Edited edit: nevermind, for some reason I thought this was the actual bill. Short version of my response to this proposal: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Long version: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Christ, it is basically a declaration of war on everyone but the top 0.01% of the country's wealthiest.
motorfirebox said:
Edited edit: nevermind, for some reason I thought this was the actual bill. Short version of my response to this proposal: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Long version: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Christ, it is basically a declaration of war on the poor.
The poor? It's a declaration of war on virtually the entire country. And I strongly suspect some of those declared "savings" don't actually add up. For example, the post office actually makes money for the government.
malkav11 said:
And I strongly suspect some of those declared "savings" don't actually add up. For example, the post office actually makes money for the government.
Fixer said:
you don't want to cut defense spending by 2/3?
Not at the cost of HUD, the SEC, the Depts of Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, the Interior, and Energy, the SBA, Davis-Bacon, the FCC, most of Social Security, and most of Medicaid/care. It's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater into Mt. Doom. Seriously, anybody who honestly supports this idea should just move to Somalia and have done with it.
There's no point in discussing it as an itemized list. The proposal basically amounts to "let's not have a government anymore; instead, let's leave all duties of government to the corporate elite". It is an abdication of democracy in favor of plutocracy. I'm not going to debate the finer details of that starting point; I'm going to reject it and look for a better starting point. And if you believe saying "Somalia" is some kind of personal attack, that's on you. The philosophy of government you espouse, in all seriousness, holds up Somalia as an ideal. That's where the paradigm ends up.
His ideas are a slap in the face to every person who has to work for a living.
I work for a living and don't feel slapped by talking about some ideas. You're letting your personal opinions on the guy taint your analysis.
Do you support the Federal Drug War, or would you want to see it ended? Can you not say you'd want to see it ended just because this guy Stossel also wants it?
His ideas are a slap in the face to every person who has to work for a living.
I work for a living and don't feel slapped by talking about some ideas. You're letting your personal opinions on the guy taint your analysis.
Do you support the Federal Drug War, or would you want to see it ended? Can you not say you'd want to see it ended just because this guy Stossel also wants it?
You're putting words in my mouth. I called him a fucking idiot. The implication is that I disagree with his ideas.
As others have said, an itemized discussion is useless. This is a Libertarian wish-list. Libertarianism, like most -isms, only sounds good on paper. This doesn't even make it to that level. This is an attack on poor people.
Haha, yeah, the left in this country is totally all about refusing to give an inch. That's why the current deal being agreed upon includes at least a dollar of revenue for every three in cuts er I mean five in cuts er I mean let's not worry about revenue right now maybe we'll get to it later.
No, the "my way or the highway" routine is currently the calling card of the Tea Party. I don't demand that the budget be handled my way, but with regards to Stossel's proposal, I will refuse to consider going that way.
Which reminds me of another of the Tea Party's calling cards: the "I know you are but what am I" defense.
Well, no one is saying that it's our or no way. We're saying fuck no to Stossel's "way" which is just a publicity ploy.
A list of "cuts" that doesn't explain the cost of those cuts is typical non-thought by Stossel. Really, cutting 2/3 of the military would be great, but what would removing that money do? Where is it removed from? How would removing troops from overseas add to jobless numbers here? How would pulling 475 billion dollars help job figures or the economy? What would happen to the people who make weapons?
PointBlank said:
Well, no one is saying that it's our or no way. We're saying fuck no to Stossel's "way" which is just a publicity ploy.
A list of "cuts" that doesn't explain the cost of those cuts is typical non-thought by Stossel. Really, cutting 2/3 of the military would be great, but what would removing that money do? Where is it removed from? How would removing troops from overseas add to jobless numbers here? How would pulling 475 billion dollars help job figures or the economy? What would happen to the people who make weapons?
Why do people say they want to start a discussion and not participate? Why not start the discussion in the original post instead of only copying/pasting?
What, exactly do you LIKE about this list? Please note that Stossel isn't just talking about making one of the cuts, he's talking about making ALL of them, with no context, no method, no reasoning...what is good about that?
He mentions ending the "war on drugs, " but what does that mean? He mentions legalizing pot, but is that included in ending the war on drugs? Would other drugs be legalized?
PointBlank said:
Why do people say they want to start a discussion and not participate? Why not start the discussion in the original post instead of only copying/pasting?
I had just come across this on another forum, and hadn't just fully digested it and formulated my opinions. In a quick view, I thought it was interesting enough to consider, and thought I'd bring it here to give you the same chance to read and consider it.
The linked url has more details in the sources linked to, such as the source of the $15B "Federal Drug War" number, as one example.
I wonder what the US would have looked like if they never had NASA, National Science Foundation, the EPA, financial regulations, social security and medicare (for the most part) and the Department of Labour?
I'm not sure why the US government needs to be returned to budget surplus within a year, and I'm certainly not sure why it should be done with no tax increases whatsoever.
As in, I don't get any of the point of this at all, except for it being rhetorically appealing to Tea-Party slash-and-burners.
Fixer
Los Angeles, CA
October 2002
AUG 01, 2011 04:24 PM