Political Discussion!

[Kuat]

It's been getting too interesting to not mention. With a few rounds of debates done with, and the current plate of catastrophes we have, it would be nice to have a chat of sorts.

I know what my opinion on current events are, but was I wondering what was going through all your heads. Not on a specific thing, but just in general.

What issues are you guys keeping tabs on? What do y'all see in our future? Times are a changin', whether for better or worse.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Well I've been supporting Barack Obama since the primaries and that hasn't changed, though I do feel that he is moving more toward the center than I would like but that is understandable. The issue I probably care about most (I try to keep up on whatever I can find) is reversing the Leo Straussian neoconservative philosophy and the Bush Doctrine in our U.S. foreign policy. The economy, of course, is my second concern but like most Americans I feel betrayed by Wall Street and apprehensive toward any solution to the crash. Unfortunately education has always been a huge issue for me but after all this bailout spending, the dream of improving the nation's public schools is practically out the window.

[Kuat]

Oct 12, 2008 3:15:09 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

Well I've been supporting Barack Obama since the primaries and that hasn't changed, though I do feel that he is moving more toward the center than I would like but that is understandable. The issue I probably care about most (I try to keep up on whatever I can find) is reversing the Leo Straussian neoconservative philosophy and the Bush Doctrine in our U.S. foreign policy. The economy, of course, is my second concern but like most Americans I feel betrayed by Wall Street and apprehensive toward any solution to the crash. Unfortunately education has always been a huge issue for me but after all this bailout spending, the dream of improving the nation's public schools is practically out the window.

What do you feel was responsible for the crash?

Also, you mention that you want to "[reverse] the Leo Straussian neoconservative philosophy". Reverse it to what? How do you see that effecting the nation? What (in broad terms of course) will it change about our future?

Furthermore, when you talk about improving public education, do any specifics come to mind? What is wrong with the current system that additional funds would be needed to fix (as opposed to other measures of regulation and refinement)?

I know these seem like essay questions but bear with me. I look forward to your response, and thanks for engaging the discussion.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Are you a pollster?

Question 1: Irresponsible trading of inflated debt. Of course that is a rather non-political answer and can be traced to other parties such as lack of insufficient oversight, ACORN for "forcing" subprime lending, etc. Ultimately I feel most responsibility lies within the inherent nature of the market itself. But any solution to this, I cannot imagine.

Question 2: Well for one, a return to a more subtle interpretation of foreign diplomacy than the black and white, good versus evil mentality. The abolition of make believe evidence in order to re-enforce said superficial world view. No more hotheaded preemptive strikes, even at the cost of American lives to a terrorist attack. However, I'm not advocating isolationism as much as I am advocating intelligent and just involvement in the global community. Whether I feel this will change our future for the better or worse is too difficult to speculate upon but that matters to me less than the fact that it is right and the United States should bare the consequences of being fair and just if there be any.

Question 3: I believe that teacher salaries should be increased dramatically and, therefore, standards for teaching and competition. I would like funding to bring back "periphery" courses such as music and the arts across the nation and, on a personal note, to such an extent as to establish introductory Philosophy courses in high schools (thus being a forum for encouraging self-improvement in poorer communities and creationist vs. evolution discussion and whatever else).

[Captain Galaxy]

I happen to agree with points 2 and 3 of your statements Patrick, 1 I have no definite view on yet because I do not know enough about the subject. But education to me has always been important. Sadly I think my views and ideas for improving education won't work in this world, who knows, maybe they would, maybe they won't, it's hard to tell.

[Kuat]

Oct 12, 2008 12:06:31 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

Are you a pollster?

No, I just know your (and the majority of my peers') political viewpoints are in many cases on a pole opposite mine. I have faith you're a rational and intelligent person who has these opinions for a reason, and can share them with me. You had mentioned (in the thread mura had set up) that you are giving a great deal of time to politics, so I thought this would be fitting.

This post wound up to be huge, so if you don't read it or reply... I understand. I just am too lazy to clean it up at this point, heh.

Now let's go through your points.

Question 1: Irresponsible trading of inflated debt. Of course that is a rather non-political answer and can be traced to other parties such as lack of insufficient oversight, ACORN for "forcing" subprime lending, etc. Ultimately I feel most responsibility lies within the inherent nature of the market itself. But any solution to this, I cannot imagine.

Why do you call it "inflated debt?".

From my understanding banks were "encouraged" to give loans to people who simply couldn't pay them, ever. By "encouraged" I mean "forced" as those who wouldn't lend to those of a lower income couldn't open new branches.

www.stlouisfed.org/community/about_cra.html

An institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community is taken into consideration by its supervisory agency when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching.

(Further reading: www.ffiec.gov/cra/)

In other words, to stay competitive, they had to bend to the government's will (passed during Carter, strengthened during Clinton) to give loans to those who couldn't afford it.

This had the obvious effect. A housing bubble combined with loans given out to those who had no business getting them resulted in chaos. Credit is based on the fact that you can pay back what you owe. A guy who makes $12 an hour should never even consider getting a million dollar loan, no matter what the rate. Now, that mil house he bought is worth half that. Unfair? Maybe, but what if his house had doubled in value and he sold it. Would there be crying in the streets about unfair?

It was a well intentioned idea, but as usual short sighted and ultimately idiotic and disastrous. While it is true that trading of these debts amplified this problem (more non existent credit was given out because investors gave real money to buy fake credit (see "mortgage backed securities"), it's like blaming the guy who threw gasoline on the forest fire instead of the original arsonist. The irony here is that the prodigy of the arsons may be elected, who thinks that magical fairy money will pave the way to happiness. Instead of, you know, leading to further economic ruin, bloat, spurring more feelings of entitlement by a whining populous, and abuse of the system.

Summary: If government hadn't involved itself in forcing businesses to give out risky loans, we wouldn't be in this situation today. A more succinct point is big government is bad, and here was why.

Question 2: Well for one, a return to a more subtle interpretation of foreign diplomacy than the black and white, good versus evil mentality. The abolition of make believe evidence in order to re-enforce said superficial world view. No more hotheaded preemptive strikes, even at the cost of American lives to a terrorist attack. However, I'm not advocating isolationism as much as I am advocating intelligent and just involvement in the global community. Whether I feel this will change our future for the better or worse is too difficult to speculate upon but that matters to me less than the fact that it is right and the United States should bare the consequences of being fair and just if there be any.

I completely agree, anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. However, I was more interested in the neoconservative point, not the "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK" point, as it gives me something to talk about

Question 3: I believe that teacher salaries should be increased dramatically and, therefore, standards for teaching and competition. I would like funding to bring back "periphery" courses such as music and the arts across the nation and, on a personal note, to such an extent as to establish introductory Philosophy courses in high schools (thus being a forum for encouraging self-improvement in poorer communities and creationist vs. evolution discussion and whatever else).

Let's take a look at California teacher's salaries: quick google turns up $55,693 (from here www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html). For an average nine to fiver job, with the average work days per year of 242, that comes to be 28.76 an hour.

So, what do we compare that to? It's more active than a cubicle sales dude, but it isn't nursing/police/fire work. Well, let's do nursing; they make 62k a year (http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/nurse-salaries.htm). Which comes to be 32 an hour. Let's say they should be equal, fair enough... but aren't we forgetting something?

Teachers don't work all year (http://ask.yahoo.com/20050509.html). They work, on average, 180 days. That makes their hourly wage $38.67.

Does that *really* need to be higher? How much education does it take? Is that what is stopping American students from achieving? Hell, say you gave them a BMW every year and a free massage each day. Is that what is causing qualified individuals to avoid teaching? The public schools I went to had excellent teachers regardless. Mr Woods? Lewanski? Levine? Sorenson? Akashi? How much better can you get.

Even then, say you had an Einstein teaching every class. So? So what? Did Einstein have an Einstein? Did Lincoln have a private tutor? Or was it something that wasn't related to compensation? Maybe the problem is core values of American culture. The instant gratification culture that thinks money can heal all wounds (as long as it isn't theirs), and that everything should be theirs, theirs, theirs by entitlement. They should get free healthcare, free housing, free food and clothing, free , free, free because they have some inherent 'right' to it. Could that be to blame, and not that each teacher can't be like Scrooge McDuck?

Also, music and the arts? Philosophy? You could have Aristotle himself teach it an 90% of kids will probably just flip him off nowadays. Regardless, you want to add more bloat to the already distend waterlogged corpse that is our drowned school system?

I agree the school system is definitely rotted, but I'd approach in a completely different way. Regardless the inherent problem would still be what is taught needs to be reinforced outside the walls of school. You cannot do that in today's society. Nothing spurs a change like need, and nothing allows inaction like the provision of all one's needs.

Hell, let's take something else. Out of my class, 1/3 are asians or indians, 1/3 are those of middle eastern descent (Jews are here as well because they are so extremely culturally similar, religion be damned), and the rest are an amalgam of whites and "the rest". In the lab I work, it's asians n' indians n' middle easterners, with again, a mix of the rest. Why? They must have the best teachers! No, that isn't it. They must have the schools with the best cirriculums! Sorry bucko, try again. They must be genetically superior! No, try yet again. It's what the parents ingrain in them. It's what's at home, not in school.

Summary: I agree education has flaws and should be improved. Inflating teacher's salaries and adding more subjects to the already imperfect curriculum I feel are not the answers. The problem lies with the students, and that's because the parents. For that we need a fundamental cultural change away from spending what we don't have, giving no heed to consequences, and paying no mind to the future to spending what we earn and getting what is deserved, and looking more than a step ahead.

Well I've been supporting Barack Obama since the primaries and that hasn't changed, though I do feel that he is moving more toward the center than I would like but that is understandable.

I'm horrified by both Obama and McCain because they are so far left. You think otherwise, it seems. Obama being center. Center of what? It certainly isn't between liberal and conservative. What reason, based on something else other than feeling, imagination, or untested philosophy do you have to support policies even more liberal than Obama? Or hell, even his existing policies?

Haven't you looked at the ETERNAL POLITICAL pendulum of Europe? The eternal swing of "hey, we're doing good, let's SPEND N' TAX" to "Oh shit, THAT IDEA SUCKS, let's go back to conservatism" then to "SPEND N' TAX" again.

In France from DeGaulle to Chirac to Sarkozy, in England from Churchill to Labor party dominance to Thatcher to Labor again, what does that say? Much less the various changes in the eastern bloc and beyond. The cycle is always the same: conservatism because things are bad, and then liberalism when things are good and people forget that "hey, there's a reason why we were working so hard".

You can argue about FDR, but his plans did nothing but put a bandaid over a huge maw of a wound. What happened post WWII, when there was no war market? A drop, turned into an explosion not by any "new deal", but by increased optimism after the war which spurred the rise of a consumer culture, facilitated by increases in productivity from innovations during the war, and an increased workforce due to the mobilization of women.

What success has socialism or liberalism had? What economies has that policy saved? How is today any better for the already enacted policies of the left? What countries are better for these policies that conservatism (local conservatism. Like Vietnam staying colonized by the French is not 'conservative' for the Vietnamese) would have made worse.

If anything, recent history has shown socialism as an abject failure. A road of good intentions that leads to catastrophe. Until there is such class separation (because these policies tax the middle class more than anyone else, LIMITING upward mobility, and still not touching the upper echelons) that we can't go back and head to 1984 land, with a sky high upper class and everyone else.

Summary: What in history has supported that left is the way to go? I think it shows the opposite, that it does nothing but feed on the gains made by the right and decrease productivity and potential of a country. This is based on the basic human fact that we are a lazy species that if our needs are provided for, we won't exactly go out and cure cancer with our free time.

I appreciate your time if you got this far. Although it is a lot less savy and well written than I'd like, it's the general gist of what I feel. Now tear it apart if you have the energy, because maybe I'll learn something from this ;D

[You probably can't touch this.]

Hmm, I thought you disliked Socratic dialogue. I should have seen it in your omission of your own opinions in the first post. Well, discussion has to start somewhere but for my own sanity I will have to reply to your replies one post at a time. I'm reading this at 7:30pm after a long day so bare with me if I take my time.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 13, 2008 17:49:17 GMT -8 Kuat said:

Oct 12, 2008 12:06:31 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

Are you a pollster?

No, I just know your (and the majority of my peers') political viewpoints are in many cases on a pole opposite mine. I have faith you're a rational and intelligent person who has these opinions for a reason, and can share them with me. You had mentioned (in the thread mura had set up) that you are giving a great deal of time to politics, so I thought this would be fitting.

This post wound up to be huge, so if you don't read it or reply... I understand. I just am too lazy to clean it up at this point, heh.

Now let's go through your points.



Why do you call it "inflated debt?".

From my understanding banks were "encouraged" to give loans to people who simply couldn't pay them, ever. By "encouraged" I mean "forced" as those who wouldn't lend to those of a lower income couldn't open new branches.

www.stlouisfed.org/community/about_cra.html



(Further reading: www.ffiec.gov/cra/)

In other words, to stay competitive, they had to bend to the government's will (passed during Carter, strengthened during Clinton) to give loans to those who couldn't afford it.

This had the obvious effect. A housing bubble combined with loans given out to those who had no business getting them resulted in chaos. Credit is based on the fact that you can pay back what you owe. A guy who makes $12 an hour should never even consider getting a million dollar loan, no matter what the rate. Now, that mil house he bought is worth half that. Unfair? Maybe, but what if his house had doubled in value and he sold it. Would there be crying in the streets about unfair?

It was a well intentioned idea, but as usual short sighted and ultimately idiotic and disastrous. While it is true that trading of these debts amplified this problem (more non existent credit was given out because investors gave real money to buy fake credit (see "mortgage backed securities"), it's like blaming the guy who threw gasoline on the forest fire instead of the original arsonist. The irony here is that the prodigy of the arsons may be elected, who thinks that magical fairy money will pave the way to happiness. Instead of, you know, leading to further economic ruin, bloat, spurring more feelings of entitlement by a whining populous, and abuse of the system.

Summary: If government hadn't involved itself in forcing businesses to give out risky loans, we wouldn't be in this situation today. A more succinct point is big government is bad, and here was why.

I concede that the root of this problem steams from pressured loans to high risk people. This is why I am more favorable to strategic tax exemptions for businesses to create more jobs and government social programs to get these people into these jobs while also providing start-up support and education on financial responsibility. Unfortunately this will be costly both toward the average tax payer as well as the government cutbacks to finance. However, I do blame the "guy who threw gasoline on the fire" more simply because the guy threw a fucking ton of gasoline on that fire. Where is the responsibility if the bank wraps the shitty diaper in christmas paper and tosses it off only to be wrapped in more christmas paper? Yes, the original banks should have taken the unfair hit for the loans but what has went from being terrible externalities has become HORRIBLY ATROCIOUS MARKET-BREAKING EXTERNALITIES. Now I don't know how long these MBS packages have been trading but I figure for a long time and someone should have been there to have caught the problem earlier. However, I am aware I can be wrong as the information I've been hearing about the crisis has been erratic and less than adequate.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 13, 2008 17:49:17 GMT -8 Kuat said:

I completely agree, anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. However, I was more interested in the neoconservative point, not the "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK" point, as it gives me something to talk about

Well the "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK" is the neoconservative point. "Neoconservative" has been tossed around a lot as a political buzzword for a while but it originally refers to neo-Platonic philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss' philosophy is mostly born out of what Strauss saw as the anarchy of the sixties created from rampant liberalism, individualism, and relativism. Thus, Strauss argued a kind of Platonic philosophy that a leader should lie and provide false evidence in order to create a morally-stable state (i.e. invent Good and Evil). However, as Strauss believed, this moral picture was not important for the leader himself to believe as long as the populous does. Thus you get a kind of social conservatist, fiscal liberalist shadow tyranny. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and BONE "Richard" Cheney are thought to be neoconservative by this definition.

[You probably can't touch this.]

As for the school issue, I admit that education is my most idealistic concern which would require nothing less of total reform (as well as culture with a higher priority on education, as you pointed out). I don't think you would disagree that education could be silver bullet for nearly every issue across the board.


As for my statement of Obama not being liberal enough, I was referring to his social policies, not economic. Despite my answer of the question about the crash, I am more fiscally center, especially after all this insane defense (or rather offense) spending.

[Kuat]

Oct 13, 2008 18:38:10 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

Hmm, I thought you disliked Socratic dialogue. I should have seen it in your omission of your own opinions in the first post. Well, discussion has to start somewhere but for my own sanity I will have to reply to your replies one post at a time. I'm reading this at 7:30pm after a long day so bare with me if I take my time.

As I stated before, I already know what my opinions are. I'm more interested to dissect yours.

Basically you are one of the few people I know won't whimper out of an argument. Most of those I chat with have their political compass alingned with feelings and faith, not reason and reality. And these people vote. This annoys me to no end. I want to see that there are nice, hard reasons behind opinions I disagree with.

Onward:

I concede that the root of this problem steams from pressured loans to high risk people. This is why I am more favorable to strategic tax exemptions for businesses to create more jobs and government social programs to get these people into these jobs while also providing start-up support and education on financial responsibility. Unfortunately this will be costly both toward the average tax payer as well as the government cutbacks to finance.

Making business more lucrative (especially startups), and thus having more competition, I'm for it. Tax breaks sound like a good place to work in that direction; ease the risk that people take trying to get off the ground.

As far as social programs... explain. Education on financial responsibility? Can that even be taught? Is there a precedent that has worked for this idea?

And while I'm for some incentives for startups, when you say support, what does that mean? Who will get it and who won't? How many miles of red tape and bias will that introduce into the market?

However, I do blame the "guy who threw gasoline on the fire" more simply because the guy threw a fucking ton of gasoline on that fire. Where is the responsibility if the bank wraps the shitty diaper in christmas paper and tosses it off only to be wrapped in more christmas paper? Yes, the original banks should have taken the unfair hit for the loans but what has went from being terrible externalities has become HORRIBLY ATROCIOUS MARKET-BREAKING EXTERNALITIES. Now I don't know how long these MBS packages have been trading but I figure for a long time and someone should have been there to have caught the problem earlier. However, I am aware I can be wrong as the information I've been hearing about the crisis has been erratic and less than adequate.

I agree there should be grave consequences for this epic fuck up. However, we can't just sit and say too bad a la the 1920's, then have a total downward spiral for all. Major banks can't just fail without a great deal of collateral damage. The best solution is faaaaar above my head though. Can't even evaluate the current options, honestly.

Oct 13, 2008 20:45:01 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

Well the "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK" is the neoconservative point. "Neoconservative" has been tossed around a lot as a political buzzword for a while but it originally refers to neo-Platonic philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss' philosophy is mostly born out of what Strauss saw as the anarchy of the sixties created from rampant liberalism, individualism, and relativism. Thus, Strauss argued a kind of Platonic philosophy that a leader should lie and provide false evidence in order to create a morally-stable state (i.e. invent Good and Evil). However, as Strauss believed, this moral picture was not important for the leader himself to believe as long as the populous does. Thus you get a kind of social conservatist, fiscal liberalist shadow tyranny. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and BONE "Richard" Cheney are thought to be neoconservative by this definition.

Well, that explains things nicely. Thanks.

Oct 16, 2008 22:32:46 GMT -8 You probably can't touch this. said:

As for the school issue, I admit that education is my most idealistic concern which would require nothing less of total reform (as well as culture with a higher priority on education, as you pointed out). I don't think you would disagree that education could be silver bullet for nearly every issue across the board.

Education is great, ja. As long as it teaches critical thinking. Is there any reason why you were thinking that an increase in teacher's salaries would help? As in, is there a population that is being spurned from teaching because of the salary? Throw too much money there, and you'll have people teaching because the salary, not because they actually want to teach.

Imagine I paid 100k a year to a maid. Would that really convince that student to ditch their career to become a maid? Or would I get the average minimum wage maid, except I pay her many fold higher for the same job?

To me nothing stings me worse than the mentality that if you through enough money at a problem, it will go away, which seems to be a hallmark of socialism.

As for my statement of Obama not being liberal enough, I was referring to his social policies, not economic. Despite my answer of the question about the crash, I am more fiscally center, especially after all this insane defense (or rather offense) spending.

I'm wary of what you mean by this. I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I have a feeling what you mean is different.

Hell, I'll put the core of my beliefs here, getting down to brass tacks:

In my opinion, you can do whatever the hell you want, live however the hell you want, as long as I'm not paying for it and I'm not harmed by it. Gay marriage? Sure, as long as all marriage (hetero and homo) doesn't entail tax benefits! Abortion? Be my guest! Immigration! Border is open, come on in as long as you pay for the services you are provided in full and follow the local laws. Shoot up, snort, or get drunk? Awesome, as long as you take responsibility for your actions and I don't wind up paying for your rehab or methadone; and so help me, if you harm another in that state of mind you'll be in jail for life..

This is my outlook: live as you wish, you have total freedom. The freedom to win, and the freedom to fail horribly. Americans seem to be uncomfortable with this "personal responsibility". Personally I think it's a great thing!

IMHO, if a drunk has cirrhosis and can't pay for his treatment because he was too drunk to get a job, too bad. That's right, he can die in a ditch as far as I'm concerned. A mother has far too many children to support? Tie her tubes, take the kids away. A guy takes a loan out he can't ever pay back and now his house is being foreclosed on, and the family has nowhere to go? You lose, good day sir!

Take warning tags off of everything! Air porn on regular TV! Screw ratings and prohibitions! 100% inheritance tax, no more being born into comfort! Ban income tax, what you earn should be what you keep, and not punished for! No more social security- save up for retirement!

Society should provide a few things: security, law, and above all maintain competition. Monopolies should be relics, mergers under the tightest of scrutiny. Megacorporations will exist only if they can provide services smaller ones can't. School should be made harder, failure far more grave. Those who show effort should be rewarded handsomely. Those who do not will get nothing. People should be encouraged to think about their actions, or face the consequences.

My dream society will be one of everyone in struggle, because that's what brings about the best in people. One of complacency, stability, and comfort is abhorrent to me, as it will stagnate the human race.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 28, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -8 Kuat said:

As I stated before, I already know what my opinions are. I'm more interested to dissect yours.

Basically you are one of the few people I know won't whimper out of an argument. Most of those I chat with have their political compass alingned with feelings and faith, not reason and reality. And these people vote. This annoys me to no end. I want to see that there are nice, hard reasons behind opinions I disagree with.

Well thank you for the compliment but I think that you will ultimately be dissatisfied with my "nice, hard reasons" as I do take feelings into account, though I do believe in such a way to be in accordance with reason. I suppose that is up for you to decide. And I will also continue in this multiple post style, if you don't mind, as I like to take each issue into consideration individually and there is no telling how much time I might attribute to each. However, from reading over your last reply, I can tell that our point of dispute will end up philosophical so don't lose patience if my various answers seem to develop a theme of similar reasoning.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 28, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -8 Kuat said:

Making business more lucrative (especially startups), and thus having more competition, I'm for it. Tax breaks sound like a good place to work in that direction; ease the risk that people take trying to get off the ground.

As far as social programs... explain. Education on financial responsibility? Can that even be taught? Is there a precedent that has worked for this idea?

And while I'm for some incentives for startups, when you say support, what does that mean? Who will get it and who won't? How many miles of red tape and bias will that introduce into the market?

I'm sorry, a confusion of terms on my part. I should be more sensitive. By "start-up support" I did not mean financial support for start up companies but, instead, providing the wherewithal for the unemployed (especially the chronically unemployed) to find and keep employment. Of course I don't mean to have this done by just handing the people cash via welfare or have agencies force loans to them but instead community-based programs (what exactly what this means seems to micro for me to explain here and I imagine it would need a broad enough definition in order to properly address individual circumstances) to help combat the defeatism of poverty. And yes, I do believe that financial responsibility can be taught as I remember being taught myself. Loans, credit card debt, etc. are rationally understandable concepts, we're not talking about virtue here, and can of course be taught.

As for the tax-cuts for small businesses, I can't say exactly were I would draw the lines as I am no economist and don't feel knowledgeable to provide details. However, I would theoretically like to be able to have tax cuts for sole proprietorships and partnerships (i.e. small businesses) while having corporations pay regular taxes (or perhaps higher considering circumstances) in exchange for limited liability. However this may be naive plan.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 28, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -8 Kuat said:

I agree there should be grave consequences for this epic fuck up. However, we can't just sit and say too bad a la the 1920's, then have a total downward spiral for all. Major banks can't just fail without a great deal of collateral damage. The best solution is faaaaar above my head though. Can't even evaluate the current options, honestly.

And why would the collapse of the banks cause such great collateral damage? How did they get to be so integral to the well being of the economy? This isn't the doing of government regulation, this is due to a concentration of wealth caused by years of trickle down tax cuts and businessmen in power trying to stifle competition.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 28, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -8 Kuat said:

Education is great, ja. As long as it teaches critical thinking. Is there any reason why you were thinking that an increase in teacher's salaries would help? As in, is there a population that is being spurned from teaching because of the salary? Throw too much money there, and you'll have people teaching because the salary, not because they actually want to teach.

Imagine I paid 100k a year to a maid. Would that really convince that student to ditch their career to become a maid? Or would I get the average minimum wage maid, except I pay her many fold higher for the same job?

To me nothing stings me worse than the mentality that if you through enough money at a problem, it will go away, which seems to be a hallmark of socialism.

Strange that you attribute a hallmark of capitalism to socialism, namely that of higher pay as an incentive for better work. But you say that will undercut the teachers' passion for education, which is understandable. But please don't do violence to my position by assuming that I mean to "throw too much money there." If we are to take your maid example into consideration, let's begin by thinking that you are unhappy with the level of service your maid is providing. Certainly you would look for a new maid who would meet your expectations. Given the dynamics of service industries, the higher the expectations then the higher salary asked. If the new maid does not provide, that maid is fired. Now teachers provide a far more valuable service than a maid so I wonder what makes you think they are equatable for such an analogy. But if you do expect more from a teacher, the teacher in turn expects more for their work.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Oct 28, 2008 22:22:18 GMT -8 Kuat said:

I'm wary of what you mean by this. I'm socially liberal and economically conservative. I have a feeling what you mean is different.

Hell, I'll put the core of my beliefs here, getting down to brass tacks:

In my opinion, you can do whatever the hell you want, live however the hell you want, as long as I'm not paying for it and I'm not harmed by it. Gay marriage? Sure, as long as all marriage (hetero and homo) doesn't entail tax benefits! Abortion? Be my guest! Immigration! Border is open, come on in as long as you pay for the services you are provided in full and follow the local laws. Shoot up, snort, or get drunk? Awesome, as long as you take responsibility for your actions and I don't wind up paying for your rehab or methadone; and so help me, if you harm another in that state of mind you'll be in jail for life..

This is my outlook: live as you wish, you have total freedom. The freedom to win, and the freedom to fail horribly. Americans seem to be uncomfortable with this "personal responsibility". Personally I think it's a great thing!

IMHO, if a drunk has cirrhosis and can't pay for his treatment because he was too drunk to get a job, too bad. That's right, he can die in a ditch as far as I'm concerned. A mother has far too many children to support? Tie her tubes, take the kids away. A guy takes a loan out he can't ever pay back and now his house is being foreclosed on, and the family has nowhere to go? You lose, good day sir!

Take warning tags off of everything! Air porn on regular TV! Screw ratings and prohibitions! 100% inheritance tax, no more being born into comfort! Ban income tax, what you earn should be what you keep, and not punished for! No more social security- save up for retirement!

Society should provide a few things: security, law, and above all maintain competition. Monopolies should be relics, mergers under the tightest of scrutiny. Megacorporations will exist only if they can provide services smaller ones can't. School should be made harder, failure far more grave. Those who show effort should be rewarded handsomely. Those who do not will get nothing. People should be encouraged to think about their actions, or face the consequences.

My dream society will be one of everyone in struggle, because that's what brings about the best in people. One of complacency, stability, and comfort is abhorrent to me, as it will stagnate the human race.

Yes, you have a Libertarian political philosophy, a very reasonable position and one that I agree with often. However, in my opinion, Libertarianism is largely too idealistic to achieve its own goals. As you’ve stated, it is founded upon an absolute belief personal responsibility. This I cannot agree with. One of the issues of modern philosophy that interests me more than most others is the question of Determinism. In short, it would be illogical to hold that everything is indeterminate, including human behavior. To deny that a cause comes from an effect would be to deny physics as well as reason. Now we also hold free will, which immediately seems to contradict this idea if we are determined by causes not of our own making. Yet our free will is founded in reason and is, therefore, fueled by what is determined. We are both products as well as producers, yet Libertarianism denies the latter and upholds the former. Of course, this particularly appeals to those who have little experience of the consequences of being a product. But of course the consequences of determinism are not always disenfranchising. Could a Libertarian tell an inheritor of vast wealth to untie his shoes as he tells the inheritor of vast debt to pick his up by his boot straps? I do believe in a free market, but free of what? I believe for a free market to be free, it must be balanced so there might not be a concentration of wealth that would systematically manufacture an economy against competition and lead to a plutocratic state that benefits it. Instead of the government, the free market needs to be free of itself, or rather those who seek to control it for their own gain. As such, I believe that in order to free the market, we must return the market to equilibrium so that competition may return as the self-regulating force that it is.