Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

Oh the irony of Stp posting a video advocating socialist-style solutions to our economic problems.

You do know that Dmitry Orlov posts about socialist-style economic and social reform on his blog? (Of course you don't.) He's advocating a mixed economy here, FYI.

'People need to be given the basics'-- b-b-but welfare is wrong, Stp! Why do you want to support those lazy people who don't want to work?

The entire point of the video is that free market policies are killing the US, Stp... I think you just looked at the title. If you seriously agree with this guy, then why do you constantly spout a backwards libertarian/an-cap/proto-fascist perspective?

On his blog, Orlov argues that the USSR had a 'soft collapse' because of the centralized socialist-style economy, and that the US will have a 'hard crash' because it doesn't... and then proposes survival strategies which will be necessary because of the unwillingness of the US to adopt a socialist solution.

So yes, good find!
I completely agree.

I'm really quite surprised that you can listen to RT and not pick up on its leftist leanings... but of course, you've also managed to listen to my arguments without picking up on anything I'm saying, so I think it probably has a lot to do with your ability to process information.

PS: You're going to love this-- reading Orlov's blog makes me realize that he feels exactly the same way about Obama as I do.

 

You're acting like a fool. I obviously didn't say anything about this guy, I posted it because they were talking about an economic collapse. She said this guy has a theory that the Fall of Soviet Russia is a good model for America. OKay? I didn't say "Oh listen to this guy, he's brilliant!" Like I did with Ron Paul.


As far as Im Concerned, you, him and, Obama are a big part of the problem that's leading to the economic collapse. And Obama is almost the whole problem leading to a social crash, due to his unconstitutional laws that you wont even read.

Liberals want to pretend like our money supply is infinite, and government should have power over individuals, and you're in for a very rude awakening in those aspects.

Your government is a fraud, and you love and support for Obama, and your distain for anyone who tells the truth will be wasted effort. You're supporting terrorism far greater than Bin Laden, and Tyranny far greater than the Brittish government we separated from.
Communism, socialism and, Liberalism are giant frauds that revolved around the idea that government is more important and valuable than citizens. That is the old world. The American Constitution founded us freedom, and that is the new world. Freedom for individuals, NOT corporations and government

 

You realize that, by the actual definition of liberalism, you are a liberal, right?

You should really stop using that word incorrectly if you want to be taken seriously.

 

It is just a word. Same with left, right, democrat etc. People and situations are their own in the first place, they can be labeled and defined secondly. STP really seems to go more by words and definitions than actual situations. Even when he adresses an actual situation he gets lost in some of those words again (liberal and it's variations especially).

 

Yes, the intelligent man posts videos he doesn't understand or probably hasn't watched to support his views. Good point.

Then why didn't you post a Ron Paul video?

It's not a secret that a lot of people are uneasy about the future, or think that capitalism is headed in a scary direction... we don't need to discuss the problems, we need to discuss the solutions.

That's ridiculous. Obama isn't as powerful as you think he is. The people with real power are the ones demanding bigger tax breaks and demanding that everyone worship the rich and making all kinds of ridiculous promises about how everyone will be rich if they deregulate everything and let them do whatever they want.

Free Market policies and deregulation caused the crash, it's what led to the printing of money. I keep saying this-- the government isn't strong, it's weak. It doesn't have any real power, which is why Obama talks and talks and talks and never manages to get much of anything done.

YOU POSTED A VIDEO OF A LEFTIST SAYING THAT THE GOVT. SHOULDN'T BE PRINTING MONEY LIKE THAT.

Why do you cling to this idea that 'liberals' all want the same thing?

And the government shouldn't have power over individuals, it should DISTRIBUTE power TO individuals. It's really hard to explain this concept to someone like you, because I don't think you get subtlety.

Blah blah blah blah.

 

If you look at the date this was probably from 2 years ago. The topic is asking a concise question to the reader, and it was meant to get peoples opinion. There is literally no subtext on the topic; I'm shocked balbus didn't delete this already. But, I was talking about the possibility of an economic collapse, and that video was aswell, I imagine that's why I used it.

But socialism is nonsense, and has never worked in large groups.

I've posted plenty of Ron Paul speeches, including his farewell speech to congress ( which actually I'll change it after this.)

It's not capitalism, it is croney capitalism, where certain corporations are in bed with government, while others are bombarded with taxes and regulations, which force them to hire lawyers just to read them. I'm not talking about only huge corporations either. Even the little guy working out of his basement is killed in taxes and regulations. Many of which, make no sense.

Oh God! what a relief! You know? For two years I actually believed Obama could kill anyone including American citizens, detain them for nothing with no type of trial, take other peoples property for any reason at all in times of war and peace and, restrict the Constitution through executive orders, and have his lawyers argue to the Supreme court. But jeez, I am soo glad you assured me that none of this is going on. The only problem is that it is going on and it is quite serious (to those of us who live here and are losing our Rights and Freedoms.)

It's not about deregulating everything. But, the thing many of you leftist refuse to believe, is that there are alot of pointless regulations. Restrictions on little girls selling lemonade- cops will literally shut them down. I think that's disgusting in America, but, Liberals think it's "good" because "it may not be lemonade." Oh yeah, we have a big problem in America will little girls trying to poison us. But it seems like it doesn't matter to leftist- any small businessman or wtvr, is assumed to be greedy and uncaring, and that isn't the case.

Businesses need to make money to keep going. But because they have to make money, they are not gonna sell you a bad product, or cause you any physical harm. All a corporation can do without government is offer you a product, or offer you a job. If no one wants to take either one, the company goes bankrupt. They need the total consent of the people, or they'd go bankrupt. Therefore, they can't force anything onto you without government.

We let government watch them, and I would argue that they're accomplishing very little.

Which crash are we talking about?? 2008?

You're confused. The Banksters were encouraged by government to give out big loans, that people couldn't pay back, so they could buy houses, and the housing market would go up. The consequence was, most of the country went into terrible debt. The bankers especially, who could get any of their money back.

Because of that the banks were in a bad spot, they claimed they were "too big to fail" so our government "loaned" them 17 trillion. None of this is due to "deregulation," it was due to government playing god with the economy and businesses.

I didn't hear him say anything of the sort. And anyway, a system like the soviets would expand and have a massive amount of spending and debt too, so, what he's advocating is backward.

I know you don't agree, but look at any communist government through history

It's an ideology. Much like one's religion. Only, the individuals I talk to keep citing the word Liberalism as being Classic Liberalism. I am a Classic Liberal, but, I'm not a new-age liberal that believes in taxing the rich more, banning the ownership of firearms and, controlling the population amount- I think that feeds into the status quo.

And I def don't support Obama.

There's nothing subtle about government force and government control. The government restricts me from smoking Marijuana cigarettes why? It's not bad for me- it's actually alot better than alcohol or tabbacco.

Besides, government doesn't distribute power to us in any way. They create new wasteful government programs, hire more government employees, and eventually arm them to the teeth (DHS, Social security) while they try to take our weapons.

They also took our power to sue Monsanto if their product gives us cancer.

Plus, with all the laws I cited of Obama's, it should be obvious the people are losing our power, not gaining it. We're not empowered by government in the least.

This is why I act like all Liberals are the same. They deny the truth, and they always think they're right, even if they have no idea.

 

Alright.

Except in Scandinavia.

To be honest, he's not even advocating socialism as much as a mixed economy, which I also tend to favor. But as an extremist, you would consider that socialism, so I refer to it as socialism.

What taxes and regulations would those be?

Here are the real reasons why small businesses are harder to run:

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/53/file...mall-biz-week-infographic.png?t=1371568044000

A lot of it is because there was a recession. BUT it's also because of the wage gap, which means people are spending less. And the emphasis on going online as well.

That's not what I meant. Obviously the president has power, but a lot of the decisions being made by the president are being made because the mega-wealthy are holding the economy hostage. It will take decades to undo the damage done by Reagan, Clinton and Bush with their free trade and free market policies.

Nobody wants stupid regulations to be in place. And you can't blame Obama for that because the lemonade stands were municipal issues that your precious small businesses are probably responsible for.

Oh really? I guess you've never heard of the tobacco industry, the food industry, the drug industry, the alcohol industry, the entertainment industry or the gun industry. People go back to these things over and over because they strategically create familiarity in the public consciousness through the media/advertising (which requires money that small businesses don't have), because they appeal to their insecurities, their self-destructive impulses, their addictions, their paranoia, etc. So much of the food in the supermarket has almost no nutritional value and isn't much better than eating rocks of crack cocaine for a meal, but Americans everywhere eat it. THAT is the free market in action.

The government was swallowed by the corporations and forced to do their bidding. Deregulation played a very large part in that.

And how did the government encourage them?

Oh yeah-- by deregulating everything... they removed all of the barriers between banks and lenders and made the even dumber mistake of trusting the markets to regulate themselves/rate their own financial products. They allowed greed to run wild and there was so much trading of garbage loans between stable, unstable and downright dodgy institutions that it was impossible for anyone to keep track of what was what.

But countries like Canada, which fought deregulation and held onto their central banks/regulations emerged from the crisis relatively unscathed.

The best solution to the crisis was probably to nationalize the banks outright, kick the greedy CEOs out and allow public ownership while watching them like a hawk... but of course idiots like you would have screamed 'OMG SOCIALISM! FUCK U OBAMA.', which is why you're stuck with slightly more regulated, slightly more stable cash cows for the uber wealthy.

Blaming regulation in general for this is stupid-- the fact is the regulators allowed things to happen that they shouldn't have. They weren't being too restrictive, they were being too permissive.

 

No

 

i think what we're seeing is militant miscreance becoming harder to hide from the public.

 

Idk too much about that country. I guess Cuba is still communist!? But, I don't know much about them either.

You're just assuming that. You're the one who said I was posting "socialistic style" propaganda. I just copied you.

It's funny cause nearly everyone of you radical leftists think I'm an "extremist," meanwhile, nearly every American I spoke with in person, agrees with me, with regards to civil liberties.

There's a lot. The income tax is one of them. Regulations which tell people which trees they can/can't have on their lawn, selling lemonade(as I said,) banning large soft drinks, insane taxes on employees who are already taxed, tax on second-hand items, tax on inherentances and, gifts and lottery. To me, America has insane taxes. We are taxed again and again and again! On the same items/money. If people kept more of their money, we would be able to save up, and start a business if we wanted to.

Also, there is no regulation on GMOs- Monsanto is free to cause cancer on people, and they can get away with it, due to our government.

Besides that, there are books and books worth of regulations and laws, and a lot of them are insane. Fining farmers 100K per day, for having the "wrong tree" in their yard, is what I call overkill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ"]John Stossel's Illegal Everything - YouTube

I showed you a graph last time we were talking about this, and small business aren't starting up near as much as they used to...



I know you liberals would blame anything other than your policies, but believe it or not, regulations do kill small businesses and jobs. Obama has even said that once, well, he said less regulations create jobs, but it's the same concept.

Plus, to me, it doesn't matter what they say, it matters what regulations they pass, and he passes a lot of them.

This is a response I would expect to hear from a Liberal. Clinton is considered "Liberal," first of all. At least a Democratic "liberal," because he believes in expanding government. Moreover, none of these politicians have true "free market" ideas. The closest thing was Reagan, but he was still a major hypocrite by favoring the wealthy with tax cuts. He came up with "trickle down economics" which is total bull shit. Really, he should imposed a small tax cut for everyone. But, most of the American Presidents were bought and paid for by BIG corporations, therefore working for them and against their competition.


You don't have to believe me, but I know the people you named do not represent Libertarianism in the least!

That's a very bold statement, with nothing behind it. You think government is so great and perfect, that obviously they are only stopping a problem that is already there. When, I don't think there's a problem with little girls (or anyone) selling Lemonade without a business license.

I think you liberals rationalize it, by blaming business owners, when all they're trying to do is stay in business. It's insane that companies have to pay taxes on employees, and it's crazy that they need a lawyer to sift through the hundreds of thousands of pages of business regulations.

You Liberals trust government far too much, due to them "fixing" some tainted meat going around in the 60's, but, companies are much more liable today. Companies today can be sued, or, people can refuse to shop there. This is a much bigger incentive to get it right the first time. I don't believe that USDA agents inspecting 1 in 200 cows protects us. The company does it, because they don't want a bad name for themselves. (except monsanto, cause they're protected by government, and we don't know when we're buying their products.)

Again, they offer you a product or, they offer you a job. It shouldn't be the government's place to tell people what they can and can't ingest.

Their products may hurt people. But guns also protect people.

Again, people are allowed to make their own decisions. It sounds like you're suggesting that government tell us what we can and can't eat (which they do already.)

There is alot of food that has no nutritional value- Potatoes and white bread are examples of that. And potatoes have GMOs in it, protected by our government..

One thing my views make way for, is individuals. Some people do overeat, and go way overboard. But it's not my place or your place to tell them what they can and can't eat.

Which also means I think Michelle Obama's taxpayer funded workout program is a waste of our hard-earned money. Individuals have resources to lose weight if they want to, just as they do resources to gain it.

Over production is an issue. But, not one that will be stopped by government. Government works for the elite Trillionaires, not small businesses- not us people.

"Force" is a very strong word. I would use the word "bribed." They're still doing it at their own will, even if a bribe is the reason for it, they chose to play along.

They took regulations off that had only been on 10-15 years earlier first-of-all. Secondly, don't get me started on the banks- I don't consider them honest companies to begin with. They don't have 1/3rd of the money they pretend they do. I think that's fraud by definition, and because of that, they ought to be shut down.

So, don't get me started on the banks. I also support bribery laws, I don't think it's right that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan controlled (at least) the last two presidencies (including Obama)

Don't tell me what I would think or say. First of all, I don't like the fact that the Federal Reserve (the place that prints our money) is a private bank.

I would support a Central Public bank if, (and only if) the currency used had some real value behind it. IE if it were based on precious metals like gold, silver, copper etc.

Permissive with Government help and control. I doubt they wouldn't have taken the risk, if government didn't already promise to bail them out. We've had a long-standing policy in America, where the tax payer is responsible for any bank robberies etc. but why? Why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for their faulty security? Moreover, it also went on the taxpayer to pay for their malinvestments. They gave out loans, with government encouragement to do so, and they went bankrupt. The free market solved our problem there, the most corrupt elitiest were out of money. But- no! The taxpayer had to pickup the tab.

So again, fuck the banks. Obviously, neither of us like them much. But, I'm not talking about the elite and people who make their money on the back of the taxpayer, or anyone who causes harm on anyone. So really, corporations couldn't do any of this in my society anyway. I think banks are con artists. They pretend they are "Holding" your money, when they're really stealing it. But, I'm against the Federal Reserve and the debt-machine it perpetuates anyway!


But, what I'm saying with regards to regulations, is they do discourage small businesses from coming up, and some of them are totally pointless and do not help at all, they just cost the taxpayers money. Like a lot of their "laws."

 

1. Scandinavia isn't a country.

2. You don't know anything about what you're constantly shitting on? Scandinavian countries are notorious for their high income taxes and high-quality public services (ie: big government). Their markets are relatively free (aside from high income taxes), but the thing is: you've been blabbing all over this board about how high taxes and big government is a bad thing, so the argument still stands.

3. Cuba is a pretty poor country but thanks to socialized housing, education and health care, they have the same life expectancy as Americans.

In general, you shit on the left. Your concept of 'liberals' means big government, high taxes, etc. It is obviously hard to argue against someone who doesn't really understand their own side or the specifics of what they're railing against, but yeah... maybe you could stop shitting on the left from now on or trying to pretend it's all black and white.

Stop attacking stereotypes and focus on individual policies/ideas instead... but make sure you actually know for certain that those policies don't work! It's pretty obvious you haven't even done the bare minimum of looking into whether lower taxes help businesses (most studies show there is little to no effect), or whether government bureaus would work better if they're privatized. You could probably argue this, but instead you just insist it's true and then start bitching about Obama and liberals.

You ARE an extremist... all of this 'fight for your rights' and paranoia and rage against the machine and unwillingness to compromise or face the reality is pretty extreme.

You're just repeating yourself here!

Look, government operates on 3 levels-- Federal (Obama), State (Governor) and Municipal (mayor). Your hero Ron Paul is the one who wants to leave these three levels to fend for themselves/get greater independence.

The ban on soft drinks happened in New York CITY (Municipal).
Tree bans happen on a CITY level (Municipal).
The Lemonade stands were attacked by the CITIES they were in (Municipal).

YOU'RE the one who wants to decentralize everything and give areas more autonomy. One of Ron Paul's favorite mantras is 'let the states decide that'.

You can't possibly say that 'liberals' support every single tax or that they're responsible for corruption on city or state levels, or that I personally support attacking lemonade stands because I think it's a good idea to have more social services or think Obama has SOME good ideas... none of this shit makes any sense.

This doesn't have anything to do with anything we're talking about!!!

Your buddy Ron Paul might argue that regulations hurt business-- in fact, he voted AGAINST the bill requiring GMOs to be labelled in supermarkets.

http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/cushing-rand-paul-ron-paul-oppose-gmo-labeling

It was the DEMOCRATS who were primarily in favor of labeling GMOs, and the free market people blocked it... as usual.

Your graph proves nothing, your conclusion doesn't follow from that image, there is no evidence to back up your claims.

I already explained to you-- yes, small businesses are creating fewer jobs. I completely, utterly totally agree. I said this in my last post, in fact. Small businesses are NOT creating jobs, okay? But their profits are RISING. Technology and 'efficient business practices' have made it easier for them to not hire people/create full time work.

If you give them a tax break, you seriously think they're going to hire someone that they don't need to hire? NO-- they're going to keep the money and give themselves a bonus. This is how business works-- nobody is in it for the greater good, they're in it to make MONEY. The tax breaks don't help them help others, they help them help themselves.

There's nothing wrong with that, but don't act like they're like some noble, preferable alternative to Walmart or whatever. Sometimes it's better to make $10/hr at Walmart than $4/hr at Mom and Pop's general store. Corporations can be organized to be better for the environment than small business... provided they're efficiently managed. In fact, studies have shown that small businesses pollute more than corporations, when you take into account the scale of their operations.

Clinton was the one who deregulated the banks!!! He also supported tax cuts for the wealthy, just like Bush, just like Reagan. All of these men were basically extensions of each other and the free market ideology that you are expounding.

1980-2008 was pretty much the era of the free market, where the overall trend was towards deregulating everything, helping businesses grow at any cost, money money money, etc. It was kickstarted by Reagan and then continued by every president UNTIL Obama, even though his attempts at reversing this trend have either been blocked or stopped by the retarded right.

The 80s was when the corporate money-grubbing attitude and rampant commercialism became entrenched in the American psyche, and now begins the slow and painful process of digging it out.

Libertarianism is the more extreme version of Reagan's philosophy. Reagan most certainly did identify himself as a Libertarian, and did whatever he could to try to reform the US according to that philosophy. He of course also had to appease the rest of his party and such, but he was a die-hard libertarian and the one who sold the US on trickle down, free market policies. The 80s were when the 'yuppie' lifestyle was heavily marketed to people who couldn't afford it, leading to the culture of entitlement and greed. That's what the 80s WERE-- the era of greed.

You keep changing the topic!

I don't think government is great and perfect, I think it's necessary to enforce regulations and to moderate the economy/provide social services. I don't think it's immune to corruption. I don't think that every single politician in every single city in every single state is a heroic force for good.

In order to respond to your concerns about the lemonade stands, I would need to know the political philosophies of the politicians involved with these policies. I'm pretty sure they're shutting down the lemonade stands to protect the local small businesses... that has nothing to do with 'liberals', it has everything to do with the emphasis on small businesses as being somehow better or more important than large ones, and in need of 'special protection'.

Why are you even bringing this up??

And all leftists DON'T support Monsanto!:

http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...ist-hysteria-over-monsanto-n1706963/page/full

You're missing the point and changing the subject AGAIN.

My point is the free market doesn't have any moral concern for the public health. You might think that some people (probably you and the ones you agree with) can simply resist the mainstream currents and think for themselves, but that line of thinking is exactly what makes you weak.

People always tell themselves they're not like everybody else, everyone else is a slave, they themselves are so critical... and then they go to MacDonald's 'just once in a while' because they feel like 'junking out'. They buy shit they know is killing themselves and the planet, because they see it as an indulgence or because they have a 'right to hurt themselves'. But the thing is, there are alternatives but the alternatives don't have the same money behind their marketing, and they're not as addictive or don't play into the insecurities/anxieties/sicknesses/addictions caused by the endless media bombardment/commercialism/emphasis on consumption and overconsumption.

The free market LOVES consumerism. It LOVES the idea that people will always need and want MORE. It loves that they're allowed to sell people poison, and that they can convince people that they have a god-given right to consume this poison. It LOVES that even if you don't consume their products on a regular basis, you will still fight for their right to prey on children, or the thinking or unthinking masses and sell them on their bullshit consumer lifestyle. They know who you are, they know what you want, and they use that to convince you to buy from them.

That's the free market, that's the runaway train we need to put the brakes on... and you want to give it more fuel and let it take care of itself? That's the whole reason we got into this mess!

It's definitely NOT a bribe.

The corporations have gotten so powerful that if they collapsed, the entire US economy would collapse along with them. They haven't been regulated properly and have merged and swallowed and recycled each other many times over, to the point where they're so entrenched in the global economy they pretty much have total control. The government has been surrendering its power to the corporations for decades... and it's very very very difficult to get it all back... if it's even possible. People like you definitely aren't helping.

For whatever reason you want to assume that everyone in the government is corrupt and evil-- but the truth is, they're just powerless... and very divided. Half of them are still stuck in the 80s and the rest are toothless. Republicans are pining for the long-dead right-wing glory days of Reagan and seriously think they're doing the right thing, Dems realize that they can't make the dramatic changes needed without it having serious repercussions for them politically. The markets would crash if growth was dramatically threatened... so they swallow the poison and keep trying to fight their way to a cure. They need to introduce changes gradually so as to not spook investors and not provoke a collapse. If a vase is sitting on the edge of the table, you don't hack the legs off the table and hope it will roll safely to the ground.

The government might regain some of its power some day... more on this below.

Yes, shut down all of the banks! Nothing bad could possibly come of that, especially since most people have their money tied up in them. The markets would be fine! Nobody would lose their pensions, their jobs, their entire life's savings, etc.

You're right, the only possible reason for this not happening is corruption on a massive scale.

You can't have an economy when your banks are failing. Seriously-- what do you think all of those wealthy foreign investors (ie: the ones who are running the global economy) would have done if the banks in America had failed?

If 85 people control most of the world's wealth, then exactly how difficult is it for just ONE of those people to take a HUGE portion of the American economy out of America and put it somewhere else? Everything that makes America rich and prosperous (hint: NOT people like you or me) would follow the money elsewhere. Without regulation, the rich can manipulate the markets however much they want. Look at what happened with Bitcoin-- months ago some Bitcoin millionaires decided to drive up the price on their unregulated market and create a bubble... so they bought up as much Bitcoin as they could, driving the price up... everyone saw it was skyrocketing and tried to get on board. At the same time, what do you think would happen if these people decided to sell off all of their bitcoins? The entire bitcoin market would crash.

THAT'S what I meant when you keep quoting me on saying 'only the rich matter'. I don't think you understand just how little power you or I or anyone on this board actually has. You can never hope to compete with multi-billionaires in terms of power and influence. It would literally take millions of people working together in perfect co-operation to take on just ONE of the uber-rich-- how are you supposed to get that many people to work together in one perfectly co-ordinated action? You might think it's as easy as getting the message out, but you're wrong... it's impossible to get a group of 25 people to agree on something. It's impossible to get even everyone in this politics forum to agree on anything! How are you supposed to get millions to agree?

And even than, all you've managed to do is scare the other 84 out of your country... there will always be a place for them in other nations. Other countries would LOVE to have their money. Even North Korea would roll out the red carpet for the Koch Brothers if they decided they were sick of having to pretend to pay their taxes... they would get a brand new army, their infrastructure would take off, and they would have everything needed for the rest of their days. People wouldn't care if they were supporting an oppressive regime as long as they made good TVs-- it hasn't stopped them before!

If the major banks and industries had failed, America would have become a third world country overnight. The money would have gone to one of the countries smart enough not to have let all the free market bullshit take over. Eventually, your entire country would have collapsed... and the guns that are floating around so freely would have been firing all the time.

You don't have to love the banks to realize they're an important part of the economy... and you can't say that the government sitting back and letting the market run itself means the government should be cut... it means we need to smack them upside the head and get them to do their jobs.

In the past, nationalism/ideology/racism was enough to hold things together but now that this has declined along with national borders thanks to trade agreements, money is literally the only thing holding global civilization together. Country, religion, everything else is irrelevant except on a personal level, or if you want to escape somehow.

Aside from these people voluntarily giving up their own power, elected representatives are the only thing with enough credibility to ever take these people on. Scandinavia proves that government and corporations can work together... but first libertarian menaces like the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, and all of that needs to be stopped.

Small businesses are overrated, first of all... just because they're small, it doesn't mean they're not as vicious as your average big corporation. In fact, Chinese sweatshops LOVE small business because it's the small businesses who play a big part in keeping them going.

In fact, your lemonade stand example proves that point. MacDonald's isn't the one being threatened by lemonade stands, it's the small juice bar down the road. They bitch to the mayor, and the mayor takes steps to protect them. It has nothing to do with Obama, or liberals or anything... it's all about the LOCAL government taking steps to protect the LOCAL businesses. Then they deflect the blame onto Obama, as if it's suddenly so painful because Obama repealed some tax breaks that were only ever intended to help get people through the recession... it's bullshit-- they just want to make more money, just like all of the other businesses. They are greedy and selfish and they want to buy nice things, period.

The pro-capitalist media loves to use these as examples of overregulation and tries to equate shutting down lemonade stands with taxation or regulation in general-- they pretend it's about Obama choking small business, but it never really is. It's supposed to make you buy into the black and white overregulation/totally free market dynamic so you can feel sorry for rich people who are being told they have to pay taxes they aren't even paying thanks to the loopholes. It's supposed to make you feel like small businesses are valuable parts of the community instead of people trying make as much money as they can because they want things, things not related to anyone else or the collective good or anything.

I know I'll never win with you, because you'll just keep pretending I'm saying things I've never said and supporting things I don't support and changing the topic and hammering home the same bullshit over and over and over. Whether or not some mayor in some pissant town somewhere bans kids selling lemonade has nothing to do with the bigger picture, nothing to do with the collapse of America, nothing to do with anything except you using ridiculous, irrelevant examples to try to prove your non-existent point about liberals trying to destroy America.

 

I know enough to say it's a lie. The politicians in these ponzi-schemes, always end up embezzling most of the money. That is why the countries end up poor like Cuba.

and look who's talking You constantly rip on Libertarians, and accuse my views of being like Clinton, Bush and, Reagan. Meanwhile they're all closer to Obama, in that they all expanded government, and cause greater disparity on the average American.

I've already stated numerous times why a "happy medium" is impossible under the current system, and it's mostly the federal reserve.

Besides, this is a joke coming from you. You support Obama, yet, supposibly don't support "some" of what he does. But, how could you tell me I'm stereotyping?

Obama is the definition of a big government Liberal. Obviously, you don't understand your own side. I know exactly what I'm railing against, just because you leftist are willing to give up your freedom for government security and help, doesn't mean everyone should.

Another joke! I only mention policies, I mention Obama policies and Liberal Agendas constantly- but, you leftist are so closed-minded, you pretend Obama is justified and above the law.

I've shown several sources. Not only the graph you dismissed, but I've posted several links before, and this from the Tax Institute

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.co...-income-tax-grow-faster-and-create-more-jobs/

I think it's more extreme to believe we must compromise (or sacrifice) or Rights, in the name of safety and government welfare. This is the product of a government that has gotten too big. Everything around us, especially the government force in killing, waging wars, spying on citizens, and, everything else that I mentioned. I believe it is more "extreme" and radical to support a disgusting man like Obama, after all the Rights he has taken from us.

I think you're the one that's not facing reality. Our government is obviously overblown, to the point where they torcher and kill people like Manning and Snowden, but the guy who released information for Zero Dark Thirty (a propaganda film) was not arrested once. And that's because there's already a cultural war going on; the government is trying to keep you blind to the truth, by making my views appear "Radical," by making their logic of killing and maiming for the "Greater good"

You pretend there is a happy medium, but you're also endorsing total government control either way you look at it. Liberal want almost everything taken over by government; healthcare, pre k etc. and, I think it's obvious in the fact that government does a lousy job, when they lose money and provide worse service than private corporations.

The goal is to shrink the role of the Federal government, and the idea of shrinking it to the state level, is so that people have a real voice in politics (let's not forget it's local government's who have legalized weed, and prostitution.) The idea is not more bans, but it's more insight into who we elect in the future, we want to elect people who follow the Constitution, so we know this type of truly radical abuses of power will not continue.

Your attacks on me haven't made much sense either.

I essentially feel that Liberals wont make the extensive cuts that are needed to stop this country from a total implosion.

That is to say, Liberals refuse to put any cut on Social Security, or even let individuals opt out.

It's the same with ObamaCare.

Most of them wouldn't dream of cutting the CIA.

Or the DHS.

And, Most of you have not said anything about Obama's Constitutional violations.

Cause he knows that the government isn't trustworthy, unlike you and the two people who thumbs up'd this post

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’ where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of ‘modified’ to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone." - Ron Paul

Because the Federal Government can't be trusted. Monsanto would give them more money, and they'd say pesticides and GMOs are not infact GMO's. MONEY controls the politicians. it's naive to think they're not being bribed or coerced in any way to change their policies.

I posted proof above.

The graph I showed before that showed that less businesses are opening today, so your argument nulls itself out.

Exactly, so tax cut for everyone will help everyone help themselves.

You're doing want you accused me of, 'arguing with a stereotype.'
I don't want to give the rich tax breaks, I support the fair tax, which would tax some of them more. But, I don't support taxes on our income, and it was originally against the Constitution until they ratified the Amendment.

I think if we work for a lousy 8-10$ an hour, we should be able to keep that. But as far as businesses, they will hire more people if they want more, but they wont have money to do that with the insane taxes we have.

Look dude, ill get back to the rest of your misconceptions tommorow, I got a girl waiting on me, and you type up too much for me when Im tired like this...

 

Jesus it's like arguing with a post which, despite its being an inanimate object, has brain damage.

I give up forever.

 

Where? What study? I don't believe that- small businesses don't burn up near as much oil or, make as much plastic waste.

On top of that, the reason why these big companies succeed, and the small ones don't make as much, is because Let's say you have an electronics store- you're only gonna want to hire people who know their electronics. Walmart doesn't care if you know it or not. They take people who don't specialize in one particular area. But, the reason people chose that, over mom and pop shops is because they can get their product for a cheaper price. And to Americans, that's a big deal.

You don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, I think the business practices of the banks are illegal, and they shouldn't be allowed to scam people like they do.

Secondly, none of these people had true free market ideas, they are government sympathizers, like Liberals.

You're the Strawman of every Liberal argument I have ever given. You're throwing these politicians at me, some of whom are Liberals, none of which represent free market, and you're citing Obama as this great hero that's making everything better.

I mean, like I said, if Obama is SO much better than Bush and Romney, why were they ALL sponsored by the exact same banksters, and, had the EXACT same policy from Civil Rights and, The Constitution, down to healthcare?

You Liberals buy into the media, just as mush as Republicans do with Fox News, but the perhaps even more insane part is that you refuse to hear any alternative views, and you throw out bogus and uninformed arguments like these.

The Government has expanded greatly since the 1960's.

In the 1960's:

People made more than they do today.

Working class individuals lived a middle class life.

Americas Manufacturing industry was booming.

Drugs were legal (through some of the 60's.)

People kept a good amount of the money they earned.


Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to the 60's. I just want a government that doesn't force it's will into every aspect of our life.

As I said, you may be willing to give up your freedom for government pre k, schools, welfare and, healthcare, but, no doubt, you're gonna get everything else on the corporate agenda just like with Clinton, Bush or Reagan.

Again, this is not the "freeing" of the market, it is government playing favorites, taking bribes etc. Banks IMO, are not a real "business" anyway, we pay them to "hold" our money, when they don't even have most of it. If everyone pulled out their money today, the banks would probably get another bailout.

Whether you believe it or not funneling millions of dollars into Obama campaign fund, was a bribe, and now he owes them, and is probably working for them to degrees we can't imagine.

I'm glad you acknowledged the entitlement system, usually Liberals don't use that word. Anyway, Reagan was not a Libertarian, but an establishment republican. Libertarians believe in tax cuts for everyone, because we wish to shrink the government and abolish wasteful spending and meaningless taxes, which drag all of society down- not just the Businesses.

Moreover, as far as I'm concerned, the Fair Tax does charge some rich people more, (like Romney who only pays just over 14%.)

And it also save millions of dollars worth of man hours.

Also, the reason why what you're saying about Libertarianism is a flat stereotype and lie, is because we believe in individual freedom, and we also believe in economic freedom, we don't support bending the rules for personal gain, and Ron Paul has said he believes in punishing corporations who have leeched from the taxpayer, or any corporation that harms anyone. To me, that's more protection than we have today, where corporations get fines for dumping waste, and they keep on doing it. Or poorly store cancer-causing chemicals.

No, you just think Democrats with policies that allegedly "help the poor," are great and immune to corruption. Just because you may not support the Obama policies I'm talking about, supporting him and boasting about how terrific you think he is, is the same damn thing as supporting everything he does, cause it's as though you think he's some great hero, when he's really just a sham like Bush was, and Liberals refuse to see it.

Obama has the same policies as Bush, he renstated the Bush Tax Cuts at least once.

Now you're being even more irrational. I know you Liberals would love to go open season on anyone that makes money; so you can take their hard earned money, to give it to people who don't work or contribute to society. In the Liberals entitled mind, this is the only path to human happiness.

That's why you jump at my throat everytime I talk, and call me an "extremist" merely for wanting a smaller, less invasive government, which protects our Civil Rights.

What we have today is already a government overblown. A government which tourchers and imprisons people for speech crimes and, many other non-violent crime. Much like with Obama- you can't support "some" of it. If you support the Federal Reserve, and the infinite debt-money (which Liberals need to "redistribute.") you're still going to need the printing of fake dollars, and, the Military-industrial complex which backs it.

Just because you are uninformed in these areas is not a reason to attack me because I disagree with your world view. I think people like you blame Republicans and the Right for everything, while totally ignorant to the fact that Obama's policies are Orwellian with regards to Civil Liberties.

Again, you support Obama, and talk about how great he is, yet, he defends GMO's and Monsanto from lawsuits (Again, unlike Ron Paul.)
There's a reason he's the "No" guy, because he know what an expensive and crappy job the government does, when it creates these programs/monopolies.

It's much worse to have Government fast food chains, government cars and total government controlled markets. Actually, it's a disaster, because most of your money would go to government, and they would probably cheap out on everything, while embezzling millions of dollars. Just like they do today. You act like the Corporations are so evil, and, government is so innocent. But, commercials can't FORCE you to buy products, and you're not forced to watch commercials. You could mute them, or watch Netflix. The alternative to capitalism throughout history has been when the government and their cronies are rich, and everyone else makes enough to buy a loaf of bread each day. That is where America is going if we continue to allow government to impose monopolies in the private sector. It always raises prices, and the taxpayer get screwed by comparison of what legitimate competition would've allowed. Remember, the American healthcare market has been plagued by government for forty years, and it brought prices up, quality of care went down and, the amount of people is less now, than it was forty years ago, before the government got involved.


Now longer can anyone pay-their-way through a Dr. apt, because government has hijacked the market, and they have infinite amounts of our own money to throw away.

The problem with your arguments is because none of this is really my views V your views, you are just assuming that my views help the corporation, when I've pointed out that Ron Paul received two hundred dollars total from any corporation- most of his money came from soldiers who wanted someone who would really end the wars, and stop the power-struggle.
Obama on the other hand, was paid millions through his campaigns by big business bankers and lobbyist.

No it's not. The reason we got into this mess is crony capitalism. A system which allows these corporations to bribe these politicians, and get government benefits for it. That is the reason they push us into wars, and expand our government, cause many times their contractor buddies can also make an extra buck.

I'm sorry, but, I think it's presumptuous to assume government protects us, and that either of the sides really care about the people.

Believe it or not, most corporations DO care about the health and safety of their consumers. If you buy tainted meat, that meat company can be sued, and lose most, if not all of their consumer base.

The only reason Corporations appear to be above the law today, is because they're controlling the government. The Government is literally a co conspirator, but Liberals like you and other pretend it's not tainted too bad, when quite obviously it's been on the wrong path for far too long, and they're not gonna be the ones to fix this.

What else do you call funneling millions of dollars to campaign fund to influence policy?

The government is not trying to get the power back; they are working for bribes in an obviously false and hypocritical system.

I wish you would stop talking about stuff you don't know anything about. Maybe the teaparty wants the glory days of Reagan, but that's not what I believe at all, and I'm sick of you assuming.

I think the democrats are just really good liars who "act" like they care about the people, because it's part of the political show, if they can get you to vote for either evil, they still have you by the balls, whether you believe it or not. Because Obama, just like Bush and Romney was sponsored by Jp Morgan and Goldman Sachs, and thry're both part owner in the federal reserve system. Nothing is meant to "change" unless it benefits the bankers and military-industrial complex, like with Bush.

If Obama was making a real change, he wouldn't have gotten into office. But Leftists are too uncaring and ignorant to lift the curtain

I'm not saying people should lose their money. I'm saying banks shouldn't allowed to be able to get away with these fraudulent business tactics.

I've pointed out that the bailout money would've been 20k per person, if we werent reponsible for the faults of the banks, the people would still be entitled to their money, the banks who fabricate money wouldn't, and they wouldn't be able to practice illegal business tactics.

It's healthy for corporations to fail when they're making malinvestments, and acting like money is infinite. They failed on their own accord, and it's not the taxpayers responsibility to dish out the cash to save a failing business of any kind. And other better banks would've came out of the crisis stronger. Instead, we played favorites. And gave the elite enough money to buy off their competitors and continue their massive fraud.

People should be more mindful of the politicians they support, and vote accordingly. And with regards to business, if you stop shopping there is it is probably due to something serious

I'm just gonna give a basic response to the rest of this. You're basically saying we should put up with it, cause without the rich people some other country would take them and blah blah blah, but name another country that would give them money to keep from collapsing, and implement their policy nationwide. Again, you're willing to give up your freedom for what you perceive to be "benefits" from the Federal Government.

And, you're always attacking me because I don't believe the lies that we're going to give up all of our freedom, rights and, most of our money, and we're gonna get a Liberal/Communist paradise where government controls everything from the food we eat, to the water we drink.

It seems like that's what you're encouraging too, because you're talking about how badly people eat. In m opinion, the government should be some entity that sets our moral standards, and tells us what we can and can't eat, drink or, smoke. You can't stop the Alcohol indusutry, the tabacco industry or, the gun industry. And, if you do, there will be an equal and opposite reaction in favor of that product. Just like it is with drugs, and was with Alcohol during prohibition.

Imo, you Liberals are so stuck on this idea that the government is a force that robs and pillages the people, but you blame the corporations that take advantage of that power. Imo, it is too much power for anyone. Government works for corporations because they're sponsored by them, and they've set up a war machine that benefits them. But you're only lying to yourself assuming Obama is "different," and, you don't understand my views in the least...

After I've repeated most of them 50 times. But, I know what it is, you wont listen to me, because you dont think anything will work except your way, when your way is what's transfering power and wealth to the top 1%.

Everyone knows I don't support tax cuts for the wealthy. So, In conclusion, I stand by the way I feel and the things I say. I don't even really feel bad about hurting peoples feelings, because I'm only speaking the truth, and the truth hurts.

 

You give up because you're ignorant, and you wont listen to any opposing views.

trust me, I don't think highly of you either. I think anyone who accepts a murderer and war criminal, at face value and, according to what he says, (instead of what he does,) is the definition of a tool. And tools are only used to keep the machine running.

You're a product of a system that's made to think you're being an individual. I don't blame you for that, only for ignoring constitutional violations.

Plus, I think you're intolerant and, rude! Since I have been here, you have labeled me as a Bush Republican, a Nazi and, a cultist. And,I let it slide, because I am a proponent of Free speech. But, to say an insolent insult like this is too far imo.

I feel the same way about you sometimes, but I don't say it because it's rude, it's against the forum laws and, I'm better than that.

I don't need to debate like a child. You're just angry because I shot way over your head with that last one, and I wasted more of my time replying to the rest of that uninformed post.

You always jump at me for expressing myself, all I did was show you how your post was wrong.

Just because you couldn't debate back, isn't a reason to go for personal insults.

 

Hit dislike all your heart pleases, it wont change the facts.

I just can't believe people can be so domesticated and conditioned through fear of everyone else, and this imaginary idea, with no logical backing, that government is going to protect you from everything bad in this world. It's nonsense, that will cause alot more harm than good.

 

Sorry man, but who can take a person seriously that talks about socialism without knowing shit of the real life examples. Makes me think you're merely parroting theory. You're also shit about taking criticism. I think it's a pity he quits but I can't blame fraggle rock.

 

This thread is like being at school...

 

Actually It's a very interesting topic,I have been following,I just don't know enough about American politics or history to make any useful observations.

 

I said I don't know much about Cuba, and idk the other thing he mentioned- so what? Look at Communist Russia and, ll the other communist empire. It does end up being government everything. They've even had government cars, that ran much worse, and cost alot more.


Think about trying the system over and over, then, think about the definition of insanity. I know all about socialism, marxism and, communism. I took philosophy, and I read his book. It's garbage because it want everyone to get paid the same, have the same houses, cars and, wealth- and, it doesn't work that way!

Why would someone take the time to make a product, become a Dr or, start a business, if they could make the same amount of money working cash register?

And in the meantime, the government that controls the cash flow, and everyone who works for them, will be filthy rich, while the people are typically impoverished.


The reason I believe how I do, is because we have virtually no reason to trust the government, or believe they're out for our benefit.

Especially enough to allow them to take our self defense, and force us into socialism. To be Liberals are going in the same direction as the Republicans. Sorry, if that offends you, but from a Civil Liberties stand point, they do.

I don't like that the next president can kill/detain citizens, push war propaganda on us, restrict governmental protesting and, spy on our emails and telephone calls.

I know not all Liberals "support" these things, but your politicians do, so whatever empathy you may have, is voided out by your vote for the banksters.

Sorry, It's only my opinion. And again, fraggle left because he was wrong; his arguments were based on lies, stereotypes and, assumptions. I say Liberals support these things, because they support people who enforce these things, and they support things being forced onto the public.

Him especially- he's talking about regulating what food we can eat, and what tabacco we can smoke and, what means we can use to defend ourselves against approaching intruders or attackers. The Limitations on freedom, is what I believe is causing the problems that we face as a country.

Also, there's another problem today, and that's big business combined with big government. The wy to fix this is to strip the governments power so corporations can't abuse it, and make corporations subject to laws against damaging anyone's property or, hurting anyone.

To me, this is common sense, and I think Fraggle was very rude with his entire approach, and especially his last statement.

But, I really don't care, because I know he has a made up perception of my views, (that has probably been pushed by his Liberal Media presence.) But, he's a free individual, and he can believe what he wants. I just believe it's a shame when people use their freedom, to try to get the freedom of others taken away by government.

I don't know about you, but I see a world ran by government, being more like a prison than luxery houses. Why would anyone want total government, over the freedom to pick which products you want/need??

Capitalism, yes- has made some people fat. But, it's not the governments job to regulate our eating habits. Corporations should be totally liable to the consumer, and liability issues would shut the bad companies down.

idk why, but it seems like most Liberals like Fraggle Rock here, are unwilling to debate or negotiate, they just want government in all aspects of our lives to help us from cradle to grave. And the reality is that the dollar is a giant bubble based on debt, and it will collapse. We can't keep spending infinitely like we do, we need REAL cuts, unlike Obama's 30k troops, that were replaced by drones (20k will be in America by 2020.)

Also, Obama is guilty of waging unconstitutional regime changes,making the above mentioned illegal laws and, has killed 16 year old citizens who were admittedly guilty of nothing.

I mean, jeez, it seems to be like Liberals are sinking low to still support this government. Sure, you're getting cheap (for now) healthcare, but the price will go up under a government monopoly, and the government and insurance companies are racking in the cash from it.

Minimum wage goes up to 10.10 an hour- employers may hire less, and it will be more taxes for them and us, and we'd still really only be making a little over 8 after our taxes. So, government has perpetuated the amount of taxes by insane amounts. We give trillions overseas. It's not so crazy to believe we need to cut spending and reel government/corporations back to a harmless status, (providing that you're not violent, hurting anyone or, destroying their property)


To me, this is common sense. Especially with how much power the government has taken today. I mean, they've spied on 75% of us, and even obtain web cam images, many sexually explicit. The Federal government cannot be trusted, and it makes sense because they are tourchering people merely for expressing the truth. They've even been hounding for death for Edward Snowden. Patriots like these, should not be treated as criminals, while the real criminals in their suits and ties, causes these homicides and, disregard of the Constitution.

You believe as you please; However, I believe more and more people will lose faith in the fake system when they learn what kind of corruption they are and have always, been involved in..