Raising the US debt ceiling

[Jack Weber]

If you say so....

That great Leftist/Marxist/Socialist,General Francisco Franco,thanks you for clearing things up for us...

Edited February 5, 2011 by Jack Weber

[GWiz]

If you say so....

That great Leftist/Marxist/Socialist,General Francisco Franco,thanks you for clearing things up for us...

You can lead a horse (or jackass) to water, but you can't make him drink...

You can give someone all the facts and information, but you can't make him think...

[maple_leafs182]

WDefining a market economy as existing in a country where the government's fiscal policies and control over such fctors as the money supply and the interest rate in order to manipulate the national economy, and where it can run up debt and deficits at it's discretion, and regulates through policy, taxation levels, subsidies, monopoly privilege, entitlements to some at the expense of others, and I could go on and on is a little bit in error.

Isn't it amazing how much power and influence banks have over countries and the economy.

[dre]

You can try and describe your vision of how capitalism leads to a socialist state but it would probably only happen if criminality were unhampered.

It has nothing to do with criminality it has to do with poverty causing political activism. The reason why we have a social safety net in the west is to promote political stability. Countries without such programs end up with massive tent cities full of people living in extreme poverty. In a democracy those people can vote and it wont be long before a party with a socialist platform emerges and wins.

We saw this happen in Venezuela with Chavez. He was elected because of the impoverished underclass that resulted from the failure of previous governments to maintain any kind of social safety net.

Your your fantasy world as soon as you end welfare everyone will just go and get jobs. But thats not what would happen at all... take a look around the world.

[dre]

WDefining a market economy as existing in a country where the government's fiscal policies and control over such fctors as the money supply and the interest rate in order to manipulate the national economy, and where it can run up debt and deficits at it's discretion, and regulates through policy, taxation levels, subsidies, monopoly privilege, entitlements to some at the expense of others, and I could go on and on is a little bit in error.

No its not in error. Those are the conditions in which ALL market economies exist.

[GWiz]

No its not in error. Those are the conditions in which ALL market economies exist.

He's a lost cause who's lost his reasoning... Nothing there to discuss things with...

[Pliny]

It has nothing to do with criminality it has to do with poverty causing political activism. The reason why we have a social safety net in the west is to promote political stability. Countries without such programs end up with massive tent cities full of people living in extreme poverty. In a democracy those people can vote and it wont be long before a party with a socialist platform emerges and wins.

We saw this happen in Venezuela with Chavez. He was elected because of the impoverished underclass that resulted from the failure of previous governments to maintain any kind of social safety net.

Or is it governments failing to provide safety of person and property, and corrupt police and officials that actively oppress the poor. As long as there is safety and security of person and property and opportunity to improve one's life poverty is not the motivating factor, nor would misery be prevalent.

Venezuela had to change, as do a lot of corrupt governments. I don't think the people will be happy with Chavez for too long.

Your your fantasy world as soon as you end welfare everyone will just go and get jobs. But thats not what would happen at all... take a look around the world.

I don't think you can or should end dependency all at once but economic collapse could possibly bring that scenario about.

I see that governments are struggling with their economic liabilities and commitment to entitlements. I see that if they remain fiscally irresponsible they will be making decisons on who will have to suffer, and how much, by amending entitlements even denying some what they have worked for all their lives. Or are you unaware of any discontent in Europe? Or the huge federal debt in America with the current administratoin encouraging further "investment"? Or a global economic problem?

[GWiz]

Or is it governments failing to provide safety of person and property, and corrupt police and officials that actively oppress the poor. As long as there is safety and security of person and property and opportunity to improve one's life poverty is not the motivating factor, nor would misery be prevalent.

Venezuela had to change, as do a lot of corrupt governments. I don't think the people will be happy with Chavez for too long.

I don't think you can or should end dependency all at once but economic collapse could possibly bring that scenario about.

I see that governments are struggling with their economic liabilities and commitment to entitlements. I see that if they remain fiscally irresponsible they will be making decisons on who will have to suffer, and how much, by amending entitlements even denying some what they have worked for all their lives. Or are you unaware of any discontent in Europe? Or the huge federal debt in America with the current administratoin encouraging further "investment"? Or a global economic problem?

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, you may want to check them out... Brazil is a good one to check out too, a little closer to home...

I can't find any greatly "successful" countries, past or present, that employ the fascist system you advocate, so perhaps you can enlighten me with some examples... Thank you...

[Pliny]

No its not in error. Those are the conditions in which ALL market economies exist.

Can't argue that. It is quite a socialist world today, with government increasingly active in manipulating markets.

[Pliny]

Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, you may want to check them out... Brazil is a good one to check out too, a little closer to home...

I can't find any greatly "successful" countries, past or present, that employ the fascist system you advocate, so perhaps you can enlighten me with some examples... Thank you...

Where have I advocated a fascist system?

[GWiz]

Where have I advocated a fascist system?

With pretty much every post you've made...

I tried to correct you earlier but you aren't interested in FACTS it seems, as many here have been pointing out to you... I gave you the points of reference to differentiate Communism - Socialism - Fascism -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=622184 -

via the links there, but you seem to want to ignore them, so the only conclusion possible from your posts is that you favour Fascism as being closest to what you are advocating...

Small government and low taxes?

Little to no social program drain on the government?

More power to the corporate interests or corporate control over government and the population and rich getting richer with little regard for the welfare of the general population via safety nets etc.?

A strictly "market driven" economy?

The ultimate system to achieve those goals is Fascism...

[bloodyminded]

Venezuela had to change, as do a lot of corrupt governments. I don't think the people will be happy with Chavez for too long.

Eventually, probably not. But they've already been happier with him for longer than we're used to in countries like, oh, say, Canada.

[GWiz]

Eventually, probably not. But they've already been happier with him for longer than we're used to in countries like, oh, say, Canada.

Hey, one only has to check out Venesuela's ecomomic performance under Chavez compared to before to understand why...

[Pliny]

With pretty much every post you've made...

I tried to correct you earlier but you aren't interested in FACTS it seems, as many here have been pointing out to you... I gave you the points of reference to differentiate Communism - Socialism - Fascism -

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17890&view=findpost&p=622184 -

via the links there, but you seem to want to ignore them, so the only conclusion possible from your posts is that you favour Fascism as being closest to what you are advocating...

Small government and low taxes?

Little to no social program drain on the government?

More power to the corporate interests or corporate control over government and the population and rich getting richer with little regard for the welfare of the general population via safety nets etc.?

A strictly "market driven" economy?

The ultimate system to achieve those goals is Fascism...

Fascism is not about small government and low taxes.

From your cut and paste:

Fascism pertains to state and it considers state on top of everything. In fascism the state is all embracing. For the fascists, no human values exist outside the state. Fascism believes that everything is within the State and nothing is above the State or outside the State or against the State.

From my source:

"The most basic disputes among socialists have concerned the role of the State in the ownership, control and organization of the economy, the relationship between gradualist and revolutionary strategies for change. By the 1930s two quite different systems of socialism could be seen to represent polar extremes of doctrinal interpretation: the socialism of the Soviet Union under Stalinism and the National Socialism of Hitler in Germany."

Under fascism the economy is "State" driven, not "market" driven.

Also:

"Efforts to modernize, revise and adapt socialism to (these) new historical circumstances have led to a range of New Left ideas and theories over the past twenty five years, some of them contained in existing socialist movements and parties, others achieiving mobilization and support to the arenas of 'new politics', post materialism, feminism and environmentalism."

And from it various efforts to metamorphose into something relevant it takes on whatever colours necessary to achieve it's objectives.

you are not a true socialist or you would see that. You have just bought into their crap. You believe them when they say they are not socialists, that a social safety net is not socialist at all. They are just interested in social justice and economic fairness. Denying they are socialistic in the least.

All the while they increase control of the economy, centralize the power of the State, grow the bureaucracy, and essentially make the State all embracing.

The people will eventually be divided by those benefitting from the State and those who are basically being robbed to provide the benefit.

Once they go through the motions of trying to reduce the entitlements or reduce government spending and bureaucracy, the State will either clamp down on the recalcitrant providers in an authoritarian manner or the providers will stage a coup to throw off the shackles of the State.

Force is used in either case.

It is never about the rich and the poor it is about the givers and the takers. One can only give so much before he too must become a taker. The ranks of the takers swell with government entitlement...higher than market wage rates and benefits packages. A public that has a dependency upon "free" health care and education.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Pliny

[GWiz]

Fascism is not about small government and low taxes.

From your cut and paste:

Ahh, but it is, it's a very small Government since it only concerns itself with it's own function and not infrastructure, quality of life, any social benefits, etc., anything designed for the benefit of it's population, and the Military-Industrial complex it favours pay no Taxes at all...

Was that all you were concerned with regarding my post? I'm glad we could agree...

[Pliny]

Eventually, probably not. But they've already been happier with him for longer than we're used to in countries like, oh, say, Canada.

I would say sooner than later.

[Pliny]

Ahh, but it is, it's a very small Government since it only concerns itself with it's own function and not infrastructure, quality of life, any social benefits, etc., anything designed for the benefit of it's population, and the Military-Industrial complex it favours pay no Taxes at all...

Was that all you were concerned with regarding my post? I'm glad we could agree...

I posted my last post a little earleir than I wanted to so there are further arguments.

Sorry, power is concentrated in the hands of the State. You could say the government is one person if you want - Il duce or der Fuhrer. That doesn't mean the State is imperceptibly small.

It does concern itself with infrastructure as well, engineering all manner of things in society. Such as "making the trains run on time", a famous, and perhaps the single accomplishment, of Mussolini. Governemnt run health care and education are planks of Fascism and Nazism as well. Those government bureaucracies are not small by any means.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Pliny

[bloodyminded]

I would say sooner than later.

Yes, he will some day join in the deserved unpopularity of the people we elect.

Edited February 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GWiz]

I posted my last post a little earleir than I wanted to so there are further arguments.

Sorry, power is concentrated in the hands of the State. You could say the government is one person if you want - Il duce or der Fuhrer. That doesn't mean the State is imperceptibly small.

It does concern itself with infrastructure as well, engineering all manner of things in society. Such as "making the trains run on time", a famous, and perhaps the single accomplishment, of Mussolini. Governemnt run health care and education are planks of Fascism and Nazism as well. Those government bureaucracies are not small by any means.

I'm trying to understand what you are advocating... If not Fascism (which I still think comes closest to your ideal based on your posts) then what are you in favour of?

By small or even "smaller" government do you mean the people that are elected, the actual Goverment? Do you mean the beaurocracy any Government needs to apply/implement it's policies? Do you mean the actual on site aspects of Government, the Military, the infrastructure, the relationships in trade and commerce within and without the country, internal administration functions like hiring - doing the reporting - oversite of productivity and the like - the Departments within a Goverment to make a Government function - etc.? In short what part of Government would you like to cut to make Government smaller?

How would the Government you advocate fund itself? Let's say a Government needed $1000.00 to do something, in simple terms, to function, how would you want the Government to get that $1000.00? Taxes, if so what kind of taxes and who from? Any other means of funding like borrowing it from another Government or selling something to another Government?

No rhetoric please (like socialist, communist, fascist, corporatist, etc.,) just an explanation of what you want in a Government and what that Government should be and do to function...

Thanks...

[Pliny]

I'm trying to understand what you are advocating... If not Fascism (which I still think comes closest to your ideal based on your posts) then what are you in favour of?

By small or even "smaller" government do you mean the people that are elected, the actual Goverment? Do you mean the beaurocracy any Government needs to apply/implement it's policies? Do you mean the actual on site aspects of Government, the Military, the infrastructure, the relationships in trade and commerce within and without the country, internal administration functions like hiring - doing the reporting - oversite of productivity and the like - the Departments within a Goverment to make a Government function - etc.? In short what part of Government would you like to cut to make Government smaller?

How would the Government you advocate fund itself? Let's say a Government needed $1000.00 to do something, in simple terms, to function, how would you want the Government to get that $1000.00? Taxes, if so what kind of taxes and who from? Any other means of funding like borrowing it from another Government or selling something to another Government?

No rhetoric please (like socialist, communist, fascist, corporatist, etc.,) just an explanation of what you want in a Government and what that Government should be and do to function...

Thanks...

As long as a civil front is maintained I don't mind discussing my views. Somehow though....well,... we'll see.

The purpose of Government, it's raison d'etre, is fundamentally to ensure the individual sanctity of person and property.

One cannot forget there are several layers of government but I refer to a national or federal government here.

By small government, I mean a restricted mandate that concerns itself with justice and the maintaining of the sanctity of person and property and the freedom and liberty to act as long as that fundamental premise is not violated by others or groups. It needs also to be a representative of the nation and the common interests of the individuals in foreign affairs. It should not be assumed from that, nor does it imply, a standing army or military is necessary. Nor that policing must be a matter of the public domain. It could be that it serve as simply an oversight to justice that can be delivered privately or perhaps on a lower layer of government.

Funding itself would not be as problematic as it is today under such circumstance. Income tax, being a repressive form of tax, would not be a means of funding it. Other means would have to be found, I am not a tax expert but some form of taxation would be necessary to devise and I believe prior to 1900 the governemnt of the United States was somehow running surpluses in their budgets. More research is necessary on my part to determine tax methods and means. A flat sales tax although better than an income tax is still, in my mind, is debatable as being a valid means of securing revenues.

The federal government does not need a department of multiculturalism, a department of health, a department of education nor a department of welfare, it does not need a department of Indian affairs either. that is what I mean by smaller government.

I realize we have become dependent upon government for these things and it is almost unthinkable to some that anyone consider we leave them to the private sector. But that is basically what I think of in terms of small government. I fail to see how that could be equated with the statist ideology of fascism.

It is a libertarian leaning but my view falls far short of the anarchic view of some libertarians.

[GWiz]

As long as a civil front is maintained I don't mind discussing my views. Somehow though....well,... we'll see.

The purpose of Government, it's raison d'etre, is fundamentally to ensure the individual sanctity of person and property.

One cannot forget there are several layers of government but I refer to a national or federal government here.

By small government, I mean a restricted mandate that concerns itself with justice and the maintaining of the sanctity of person and property and the freedom and liberty to act as long as that fundamental premise is not violated by others or groups. It needs also to be a representative of the nation and the common interests of the individuals in foreign affairs. It should not be assumed from that, nor does it imply, a standing army or military is necessary. Nor that policing must be a matter of the public domain. It could be that it serve as simply an oversight to justice that can be delivered privately or perhaps on a lower layer of government.

Funding itself would not be as problematic as it is today under such circumstance. Income tax, being a repressive form of tax, would not be a means of funding it. Other means would have to be found, I am not a tax expert but some form of taxation would be necessary to devise and I believe prior to 1900 the governemnt of the United States was somehow running surpluses in their budgets. More research is necessary on my part to determine tax methods and means. A flat sales tax although better than an income tax is still, in my mind, is debatable as being a valid means of securing revenues.

The federal government does not need a department of multiculturalism, a department of health, a department of education nor a department of welfare, it does not need a department of Indian affairs either. that is what I mean by smaller government.

I realize we have become dependent upon government for these things and it is almost unthinkable to some that anyone consider we leave them to the private sector. But that is basically what I think of in terms of small government. I fail to see how that could be equated with the statist ideology of fascism.

It is a libertarian leaning but my view falls far short of the anarchic view of some libertarians.

Pliny, and I'm being totally serious and not confrontational...

What you have described already exists in MANY "democratic" countries, mostly in central and southern Africa...

ALL of those countries you describe so accurately are referred to by the "Modern" world as "third world" countries because they have not and cannot "advance" into modern society which NEED all those things you want to eliminate ie - social programs, health care, foreign relations, etc., etc....

What you seem to want to do is eliminate hundreds of years of progress and take us back to the dark ages... It's the only place in TIME your "system" could hope to exist...

70% unemployment is the norm in such countries thereby eliminating any tax base...

People living hand to mouth because it's day to day survival that rules...

I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could even concieve such ideas without being so heartless that they'd make the most ardent Fascist dictator look like Mother Theresa...

Honestly, unless you have tremendous difficulty expressing yourself I can't believe what I'm reading from you...

[Jack Weber]

Pliny, and I'm being totally serious and not confrontational...

What you have described already exists in MANY "democratic" countries, mostly in central and southern Africa...

ALL of those countries you describe so accurately are referred to by the "Modern" world as "third world" countries because they have not and cannot "advance" into modern society which NEED all those things you want to eliminate ie - social programs, health care, foreign relations, etc., etc....

What you seem to want to do is eliminate hundreds of years of progress and take us back to the dark ages... It's the only place in TIME your "system" could hope to exist...

70% unemployment is the norm in such countries thereby eliminating any tax base...

People living hand to mouth because it's day to day survival that rules...

I just don't understand how anyone in their right mind could even concieve such ideas without being so heartless that they'd make the most ardent Fascist dictator look like Mother Theresa...

Honestly, unless you have tremendous difficulty expressing yourself I can't believe what I'm reading from you...

His is the prototypical free marketeer/neoliberal economic vision of the world IF it is taken to its logical conclusion...

This is the fallacy of unfettered Capitalism,in that if it enters an unchecked phase,it loses it's all encompassing positive effects on economic growth...

This is the major flaw in the neoliberal view of things.These folks don't seem to understand that what they advocate for is an extreme situation,AS extreme as any Marxist nightmare anyone else could dream up...

It would leave most people living like Medievil serflike animals carving out a barely survivable existence.All the while,transferring wealth upwards,back into the hands of the few...

These people are also extremely tone deaf to history.It's this very attitude that leads to the upward wealth redistribution that leads to horrible ideas like Marxism to counter unfettered Mercantilism/Capitalism...The very thing they can't stand!!!

Interesting paradox they are boxing themselves into,is'nt it?

Edited February 22, 2011 by Jack Weber

[GostHacked]

It's like being totally broke and then asking the bank to increase your credit limit when there is no hope in actually paying off any significant portion of the debt. Living beyond your means. That is the current situation we are in. Western society on the whole has been living on borrowed future credit, and now people are realizing that it's not sustainable. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

If the debt ceiling is raised, expect taxes and fees to follow suit.

[MapleLeafAlliance]

It's called a ceiling for a reason...continually raising it negates it's purpose.

[GWiz]

His is the prototypical free marketeer/neoliberal economic vision of the world IF it is taken to its logical conclusion...

This is the fallacy of unfettered Capitalism,in that if it enters an unchecked phase,it loses it's all encompassing positive effects on economic growth...

This is the major flaw in the neoliberal view of things.These folks don't seem to understand that what they advocate for is an extreme situation,AS extreme as any Marxist nightmare anyone else could dream up...

It would leave most people living like Medievil serflike animals carving out a barely survivable existence.All the while,transferring wealth upwards,back into the hands of the few...

These people are also extremely tone deaf to history.It's this very attitude that leads to the upward wealth redistribution that leads to horrible ideas like Marxism to counter unfettered Mercantilism/Capitalism...The very thing they can't stand!!!

Interesting paradox they are boxing themselves into,is'nt it?

Everyday as I watch what's happening in Arab countries whose regimes and economies where close reflection of exactly what these people ASPIRE to for the US and Canada... And how the people there are willing to die for a fraction of the freedoms we enjoy daily I someTIMEs wish there was a way I could give these people exactly what they wish for... At the LOWEST rung of such a society...

A life being lived by people now in abject poverty with no rights or services and little hope for the future... These people that post like that deserve that life mush more so than those living it now... And I wish them a long life under those conditions...

Nuff said...