Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The bipartisan "Gang of Six" senators on Tuesday offered a major plan to cut the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the coming decade, but whether it can break through the budget debate will depend on whether Republican lawmakers can find a way to endorse more than $1 trillion in tax increases.
Those tax increases would be reaped as Congress overhauls the loophole-choked U.S. tax code. The plan would also repeal a new long-term care program established under last year's health overhaul and force up to $500 billion in cuts from federal health care programs over the upcoming decade, according to documents provided to senators but not publicly released.
The Gang of Six plan is separate from a politically freighted effort to lift the nation's borrowing cap and avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations. President Barack Obama and Capitol Hill Republicans, however, have failed to reach an accord on what kind of spending cuts to pair with any increase in the borrowing cap.
The six senators backing the deficit initiative are Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., Kent Conrad, D-N.D., Mark Warner, D-Va., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Their plan calls for an immediate $500 billion "down payment" on cutting the deficit as the starting point toward cuts of more than $4 trillion over the coming decade that would be finalized in a second piece of legislation. Most of those savings would come from four years of caps imposed on the day-to-day budgets of Cabinet agencies set by the annual appropriations bills.
It would also curb the growth of Social Security benefits by moving to a lower inflation adjustment for annual cost-of-living updates.
The tax reform outline would set up three income tax rates — a bottom rate of 8-12 percent; a middle rate of 14-22 percent; and a top rate of 23-29 percent — to replace the current system that has a bottom rate of 10 percent, with five additional rates topping out at 35 percent.
It would reduce but not eliminate tax breaks on mortgage interest, higher-cost health plans, charitable deductions, retirement savings like individual retirement accounts and tax-free savings accounts known as 401(k)s, and tax credits for families with children.
Like the president's deficit commission, the Senate group's plan calls for a fundamental overhaul of the tax code that would slash special tax preferences and deductions as a way to lower tax rates — along the lines of the 1986 tax reform measure signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. It would skim some of the revenue to reduce the deficit and, advocates say, would spur the economy and fill federal coffers further because of growth.
The measure would ensure that both domestic programs and the Pentagon budget absorb cost cuts.
The plan wouldn't produce a balanced budget but would reduce deficits as a share of the size of the economy down to 3 percent by 2014 and down to 2 percent by 2019, levels that would stabilize the debt and ensure that it doesn't swamp the economy by forcing up interest rates and crowding out investment.
The measure also calls for overhauling programs like Medicare, Social Security and farm subsidies. The details of the changes would be left to congressional committees to draw up in a manner similar to the existing budget process.
Much of the responsibility would fall to the powerful Finance Committee, which has sweeping responsibility for tax policy and health care programs such as Medicare. The panel would be directed to find savings from other federal health care programs to cover the $300 billion cost of making sure the fees doctors receive under Medicare aren't cut under an outdated 1997 budget law. It would also have to come up with another $85 billion to $200 billion in health savings to devote to defraying the deficit.
In addition, the Armed Services Committee would be assigned $80 billion in savings, including cuts to military retirement and health care accounts, but the Agriculture Committee would only have to find $11 billion over 10 years from farm subsidies. Conrad and Chambliss are strong supporters of farm programs.
The plan also envisions overhauling laws governing medical malpractice to generate further savings from the health care system.
I doubt it. Republicans in general hate tax increases, while Democrats in general hate spending cuts. Therefor, because both are needed in order to get rid of the debt, nothing gets done.
Amusingly, Republican commentators on PBS were saying that the government SHOULD default so that it cna choose who it has to pay out to and who it doesn't, because it's the government and doesnt' have to pay everyone. It was hilarious
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/19 23:44:55
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/19 23:47:09
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
So in short, we're all puppets on green strings?
Yep, slaves to debt, enforced by mass media propaganda and financial market shenanigans. Don't worry though, the Eurozone is about to self-destruct, and the dollar is not far behind. Then we'll be back to trading horse-shoeing skills for chickens and such.
Fail, fail, fail. $4 trillion over ten years?! That will be massaged out just like every other phony cut. This is DC folks, these are the same people that claim they've cut spending by only increasing spending on a project by 6% instead of 8%. We're screwed if this passes.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Solve debt problems? Establish a tax rate that makes sense, right now it starts low, goes high, then low again. If it's going to increase it should, for God's sakes, at least try to stay highest around the upper echelons of the rich where 35% means alot more
Kilkrazy wrote:There's nothing like a good splutter of rage first thing in the morning to get you all revved up for the day.
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
So in short, we're all puppets on green strings?
you! My string is red!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
So in short, we're all puppets on green strings?
you! My string is red!
Really? I figured you'd be on on a monkey chain of of dachshunds or something
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
So in short, we're all puppets on green strings?
you! My string is red!
Really? I figured you'd be on on a monkey chain of of dachshunds or something
Who do you think is holding the other end of the string?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Much like everybody else, I've become an armchair economist since this whole thing came to a head.
We all know that the government has let this situation spiral out of control and the two wars we've been fighting forever now aren't helping (in a money sense).
If I were king for a day, I'd make the arseholes do the following:
1. Pass a balanced budget amendment. We all have to do it in our homes, why can't the government do the same? It may cause some heartache as they'll have to choose which of their pet projects they'll have to cut or reduce but that's the way of the universe.
2. Fix the tax code. Throw the book out the window and start over. Create a simple system with no loopholes and few credits or deductions. Pay what you need to pay as your part of supporting the nation we live in and quit yer gripping about being "taxed to death". A scaled system based upon income level with standard deductions for number in household and that is it. I would probably keep 401(k) tax-free because it only encourages people to save for retirement and we all know that SSI won't be around when we get old (except for frazz).
3. If a company produces more than half of it's products overseas, tariff....and for the love of Mike, no more tax breaks for companies that aren't creating jobs in the continental U.S.
4. Quit talking about cutting healthcare and other needed services. Make it work, the kids and poor need access to healthcare just as much as an idiot congressman.
5. Reform welfare. Everybody needs help from time to time but we need to stop encouraging people to not work. Food Stamps: 3 year cap in a 10 year period, this to be partnered with a "Get to Work" program that provides vocational training to parents; probably need some life skills classes as well (already offered through TANF). When I was slinging food stamps for a living, I got so sick of seeing people work a low-level job just so they would have cigarette money to supplement their free housing and free food.
6. Real bank and market reform. Prices for strategic resources (Oil) shouldn't be at the whim of speculists. When OPEC and every expert is saying there's plenty of oil and the price keeps going up, something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
7. Education. Too many programs that target small populations. Lump all the money into a title I type fund and require the states to meet expectations for those groups without splitting the money up. No more denying access to technology or classes simply because a child doesn't belong to a sub-group in the education system.
Just some thoughts.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
If only we could get someone who believed in this rhetoric in the White House to restore some fiscal sanity.
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family. Only few countries like Iran, China, North Korea and Venezuela do not have one, and look at the pressure they're under. They loan money to the Treasury, at interest, which means that the debt the government owes them is greater than the amount of us fiat currency in circulation, which means that it is not possible to pay off the national debt. Especially since they're now printing their fiat currency as fast as they can, and backing it with absolutely nothing. The entire world financial system is a giant ponzi scheme, and nothing is ever going to fix it.
So in short, we're all puppets on green strings?
you! My string is red!
Really? I figured you'd be on on a monkey chain of of dachshunds or something
Who do you think is holding the other end of the string?
The big thing to realise with the issue over raising the debt ceiling is that it's a completely made up pile of stupid. The debt ceiling was raised in every year from 2002 to 2008, without anything like this contraversy. In the midst of relatively decent economic times there seemed no problem among the Republican run houses of congress with deficit spending.
Now, in the wake of the GFC when deficit spending is actually a sensible approach, we have people acting like all of a sudden the US deficit is a problem that must be addressed right now. It isn't true, because while deceptive people might terrify you with really scary number about how big the US deficit is, when measured sensibly as a percentage of total GDP it's pretty much in the mid-range of countries.
Right now, the US has a short term deficit because it's suffering an economic downturn. As the US recovers, the short term deficit will recover, grandstanding dramatics over spending cuts or not. Long term, the US has a deficit problem because health spending is out of control, and needs reform. If that can be brought into line with international comparisons, then combined with moderate cuts to defence spending or an increase of 1 or 2% on taxes at the top end, and you'll have a long term sustainable budget.
All the rest of the carry on is just silliness.
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family.
This is absolute nonsense. While it is true that every bank is required to put up a stake of money to fund the Central Bank, the board and president for the Central Bank is appointed by the President. Pretending that requiring banks to provide the seed capital for the operations of the bank while government retains complete control over who is hired to run the bank is somehow is somehow part of some secret takeover by the Rothschild's or anyone else is delusional, conspiracy nut nonsense.
Basically, there are real and serious problems out there that people need to talk about, and it doesn't help when you go on about conspiracy theories. So stop it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/21 01:00:43
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:The big thing to realise with the issue over raising the debt ceiling is that it's a completely made up pile of stupid. The debt ceiling was raised in every year from 2002 to 2008, without anything like this contraversy. In the midst of relatively decent economic times there seemed no problem among the Republican run houses of congress with deficit spending.
Now, in the wake of the GFC when deficit spending is actually a sensible approach, we have people acting like all of a sudden the US deficit is a problem that must be addressed right now. It isn't true, because while deceptive people might terrify you with really scary number about how big the US deficit is, when measured sensibly as a percentage of total GDP it's pretty much in the mid-range of countries.
Right now, the US has a short term deficit because it's suffering an economic downturn. As the US recovers, the short term deficit will recover, grandstanding dramatics over spending cuts or not. Long term, the US has a deficit problem because health spending is out of control, and needs reform. If that can be brought into line with international comparisons, then combined with moderate cuts to defence spending or an increase of 1 or 2% on taxes at the top end, and you'll have a long term sustainable budget.
All the rest of the carry on is just silliness.
warpcrafter wrote:The reason we're in debt is because since 1913, our money has been printed by the United States Central Bank, which is rather misleadingly called the Federal Reserve. It is a private company, not at all an integral part of the United States government, part of a chain of central banks owned by the Rothschild family.
This is absolute nonsense. While it is true that every bank is required to put up a stake of money to fund the Central Bank, the board and president for the Central Bank is appointed by the President. Pretending that requiring banks to provide the seed capital for the operations of the bank while government retains complete control over who is hired to run the bank is somehow is somehow part of some secret takeover by the Rothschild's or anyone else is delusional, conspiracy nut nonsense.
Basically, there are real and serious problems out there that people need to talk about, and it doesn't help when you go about making up gak like the above. So stop it.
So, if given a choice, you would take the blue pill. That's too bad.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/21 00:52:34
You need to check your facts mate. The Department of the Treasury prints our money, even says so right on the dollar...
The Federal Reserve, while it is deemed a 'private organization' is in fact an instrument of the Federal Government. It is deemed 'private' so that it can exist outside the influence of Presidential authority, but is still under the auspices of Congressional oversight, and indeed nobody on the board is put there without a vote by an elected member of Congress (after first being appointed by the President). The idea that the Rothschild family runs it is absurd, considering they rather publicly control banking in France, Austria, and England already. I suggest you look into the structure of the Federal Reserve more closely, you would see that it would be a losing proposition for the Rothschild family to be involved considering 94% of profits from the Federal Reserve are sent to the Department of the Treasury, and the remaining 6% is used to pay member banks capital investments.
I myself like to champion the idea that corporations are slowly taking over the country and turning it into a plutarchy, but what separates me from conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, is that I actually seem to have an idea of what I'm talking about and don't assume that they actually wield power, just that they wield the power to influence those with ability to wield it.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
chaos0xomega wrote:You need to check your facts mate. The Department of the Treasury prints our money, even says so right on the dollar...
The Federal Reserve, while it is deemed a 'private organization' is in fact an instrument of the Federal Government. It is deemed 'private' so that it can exist outside the influence of Presidential authority, but is still under the auspices of Congressional oversight, and indeed nobody on the board is put there without a vote by an elected member of Congress (after first being appointed by the President). The idea that the Rothschild family runs it is absurd, considering they rather publicly control banking in France, Austria, and England already. I suggest you look into the structure of the Federal Reserve more closely, you would see that it would be a losing proposition for the Rothschild family to be involved considering 94% of profits from the Federal Reserve are sent to the Department of the Treasury, and the remaining 6% is used to pay member banks capital investments.
I myself like to champion the idea that corporations are slowly taking over the country and turning it into a plutarchy, but what separates me from conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, is that I actually seem to have an idea of what I'm talking about and don't assume that they actually wield power, just that they wield the power to influence those with ability to wield it.
Wielding the power to influence those with the ability to wield it IS wielding the power. Oh well, this is where the phrase "Another perfectly good mind ruined by ""education"" comes from. Enjoy your smug cloud.
warpcrafter wrote:So, if given a choice, you would take the blue pill. That's too bad.
I choose whatever colour pill allows me to consider and talk about the real world. You appear to be choosing whatever pill allows you to play exciting games of make believe in which you have secret knowledge about nefarious conspiracies.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
chaos0xomega wrote:You need to check your facts mate. The Department of the Treasury prints our money, even says so right on the dollar...
The Federal Reserve, while it is deemed a 'private organization' is in fact an instrument of the Federal Government. It is deemed 'private' so that it can exist outside the influence of Presidential authority, but is still under the auspices of Congressional oversight, and indeed nobody on the board is put there without a vote by an elected member of Congress (after first being appointed by the President). The idea that the Rothschild family runs it is absurd, considering they rather publicly control banking in France, Austria, and England already. I suggest you look into the structure of the Federal Reserve more closely, you would see that it would be a losing proposition for the Rothschild family to be involved considering 94% of profits from the Federal Reserve are sent to the Department of the Treasury, and the remaining 6% is used to pay member banks capital investments.
I myself like to champion the idea that corporations are slowly taking over the country and turning it into a plutarchy, but what separates me from conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, is that I actually seem to have an idea of what I'm talking about and don't assume that they actually wield power, just that they wield the power to influence those with ability to wield it.
Wielding the power to influence those with the ability to wield it IS wielding the power. Oh well, this is where the phrase "Another perfectly good mind ruined by ""education"" comes from. Enjoy your smug cloud.
Err not really. It would be true if the ability to influence those with power was singular, but there are many competing corporate and non-corporate interests that share that same power, this is why it is not control, and why nothing ever gets done. I'm sorry the educational system didn't work out for you.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
warpcrafter wrote:Oh well, this is where the phrase "Another perfectly good mind ruined by ""education"" comes from. Enjoy your smug cloud.
Chaos0xomega, as I had before him, showed you that your claim about the Rothschild wasn't just wrong, it was preposterous. Rather than address that, reconcile your world beliefs with objective facts about how the world operates, you chose to make a tired old reference to the Matrix to me, and ignore the substance of Chaos0xomega's point to agree with a trivially small part of his post. The only point in making either of these replies was to avoid addressing the part where you were objectively, absolutely wrong.
Forget people being 'ruined by education'. Start thinking about people who are so wrapped up in their conspiracy worlds that they don't care if things are true or not. Think about people who will be shown, absolutely and definitively, that their claim about the world was completely wrong, but who are so enraptured with their fantasies that they ignore that as best they can to continue playing their fantasy games about nefarious banking conspiracies.
Then stop doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:Err not really. It would be true if the ability to influence those with power was singular, but there are many competing corporate and non-corporate interests that share that same power, this is why it is not control, and why nothing ever gets done.
And that's the most frustrating thing, there are real world conspiracies of power. But they're informal, based on access and mutually beneficial deals, generally murky, and very hard to prove. We're watching one such conspiracy get revealed, slightly, in London right now.
They are real problems, that really threaten democracy and harm the welfare of its citizens, but they're not as exciting as gobbledigook about the Rothschilds and banking. So too many people waste immense amounts of time on the latter, and ignore the real problems entirely.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/07/21 01:47:14
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
When conspiracy theorists debunk other conspiracy theorists while advancing their own, it's amusing as hell.
It gets even better when they argue about whose conspiracy is true.
Are you trying to describe anything anyone other than warpcrafter wrote as a 'conspiracy'? Don't be silly.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Are you trying to describe anything anyone other than warpcrafter wrote as a 'conspiracy'? Don't be silly.
Of course not.
sebster wrote:And that's the most frustrating thing, there are real world conspiracies of power. But they're informal, based on access and mutually beneficial deals, generally murky, and very hard to prove. We're watching one such conspiracy get revealed, slightly, in London right now.
They are real problems, that really threaten democracy and harm the welfare of its citizens, but they're not as exciting as gobbledigook about the Rothschilds and banking. So too many people waste immense amounts of time on the latter, and ignore the real problems entirely.
You understand that there no testimony that policemen conspired with reporters to provide phone hacking? You understand that conspiracies like that actually happen, because people really do conspire to do things, and that's completely different to the more fantastical conspiracies proposed by warpcrafter, which are what people commonly refer to.
At which point, we're left with you either insisting that no two people ever get together and conspire to do anything, or there isn't a categorical difference between actual conspiracies and fantasies about the Rothschilds. Either way, you're being incredibly silly.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
warpcrafter wrote:
Wielding the power to influence those with the ability to wield it IS wielding the power.
No, no its not. Influence is not absolute control.
warpcrafter wrote:
Oh well, this is where the phrase "Another perfectly good mind ruined by ""education"" comes from. Enjoy your smug cloud.
Says the guy using the Matrix as an analogy for revelation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:You understand that conspiracies like that actually happen, because people really do conspire to do things...
That can't be true, if it were, we would have a criminal charge for such behavior.
Oh, wait.
sebster wrote:
At which point, we're left with you either insisting that no two people ever get together and conspire to do anything, or there isn't a categorical difference between actual conspiracies and fantasies about the Rothschilds. Either way, you're being incredibly silly.
There's a third possibility. Biccat is following in the illustrious footsteps of our other conservative set-piece.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/07/22 05:49:05
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:There's a third possibility. Biccat is following in the illustrious footsteps of our other conservative set-piece.
I think at this point he's pretty much resorted to nothing more ambitious than disingenuous drive-bys so pretty much, yeah.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
you! My string is red!
