LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/ ... wsletters/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/20/ ... ial-views/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think RP is racist but I think he could have phrased it a lot better. If anyone saw Bruno? ehhh, well it doesn't look good either. LOL.

[bh]

Or worst case, we print money to lend to our financial institutions a 1%, which devalues our currency, and allow the financial institution to lend the money to the government charging 4% to taxpayers (while the CEO takes a near-billion dollar bonus for such a creative transaction). I really have no idea what that is, but it isn't capitalism!

The main involvement IMO the government should have in the free market in terms of regulation is to ensure transparency in the market, yet one of the actions they defend the most is the right for our central bank to be opaque. That is not capitalism, either IMO. Those banks needed to fail last year, instead they just got rid of the competition (Lehman/Bear).

The main problem I find when discussing capitalism with others is that the word capitalism today is like the wordds democrat or republican. It can mean so many different things to different people. I like this definition...I'm sure many others would disagree with this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/tri ... sm134.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Pavel Bure]

Or worst case, we print money to lend to our financial institutions a 1%, which devalues our currency, and allow the financial institution to lend the money to the government charging 4% to taxpayers (while the CEO takes a near-billion dollar bonus for such a creative transaction). I really have no idea what that is, but it isn't capitalism!

The main involvement IMO the government should have in the free market in terms of regulation is to ensure transparency in the market, yet one of the actions they defend the most is the right for our central bank to be opaque. That is not capitalism, either IMO. Those banks needed to fail last year, instead they just got rid of the competition (Lehman/Bear).

The main problem I find when discussing capitalism with others is that the word capitalism today is like the wordds democrat or republican. It can mean so many different things to different people. I like this definition...I'm sure many others would disagree with this.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/tri ... sm134.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Capitalism is non-existent in the world. True capitalism was killed by things like monopolies being broken up and labor unions being created. Which is why I personally get annoyed when people say capitalism>*insert form of gov or economic system*

[Sarcastic]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/ ... wsletters/

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/05/20/ ... ial-views/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think RP is racist but I think he could have phrased it a lot better. If anyone saw Bruno? ehhh, well it doesn't look good either. LOL.

Well, I agree with him on the Israeli lobby. You can't say anything negative about Israel or a Jew or you are labeled an anti-semite and your career, especially your political career, is ruined. The entire media also jumps in to assassinate your character, because every major news network is owned by one Jewish guy or another, except for FOX of all things, and most of the newspapers as well. Plus, the Israelis have way too much influence on our Middle East policy, so it will be interesting to see what Obama does here. Already labeled by some Jews as the first Jewish president, Obama seems angry at Israel at the moment, but I bet that's where it'll end. He'll just issue a statement once in a while, like George Bush, while not doing a thing to get the Israeli/Palestinian situation settled. If he's so pissed right now, then how about starting with the billions of $ out of taxpayers' pockets we send to Israel every year. How about a little pressure, like taking our military support away. He won't. Some already refer to him as a puppet, like all the recent presidents we have had.

"One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

That's pretty bad, lol. Oh, well.

[doublem]

I would be for "true capitalism" if it you think that

a product of the voluntary society and the sum total of all the exchanges and cooperative acts of people all over the world

was possible. If someone thinks that powerful actors being the state, CEO's, whoever, wouldn't cause that system to go from voluntary to involuntary pretty fast. Okay, I would love that, but I don't think that has ever existed or can. I also have a problem with that article becasue it makes it seem like everything that isn't unregulated = socialism.

[bh]

I don't think taking a partisan tone to belittle capitalism is helpful as I don't believe our financial institutions are actually capitalist enterprises.

I'm assuming you support a completely free market or a relative unregulated system?

I don't think free market always implies unregulated. I believe in a free market system where the role of government is to regulate the market by prosecuting fraud. Government should be the regulators, not the generators.

Not when central banks don't have to disclose their balance sheets to reveal who they are printing money for. Moreover, the Fed

Yea, I agree the Fed sucks, but I'm sure I would disagree about why. I think the U.S. should have a central bank just not like the Fed. The problem is the private/government banking system is failed to begin with. Private banks should not have that much as a stake in determining the role of the country. It was failed compromise from the start IMO.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of central bank do you envision?

I really have no idea what that is, but it isn't capitalism!

Corporatism/Corporate masters/ Owners call them what you like.

Agree 100% with you doublem.

Those banks needed to fail last year, instead they just got rid of the competition (Lehman/Bear).

Yes, they did and they are setting up the system to fail all over again. Nothing was fixed. It is probably a lot worse now.

But this is what central banks do! They encouraged the bubble from the start. The world has never seen a central bank that didn't inflate to serve the needs of special interests. How else can you pay for everything the government wants! You can't tax, the people get mad, and you can only borrow so much. Printing money gives them (congress) the power to spend whatever they want on whatever they want. Without a central bank, bailouts are impossible.

[bh]

I would be for "true capitalism" if it you think that

a product of the voluntary society and the sum total of all the exchanges and cooperative acts of people all over the world

was possible. If someone thinks that powerful actors being the state, CEO's, whoever, wouldn't cause that system to go from voluntary to involuntary pretty fast. Okay, I would love that, but I don't think that has ever existed or can. I also have a problem with that article becasue it makes it seem like everything that isn't unregulated = socialism.

I think that the system is close to being possible if you have a government set up to protect people from participating in anything involuntary. And i think regulation is another term that can mean many differnt things. Unregulated to me doesn't mean, do what ever you want and it also doesn't mean socialism.

[doublem]

I don't think free market always implies unregulated. I believe in a free market system where the role of government is to regulate the market by prosecuting fraud. Government should be the regulators, not the generators.

I would say must free market implies government should only prosecute fraud and protect private property. So should government have a role in busting up monopolies, labor laws, environmental protection generally "free" market would say no. When I talk about the "free market" I generally mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I don't know if that is what you support or not.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of central bank do you envision?

I would support a type of bank like the Alexander Hamilton/Friedrich List type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_S ... onomics%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A more nationalist type of fair trade, I guess you could say. As opposed to the "free trade" we support now. The banking history of the U.S. is somewhat complicated. I generally favor Hamilton on the creation of the first bank. The banks always got killed becasue of funding issues and some like Andrew Jackson that just hated the idea of a central bank. You would have to update it some way. If you didn't have a central bank, huge banks are going to come in and take control. I think government should have a bank out of the hands of the private sector. I'm not expert on this so is just from reading and looking at numbers about this. I don't like the FED. It;s has too many ties to private banks. Bankers basically got everything they wanted with the FED. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... rve_System" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But this is what central banks do! They encouraged the bubble from the start. The world has never seen a central bank that didn't inflate to serve the needs of special interests.

That is what the FED does.

Printing money gives them (congress) the power to spend whatever they want on whatever they want. Without a central bank, bailouts are impossible.

They would find another way of doing it. Ideally, I guess you can say the FED did it's job and stopped another Great Depression from happening.

[doublem]

I would be for "true capitalism" if it you think that

a product of the voluntary society and the sum total of all the exchanges and cooperative acts of people all over the world

was possible. If someone thinks that powerful actors being the state, CEO's, whoever, wouldn't cause that system to go from voluntary to involuntary pretty fast. Okay, I would love that, but I don't think that has ever existed or can. I also have a problem with that article becasue it makes it seem like everything that isn't unregulated = socialism.

I think that the system is close to being possible if you have a government set up to protect people from participating in anything involuntary. And i think regulation is another term that can mean many differnt things. Unregulated to me doesn't mean, do what ever you want and it also doesn't mean socialism.

Okay, I agree with that but most would say that they shouldn't.

[doublem]

http://www.salon.com/news/neoconservati ... y_standard" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kristolian neocons want and need a strong Al Qaeda in order to justify the array of wars and civil liberties erosions they crave, and everything they advocate is designed to achieve that goal -- or, at the very least, guarantees that outcome.

The greatest irony of the last decade is that the very people who most despise core American principles and do more than anyone to fuel Islamic extremism have anointed themselves the arbiters of American patriotism and protectors of American security.

[DelPen]

Someone should stop reading salon

[doublem]

Nooooooooooooooooo way. Salon and Glen Greenwald

[Guinness]

I don't know whether Ron Paul wrote those lines in the newsletter or not. I don't believe he or any person is perfect or above reproach - I just don't believe in that kind of hero-worship; this is the real world and I'm not a teenaged girl. That being said, I tend to believe Paul when he says that he didn't write it, because of the things he's said regarding identifying people by groups. Even if he did, however, that only invalidates him and his character, not the philosophy he presents. Such comments would stand in direct conflict his espoused beliefs, and that would be his problem, not a problem with the philosophy - which really was the point of the issue arising at all.

Rather than replying to the market/Fed comments, just see bh's comments for a reflection of my thoughts.

[Guinness]

Someone should stop reading salon

That may be so. I don't read that website, nor this Greenwald fellow, but what doublem has posted here from that site regarding our foreign policy has been spot on. Of course, this:

http://www.salon.com/news/neoconservati ... y_standard

Kristolian neocons want and need a strong Al Qaeda in order to justify the array of wars and civil liberties erosions they crave, and everything they advocate is designed to achieve that goal -- or, at the very least, guarantees that outcome.

The greatest irony of the last decade is that the very people who most despise core American principles and do more than anyone to fuel Islamic extremism have anointed themselves the arbiters of American patriotism and protectors of American security.

...would really make Obama a "neocon" as well. What I don't like about this snippet is that it essentially implies that the non-neocons (implication being, "Democrats") somehow don't employ this strategy. I think it would be far better said that, "the US government want and need a strong al Qaeda..."

It is - again - the idea that if we somehow just get the "right" people in government, everything will be better. It's nonsense.

[shafnutz05]

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-200 ... 17535.html

So it appears that the venerable Harry Reid is scheduling 10 hours of debate for the 2,074 page healthcare monstrosity in the Senate on Saturday, followed by a vote at 8 PM. They are passing a piece of legislation that will fundamentally change the structure of the United States, and he feels that 10 hours of debate (and less than a week to review the bill) is appropriate.

Make no mistake....the Democrats want to ram this thing through long before the holiday recess gets here. The last thing they want is to go home to thousands of screaming, angry constituents telling them exactly how they feel about the bill. Hence why they are rushing it through without anything close to adequate thought. Kind of funny how Barack Obama's Afghanistan decision is going to conveniently come less than a week after the Senate passes his bill, no?

[thehockeyguru]

If you dont vote for Obama's health care plan than your not really black. Nice one Jesse!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... alth-care/

[pittsoccer33]

If you dont vote for Obama's health care plan than your not really black. Nice one Jesse!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... alth-care/

I read something about that yesterday. Thats how these poverty pimps think. A few years back Sharpton called General Powell and Condi Rice some racial slur because they were conservatives.

I don't normally like Glenn Beck's show, but last friday he had a really awesome episode where he had a small auditorium full of various moderate to conservative african americans who spoke about a variety of issues. I hope he replays that at some point because it was really eye opening.

[thehockeyguru]

I don't normally like Glenn Beck's show, but last friday he had a really awesome episode where he had a small auditorium full of various moderate to conservative african americans who spoke about a variety of issues. I hope he replays that at some point because it was really eye opening.

Its amazing to me how guys like Jackson and Sharpton are taken seriously and that they are the figureheads of the black movement. What a joke.

[shafnutz05]

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make their money off of impoverished blacks. They make money by fostering racial tension and conflict. Al Sharpton was responsible for instigating a riot that led to the death of a Jewish shopkeeper in NYC back in the late 1980s, and naturally never faced genuine punishment for it. Both of these men have a history of making racist slurs. Both of these men are more responsible for the continued presence of racial tension in this country than the Ku Klux Klan. Why? Because for some inexplicable reason, politicians and the media still take these idiots seriously, and give them a national platform to spout their hatred. They are liberal shills that don't give a damn about improving the life of the people they claim to represent.

[Gaucho]

Both of these men have a history of making racist slurs. Both of these men are more responsible for the continued presence of racial tension in this country than the Ku Klux Klan.

While I do not agree with JJ, this is a bit strong. To say the least.

[shafnutz05]

Gaucho, did you see my reasoning behind it? Aside from flat-out racist dirtbags, who takes the Ku Klux Klan seriously? They are a "Right-wing fringe" group, that just about everyone views as what they are...a hateful and horrible group.

With JJ and AS, not only are their repeated racist and anti-Semitic slurs conveniently ignored, but they are actually looked up to as authority figures by the media and the politicians. Presidents look to them as "spiritual advisers". They are actually treated with respect by the mainstream. That's what makes them much more harmful than the KKK....like I said, unless you are a complete and utter kook, no one takes the KKK seriously anymore

[Guinness]

Both of these men have a history of making racist slurs. Both of these men are more responsible for the continued presence of racial tension in this country than the Ku Klux Klan.

While I do not agree with JJ, this is a bit strong. To say the least.

Hmm I don't know about that Gaucho. The Klan, as detestible as they are, do not have the platform and presence that these two hustlers have. I think that between the two, there is little moral difference (at least in the present incarnations, of course).

[Gaucho]

Well, if the KKK is not that big of a problem anymore, I'll (gladly) stand corrected.

[shafnutz05]

Well, if the KKK is not that big of a problem anymore, I'll (gladly) stand corrected.

Don't get me wrong, prior to 1970? Absolutely. And let's not forget the countless lynchings in the first half of the 20th century. But they have largely (and rightfully) been marginalized. Really...how often do you hear about them anymore except when they throw some joke rally in your town?

[pittsoccer33]

Well, if the KKK is not that big of a problem anymore, I'll (gladly) stand corrected.

id say theyre less of a problem than acorn, or maybe the black panthers who were found guilty of threatening voters with weapons, only to have holder drop the charges against them because they didnt show up to court.