-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 11:55:15 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Washington Scandals
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Washington Scandals  (Read 30920 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2013, 09:53:07 AM »

This thread should be deleted because this guy deliberately originally posted this on the main board and he knows damn well it doesn't belong there. Why move it, just get rid of it for that rule violation alone. And no, most of us aren't paranoid enough to be "worried" or call this "Nixon on 'roids." But I shouldn't even bother saying that, because the person who started this thread is clearly being a troll who want attention.

We're not deleting anything; he posted it on the wrong board. We're also not going to delete stuff because it hurts someone's feelings.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2013, 09:58:08 AM »

The government has just gotten far too big for its own good.

Too big? Comparatively speaking, the government is almost as small as it has ever been - with the exception of the horrifying days before the stock market crash of 1929.

How about presenting some actual numbers, rockandroll?



As you can see government spending of GDP was less than 7 per cent in 1900. Now it is close to 40 per cent. 40 is a bigger number than 7 in my book.

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

You are correct and I misspoke. What I meant was that government spending has been about as slow as it has been since before 1929. So while spending of GNP doubled after 1929, and in fact went from 10% in the 20s to 50% during the war, government spending since 2009 has increased only by 0.6%. So I when I said that I was considering the Administration and their relationship to size of government.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2013, 10:01:37 AM »

What's your definition of "extreme right"? I am a libertarian myself and as much "right" (don't like that term) as one can possibly be. I know of no libertarian who supports any of the current traditional wars (Afghanistan) or covert wars (Libya, Syria and so on).

If you consider the Republican party "extreme right", please reconsider. Both parties are the same party - the party of financial oligarchs.

Libertarianism is a different sort of extreme right, and not really the kind I am referring to when I use the term.

Yes, both parties are very similar which is something that should come across when I equate the actions of Obama with past leaders. To say simply that they are "the same party" does miss some crucial nuances. They are essentially, two factions that represent, in different ways, the same interersts. Those "different ways" though are crucial and can have all sorts of various effects that are necessary to take account of.

This compass illustrates fairly well my understanding of the ideological positions at work in the US and, I think, confirms pretty much what we are both saying:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2013, 10:09:44 AM »

I don't get how libertarianism is considered "extreme right". Fiscal conservatism and social tolerance is far from "extreme right". Unless we're talking about the "unchecked corporate power" straw man...
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2013, 10:16:47 AM »

I don't get how libertarianism is considered "extreme right". Fiscal conservatism and social tolerance is far from "extreme right". Unless we're talking about the "unchecked corporate power" straw man...

Well, the unchecked corporate power argument is not a straw man since there is empircal evidence for what happens when government does not intervene in the business world (see the United States pre-1929).

Keep in mind, libertarianism is really not considered extreme right. The term, however, has been hijacked by the extreme right in the United States. To quote directly from the political compass website:

Quote
The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: May 15, 2013, 10:25:31 AM »


Spending is up (*waiting for a correction from RockandRoll Grin), but the amount of gov't employees is down by quite a bit from 4 years ago.

Found this chart:



It is true some government employes have been laid off during Obama's presidential stint. In 2009 the US had 666,579 policemen and in 2011 that number was 610,427. You can read about these layoffs all the time:

Layoffs to gut East St. Louis police force (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/layoffs-to-gut-east-st-louis-police-force/article_dfb230c2-9bf3-11df-9731-0017a4a78c22.html)
Linden may lay off dozens of police officers, firefighters to close $5 million budget gap - http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2013/03/linden_faces_5_million_budget.html
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suffer-These-Crimes-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html
N.J. City Lays Off 105 Police Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers
Cleveland Announces Plans to Lay Off 123 Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10270501/cleveland-announces-plans-to-lay-off-123-officers
Laying off 500 Detroit Police Officers is Insane! - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers

Are these the types of budget cuts we want? No, it is not.

Rules and regulations are killing business owners. They are more than before:



I can go on and on. Also consider the growing police and surveillance state in the form of NDAA and Patriot Act.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 10:41:28 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2013, 10:25:49 AM »

I prefer "market anarchism" as a better term and definition for this system.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2013, 10:33:50 AM »

I prefer "market anarchism" as a better term and definition for this system.
Do you listen to Stefan Molyneaux and his Freedomain Radio? He is an anarcho-capitalist.

I listen to Peter Schiff every day, he is the smartest guy in town. He is a libertarian. Love this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz7boAzeV7s
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2013, 10:39:56 AM »

I prefer "market anarchism" as a better term and definition for this system.
Do you listen to Stefan Molyneaux and his Freedomain Radio? He is an anarcho-capitalist.

I listen to Peter Schiff every day, he is the smartest guy in town. He is a libertarian. Love this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz7boAzeV7s

I watch/listen to Stefan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella (friends with him on Facebook, too), Jeffrey Tucker...most of the big ancaps.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2013, 10:45:20 AM »

I watch/listen to Stefan Molyneux, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella (friends with him on Facebook, too), Jeffrey Tucker...most of the big ancaps.
Some other great (and funny) guys are Tom Woods and Bob Murphy of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. If you've heard of Walter Block and Jeffrey Tucker you've probably heard of TW and BM too.

One thing that strikes me is the Mises Instiute guys all have a great sense of humor. They are like part time economists and part time comedians.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 10:51:46 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2013, 10:53:58 AM »

I forgot to mention Tom Woods and Bob Murphy; I read them as well. The Mises Institute folks in general are great guys. Stephan Kinsella is a riot.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2013, 10:59:01 AM »

I forgot to mention Tom Woods and Bob Murphy; I read them as well. The Mises Institute folks in general are great guys. Stephan Kinsella is a riot.
We should go to Porc Fest next year. Smiley

http://porcfest.com/ I really feel like going.

Stefan Molyneux cancelled his appearance this year, because he has cancer. Hope he gets better.
Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Jason
Guest
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2013, 11:08:10 AM »

I'd consider it for David Friedman alone. The Machinery of Freedom helped make me the anarchist I am today.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2013, 11:11:01 AM »

I prefer "market anarchism" as a better term and definition for this system.

It may very well be a better - certainly better than Libertarian. But I am also hesitant on it since it seems that market anarchism is more of a fantasy than it is an ideological principle.
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2013, 11:18:20 AM »

Well, market anarchism would never turn into corporatism, since corporations need government to get where they are.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2013, 11:19:11 AM »


Spending is up (*waiting for a correction from RockandRoll Grin), but the amount of gov't employees is down by quite a bit from 4 years ago.

Found this chart:



It is true some government employes have been laid off during Obama's presidential stint. In 2009 the US had 666,579 policemen and in 2011 that number was 610,427. You can read about these layoffs all the time:

Layoffs to gut East St. Louis police force (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/layoffs-to-gut-east-st-louis-police-force/article_dfb230c2-9bf3-11df-9731-0017a4a78c22.html)
Linden may lay off dozens of police officers, firefighters to close $5 million budget gap - http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2013/03/linden_faces_5_million_budget.html
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Suffer-These-Crimes-in-Oakland-Dont-Call-the-Cops-98266509.html
N.J. City Lays Off 105 Police Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers
Cleveland Announces Plans to Lay Off 123 Officers - http://www.officer.com/news/10270501/cleveland-announces-plans-to-lay-off-123-officers
Laying off 500 Detroit Police Officers is Insane! - http://www.officer.com/news/10362580/nj-city-lays-off-105-police-officers

Are these the types of budget cuts we want? No, it is not.

Rules and regulations are killing business owners. They are more than before:



I can go on and on. Also consider the growing police and surveillance state in the form of NDAA and Patriot Act.

Either way, Obama in his first term at least slowed down government growth more than nearly any President has done in the last 60 years.
Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2013, 11:22:41 AM »

Slowing down government growth doesn't solve the problem of big government.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2013, 11:22:47 AM »

Well, market anarchism would never turn into corporatism, since corporations need government to get where they are.

Well, first of all, I am unconvinced that market anarchism could function at all on any level.

Yes, it is true that corporations have been indeed historically dependent on the government to achieve a great deal of their power, but to a large extent that has meant being dependent on the government staying out of their way. They probably would not be able achieve the same things but they would be able to get away with a lot more and would also be forced to resort to the kind of extreme exploitation they were known for in the days when there was far more free enterprise in the U.S.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2013, 11:24:05 AM »

Slowing down government growth doesn't solve the problem of big government.

Never said that it did but it certainly doesn't contribute to it in the way that is being suggested in this thread.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2013, 11:51:10 AM »

Either way, Obama in his first term at least slowed down government growth more than nearly any President has done in the last 60 years.
I really appreciate this good discussion we are having, but you are missing one big thing. "Big government" does not equal "number of government employees". There is more to it than that. Having a big government implies the government has usurped a lot of power (and taken away the power its citizens once had). A big government can spy on you, detain you without pressing charges, they can drone you, they can take your money, they can tell your business what to and so on. Like I said before, NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Affordable Care act and other bills have made the US government big and very powerful. 400 sacked police officers make no difference in this equation.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 11:55:37 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2013, 11:59:06 AM »

Either way, Obama in his first term at least slowed down government growth more than nearly any President has done in the last 60 years.
I really appreciate this good discussion we are having, but you are missing one big thing. "Big government" does not equal "number of government employees". There is more to it than that. Having a big government implies the government hase usurped a lot of power (and taken away the power its citizens once had). They can spy on you, detain you without pressing charges, they can drone you, they can take your money, they can tell your business what to and so on. Like I said before, NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Affordable Care act and other bills have made the US government big and very powerful. 400 sacked police officers make no difference in this equation.

I'm not talking about government employees; government growth refers to federal spending in total.

I already mentioned Obama's frightening use of the government in my first post. In fact, you didn't mention the scariest one of all - the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project case, which the civil liberties groups have been quite slow to pick up on.
Logged
Mendota Heights
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 927



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2013, 01:22:35 PM »

I'm not talking about government employees; government growth refers to federal spending in total.

I already mentioned Obama's frightening use of the government in my first post. In fact, you didn't mention the scariest one of all - the Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project case, which the civil liberties groups have been quite slow to pick up on.

I am not familiar with Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, but if Eric Holder is for something I am pretty sure libertarians are against it.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:38:57 AM by Swedish Frog » Logged

I have been dubbed Mr. Pet Sounds and Mr. Country Love by polite and honored board member Smile Brian. I hope I live up to those esteemed titles.
Steve Mayo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1198


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2013, 06:51:36 AM »

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

oweblammo has already acheived that feat..
Logged

moderatorem non facit stultus est ingenio
Jason
Guest
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2013, 07:28:27 AM »

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pulls a Wilson Goode at that march that's supposed to take place on July 4th...
Logged
GreatUrduPoet
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 16, 2013, 08:02:22 AM »

Worse than Watergate.
Worse Than Iran-Contra.
Worse than Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski etc.
Worse than Whitewater

This President is just one 'Kent State' away
from being the worst U.S. President ever.

Again - none of what you mention there was even close to the worst thing those Presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Clinton) did in their administration - including commiting acts of terrorism, supporting acts of terrorism, illegally spying on American citizens, carrying out assassination campaigns against US citizens, etc. Those are far worse than what is being attributed to Obama though Obama himself has done far worse than these trivial scandals that are being applied to him and they all together make Watergate, Lewinski etc. look about as tame as an issue could possibly be. I repeat: There are far more important criticisms being made about far worse crimes being committed by the Obama administration but none of them are coming from the extreme right, because the extreme right support the far worse crimes. The reason why you think Obama is "one 'Kent State' away from being the worst President ever" is because the extreme right supports the massive terror campaigns, call for genocides, extreme support of genocides, bloodbaths, etc., extreme support for the ongoing destruction of civilizations, and the illegal ideological repression of political groups within the national borders. Those things don't count as bad things because we are doing them in they are done in the name of our value system. So since these horrific crimes are a-ok, then something as trivial as Benghazi must
 seem like the worst possible thing that could happen.

I really don't condone our violent "foreign policy" but it is most certainly not "extreme right"...unless you are using the liberal/Stalinist "right-to-left" scale with Nazis (socialists) as the extreme right and Communists (socialists) as the extreme left. The true extreme right are the "no government" libertarians, anarchists and isolationists who have no interest in violent imperialist empire-building and other foreign entanglements (or domestic power-grabs like The Patriot Acts and Obamacare).
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 08:06:00 AM by GreatUrduPoet » Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.018 seconds with 21 queries.