankruptcy. The US is able to owe seven times its revenues and service it for a total cost of about 9% of taxes collected. This is more than manageable. Household debt is nothing at all like national debt, or even corporate debt. The rates at which the US government can borrow means that the cost of carrying said debt is in no way comparable. To put some numbers to it, if the hypothetical family in the graphic had a credit card charging 20%, it would cost 132% of the family's income to service said debt. If that debt was instead collateralized and carried a rate of, say, 5%, it would cost them 33% of their income. If this hypothetical family could borrow money for ten years at the same rate that the government could, it would cost them 13% of their income. The US government, because of the maturities of its outstanding debt, is budgeted to pay 9.1% of federal tax receipts towards interest in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What's a good site/explanation to send to paultards to showcase how evil Ron Paul is. Here is the PaulBomb from the Republican Primary thread: quote:Ron Paul wants to: Basically, Ron Paul is your crazy <insert family member here> who sends you all these stupid emails in the first place. Sarion fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Jan 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I've fallen really behind on this thread, so pardon me if this is a rehash, but a friend just posted this on Facebook: Where's the home loan, two car notes and student loan debt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 15:16
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I've fallen really behind on this thread, so pardon me if this is a rehash, but a friend just posted this on Facebook: Isn't $21,700 for a family of four below the poverty line? Also, if an average family has a car loan and a mortgage, it can easily equal more than $148K in debt.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Isn't $21,700 for a family of four below the poverty line? But see government debt is always the same as high interest credit card debt! It's never equity like a mortgage!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
Honestly, that family budget looks about right for a middle class family of four that used to be making $50k a year, but then lost their job due to the Recession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Honestly, that family budget looks about right for a middle class family of four that used to be making $50k a year, but then lost their job due to the Recession. What kind of middle class family of four makes $50k?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:31
|
|
Tomahawk posted:What kind of middle class family of four makes $50k? One parent has a 50K a year job, or two parents with 25K a year jobs?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:One parent has a 50K a year job, or two parents with 25K a year jobs? I think the point is that $50k isn't middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:40
|
|
angrytech posted:I think the point is that $50k isn't middle class. I suppose it depends where you are from.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
angrytech posted:I think the point is that $50k isn't middle class. 50k has been approximately the median household income for some time now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
My response to that is always "seems like someone in that family should get a second job to increase their income."
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:50k has been approximately the median household income for some time now. Yep, precisely why I chose it. Sarion fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Jan 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Has this been posted yet? Saw it popping up on my Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
THE GAYEST POSTER posted:My response to that is always "seems like someone in that family should get a second job to increase their income." Well, the first person is actually making about $200,000 a year, but he feels like he shouldn't be punished for his success and it's completely fair to only contribute $20,000 to the family's needs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:50k has been approximately the median household income for some time now. It really speaks to how hosed things are when so few families make the median average.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
redmercer posted:It really speaks to how hosed things are when so few families make the median average. By definition, half of all households will always make less than the median income. Or was that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
Bryter posted:You'd think more of the older presidents would be like "holy poo poo, a black guy's president?", rather than crowding around the dude on the bench. Especially the pre-civil war ones. And Nixon. I still can't get over Reagan and Bush II going, "What about the little guy?" The two of them have done more to grow wealth inequality and screw the "average American" than any other presidents in the last 50 years. Maybe ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Sarion posted:By definition, half of all households will always make less than the median income. Or was that the joke? I think he was commenting on how it's just an average and that, as a whole, it's not even that "common place" even though it's the average. Like you can have 5 people that make 1,000,000 a year and 30 that make 20,000 a year and the average is $145,000 but in reality only 5 of those people are not in poverty. And the average is misleading. edit: Whoops he said median and not mean. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Bryter posted:You'd think more of the older presidents would be like "holy poo poo, a black guy's president?", rather than crowding around the dude on the bench. Especially the pre-civil war ones. And Nixon. What a horrible painting. I'm not just talking about the wingnut politics behind it, it's just BAD. Dudes are all just staring off different directions, even the ones that are supposed to be paying attention to the destitute guy aren't clear in what they are doing and looking at, the one guy looks like he's waiting to get a football snapped to him, just incoherent and horrible. If you browse around the site there are Mormon mythology ones too, I think we're in for some good times as election time rolls around!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2012 01:04
|
|
