(no subject)

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Comments

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

What makes one necessary and one unnecessary?

Social programs keep people from slipping further into dire poverty and prevent much more serious consequences for those people. The wars just enriched a small group of connected individuals and did nothing for the country.

What makes one necessary and one unnecessary?

No, by any objective measure the social programs are necessary and the wars were not. Even the Republicans begrudgingly accept that the wars didn't accomplish anything though incongruously they want to continue them til the end of time.

The money isn't "given away," it's just never collected. So there's no cost.

I think someone else here said this but it's so good I'm going to steal it. If you have a full-time job and then choose to cut down to part-time and take a pay cut, you are choosing to lose money. In much the same way, the government choosing to forego revenue that is available to it is irresponsible when that action causes them to be unable to pay their bills. Just because you ignore it, as you do anything that hurts your narrative, doesn't mean the rest of us don't see what's happening.

More judgement calls, with some added partisan hackery to boot.

You of all people shouldn't be accusing anyone of "partisan hackery".

And you accuse me of avoiding reality?

When have you ever known a major corporation to turn down the opportunity to make billions of dollars?

[citation needed]

You're not so stupid that you don't know what I'm talking about. Anybody with a bit of political interest knows this story. I applaud your attempt to derail the discussion, I will not fall for it however. I guarantee you know this or can easily find it yourself.

Because, after all, the only ting that matters is the arbitrary division of classes as defined by an agitated, misinformed super-minority.

I'd say 99% versus 1% is a pretty good "division of classes". It's far better than race or other factors.

If you paid attention, and viewed the world through a lens of truth instead of a lens of ideology, you'd be "agitated" too.

As for "misinformed", I realize they burst your ideological bubble but they're responding to a very real phenomenon in this country. If anything, they're better informed than many Americans who go on with their lives completely oblivious to the various ways the big banks are robbing them blind.

Finally, I wouldn't go around throwing stones about who is or isn't a "super-minority". I'd wager OWS' numbers against the teabaggers any day. Much like with "Obamacare", public opposition is largely a result of media misinformation and constant Republican whining and propaganda. If you ask the average American about the issues, many would no doubt agree with OWS, they're just unwilling to be seen agreeing with a bunch of hippies and homeless people (the picture painted of OWS by the corporate owned media).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Social programs keep people from slipping further into dire poverty and prevent much more serious consequences for those people.

That's the intention, at least.

The wars just enriched a small group of connected individuals and did nothing for the country.

That's what you believe, at least.

No, by any objective measure the social programs are necessary and the wars were not.

I objectively disagree, then. I see the social programs as keeping down and the wars as keeping us safer.

Of course, we're both actually making subjective arguments, as I'm sure you grasp. Right?

Just because you ignore it, as you do anything that hurts your narrative, doesn't mean the rest of us don't see what's happening.

No one's ignoring it - the issue is not the loss of revenue, it's the continuation of spending regardless of the revenue being taken in.

You're not so stupid that you don't know what I'm talking about. Anybody with a bit of political interest knows this story.

I want to know if you know what you're talking about, because you sure as hell haven't earned blind acceptance.

I'd say 99% versus 1% is a pretty good "division of classes". It's far better than race or other factors

It doesn't even divide the classes. It makes the assumption that the guy making $250k a year is the same as the guy making $25k a year, and that the guy making $300k a year is fundamentally different than the guy making $600k a year. It's entirely arbitrary just because it's a cute sound bite for the ignorant.

If you paid attention, and viewed the world through a lens of truth instead of a lens of ideology, you'd be "agitated" too.

As for "misinformed", I realize they burst your ideological bubble but they're responding to a very real phenomenon in this country. If anything, they're better informed than many Americans who go on with their lives completely oblivious to the various ways the big banks are robbing them blind.

Yeah, unfortunately the facts require me to stick with what's really happening, instead of the fantasy you've described here.

[udoswald.livejournal.com]

That's the intention, at least.

It's the reality too. Social Security solved an extreme problem of serious poverty among the elderly. Medicare performed a similar service when it was enacted. Even teabaggers who claim to hate social programs and socialized medicine would never allow anyone to take away their Social Security and Medicare.

That's what you believe, at least.

I know I didn't get anything out of it. I bet you didn't either.

I objectively disagree, then. I see the social programs as keeping down and the wars as keeping us safer.

Yeah, how dare the government keep the elderly down by preventing them from having to live on the streets in their golden years. How dare the government keep the poor from dying of starvation. When will they get their boots off the throats of the elderly and the poor and allow them to test their luck in the waters of the free market?

In what way did the wars make is safer? What threat was Saddam to us? How was Afghanistan a threat to us when Osama was in Africa?

Of course, we're both actually making subjective arguments, as I'm sure you grasp. Right?

I do understand the difference between subjective and objective. I also understand that OBJECTIVELY there is evidence that social programs have prevented millions from falling into horrible poverty and the wars have helped no one who wasn't already rich and have damaged the United States around the world.

No one's ignoring it - the issue is not the loss of revenue, it's the continuation of spending regardless of the revenue being taken in.

But the spending isn't the major change that happened, the revenue is. The government didn't get to this problem by increasing spending, it got to this problem by significantly decreasing revenue for no reason.

It doesn't even divide the classes.

That depends on how you define "the classes". The super rich (aka: the 1%) are far more similar to each other than they are to the 99% or to any other group or class.

It makes the assumption that the guy making $250k a year is the same as the guy making $25k a year, and that the guy making $300k a year is fundamentally different than the guy making $600k a year.

Not exactly the same but closer than they are to those making the most. Do you honestly think you or I share much in common with a Wall Street CEO making $30 Million a year?

Yeah, unfortunately the facts require me to stick with what's really happening, instead of the fantasy you've described here.

Your "facts" and the facts are quite different. I sympathize with your situation. You've dedicated yourself to a worldview that is completely insane and now you can't bring yourself to abandon it. Trust me, I won't judge you if you cut the nonsense and embrace the truth.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's the reality too. Social Security solved an extreme problem of serious poverty among the elderly. Medicare performed a similar service when it was enacted. Even teabaggers who claim to hate social programs and socialized medicine would never allow anyone to take away their Social Security and Medicare.

It's what you believe, sure.

I do understand the difference between subjective and objective. I also understand that OBJECTIVELY there is evidence that social programs have prevented millions from falling into horrible poverty and the wars have helped no one who wasn't already rich and have damaged the United States around the world.

It's cute that you say you understand, and then still get it wrong.

But the spending isn't the major change that happened, the revenue is. The government didn't get to this problem by increasing spending, it got to this problem by significantly decreasing revenue for no reason.

Actually, it did get to the problem by increasing spending. If spending decreased, we wouldn't have an issue.

Do you honestly think you or I share much in common with a Wall Street CEO making $30 Million a year?

In some cases yes, in some cases no. Believe it or not, income doesn't really act as much of a limiter. Especially not if we pick the arbitrary numbers working with.

You've dedicated yourself to a worldview that is completely insane and now you can't bring yourself to abandon it. Trust me, I won't judge you if you cut the nonsense and embrace the truth.

Yet that's all you ever do.