Prop 30: Southern California vs Texas

[jstoesz]

well if you believe the supreme court is infallible (like the pope), then clearly all of it is constitutional…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]Looks like the green (rotten?) slice of the pie can be cut by about half. Wish we could return to the sensible Carter-era attitudes about the military.[/quote]

Spdrun: You really don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. I let your erroneous comment about Eisenhower pass without comment, but this one is too much.

That massive arms buildup that put the Soviets out of business? Yeah, well, it began under Carter. Look it up.

Regarding Eisenhower: He was a two-term President that was responsible for a huge run-up in the US defense budget. His comment about the Military-Industrial Complex? It wasn’t an admonition, it was a mea culpa. His Interstate Highway program was one of the largest military/defense program in US history. It contemplated an all-out war with the USSR and the need to move men and materiel quickly throughout the US.

[CA renter]

jstoez,

Regarding your expenditure chart, most of that is infrastructure. Social infrastructure includes education, SS, Medicare, unemployment, etc. Ever see what happens in countries where there is no social safety net? Think the negative effects are isolated to the poor? The primary beneficiaries of “welfare” are the rich (and middle/upper-middle class folks) who get to move through society without bodyguards, armored cars, etc. and who don’t have to live in walled fortresses.

[spdrun]

I said “Carter-era.” As in, total healthy disgust with the military and its employees after Vietnam. As opposed to today’s attitude of hypocritical soldier-hugging and cop-hugging.

Frankly, it’s good that the Soviets “went out of business.” But theirs was a flawed system, and cracks were showing well before the buildup of which we speak.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]jstoez,

Regarding your expenditure chart, most of that is infrastructure. Social infrastructure includes education, SS, Medicare, unemployment, etc. Ever see what happens in countries where there is no social safety net? Think the negative effects are isolated to the poor? The primary beneficiaries of “welfare” are the rich (and middle/upper-middle class folks) who get to move through society without bodyguards, armored cars, etc. and who don’t have to live in walled fortresses.[/quote]

CAR: I totally agree with the need for a social safety net, but many of the gubment policies are redistributionist in nature and have nothing to do with providing a safety net at all, but more to do with vote buying.

The GOP tends to vote buy through favoring their moneyed interests, with the common denominator that both parties tend to screw the middle class.

[CA renter]

Allan,

We’re in total agreement about both parties not really helping the middle class, and I also agree that many government policies redistribute wealth. This is where things grey, as one could make the argument that the redistribution of wealth is unjust, unethical, etc. because the wealthier person worked harder and earned his/her wealth (which isn’t necessarily true at all). Yet, another person might say that the exploitation of workers for profit is an unjust, unethical transfer of wealth from labor to capital…and that tax policies should be used to help mitigate this injustice.

I am not a big fan of welfare, but understand why we have it. IMHO, Clinton’s policy changes really helped fix our welfare system, and I believe there is more to be done. My left-leaning position is more based on a pro-labor stance so that we can avoid having a huge welfare state.

Ultimately, our system is set up so that pretty much all politicians have to engage in vote buying. It’s why I would love to see ALL money, bribes, lobbying, etc. banned from politics. IMHO, we need to move toward publicly funded campaigns.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

CAR: I think it’s nearly impossible to frame the argument in terms of a Marxian Labor versus Capital construct. The nature of both Labor AND Capital has changed and the political stance of this country has shifted ever rightward in the last thirty or so years, to the point where someone like Obama would be unrecognizable to JFK, given Obama’s position on torture, civil rights and liberties, etc.

I also believe that the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is dead. I think organized labor is a shell of its former self and both the GOP and the Dems have sold American manufacturing down the river and with it, the American middle class.

What we’re left with is a hollowed out manufacturing core in places like MI, OH, PA, etc and politicians going on about reviving American manufacturing and the middle class, but without any idea or plan to make it happen.

Until we have a serious and committed US industrial policy and quit kissing China’s ass, we’ll continue to see the middle class circle the drain, struggling with stagnant wages and too much debt, trying to maintain an unsupportable lifestyle.

We’ve been sold out by an unaccountable political class, which is only beholden to the money that elects it. In this sense, you’re 100% right about removing the money from the equation. The problem is, the very people responsible for doing that are the very ones dependent on it. The fox is guarding the henhouse.

[CA renter]

(Unfortunately) I could not agree more with all your points, Allan. Any thoughts on possible solutions?

[all]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] His Interstate Highway program was one of the largest military/defense program in US history. It contemplated an all-out war with the USSR and the need to move men and materiel quickly throughout the US.[/quote]

That’s why you need big and powerful enemy – it forces you to develop interstate highway, TCP/IP and race to the moon.

You don’t need to go to Mars in order to fight drugs and terror, you just need low radiation body scanners.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=spdrun]I said “Carter-era.” As in, total healthy disgust with the military and its employees after Vietnam. As opposed to today’s attitude of hypocritical soldier-hugging and cop-hugging.

Frankly, it’s good that the Soviets “went out of business.” But theirs was a flawed system, and cracks were showing well before the buildup of which we speak.[/quote]

Spdrun: Ah, I get it! Carter was AGAINST a defense build-up, before he was FOR it. Do I have that right?

Your lack of context illustrates a key point, especially when you start railing against the defense “parasites”: The reason that Carter started that major defense build-up, is that “the scales fell” from his eyes regarding Soviet intentions (especially following the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan) and his realization that negotiation, however well-intentioned, without the Big Stick was pointless.

I’d challenge you to come up with significant cuts in the defense budget in the face of a rapidly re-arming Russia and an aggressively growing Chinese military and one that is focusing on a blue-water navy. And, no, winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn’t count.

You’re fond of bloviating about the need for cuts. Okay. WHERE? Supply some actual facts or data (for any of your arguments) and cut back on the nasty ad hominem.

Oh, and the “Bush as war criminal” meme? You need to brush up on the War Powers Act and understand exactly how war is declared in the US before tossing that turd in the punch bowl. Or, acknowledge that, using your “reasoning” every US President since Truman is technically a war criminal.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=craptcha][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] His Interstate Highway program was one of the largest military/defense program in US history. It contemplated an all-out war with the USSR and the need to move men and materiel quickly throughout the US.[/quote]

That’s why you need big and powerful enemy – it forces you to develop interstate highway, TCP/IP and race to the moon.

You don’t need to go to Mars in order to fight drugs and terror, you just need low radiation body scanners.[/quote]

Craptcha: We’ve got China and Russia now. Plus, Obama has been beating the war with Iran drum for quite some time now, along with waging a quiet war (think Stuxnet and assassination of Iranian physicists) there.

Oh, and don’t forget North Korea. While Kim Jong-Dumpling has been off banging his new bride, I’m sure he’ll lose interest shortly and come back to rattling his saber at the US and Japan.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter](Unfortunately) I could not agree more with all your points, Allan. Any thoughts on possible solutions?[/quote]

CAR: I don’t. I see an increasing balkanization/ghettoization of the US, until we hit the crisis/inflection point (defined as a significant inflationary event, war, financial collapse of Eurozone/China, or the eventual crowding effect of debt service + entitlements).

The good news is that the US is really good during a crisis. Failing that, there’s always Canada.

[all]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Craptcha: We’ve got China and Russia now. Plus, Obama has been beating the war with Iran drum for quite some time now, along with waging a quiet war (think Stuxnet and assassination of Iranian physicists) there.

Oh, and don’t forget North Korea. While Kim Jong-Dumpling has been off banging his new bride, I’m sure he’ll lose interest shortly and come back to rattling his saber at the US and Japan.[/quote]

China and Russia where US companies buy influence and make more money than domestically. It’s kind of hard to see China as mobilizing threat while complaining about Chinese plastic being delayed at LA port.

North Korea is relatively small and poor country perceived as annoyance at best. Vietnam caliber of enemy, at best. Not really a mobilizing force.

Iran could be good. I don’t think an average person here understands that Iran is not Afghanistan (i.e. sparsely populated country of 17 century peasants armed with 20 century weaponry), so there is potential to develop that threat. 75MM people, fairly advanced technology, globally influential… it’s not really clear why they hate us, but ‘because they are jealous’ worked before.

[Anonymous]

Here is the fact that overwhelms all others:

Military Expenditures

Yeah, “we’ve got China and Russia…” What a joke.

Anyone who claims that there is no room to cut military spending is oblivious to basic reality.

The specifics hardly even matter – we could cut 50% across the board and still dominate.

Russia would have to spend about 40% of their GDP to even approach the size of our military.

China? Yeah, they’re going to start a war with their biggest customer…

Iran’s budget is about 1% of ours. Less than 1/3 of Canada’s.

But the bogey men are out there!

I check back in here and see that nothing has changed: Allan’s posts are a string of arbitrary references to history that are devoid of any actual coherent argument or position – it almost sounds like he’s making a point, but he never does.

And of course Obama is still the devil because of NDAA et. al. – gotta get that one in every time while we ignore the 99% of other lawmakers who support the same polices also.

Allan, it’s been a while. I’m sure you had the time to read the book on Constitutional law and executive power that I recommended to you – twice. Since you have such a strong interest in understanding who is responsible for these policies, I’m sure you jumped right on it.

For the curious: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Constraint-Accountable-Presidency-After/dp/0393081338/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Oh, so what’s your donation to the ACLU this year – one of the few organizations that have the will and the means to take on this fight? I’ve already made my donation, but I’ll make an additional one to match yours.

You are doing something, right? Not just complaining? I’d hate to think you were just posting here so that you can feel smart.

Keep pushing folks, and maybe we’ll get to hear him pull out the “big words…”

[no_such_reality]

How much of that $700 Billion is the war efforts?

The war efforts that we’ve been waiting to turn down for the last four years…

[Author]

Posts