2010-11-09, 03:50 | Link #741 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The real problem is, that cost for workforce becomes less and less significant compared to the cost for resources (and waste). Which means you have to add a lot of value to the raw materials to maintain the current status quo (which is impossible to achieve for everyone in the world, hence in a globalized market things have to even out between rich countries and developing countries...). But there is an actual elite in that system that is not subject to this balancing process, that benefits regardless. Because in a sense they are the policy/rule makers in the system (a the top). These elites don't even have to fully understand their part in the system, they form sort of a swarm intelligence in their quest to maximize profits. This itself is not bad, unless it is optimized in a way, that the systemic rules cause the system to erode its balance into chaos (where tiny influences can cause havoc).
__________________
|
|
2010-11-09, 04:02 | Link #742 | |
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-11-09, 07:28 | Link #743 |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
We've always been crazy. That's how we've progressed and how we'll keep progressing. Despite the fear mongering, the reality is that there's always been a fight for progress in the US. Look at nearly every radical social change in this country and it has always been filled with the best and worst of people. From the Revolution, to the Civil War, to workers rights, suffrage, Civil Rights...it hasn't been easy, and it never will be.
I don't enjoy being in the middle of one of those major changes but I believe the end result will be a country that comes out stronger and better because of it. What that result will ultimately look like....who knows. The next decade promises to be something pretty revolutionary though.
__________________
|
2010-11-09, 08:02 | Link #744 |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Except the problem seems to be, and probably was Mentar's point, is that the worst of people look to overwhelm the good of people this time around. Or maybe perhaps the ranks of the worsts have outgrown those of the good. Whatever the case may be, outside observers like me see that the odds this time around look to be very much different than the odds 200 years ago.
In a way, perhaps there's not enough idealists this time around, only people who have either become too dulled to even care or have decided to join the ranks of those causing problems in the first place. Idealism is fine and all, but it doesn't look like there's enough idealists working to make it a reality.
__________________
|
2010-11-09, 09:06 | Link #745 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
My point was not to insult people, but to pose the question if having a "deadlocked congress" for a prolonged time is a thinkable option. Because obviously in the current difficulties, a paralyzed government is the last thing you need.
Comparing to Germany, which has the Bundestag (equivalent of the House) and the Bundesrat (resemblance to the Senate, but the votes for each state all vote identically): There are times when the ruling party has control of both, then they can shape all laws below constitution-amendment level (which require a 2/3rd majority in Bundestag and Bundesrat) directly by themselves. There is no silly blockade via filibuster possible, and if something of this kind was even tried, there would be a huge backlash against the obstructionists (like it should be). When the opposition parties gain the majority in the Bundesrat, it doesn't mean the end of the world, but a so-called "Vermittlungsausschuss" (mediation committee) is installed, which will negotiate the laws in question until a compromise is found. The thought that almost all laws could be blocked via filibuster threat was silly enough in the last years - but the thought that now, there doesn't seem to be any legislation possible (president's veto against house majority), makes me wonder how American politics are supposed to work if even the most basic forms of cooperation are made impossible. |
2010-11-09, 09:12 | Link #746 | |
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 39
|
Quote:
Of course now we know that political discourse in governance is has been relegated to a few promoting the ideals and desires of a few. Filibustering was a tool to block what was perceived as legislative threats to the nation, not for political gain and all that. Everything we see now is really just a perversion where good ideas go bad and abused.
__________________
|
|
2010-11-09, 11:35 | Link #747 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Now I could bring up more parallels but they can only go so far. Of course there are also many differences, but the similarities are striking. The US may not altogether collapse like Rome, but there's no doubt the next 50-100 years will be extremely tumultuous for this country. Just because we've gotten through very different conflicts does not give one a free pass to idealism. Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2010-11-10 at 14:45. Reason: Fort Know changed to Fort Knox, typo |
|
2010-11-09, 13:30 | Link #748 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 35
|
Quote:
|
|
2010-11-09, 15:20 | Link #749 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Well, that didn't last long. Rand Paul has already switched to his dad's position on earmarks:
Quote:
|
|
2010-11-17, 06:42 | Link #752 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Here's the chart that I've been looking for which expands it more to just presidents:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr..._deficits.html And a related farkline: GOP will support extending jobless benefits if all Bush tax cuts are extended. For those keeping score, that's decreasing revenue while increasing spending. Deficit? What deficit? |
2010-11-17, 14:35 | Link #754 |
blinded by blood
Author
|
I kinda like Rachel Maddow because she's an awesome bitch, but she's really reaching in that video.
Lots of doublespeak and obfuscation going on there. Tax cuts only add to the debt if spending remains the same. Taking away income only relatively raises spending percentages, and only if spending does not decrease as a result. I do agree that the GOP wants to spend money on stupid things, however, the Dems don't want to spend it any smarter. As Vexx and I have both pointed out on many occasions, the two parties in America are no longer the Democrats vs. the Republicans, but the Corporatist Robber Barons vs. Everyone Else. The sooner we realize that and ignore arbitrary distinctions like who's an ass and who's an elephant, the sooner we can recover from this nightmare.
__________________
|
Tags |
politics |
|
|