Like Tree4Likes

Presidents: leaders or beggars?

This is a discussion on Presidents: leaders or beggars? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by xentaka You accept the idea of a plutocracy since it is the next obvious step for people ...

  1. #46
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    682
    Quote Originally Posted by xentaka View Post
    You accept the idea of a plutocracy since it is the next obvious step for people that think like you.
    You accept the idea of Robin Hood. Sure, why do we have to work, when we have the rich, the root of all evil. We could take some money from them and give it to the poor, they have it more than enough anyway.
    Last edited by kmdv; 05-31-2011 at 04:28 PM.
    I never put signature, but I decided to make an exception.

  2. #47
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,467
    And let's make no mistake. Anyone opposed to charging the rich is as unscrupulous and evil as them, since they demonstrate the same lack of moral standards for their odious disregard to the wellbeing of the poor and fragile citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by xentaka View Post
    I will take no offense at your insult
    Glad to see you finally grew some backbone and can get into a political debate without having a girly fit anytime someone throws a pie at your face.

    Anyways, I don't know want to link to Wikipedia. But I made it easier for you by marking the relevant parts as red. I trust you don't mind my laziness, and even welcome it.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #48
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    No

    Not a backbone, but I try to talk with people on the internet like I would if we were face to face. Disrespecting others through an anonymous medium is not being "tough".
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  4. #49
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,706
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    The military is kind of an exception. Private postal office, yes. Private army, I wouldn't agree.

    But, you are right that the US spends a lot in their army. To prove your point, though, you need also to compare the result. Are they paying too much because soldiers and higher ranks are paid too much? Equipment are too expensive? Do they pay too much because of the recent wars they had to maintain, thus this is temporary? Just questions, I don't have the answers, but the picture is not very clear.
    In Greece there is a big spending on army as well and there was always the same debate. The soldiers don't have the benefits they have here nor they have the expensive equipment. The army there is just for defense, so the cost is much less. When you have to send army on the other side of the world then you can imagine the budget skyrocketing. So cutting budget significantly would also mean a complete change on the US military operations.
    The military is already sort of privatized, just to let you know, since wherever conscripted soldiers aren't going you have mercenaries like Black Mesa (I'm joking) and Blackwater doing the work. It's not even really just people, but the whole military industrial complex functions on constant defense contracts. Dwight D. Eisenhower gave a speech on the military industrial complex around the time he actually made it into law. In it he basically asserts that we will be spending money on defense all the time now, which is fine with me.

    It is because of the military industrial complex I think the military would sufficiently defend our country against attack, especially post-9/11, or coordinate humanitarian efforts. But to respond to you directly, it is indeed possible that we can't afford the whole military reasonably anymore. In rather pathetic fashion, you can read about this very subject here and the rest of the article, as well as here. I'm specifically focusing on that because of the research. Even if we could afford the whole military before, recent increases in the defense part of the budget -are responsible for N% of the future debt we will create. I'm still only guessing, but I think the replacement programs are only so expensive because we are routinely using our gear in the war effort, and whether you agree with the effort or not, the temporary things may turn out to be the most expensive things.

    Because the extent of my interest only goes so far:
    So again the question should be "does the US spend too much for what they achieve?" rather just comparing the final budget.
    Does the US spend too much because they want to do too much? Almost certainly yes. I've wanted a responsible end to the wars in the Middle East and the situation keeps changing so an abrupt end is not morally responsible, unfortunately. But an abrupt end would be good for us financially.

    There is no need to add an amendment on the Constitution just add some laws or even just guidelines on how you want the government to operate financially.
    I am actually just responding to your comments through a historical lens. The Congress is granted the power to manage the revenue of the country by the Constitution. You might be afraid of amendments, especially since you're not proposing anything specific, but an amendment is what reform should become, unless Congress actually grants its powers to another institution by law. I can give you two examples: The Federal Reserve was created to handle monetary policy with much controversy, as the Congress also managed monetary policy before then. Also, read the 27th Amendment: very much "a law on how the government should operate financially". Guidelines, being not as binding as laws, you might think are easier to come up with, and while that may be true, I think that you are actually talking about the rules of Congress which is handled by a committee of congresspeople; that is, consisting of your elected representatives. Beyond that you elect such people, it isn't really a power in our hands.
    Last edited by whiteflags; 05-31-2011 at 07:15 PM.

  5. #50
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    Yes

    What really took me back on those links was the reality of the bush tax cuts. If I am reading that right then the bush tax cuts eclipsed the Obama stimulus packaged by a full 7%!

    List of countries by military expenditure.

    I agree that we must spend money on defense, but when the next closest country is 570 billion below you things are getting fairly crazy. We could cut that budget in half and still be sitting on top by quite a bit. My hope is that we can eventually pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you are right in that we don't want to pull out prematurely and cause another Fall of Saigon. Comparing it to Vietnam seems somehow appropriate.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  6. #51
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,261

  7. #52
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,706
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    Well I wanted to stay out of it but people will ask me questions about "a clearer picture" without really seeking that clarity themselves.

    I wonder if Firefox can open all of these with a click...

    Edit to add: Not really.

  8. #53
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60

    Yah

    Don't feel bad... nobody else read any of the links either.

    I actually read them all so it doesn't bother me much.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

  9. #54
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,467
    Quote Originally Posted by whiteflags View Post
    I wonder if Firefox can open all of these with a click...

    Edit to add: Not really.
    I remember a good time ago seeing an addon exactly for that.

    I try to read links. Although usually I just skim through them, unless it's something really worth reading in detail. But what I do with links pointing to references corroborating numbers or ideas, is a bit different though: If what the author of the post is saying is to my knowledge, or deemed plausible, I tend to ignore any reference links. But I always appreciate the extra effort in putting them. And depending on how well I know the author of the post, the fact he put up a reference will even have a chance of taking his word for it, without me clicking the link when in doubt.

    What I find unnecessary and unnerving is the habit of some to put up links to word definitions. Unless we are talking about an obscure word, I find this act patronizing. Or (take your pick) not very bright; After all, if I feel I'm talking to someone who needs the definitions of the word "plutocracy", "narcissism" or "aristocracy", the fact I decided to have a political discussion with him definitely makes me look like a fool.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  10. #55
    Registered User xentaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I remember a good time ago seeing an addon exactly for that.

    I try to read links. Although usually I just skim through them, unless it's something really worth reading in detail. But what I do with links pointing to references corroborating numbers or ideas, is a bit different though: If what the author of the post is saying is to my knowledge, or deemed plausible, I tend to ignore any reference links. But I always appreciate the extra effort in putting them. And depending on how well I know the author of the post, the fact he put up a reference will even have a chance of taking his word for it, without me clicking the link when in doubt.

    What I find unnecessary and unnerving is the habit of some to put up links to word definitions. Unless we are talking about an obscure word, I find this act patronizing. Or (take your pick) not very bright; After all, if I feel I'm talking to someone who needs the definitions of the word "plutocracy", "narcissism" or "aristocracy", the fact I decided to have a political discussion with him definitely makes me look like a fool.
    You caught me red handed. I post links in a public forum ( that anyone can read btw ) because it was my backhanded way of patronizing your superior intellect, and because I had no idea what they meant before I linked them.

    All of those insulting messages that had absolutely no content also really made your case, and in no way made you look like a fool.
    "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." - Hermann Goering.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. How to remove text/format leaders VS 2005
    By csonx_p in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 04:21 AM
  2. Smart World Leaders
    By golfinguy4 in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-12-2002, 01:49 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21