Discussion on modern politics

[Deleted User]

Having properly working checks and balances is better. Not to say they're working properly at the moment, but they have in the past and they can again.

Checks and balances don't work if all three branches are corrupt.

 

[Xzi]

Checks and balances don't work if all three branches are corrupt.

They aren't literally all corrupt, just the vast majority of the Republican party. Vote out the corrupt ones and vote in people who want to take the ludicrous sums of money out of political campaigning. That's the only way we solve corruption in both the short term and long term.

 

[Deleted User]

They aren't literally all corrupt, just the vast majority of the Republican party.

that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.

Vote out the corrupt ones and vote in people who want to take the ludicrous sums of money out of political campaigning. That's the only way we solve corruption in both the short term and long term.

How would you know who's corrupt? Even the people who appear innocent and have a clean record could be pushing a corporate agenda. Heck, even if you managed to magically get a 100% clean-record-this-guy-is-Jesus-reincarnated person, they would inevitably be corrupted. humans are flawed and all it takes is applying the right amount of pressure on the right area.

The best we can hope for is having so many agendas that none can succeed and they all have to look good by bringing solid results. I.e. Higher GDP, lower unemployment etc.

As to why it should be small government, because it's much harder to lobby for less restrictions on workplace safety if there's no easy target. I firmly believe almost all of the majar problems in the US are the result of the central government bumbling around when it has no idea what it's doing(or doing it on purpose).

Basically, big government is practically never the key. Don't suggest it again. I'm willing to acquiesce on a lot of social topics, and even some economic ones. But a bigger government is one topic I'm never going to change my mind on.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.



How would you know who's corrupt? Even the people who appear innocent and have a clean record could be pushing a corporate agenda. Heck, even if you managed to magically get a 100% clean-record-this-guy-is-Jesus-reincarnated person, they would inevitably be corrupted. humans are flawed and all it takes is applying the right amount of pressure on the right area.

The best we can hope for is having so many agendas that none can succeed and they all have to look good by bringing solid results. I.e. Higher GDP, lower unemployment etc.

As to why it should be small government, because it's much harder to lobby for less restrictions on workplace safety if there's no easy target. I firmly believe almost all of the majar problems in the US are the result of the central government bumbling around when it has no idea what it's doing(or doing it on purpose).

Basically, big government is practically never the key. Don't suggest it again. I'm willing to acquiesce on a lot of social topics, and even some economic ones. But a bigger government is one topic I'm never going to change my mind on.

That's why tax information for anyone running for higher office should be a matter of public record

 

[Deleted User]

That's why tax information for anyone running for higher office should be a matter of public record

That feels like a breach of privacy

For real though, there are lots of administrative and practical issues that pop up once you try that I.e they buy off whoever supervises the collecting of tax information, they fake their records, etc.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It should be standard practice nonetheless, as it will at least filter out the idiots who have no idea what they got into.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

That feels like a breach of privacy

For real though, there are lots of administrative and practical issues that pop up once you try that I.e they buy off whoever supervises the collecting of tax information, they fake their records, etc.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It should be standard practice nonetheless, as it will at least filter out the idiots who have no idea what they got into.

Running for public office is a breach of privacy, they'll deal with it. When you're a servant to the public, anything you do that affects them should be public record

And in terms of who does the audits, that's easy, Congress already has a neutral department dedicated to reviewing shady things going on with the financials of all three branches, including themselves. If you want an extra check in there, get the Supreme Court involved.

 

[Xzi]

that is such a massive and quite frankly disgusting generalization I genuinely don't know what to say.

It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.

Basically, big government is practically never the key. Don't suggest it again. I'm willing to acquiesce on a lot of social topics, and even some economic ones. But a bigger government is one topic I'm never going to change my mind on.

Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule. You've made that abundantly clear.

 

[CallmeBerto]

It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.


Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule. You've made that abundantly clear.

Governments have an monopoly on force. Corporations actually have to provide a good or service. Its not which do you trust more. It is more of who do you trust less.

 

[Xzi]

Governments have an monopoly on force. Corporations actually have to provide a good or service. Its not which do you trust more. It is more of who do you trust less.

Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less. At least there are some politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of any corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves. The human element gets completely ignored, and that's how you end up with Wal-Mart or Amazon working conditions.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less. At least there are some politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of any corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves.

That, and generally speaking the public doesn't get to choose who leads corporate entities

 

[Deleted User]

Indeed, and since goverment has to put regulations on corporations just to keep them from paying slave wages and/or crashing the economy, I tend to trust corporations less. At least there are some politicians who aren't in it just to enrich themselves and use crowd-funding for their campaigns, but the entire point of any corporation is for the upper echelon to enrich themselves. The human element gets completely ignored, and that's how you end up with Wal-Mart or Amazon working conditions.

Actually it's due to a lack of competition, the corporations actually push for more regulation to prevent small business from snatching up their employees.

It's playing out in front of our eyes in government right now, so it's actually quite specified.


Right, because you'd prefer corporations be in charge out of some misguided delusion that we'd be afforded the same rights under corporate rule. You've made that abundantly clear.

Alright, calm down and stop being rude. Jeez man, you keep taking everyone's posts and setting up strawmen and its getting very annoying. You aren't going to win any arguments by attacking a sack of hay. I was not saying that I want corporation rule, where the hell did you get that from?

Calm down or get out of the thread.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand

 

[Xzi]

Actually it's due to a lack of competition

And we wouldn't have a lack of competition if not for all the anti-competitive business practices that corporations are allowed to continue.

Alright, calm down and stop being rude.

I am calm. Maybe I'll stop being "rude" when you stop being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

I was not saying that I want corporation rule, where the hell did you get that from?

Is there anything else that shrinking the government down to nothing could possibly lead to? Why else do you think that's the corporate political party's strategy?

Also
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/big-corporations-and-big-government-go-hand-hand

Yes, clearly a Koch brothers founded partisan political organization doesn't have any hidden agenda in making people believe that regulating business is a bad thing. /s

 

[Deleted User]

And we wouldn't have a lack of competition if not for all the anti-competitive business practices that corporations are allowed to continue.

The anti-competitive practices actively encouraged by big government? Sorry, big corporation disguised as big government? Almost all "anti-competitive business practice" is just the big government intentionally or unintentionally trying to regulate the market and making it harder for new business to enter the game.

I am calm. Maybe I'll stop being "rude" when you stop being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.

how am I being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith?

Is there anything else that shrinking the government down to nothing could possibly lead to? Why else do you think that's the corporate political party's strategy?

Youre hitting that strawman pretty hard, ain'tcha?

I'm not asking for a complete dismissal of government. What I am saying is that literally all central government is corrupt af by its very nature, and as such shouldn't be allowed to have too much power. State and local government are far less susceptible and so should have as much power as possible over their respective areas.

Not to mention, but youre assuming that corporations are one singular entity. Target, Walmart and Amazon are not part of some crazy alliance to take down America. They're out to get as much profit as possible as easily as possible. If a corporation took over America, suffice to say, the other corporations wouldn't be making much money. Basically they're in a stale mate. They can't flex their power to control America without risk of retribution from the other Corps.

EDIT: Just a side note here, but how exactly would corporations take over? Genuinely curious.

Yes, clearly a Koch brothers founded partisan political organization doesn't have any hidden agenda in making people believe that regulating business is a bad thing. /s

Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.

That's an incredibly fallacious line of thinking, when evaluating the integrity of a source. @Xzi is right in that regard, even if he's letting emotions cloud his argument a bit; an organization that's on the Koch Brothers' payroll has a tangible incentive to produce results that would benefit them. Saying "the logic is sound, so it must work" is what gets us news organizations like Fox (and, to a lesser extent, CNN) that meticulously pick sometimes misleading news stories that illicit an emotional response, and feed them to their core audience that believe it without question

 

[Deleted User]

That's an incredibly fallacious line of thinking, when evaluating the integrity of a source. @Xzi is right in that regard, even if he's letting emotions cloud his argument a bit; an organization that's on the Koch Brothers' payroll has a tangible incentive to produce results that would benefit them. Saying "the logic is sound, so it must work" is what gets us news organizations like Fox (and, to a lesser extent, CNN) that meticulously pick sometimes misleading news stories that illicit an emotional response, and feed them to their core audience that believe it without question

I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.

*(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)

 

[Xzi]

The anti-competitive practices actively encouraged by big government?

How does this make any sense? Anti-competitive business practices are allowed a pass under Republican rule, and they aren't the party of big government. Well, supposedly they aren't, but the party has kind of lost their identity and all of their ideology, so in the sense that they're willing to grow government to protect corporations from any sort of backlash I guess you're correct.

how am I being disingenuous and arguing in bad faith?

How long do you have? "Giving all the money to the wealthiest citizens and assuming they'll spend it 'responsibly' totally isn't the same as trickle down!" "All my sources are 100% partisan, that doesn't mean they're pushing an agenda over facts though!" "Less corporate regulation = more competition somehow!" I've got more if you really care to hear them.

I'm not asking for a complete dismissal of government. What I am saying is that literally all central government is corrupt af by its very nature, and as such shouldn't be allowed to have too much power. State and local government are far less susceptible and so should have as much power as possible over their respective areas.

A reasonable statement for once, but that's also the entire point of checks and balances. The judiciary and other branches keep the federal government from crossing too many lines, and state governments can enact their own laws (on net neutrality for instance) when the federal government drops the ball. However, states can't regulate corporations since they operate throughout the entire country, so by suggesting we shrink the federal government it's obvious you're still suggesting we need less regulation. It's not a good idea considering the fact that we're probably teetering on the edge of another economic crash right now.

Not to mention, but youre assuming that corporations are one singular entity. Target, Walmart and Amazon are not part of some crazy alliance to take down America. They're out to get as much profit as possible as easily as possible.

Think about what you just said: they're not a singular entity, but they have a singular goal. Yes, not all corporations support a single political party, but this can be seen largely as hedging their bets. As I said, in the event Republicans do eliminate enough regulations or shrink government enough, corporations would find plenty to agree on as the center of power shifts to them as a collective.

EDIT: Just a side note here, but how exactly would corporations take over? Genuinely curious.

Shrinking government until it's "small enough to drown in a bathtub" is one method that I already mentioned. Another method is that Republicans could call a constitutional convention and gut our rights that way, leaving corporations to fill in the blanks however they wish. The Koch brothers currently have a sign off on twenty-three out of thirty governor's signatures needed for a unilateral constitutional convention to be called, they've been playing at this as a long game.

In a sense, corporations have already taken over to an uncomfortable degree. The Federal Reserve is a privatized institution, meaning our currency and its value is privatized. Kennedy opposed the Federal Reserve and that's one theory as to why he might've been assassinated. He was set to sign legislation barring its establishment in the US when he returned from Texas.

Who cares who made it? If the logic is sound, the logics sound.

The logic is not sound. Any hyper-partisan think tank is only going to use studies and numbers that back their pre-conceived biases. You might as well have used Dora the Explorer as a source if we're settling for zero credibility.

 

[Deleted User]

How does this make any sense? Anti-competitive business practices are allowed a pass under Republican rule, and they aren't the party of big government. Well, supposedly they aren't, but the party has kind of lost their identity and all of their ideology, so in the sense that they're willing to grow government to protect corporations from any sort of backlash I guess you're correct.

Again, almost all "anti-competitive business practices" Is just the corporations recognizing that the central government has a lot of muscle to flex. The corporations push for stronger regulations on the federal level.

A reasonable statement for once, but that's also the entire point of checks and balances. The judiciary and other branches keep the federal government from crossing too many lines, and state governments can enact their own laws (on net neutrality for instance) when the federal government drops the ball. However, states can't regulate corporations since they operate throughout the entire country, so by suggesting we shrink the federal government it's obvious you're still suggesting we need less regulation. It's not a good idea considering the fact that we're probably teetering on the edge of another economic crash right now.

First of all, checks and balances fail. They've failed before and they will fail again. We have to have multiple contingencies in the event this happens. Including limiting the governments power so they can't abuse it.

Second of all, states can't regulate corporations? Well what makes you think they have the same capability on the federal level?

Third, do I have to pull up more studies? Lower taxes and less regulation equals higher GDP and tax revenue both short term and long term.

Think about what you just said: they're not a singular entity, but they have a singular goal. Yes, not all corporations support a single political party, but this can be seen largely as hedging their bets. As I said, in the event Republicans do eliminate enough regulations or shrink government enough, corporations would find plenty to agree on as the center of power shifts to them as a collective.

If a corporation took over America, suffice to say, the other corporations wouldn't be making much money. Basically they're in a stale mate. They can't flex their power to control America without risk of retribution from the other Corps.

Alright, so lets assume, magically, the people don't rebel and quietly accept their overlord corporations? What next? Oh yeah, the only challenge to their power. OTHER CORPORATIONS.

In a sense, corporations have already taken over to an uncomfortable degree. The Federal Reserve is a privatized institution, meaning our currency and its value is privatized. Kennedy opposed the Federal Reserve and that's one theory as to why he might've been assassinated. He was set to sign legislation barring its establishment in the US when he returned from Texas.

Honestly, I have no problem with privatizing our currency, but

A: the currency has to be linked to something of intrinsic value again I.e gold and silver.

B. It has to be true privatization, not the government hands the rights over to one corporation.

The logic is not sound. Any hyper-partisan think tank is only going to use studies and numbers that back their pre-conceived biases. You might as well have used Dora the Explorer as a source if we're settling for zero credibility.

I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.

*(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)

Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.

Seriously, I had one thing in the beginning of this thread: STAY CIVIL. And yet you are just determined to slip in red herrings and strawmen as you continue to insult the Republican Party, me, and anybody who believes in free market.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Why do you think this big companies push for all these regulations??? They know they can afford it while the little guy can't. This is how/why you get monopolies.

 

[switchbricker]

Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.

Seriously, I had one thing in the beginning of this thread: STAY CIVIL. And yet you are just determined to slip in red herrings and strawmen as you continue to insult the Republican Party, me, and anybody who believes in free market.

I think you're projecting your own frustrations onto Xzi here. I don't think he ever said that Republicans are bad, just that you're using circular logic to justify a biased party being intellectually dishonest. Just because you believe it's right doesn't mean they can manipulate the public with their pre-conceived agenda.

 

[Xzi]

Also you make one more 'evil republican' insult I'm going to mute you. Somehow. Probably by ignoring you.

Feel free, clearly you take any criticism of the Republican leadership as a personal insult, and it's absolutely impossible to have a reasoned discourse with a person like that. Same deal with anyone who refuses to properly source their claims on the basis that hyper-partisan opinion pieces are somehow just as good as fact. I suppose it was my mistake in assuming you were a little bit more logical than that at the start of this conversation, but obviously now we've hit an impasse.